Deficient and defective argumentation.
I’m not the one pretending that in the sweet by and by long ago stuff that never existed actually did – you know, like unicorns.
If you see important grammatical issues that deserve a dialog, share away.
Why would anyone ask YOU about Greek grammar, when by your own admission, you can’t read the language?
btw, Bill tries to quote me,
I’ve never TRIED to quote you, but this is the narcissist way of pretending all the documentation of CARM threads elsewhere is me making stuff up. I QUOTE you – the end. I’ve never once TRIED to quote you.
I’ve QUOTED you. I’ve quoted you MISQUOTING other people, including your Helen Shenton mis-citation. In all sincerity, I fail to see how someone so attached to lies can possibly know the Truth.
adding all sorts of liar and insult claims,
This is rich coming from you….
on the BVDB forum.
A forum that has banned Avery twice for dishonesty folks. Remember – he brought it up, not I.
CARM has a rule that deals directly with that approach, which they call bullying.
So nice of you to explain it to us. Could you grow a little maturity and actually FOLLOW the rules without any of your insulting rhetoric? We know the only reason you do it is because it’s a whole lot easier than proving your non-point.
Cyprian was quoting from his Old Latin text, so of course he will not always match the AV.
How do you know he was quoting from an Old Latin text?
You are ASSUMING he was.
You go to scholars who have studied the particular issue.
Most importantly – you go to the more RECENT ones who have collated CRITICAL editions, you don’t regurgitate 300-year old garbage.
And Bevenot covered this, and Cyprian adds all kinds of non-textual things. The end. Again – whether you admit this or not is irrelevant.
In addition to the Kenyon quote, (this may have been the source for the Souter quote) accepted by Daniel Wallace as true,
FABRICATION ALERT!!!! Dan Wallace does NOT accept the idea Cyprian quoted the Comma Johanneum – but Avery OMITTED that important detail while misrepresenting Wallace.
From that point, he quotes old sources that didn’t have critical editions and were working from ninth century copies. Back to the drawing board.
Avery has never made a single original contribution to the KJVO debate, relying instead upon simply quoting people as if that’s any kind of an argument.
Again – a third-grader can do this. You can quote people as if they know what they’re talking about and quite frankly waste everyone’s time including your own, or you can get your hands dirty and LEARN this stuff.
You do know that there are four masculine gender words (not counting any substantives) in both verses, since τρεῖς is there twice.
But again , no disclaimer of “I have never studied the language.”
Since the masculine grammar is on both sides of the substantives in the earthly witnesses, our friend Ilias Theodosis on Facebook referred to it as a "hole", and thus especially notable.
Call it a hole.
Now you have to explain how all those centuries of commentators never wrote about how impossible this Greek was. And there’s a good reason for that: because it wasn’t. (It’s even more amusing with the flaws in your argument being: a) you’re not citing Koine Greek but modern, which is a completely different animal as you’ve been reminded repeatedly; b) abandoning your prior argument about how the people in the earlier centuries knew more about Greek than people do today. But you suddenly find an exception to make from a guy who isn’t a Koine scholar. Well done, Franz.
And here’s the problem for you – HOW DO YOU KNOW HE IS RIGHT?
The grammar has its grammatical gender, as does each individual noun.
A guy who cannot parse a verb wants you to know how smart he thinks he is, but this is merely a student reciting verbiage he does not comprehend. This is the student reciting the Gettysburg Address for a grade, nothing more.
Take the heavenly witnesses verse, where Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα (Holy Ghost) Is neuter. I have never heard it said that Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα is not in concord with the masculine grammar of the verse.
Of course you haven’t. Because neuter nouns CAN follow masculine participles….which rips apart the point you think you’re making
That would imply grammatical discord, which is not the case. The nouns are considered as a unit.
Folks, what Mr I Can’t Read the Greek Text is TRYING to do here is pull the wool over your eyes, he’s basically trying to get mileage out of the Dabney argument that even Avery is embarrassed by, so he changes the words. What we’re being told is…gender matters…..except when it doesn’t…..and when doesn’t it? Whenever it knocks down a KJVO pillar!
Similarly, no one would say there is grammatical discord in 1 Corinthians 13:13 between faith, hope and charity, feminine nouns, and the neuter grammar.
We appreciate the uh lessons you’re giving us. You’ve had a year and don’t know what a genitive absolute is, can’t pick them out of a lineup despite your supposed Greek friends – but here you can tell us…..what you’ve read that somewhere else wrote.
In fact, Bill Brown on p. iii of his thesis uses the Corinthians verse to try to imply discord analogous to the earthly witnesses solecism.
You’re sort of right here. More on this below, although the only thing this actually proves is, “Steven Avery doesn’t know what’s involved in a Master’s thesis,” not surprising for someone who never finished college.
Bill then turns around and gives verses that simply are very different, with neuter grammar and masculine or feminine substantives, and have no validity as counters (overthrow, refutation) to the grammatical argument.
Again, this is incorrect using
- the Pappas definition,
- the Holland definition
- the Dunkin-Avery definition
As with the 16 Blunder Verses, you should have the integrity to call out this inconsistency and error.
The guy whose name is a on a paper botching what he now all of a sudden claims is the only grammatical argument thinks others should call me out rather than him fixing his error.
Incidentally, the error of using this Corinthians verse to make a false counter against the grammatical argument goes back many years. In addition to Bill Brown, we have Gary Robert Hudson and a fellow named Jim with many blogs and posts. Hudson goes back to 2002, maybe earlier, so he was likely the first.
Isn’t it amazing that Steven Avery thinks that the world revolves around what he has seen on the Internet and uses that limited exposure to the subject to come to, well, the wrong conclusion? Narcissism! If you haven’t read it, it must not exist, right?
Gary Hudson’s name is not in my thesis. Neither is Jim’s. Neither is yours. So why are you WASTING OUR TIME telling your little anecdotal interpretations of reality that rank right alongside your fake moon landing theory and your anti-vax theories and your “no atomic bombs” theories, huh?
I dare say, you’ve done more to discredit yourself than I ever could do. I’ll admit you’ve got me there.