Syriac Peshitta, KJVO "pure" line, and the Comma

Maestroh

Well-known member
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?

HMMMM????????

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.

Fine.

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?
You don’t.

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
and it’s simply not my fault the Bulgaris followers didn’t get it right.

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.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Not only can Avery not read French

High school French. However, I am working with a teammate whose French is much better than mine. Plus Google Mangle (translate) is rather good on French, German and Italian.

The French issue du jour is on Hermas, the Simonides and Tischendorf controversies, by Jallabert:

Hermas et Simonides: Étude sur la controverse (1858)
P. J. Jallabert
https://books.google.com/books?id=sLJWAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA6

This is one of the spots where you have Tischendorf's original linguistic attacks on the Athous manuscript as late, attacks some of which can apply to Sinaiticus, as pointed out in the 1860s and 1870s by James Donaldson.

The original linguistic Tischendorf attack was in the Dresdner Journal, Nr. 30 of 5 February 1856 27. This I have not found yet.

Alexandro Lykourgas is another pre-1859 source,

Enthüllungen über den Simonides-Dindorfschen Uranios : zu einem Geschichtsabriss über Simonides, den Hermastext und das Leipzig-Berliner Palimpsest erweiterte, sowie mit Berichten und paläographischen Erläuterungen Prof. Tischendorfs u. Anderer vermehrte Auflage (1856)
https://books.google.com/books?id=3X2B-kaniakC

That came up in the context of the Simonides bio, and the references to Benedict.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Gary Hudson’s name is not in my thesis. Neither is Jim’s. Neither is yours. So why are you WASTING OUR TIME

A good study explains how an argument, or in this case your blunder, developed.

Thus, my including the others who make the same blunder is important.
 

Unbound68

Well-known member
High school French.
Says nothing.
1 year French?
2?
All 4 years?

Besides that, High school French is useless at 70+ years old. Unless you've continued to use it and learn more since high school, you don't know any more than someone who has never taken it. Which makes your pretended use of it entirely meaningless and untrustworthy.

However, I am working with a teammate whose French is much better than mine.
Oh great. So now there's two of you who pretend to know French adequately enough to read and translate works that are 300 years old.


Plus Google Mangle (translate) is rather good on French, German and Italian.
Where does one even begin to refute the contradiction found within just that one idiotic sentence?

As with your arrogant undermining of the work of biblical scholars who have actually handled and can read Greek manuscripts, you here mock Google translate as Google "mangle," while at the same time saying it is "rather good on French," ........as if you'd even know if it was or wasn't!
 

Unbound68

Well-known member
Plus Google Mangle (translate) is rather good on French, German and Italian.
All of which has absolutely zilch to do with your major blunder the last time you attempted to provide a French translation.

If memory serves, you omitted an entire page of French, as you ignorantly joined your translation of page Z to page X....."seemingly" unaware of the hack job and the fact that you jumped over page Y.

Of course, it could've been intentional on your part too.
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
High school French. However, I am working with a teammate whose French is much better than mine. Plus Google Mangle (translate) is rather good on French, German and Italian.

The French issue du jour is on Hermas, the Simonides and Tischendorf controversies, by Jallabert:

Hermas et Simonides: Étude sur la controverse (1858)
P. J. Jallabert
https://books.google.com/books?id=sLJWAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA6

This is one of the spots where you have Tischendorf's original linguistic attacks on the Athous manuscript as late, attacks some of which can apply to Sinaiticus, as pointed out in the 1860s and 1870s by James Donaldson.

The original linguistic Tischendorf attack was in the Dresdner Journal, Nr. 30 of 5 February 1856 27. This I have not found yet.

Alexandro Lykourgas is another pre-1859 source,

Enthüllungen über den Simonides-Dindorfschen Uranios : zu einem Geschichtsabriss über Simonides, den Hermastext und das Leipzig-Berliner Palimpsest erweiterte, sowie mit Berichten und paläographischen Erläuterungen Prof. Tischendorfs u. Anderer vermehrte Auflage (1856)
https://books.google.com/books?id=3X2B-kaniakC

That came up in the context of the Simonides bio, and the references to Benedict.

If that's the three (can't remember exactly off hand but three, four something like that) page Lepzig palimpsest, it's super fake. You'll see by and by. 😉
 

Maestroh

Well-known member
High school French.

That explains how you royally botched

Quelques beaux esprits ont dit en plaisantant que Jésus-Christ et les apôtres avaient fait des miracles pour prouver que trois ne font qu'un. Ils ont seulement enseigné que les trois personnes divines en doute que ce prologue fut de saint Jérôme; niais nous n'ignorons pas non plus que leurs raisons sont si frivoles, qu'elles ne méritent pas d'être réfutées.

(He had no clue he was quoting from a work missing a page - that's how fluent he is in French, folks. I don't even know French yet I POINTED IT OUT TO HIM!!!)

However, I am working with a teammate whose French is much better than mine. Plus Google Mangle (translate) is rather good on French, German and Italian.

Actually, it's pretty not good on German - and I would know.

But hey, who am I to compete with assertions, right?



I really care nothing about "but Tischendorf killed an entire village" or whatever your accusations are against him.

You're trying to minimize the evidence against you by pretending that if Tischendorf perfectionalism isn't correct, then we must all accept your "affirming the consequent" fallacy.

This is not how research works.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
If that's the three (can't remember exactly off hand but three, four something like that) page Lepzig palimpsest, it's super fake. You'll see by and by. 😉

The Jallabert book is talking of the Simonides Anger-Dindorf edition of Hermas.

Hermae Pastor Graece Primum Ediderunt (1855)
https://books.google.com/books?id=QEVMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PP5

As an example, here on p. 118-120 is where Jallabert discusses the Tischendorf attack on Maximo in Visions II:3 as indicating a Latin retroversion.

Hermas et Simonidés. Étude sur la controverse récemment soulevée en Allemagne par la découverte d'un manuscrit grec. Thèse, etc (1858)
https://books.google.com/books?id=sLJWAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA118
 
Last edited:

Maestroh

Well-known member
Bill you might want to look at this link.


TNC – another in the long line of whining babies with manufactured persecution complexes who are incredibly bold and think they’re the second coming of Elijah but won’t dare enter the arena. Just like Avery and everyone else – big, tough, and bold when they think I’m not around, but they’re terrified of standing there at a podium and getting skull dragged in front of a group of people.

Because deep down – they know they’re wrong.

I was quoting an accurate part of Daniel Wallace.

All you do is quote people – because that’s your level of comprehension of the subject. Quoting people doesn’t even register in actual scholarship as anything beyond a “supplemental to data” argument. We can prove the Flat Earth theory by quoting people.
We can prove the moon landing is fake by quoting people – selectively, of course, can’t exactly quote Buzz Aldrin – which you endorse.
And this is why I’m shaking the dust off my feet from you.
I have much bigger fish to fry, starting with some dwarf minnows.
And you also distorted Wallace in the process – as always.

You should try to follow the conversation.
Every single time he’s cornered with the truth, Avery comes back with an accusation.

Now let’s discuss this 1 Cor. 13:13 thing since it enraged Avery enough to go quote a guy who is skull dragging him on his own board. I guess that feels safe, though, even Avery knows nobody reads his board. If he thought people did, he wouldn’t have bank information and flight confirmation data where somebody might scorch him. So even Avery knows nobody is actually reading his diatribes.

Here is what Steven Avery Spenser SHOULD have done: “Maestroh, can you explain the seeming contradiction in your thesis on page iii, where you cite 1 Cor. 13:13 as an example of a solecism, but you appear to say in the body of the thesis that it is “merely stylistic.”?

So I’ll answer that particular pertinent and diplomatic question right here and now.

In the “abstract” on page iii, my verbiage DOES seem to say that I will use that passage to refute the grammatical argument – and yet I did not.

Why is that?

It is because the abstract to the thesis was written early in 2011 AND GRADED SEPARATELY. It was my second submission after the outline (which is not included) – and ALL OF THESE ARE GRADED SEPARATELY. But more to the point is this fact: once a section of the thesis has been approved and graded, I AM NOT PERMITTED TO GO BACK AND CHANGE ANY OF IT!!! As noted earlier, I took an eight-month period away from the thesis and more important is this: I took six more semester hours of Koine INCLUDING “Advanced Greek Grammar” under Wallace himself. The original submission was earlier as a student BEFORE I had read and studied further, but I was stuck with the abstract that point. That’s nobody’s fault but my own, of course, but part of this is to demonstrate the ability to do research AND CHANGE ONE’S CONCLUSIONS in the process. Now Avery could have learned all this simply by asking questions, but he wasn’t interested in that – he was interested in fighting and soothing his narcissism. He is not my equal as a scholar or a human, but he feels if he can insult me and ask rhetorical questions that prove nothing, it will prove him superior in his own feeble mind.
I have an email to Dan Wallace dated November 4, 2013, when I had done the final read INCLUDING the abstract, where I brought up this specific issue – the disagreement of the abstract with the body. I requested permission to change it and this is the key sentence: “you are allowed only to make minor corrections on the final draft. Like typos and misspellings….”.

Hence, I’m stuck with it, but what it proves, quite frankly, was my conclusions ADJUSTED as I learned more, something that will never happen to a KJVOist who remains one.

There are 3-4 things I would change in the thesis if I had to do it over again, but every single scholar says that about every single submission he or she ever makes. There’s a limit to time – and remember, I’m not the only student Wallace was advising, and he had plenty else going on at the time as well. We don’t live boring old man lives where we waste our remaining time online insulting people and making White Throne level judgments and ignorant declarations because we have no kids who want anything to do with us and haven’t run away everyone we knew in our daily lives like some residents of Bayside clearly have. And I was writing it at the same time I was dealing with an autistic child, attending classes, and overseeing the music ministry at my local church.
Is it perfect? No.
Is it better than anything you’ll ever write? Absolutely.

And you paid to read it – which means I won.
 

Maestroh

Well-known member
As this concerns a chapter in my thesis that the Earle has failed to touch, let's just place this here.

Bill Brown
"an explanation must be given as to why an authentic reading vanished without a trace"

Unsurprisingly, he misquotes me.

What did I ACTUALLY say?

IN THE FIRST FEW WORDS!!
Advocates of Johannine authorship of the Comma Johanneum present multiple explanations as to why there is no early Greek manuscript (or Church Father) support for the reading.

Because the extant data supporting the Comma is so sparse outside the Latin textual tradition
, an explanation must be given as to why an authentic reading vanished without a trace.

Now we get his critique...


"Without a trace in the extant Greek manuscript line" would be far more accurate.

"Tell me I didn't read the paper that has me angry without saying 'I didn't read it.'"

The largest church language line had dozens of commentaries utilizing the verse.

And many more that didn't.

The quotes from Frederick Nolan is very good.

The quotes IS good, huh?
Really?

Guy who lectures us all about Greek grammar he doesn't know apparently doesn't know much about English grammar, either.

The paper, however is behind the times now, due to Eusebius ad Marcellum.

Says a guy who constantly quotes outdated works - as if he would know.....



The second part of the heresy issues:

Bill Brown
"A second problem is that the argumentation is contradictory: the second hand removes what is given !y the first. Consider the Cyprian quotation, notably Armfield's insistence that Cyprian quoted the passage as part of a "received text" at his time. If this is true one must not only wonder why nobody else quoted it but also what Arians in the fourth century would gain by removing it. Comma advocates never address this obvious problem."


Steven "The Rain Man" Avery
The "problem" is incomprehensible.

Uh, no, this is what people like you say when busted.


We do not have extensive quoting of 1 John in the Ante-Nicene era,

And we especially don't have quoting of 1 John 5:7.
Thank you for pointing that out.


but we do have solid references from Origen,

Nope. Not a one.

Tertullian,

Not a one.


2 from Cyprian

Hey moron.....go back and READ YOUR OWN QUOTE ABOVE....note this part very well: " Consider the Cyprian quotation, "

and Hundredfold Martyrs.

Which doesn't quote it, either.

When you go to the 4th century we get much more.

2 more than 0 isn't really all that much.

What would Arians gain?

Did you seriously not read the paper - again?
That very point is in there.

If they do not like the doctrine, the Bible without the verse would reflect their beliefs better.

Unless they're going to steal every copy, it won't matter.
As often, Bill's writing is incomprehensible. Something is supposed to be never addressed. Bill Brown is not even as clear as mud.

The outside reader is welcome to compare my posts with his or my THESIS with ANYTHING THIS bozo has written.

Your posts are the porta-potty graffiti of the current millennium.
 

Maestroh

Well-known member
Steven Avery Quoting Academia Paper of Mine
"Thirdly, we are never told how this conspiracy was executed. The logistics of such an operation present numerous problems. How could the Arians seize control of every manuscript in existence, copy it, and replace it without being detected? How could they ever know they had every manuscript? And how is it possible to pull off such a vast conspiracy but forget to alter the grammar? In short, if the conspiracy to remove the Comma is true then the grammatical argument becomes exponentially less probable."

Total straw man argumentation.

And now we know he doesn't even know what a straw man actually is.

We have very few extant mss. before 700 AD.

Unless Mr Pure Bible here is going to TRY AND ARGUE (contra KJV Onlyism) that somehow what we have prior to 700 AD is an INACCURATE representation, the fact this passage isn't there is quite relevant.

Ever notice he NEVER makes this "we have very few" argument with Mark 16:9-20?

This is so nonsensical that it is best to simply smile.

What he means is, "I can't make a coherent argument so THERE!"


Especially as most of the dropping likely occurred before the Arian contrerversies.

Which means you NOW have to explain how that wasn't recognized IF - as you assert - there was Greek error that can never ever be permitted.

It is hard to spend more time on Bll Brown's writing.

Of course. When you have no coherent answer - like you never have - you START something and then tremble in fear.


There simply is no logic involved.

In your posts? Correct.

Also, like Dabney, Nolan does approach the probability aspect:

"asserting that the probabilities are decidedly in favor of his having expunged, rather than the Catholics having inserted, those passages in the sacred text.”

Yes, both were idiots.
We agree there.

(not given by Bill Brown)

Because it's an OVERVIEW, not "an exhaustive look at every stupid thing Nolan ever said," Dumb Ass.

Dabney's quote is fine, as is the limited mention of Hills and the theory regarding concern of favoring Sabellianism.

You have me confused with someone who cares what you think of my position or writing.
Get this through your self-important and thick skull - I don't.


Now lets go to the six arguments of Bill Brown:

Yes, after "he's so illogical, he can't write," etc....NOW let's go after those arguments!!!


"The first problem is that it is little more than
argumentum ad hominem"

This is absurdity from Bill Brown, who does not know the meaning of an "ad hominem" argument (classical or modern.)

I understand it just fine.
I also understand that suggesting one's enemies are operating in bad faith is, in fact an ad hominem argument.

It is even more absurd when you consider that many of the textual scribes would be faced with a split line and simply making a decision.

Where is your PROOF this ever happened with this particular verse?

"The allegation makes two assumptions, both contradicted by the extant data 1) "heretics would change the Bible at will and 2) "Christians would never do so."

Total nonsense. Ultra-straw-man argumentation.

So you just skipped over all those quotes where Nolan and Dabney and Hills SAID EXACTLY THAT?


Brown even pre-destroyed his own argument by mentioning the Hllls theory, which in fact would qualify as a type of Orthodox corruption.

Hills insisted as well that CHRISTIANS wouldn't do that. All he said was they INTENTIONALLY DIDN'T QUOTE IT BUT LEFT IT IN THERE.

Now again - are you THIS stupid? Are you on drugs? Are you just this lame of a person?

This very point is addressed - I cannot do your thinking for you and apparently it's above your pay grade.

And NOBODY talked of "at will", simply that such corruptions wold happened.

Unless you're saying that Dabney and Nolan et al didn't say heretics would change the Scriptures, you made no point here at all.

With Bill Brown's logic this weak, should we go on to 2-6?

Not if your reading comprehension skills don't improve, no.

Still on 1, Bill Brown says that Dabney uses "vile names"

corrupt
blind admirer
pretentions
tricky
sycophant

You just admitted - after saying I didn't know what an ad hominem was - that Dabney's use of such is an example.

Where? Words extracted sans any context.

Go look them up in the footnotes, idiot.

His attack looks totally untrustworthy in terms of the heresy and tampering issues.

Only for one too lazy to go look up what Dabney said.

Non-scholarship. Here is the section from Dabney:

"Eusebius ... also was a clarum et venerabile momen, with the corrupt and fantastical religionism of the day. He was a blind admirer of Origen and constantly made tacit pretensions of being (through Pamphilus) the lineal successor to his fame and influence. He was in theology a semi-Arian; in church-politics, tricky and time-serving; to the pretentious tyrant, Constantine the Great, a truckling sycophant."

Looks like a 100% true and accurate description of Eusebius, whatever his textual actions.

Looks like an ad hominem argument, too.

Thank you for admitting the point.

If Bill Brown wants to make a spirited defense of Eusebius, he should do so directly.

THIS is the straw man, Steven.

And not make false accusations of "vile names". Trash non-scholarship, however it was fun looking up what Brown omitted.

You obviously didn't look very hard.

Again - you're nothing but a phony blowhard who KNOWS he's a phony blowhard.
You're a quoter - who are we kidding - a MISS quoter (ha ha) whose level of knowledge of the subjects you rant about in Adderall-induced fashion suggest you are depriving a village of its idiot.
 
Top