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

The grammar has its grammatical gender, as does each individual noun. 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. That would imply grammatical discord, which is not the case. The nouns are considered as a unit.

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.

1 Corinthians 13:13 (KJV)
And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three;
but the greatest of these is charity.

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. While he defined the grammatical argument properly:



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.



As with the 16 Blunder Verses, you should have the integrity to call out this inconsistency and error.

You seem to use the term "whole" as if it defined the syntactic "unit" which you speak of, yet you haven't defined exactly what the "whole" or the "unit" is.

Is the "whole" the two verses (7 and 8) in there entirety together, which defines your "unit"?

Or is your "whole"/"unit" what I refer to as 1 John 5:7(Clause-C) ὁ Πατὴρ, ὁ Λόγος καi τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα?

Is the "whole" exactly the same as the "unit"?

Or is the "whole" something different to the "unit", if so, what is it exactly/specifically? And what are they exactly?

Bring some clarity to the discussion please.
 
Frederick Nolan asserted: "In the single instance of the text of the heavenly witnesses, a difficulty arises; as it cannot be denied that the verse has been wholly lost in the Greek Vulgate" (An Inquiry, p. 575).

Frederick Nolan claimed: "With respect to 1 John 5:7 the case is materially different. If the verse be received, it must be admitted on the single testimony of the Western Church, as far at least as respects the external evidence" (p. 293).
 
Steven, to bring clarity to this discussion you need to define clearly the following terms you use in reference to the grammar of 1 John 5:7-8.

Define exactly what constitutes the "whole"
Define exactly what constitutes the "unit"
Define exactly what constitutes the "syntactic parallelism"
 
Hi TNC, if you are so concerned about how I use normal English words like “whole” or “unit” you should give my quotes. The question.as to what is the reference will often be right in my quote.

Even if it is not, we will have proper context.

e.g. “The nouns are considered as a unit.”
A reference to the 3 nouns in the short text, 6 nouns in the full text of the heavenly and earthly witnesses.

Their relationship to the grammatical gender is as the full unit, not as individual nouns.

Ironically, when Bill Brown simply errs again and again, you close your eyes. :)
 
Last edited:
You need to give my quote where I spoke of a syntactic unit.
Again, that would be the starting point, allowing proper context.

Always check my post's carefully for quote marks " " (such as that phrase - syntactic "unit" which you quoted, "unit" was the only word that had quote marks in that particular clause) and question marks, bolding and italics etc for emphasis. Pay careful attention to these.

If you do, you'll get a better idea at what I'm getting at.
 
Always check my post's carefully for quote marks " " (such as that phrase - syntactic "unit" which you quoted, "unit" was the only word that had quote marks in that particular clause) and question marks, bolding and italics etc for emphasis. Pay careful attention to these.

If you do, you'll get a better idea at what I'm getting at.

So I never wrote of a syntactic unit.

======

btw, it is not my job to guess what your getting at.
It would be better if you actually wrote in a clear, direct manner.

======

And dealt with the 16 Blunder Verses and many other errors ih his “brilliant” paper.
 
Last edited:
So I never wrote of a syntactic unit.

======

btw, it is not my job to guess what your getting at.
It would be better if you actually wrote in a clear, direct manner.

======

And dealt with the 16 Blunder Verses and many other errors ih his “brilliant” paper.

Which/what NT grammar publication backs up your definition of this "unit" you speak of?

Which/what NT grammar publication backs up your definition of this "whole" you speak about?

List the name, page, author etc.

This could be just something you and your buddies conjured/made up (for all we know) out of a series of cut paste bits and pieces from internet Googling, designed to look plausible.

Has anyone else here ever actually read in a Greek grammar anything like Steven has been describing as a "whole" and a "unit"?

Having owned (actually still own) and studied several NT, Classical, LXX grammars and books on Greek syntax and prose, there's just something not right about your statements. For a start, they are intentionally vague and highly evasive, and judging by your past track record of overconfidence and acrimonious bravado over what ultimately proves to be erroneous research, I definitely smell a rat somewhere in all of this.
 
Last edited:
After misrepresenting me about a supposed syntactic unit, you still are not giving my actual quotes for context.

While “syntactic unit” is a common phrase in grammar, afaik I did not put those two words together.
 
Last edited:
After misrepresenting me about a supposed syntactic unit, you still are not giving my actual quotes for context.

Context is the blood, the water, and the (S/s)pirit in verse 6.

That's the true context.?

1 John 5:6 τὸ Πνεῦμά ἐστιν ἡ ἀλήθεια

τὸ (= neuter) Πνεῦμά (= neuter) ἐστιν ἡ (= feminine) ἀλήθεια (= feminine).
 
Last edited:
Do you agree then, Steven, that all the masculine gender words (in all clauses of both verse 7 and 8 as a "whole") concord with the Father and the Logos as the only possible grammatical (i.e. masculine gender) antecedents? Being the nearest and most logical grammatical antecedents?

Why would you write as if Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα (Holy Ghost) is not an antecedent of μαρτυροῦντες in the heavenly witnesses verse?

e.g. when Daniel Wallace is trying to justify the solecism, he considers the neuter nouns as the referents.

The masculine participle in τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες refers to τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα (v 8), all neuter nouns.

Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics p. 332.
 
Thanks for admitting that I use correct grammatical terminology, whereas, you just make stuff up. ?

Your writing was giving me a phrase I had not used.

syntactic "unit" which you quoted

Anyway, this can help you understand the "syntactic parallelism" written by Georgios Babiniotis.

Again, I expect you to include my actual quotes, not isolated words.
My post right above is an example of actually quoting your words.
 
Again, I expect you to include my actual quotes, not isolated words.
The first post on this page 33 post #641 had quoted your actual words and had asked for definitions, and then post #643 simply asked you again for definitions for your terms. You show that you are trying to divert away from serious discussion or perhaps you are trying to hide your lack of understanding of Greek grammar. You dodge and avoid the questions that you were asked in post #649.
 
1 John 5:6 τὸ Πνεῦμά ἐστιν ἡ ἀλήθεια

τὸ (= neuter) Πνεῦμά (= neuter) ἐστιν ἡ (= feminine) ἀλήθεια (= feminine).

Actually, I had not discussed this verse.

The first issue is that if Πνεῦμά is to be personalized, (Ian Howard Marshall and apparently Bill Brown's preference) in the earthly witnesses, why is it not personalized here?

The second issue is that this is a fine illustration of the point made by Eugenius Bulgaris that you can easily have neuter grammar with feminine or masculine nouns. The three nouns are a unit (or group) in determining the grammar. It is awkward to isolate one noun and call it an antecedent separate from the grammar of the phrase. That was your motif in your awkward questions uphill.
 
The first post on this page 33 post #641 had quoted your actual words and had asked for definitions, and then post #643 simply asked you again for definitions for your terms.

There were isolated words quoted, the actual sentences and context were not given.

There are thirteen words in the sentence above, all standard English, definitions are in dictionaries.

My post #653 shows a proper method.
I quote the whole sentence from TNC, and then ask a question about what he wrote.
 
Last edited:
Actually, I had not discussed this verse.

The first issue is that if Πνεῦμά is to be personalized, (Ian Howard Marshall and apparently Bill Brown's preference) in the earthly witnesses, why is it not personalized here?

The second issue is that this is a fine illustration of the point made by Eugenius Bulgaris that you can easily have neuter grammar with feminine or masculine nouns. The three nouns are a unit (or group) in determining the grammar. It is awkward to isolate one noun and call it an antecedent separate from the grammar of the phrase. That was your motif in your awkward questions uphill.

Bill Brown - thesis, p. 24
The alternative explanations were documented and investigated with special attention given to objections made by Westcott, Home, and Marshall. The conclusion was that the most likely explanation for the discordant genders is that they are to be read as instances of
personification.

Bill Brown should have pointed out the problem that 1 John 5:6 poses to this theory. I mentioned this once earlier, in reference to Ian Howard Marshall, however I did not realize that Bill Brown was actually running with this theory as his "most likely explanation".

CARM - earlier
https://forums.carm.org/threads/syr...e-line-and-the-comma.9270/page-14#post-705831
 
Last edited:
Back
Top