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

I have to clarify:
  • Saint Mark's Monastery, Jerusalem MS 50(XIX century) is image 169 pag right line 27: probably written '' Spirit, water, blood are in agreement / union Jesus '': IT IS A COMMENT, NOT SCRIPTURE ''

 
I thank you! '' Twonotablecorruptions '' it is always a pleasure to do as truthful a research as possible on manuscript issues;
and another thing look at how much the terms ܘܐܝܬܝܗܘ and its various conjugations are used and compare them with the respective passages in Greek: here look at the last 9 terms http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/lexeme.php?adr=1:102&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=125%

While here look at the apparatus in Greek: https://www.academic-bible.com/en/o...xt/lesen/ch/7df43145b46035230f269b74119db5d2/

compare when ''at the beginning of a proposition with verb to be is translated Οτι+ειμι with ܘ (waw) + verb to be'': (I count only one other case maybe I get to 3-4 cases(doubts) in the whole new testament peshitta you how many cases do you find?) always for the sake of truth! certainly this does not necessarily prove the Comma in Greek but it makes me have doubts! I have done my research and I can tell you that I have more doubts than certainties on this matter!
 
Last edited:
To what was said above, however, we must add: not all that glitters is gold ... . For this I speak simple doubts ...

In fact, the peshitta we have is not a translation from Greek, as shown by the cuts in some points and the errors that there are in other types in some points of the gospel where the subjects of the discourse are mistaken, some missing conjunctions and prepositions and various other coarse elements! Because it is clearly a retranslation of a translation ... thus certainly involving changes in the text and thus weakening the thesis that there was a cut text
''for love of True'' add this.
 
I thank you! '' Twonotablecorruptions '' it is always a pleasure to do as truthful a research as possible on manuscript issues;

I appreciate the work you do in checking the manuscripts and sharing your results (even if you don't agree with my views). Well done (even if you do believe the Comma should be kept in Bibles etc).


I'm sorry, but at the link to the Novum Testamentum Graece NA28 I wasn't able to access an apparatus. The text was available, but I couldn't find how to access the variants apparatus.

and another thing look at how much the terms ܘܐܝܬܝܗܘ and its various conjugations are used and compare them with the respective passages in Greek: here look at the last 9 terms http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/lexeme.php?adr=1:102&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=125%

While here look at the apparatus in Greek: https://www.academic-bible.com/en/o...xt/lesen/ch/7df43145b46035230f269b74119db5d2/

compare when ''at the beginning of a proposition with verb to be is translated Οτι+ειμι with ܘ (waw) + verb to be'': (I count only one other case maybe I get to 3-4 cases(doubts) in the whole new testament peshitta you how many cases do you find?) always for the sake of truth!

I've been aware of this argumentation for a long time.

It's an extremely strained argument, and one of the weakest arguments in favor of the Comma (IMO).

From your own experience, you know things are lost in translation from one language to another. The vocabulary choice of the Syriac translator, by using a word like ܘܐܝܬܝܗܘ, which even you admit can have various meanings depending on the context etc, is not a strong argument IMO.

The simple fact is there is no "three in heaven", there is no "the Father, the Word (or Son), and the Holy Spirit", there is no "on earth" etc in the Syriac manuscripts prior to the 15th century A.D./C.E. (to my knowledge at least).

I do not find the ܘܐܝܬܝܗܘ argument convincing in any way whatsoever, not even in the slightest way possible.

certainly this does not necessarily prove the Comma in Greek but it makes me have doubts! I have done my research and I can tell you that I have more doubts than certainties on this matter!

As I've previously stated on other threads, I'm aware that your more in favor of the Comma than against it. Your welcome to believe whatever you want.

Enjoy your day.
 
Last edited:
From your own experience, you know things are lost in translation from one language to another. The vocabulary choice of the Syriac translator, by using a word like ܘܐܝܬܝܗܘ, which even you admit can have various meanings depending on the context etc, is not a strong argument IMO.
I do not find the ܘܐܝܬܝܗܘ argument convincing in any way whatsoever, not even in the slightest way possible.

It looks to be a fairly strong argument.
And it is an argument that points back to the Ante-Nicene Greek text, joining with Latin-based arguments.

The Peshitta is known to be a careful and accurate text, it would be hard to mind similar off-translations, which would be the chore of the person who wants to downgrade this argument. And afaik there is no Greek text in manuscripts or early writers that would actually supply the Syriac word used to start its short text in a literal translation.

It would be interesting to have folks truly fluent in Syriac, familiar with the Peshitta, and used to translation issues to comment. Hopefully simply on the linguistics, not letting their textual preferences be involved.
 
It looks to be a fairly strong argument.
And it is an argument that points back to the Ante-Nicene Greek text, joining with Latin-based arguments.

The Peshitta is known to be a careful and accurate text, it would be hard to mind similar off-translations, which would be the chore of the person who wants to downgrade this argument. And afaik there is no Greek text in manuscripts or early writers that would actually supply the Syriac word used to start its short text in a literal translation.

It would be interesting to have folks truly fluent in Syriac, familiar with the Peshitta, and used to translation issues to comment. Hopefully simply on the linguistics, not letting their textual preferences be involved.

Your welcome to your theoretical 😉 opinions, but this argument doesn't move the dial for me.

Enjoy your day.
 
The study of the Peshitta is complicated by the fact that, until the 19th century (and maybe until the second half of that century), the wrong Syriac text was identified as the Peshitta, so that some scholarly comments about "the Peshitta" are actually about another Syriac version.
 
An interesting question is whether this linguistic anomaly exists in any other versions, such as the Armenian, Coptic or Ethiopic (Amharic) versions.
 
The study of the Peshitta is complicated by the fact that, until the 19th century (and maybe until the second half of that century), the wrong Syriac text was identified as the Peshitta, so that some scholarly comments about "the Peshitta" are actually about another Syriac version.

You probably are considering the Eastern Peshitta, missing five books, II Peter, II John, III John, Jude, Revelation, as the right text.

This web page goes into the distinction between Eastern and Western Peshitta and the limited number of variants between the two.

The Eastern Peshitta vs. The Western Peshitto
http://theoscholar.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-eastern-peshitta-vs-western-peshitto.html

This is all before the Philoxenian and Harklean versions, which brought the Peshitta closer to the Byzantine Greek text.

The Peshitta
http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/Versions.html#Syriac
The text of the Peshitta is somewhat mixed. Various studies, mostly in the gospels, have attempted to tie it to all three text-types, but on the whole the Gospels text appears distinctly Byzantine (which is why the date of the Peshitta is so important. Whatever its date, it is the earliest Byzantine witness -- but if it is of the second century, that witness is of much greater significance than if it is of the fourth). This is not to say that the Peshitta is purely Byzantine, or shows the peculiarities of the Textus Receptus. It does not. It omits John 7:53-8:11, for instance. But it includes Matt. 16:2-3, Mark 16:9-20, Luke 22:43-44, 23:34, etc. (most of which are omitted by the Old Syriac). ...
 
An interesting question is whether this linguistic anomaly exists in any other versions, such as the Armenian, Coptic or Ethiopic (Amharic) versions.

Also, it would be good to check whether the Harklean Syirac update to the Peshitta c. AD 600 kept the same text.
 
In fact, the peshitta we have is not a translation from Greek,

My understanding is that the scholarship that says the Peshitta was a translation from Greek is pretty much universal, putting aside the Aramaic Primacists who want the NT to be originally the Peshitta.

The Peshitta is sometimes considered to be an update to the Old Syriac, represented by two Gospel manuscripts, but even in that case, the update is thought to come from the Greek manuscripts.

If you have Syriac textual sources that say the text has another source other than the Greek line, please share.

Thanks!
 
My understanding is that the scholarship that says the Peshitta was a translation from Greek is pretty much universal, putting aside the Aramaic Primacists who want the NT to be originally the Peshitta.

The Peshitta is sometimes considered to be an update to the Old Syriac, represented by two Gospel manuscripts, but even in that case, the update is thought to come from the Greek manuscripts.

If you have Syriac textual sources that say the text has another source other than the Greek line, please share.

Thanks!
I knew it was a re-translation of the old Syriac with revisions from the Greek. making small comparisons between the current peshitta text and the Greek text I clearly see that it is not exactly retranslated from the Greek various elements are missing: to give you an example there are numerous errors of the subject (greek plural/ peshitta singular or the word pun with ''you are peter and on this pebble I will build my Church'' - a masculine / feminine game - which in peshittà is rendered with two practically identical terms not rendering the pun that here Jesus ago and instead reintroducing the same Aramaic term taken from John 1:42: Cephas, others Kiphas not rendering game words ; but much more is evident in passages such as: Then Jesus said to him: put your sword back in its place, in fact all those who put their hand to the sword of the sword will perish / peshitta instead h to: Then Jesus said to him: Will you put your sword in his place? since each of those who take swords, of swords will die.- and it is not a mistake it is written just like this-) : and these three in one are / peshitta and three in one they are;

These are just examples it is a translation with flashes of Greek I don't know if the translator / or translators have memorized for Greek or other but it is definitely not a direct translation from Greek, ACCORDING TO ME (too many gender errors and other missing features for think that a translator, even if not excellent in Greek, can make these mistakes) even if he has many points in which he respects it as a linguistic structure
 
Last edited:
I knew it was a re-translation of the old Syriac with revisions from the Greek.

There are counter considerations.

1) we only have the Old Syriac extant of the Gospels, so we can not see it easily as an intermediary to 1 John

2) the textual differences are truly huge, more so with the Sinaitiic, but also the Curetonian

The question is whether the Old Syriac as an intermediary helps with your examples.

Now it is true that there is some scholarship that says the Old Syriac is the intermediary, one example is:

Research on the Old Syriac Heritage of the Peshitta Gospels: A Collation of Ms. Bibl. Nationalale Syr. 30 (Paris) -
Andreas Juckel
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/article/HV12N1Juckel

And there is a work on the book of Acts.

In fact, it would make a good separate thread, and I will try to make up a page with some of the resources.
 
This side conversation of the Syriac is ONLY going on because of a desperate search to justify the inclusion of that pus-riddled infection known as the Comma Johanneum.

It wouldn't even be ongoing otherwise.
 
This side conversation of the Syriac is ONLY going on because of a desperate search to justify the inclusion ... the Comma Johanneum.
It wouldn't even be ongoing otherwise.

Nonsense, you are back to the mind-reading nonsense.

It is a good discussion, and can go on its own thread here, as I just mentioned above.

And I have a new page:
Are the Peshitta Gospels updated from the Old Syriac?

On a forum where Puxanto and I post.

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

So this is clearly a proper thread as well, especially since our grammar evidence from the Peshitta is consistent with an early translation from the Greek, when the Greek had both the heavenly and earthly witnesses.
 
Last edited:
That is the 2010 edition - so try again.

Same as Tim’s text from his earlier edition, the one that does not mention my assistance,
Exact same words, unchanged.

I suggested improvements and corrections.
Many were taken, some were not, by comparing the two editions five or ten good changes can be found.
None of the writing is mine, I was assisting only.
 
Avery just admitted this can happen - and happened in Greek for pretty close to 1400 years.
The end.
And as a reminder, you don't seem to understand circular argumentation very well.

Are you actually making the circular claim?
Like this.

“1 John 5:8 in the short text is grammatically fine, it is proven by 1 John 5:8 in the short text”

Circular is as circular does.
Textbook circularity.
 
To the audience: I apologize for my absence, but given I was moving from a contract job in the Boston area to one in the west Texas “desert,” WiFi is spotty, and I’ve been extraordinarily busy. I will, however, provide a final reply to Steven Avery since his modus operandi will be to claim he “defeated me” and “ran me off.” The fact that I, like Jim (whoever that is) and Robert Frazier and others simply have more to do with my life than post online to a board with fewer than ten readers or to pile nonsense upon nonsense on my own personal blog but to deceitfully call it a “forum,” is quite relevant. So as a reminder when he goes into full taunt mode, here is your reminder: Steven Avery has been challenged to publicly debate the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 – by me – since 2009. I offered to do written, he upped the ante and demanded face-to-face, I agreed, and he has spent the last 13 years running at every opportunity. Bear in mind I wasn’t even posting here, didn’t even have an account – until I came across this minor league form of bullying that is typical of his replies to, well, everyone.

I really trust nothing from Bill Brown without proper referencing.

The referencing was given, of course. But note also how incredibly bold the individual in question becomes just so long as he thinks I’m not around. But we never see this modern-day Elijah riding as a white knight in shining tin foil to spout these conspiracy theories in a controlled debate setting – and we never will. A whole lot easier to throw out taunts on the run and just make stuff up nobody will call you out on.


God Himself, though, isn’t going to be mocked by this phony pretentiousness.

Now as I simply go through with a final rebuttal here and leave the Steven Averys of the world to their playpens already refuted and unable to come to the knowledge of the truth, I want you to note something: note well the narcissism involved in virtually every single post Steven Avery Spencer (not even bold enough to use his real name) makes. He’s always talking about what HE did and posters HE refuted and bringing in irrelevant information from other boards of things to which nobody is privy – many of which happened only in his mind. And I’m convinced that narcissism is precisely why we get the angry posts. Because let’s face it: Steven Avery’s name does NOT appear in my thesis at all. And there’s a reason for that: he is simply a nobody in the grand scheme of the settled argument regarding 1 John 5:7. The Michael Maynards of the world who think their books somehow stir up the already settled ground live in a dream world apart from the rest of us, thinking that just because they personally think an issue isn’t settled, it must not be. But let’s face it: they’re just taking in each other’s laundry at this point.

So let’s begin with some comedy and some errors. But the refutation is out there regarding his KJVOism, and it remains. I have no reason to waste one more nanosecond of my life on this individual. However – if he ever mans up and decides he wants to actually debate the issue, you folks know how to get in touch with me. (Note: since he’s going to try to get as many of these posts removed as possible, the originals will be posted at the BVDB so the information is still online; he’s always whining about CARM posts disappearing, but he denies when they’re documented anyway).

So now let us begin with – the comedy:

We are dealing with a conspiracy theorist for whom it is literally impossible to prove to the point to his satisfaction.

Sure, that’s a pretty harsh charge. But who said the following?

Definitely do not believe there was a manned moon landing. Some of the neatest material has been posted By TXPatriot on Twitter. Similar with the supposed recent Chinese landing (A news blip - then silence.)

The moon landing being fake is close to a slam dunk.



I’ve been anti-vax and jab at least since the 1980s.



On the atomic bombs, I do not have a position. The case against them is interesting, that is as far as I can go,



https://www.facebook.com/steven.avery.7568/posts/pfbid0pKyqoz7QUFbPdaGzLJWpvTkdX8vFReFdhixht5xTjgbWJmtbLrdEAsXo7pC1RpZEl?__cft__[0]=AZUkA-hV3tn4BFgNVg4L5_DJ6qqx3ctEMyHSn12FhJDM0XANylnUklkkH7NFPbO1KqfYQYrZZSyXTJ4duOK9dyQL-ybK2p32P_u-QRM-3twhX947b54hC8s1jantyUzp1tQ&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R


Steven Avery (June 11, 2019)

The claims that there is a Nuke Hoax, that really there are not nuclear weapons that destroy cities, should be given real consideration. A big element of these studies involve looking closely at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the test sites like in NM and Bimini.

I have no idea what to add to that other than some very loud guffawing. And this is another key point when it comes to his musings – a lot of problems start with, “I read a post on the Internet” and it’s evil twin, “I watched a You Tube video.” We are told via both of these methods by Avery himself that the moon landing never occurred. We’re told NOT BY STUDY but by watching You Tube videos and seeing posts on the Internet, he’s anti-vax (those are his own words, people).

It is simply not possible with such a person to ever provide a satisfactory answer to his so-called “questions,” because holding those positions presumes you have alternative explanations for reality in every case. Keep that in mind as we deal with his assertions throughout, and pay close attention to a very important fact: Steven Avery NEVER – not one time – EVER presents an original argument. What he does is he finds someone who says what he already wishes to believe, quotes that person, and makes a disparaging remark about the opponents whom he’s too afraid to face in an actual debate.

That’s the difference in the scholar and the online poster.

Now bear something in mind: Steven Avery’s actual level of RESEARCH on any of these is the same as the guy who says that eggs don’t have cholesterol because you never see a chicken getting CPR. There is no research, merely grabbing a quote from a book he doesn’t even read and trying to stir up something.

Reminder: when he claims he ran me off, just link the debate challenge he’s been hiding from in fear since 2009.
 
The argument is over – and I’ve won. More details in points to follow.

Don’t believe me? Well let’s put it this way: I was never so angry at the opposing view that after boldly declaring I wasn’t going to pay to read a thesis, I…..paid to read a thesis. And folks, I would have sent it to him for FREE, but after he fabricated the actual history of the one time I DID send him something (back in 2010), I see no need to assist the unwilling.

After being wrong on the subject for years, Avery simply changed the subject.

For years, he has run from board to board asking for an example of a masculine participle followed by neuter nouns. The pretense, of course, is that none existed, but after reading my thesis EVEN AVERY HIMSELF admits the truth:

However, we can allow it as the one known early example of a "solecism anyway" argument.

Well, you thought there were none – because you can’t read the Greek text. Now that you’ve found one, of course, you’ll just change your argument to something else. Reality: NEUTER NOUNS CAN FOLLOW A MASCULINE PARTICIPLE – and even Steven Avery admits it in print.


Avery doesn’t seem to understand that there is more to the alleged grammatical arguments than just HIS claims about it.

We’re back to narcissism here. In his attacks upon me, Avery operates under a flawed assumption: that there is some sort of grammatical argument that Bulgaris first spelled out and that everybody somehow gets and states the same way. While for reasons of succinctness I had to limit the discussion, the reality is that not even the KJVOs themselves are consistent in what they say about this subject – so you can hardly blame me for it.

I began work on the thesis in 2011, had to set it aside for eight months, and completed it in August 2013 after two revisions. This requires me to be up to date as much as possible, so consider this paragraph written by C.L. Pappas in 2011 that states “the grammatical argument”:

“In the Greek language, as in any foreign language, the articles, adjectives, participles, and nouns must be in agreement as they relate to each other in any particular sentence. They must not only agree in gender, but also agree in number as well. This is a fundamental grammatical rule. A student who has studied a foreign language is familiar with this grammatical principle. So then, if a noun is masculine in a sentence, then the articles, adjectives, and participles in relationship to that noun or nouns must also be masculine as well. The same is true if the nouns are either feminine or neuter. There cannot be the mixture of the gender of the nouns, adjectives, and participles in any given sentence. To mix them would be a gross violation of basic grammatical rules of the language. Furthermore, to mix genders of nouns, participles, and adjectives would only produce confusion.” (C L Pappas, 2011:68-9, Google Books edition) .

These are the exact words of a published author on the subject. In reality, this happens quite often, but given I actually cited Pappas in the thesis, don’t try to pretend I wasn’t up to date with the scholarship. Pappas stated what most rank and file KJVOs who never studied Greek think the grammatical argument is.

But good ole Avery is telling all of us here that I’ve somehow messed up – because “but Bulgaris said.” The problem for Avery is simple: just because Bulgaris began making the frivolous claim without merit in 1780 doesn’t necessitate me limiting either my argument OR my audience to the limitations that Eugenius Bulgaris imagined he saw on the biblical text. The reality, of course, is no limitations at all exist, and Bulgaris was simply out to school on this one. But assuming he’s right, we’ll get to the bigger question later on down the rebuttal. The FACT is this: in 2011, a KJVO pastor citing Gregory AND Nolan AND Dabney AND Hills (but conveniently omitting Bulgaris) made the claim that was tangential and part of what I addressed in the thesis.

Now as if this isn’t bad enough, guess who else fails to mention Bulgaris? Thomas Holland in 2000, who jumps from Gregory all the way over to Dabney (doesn’t even mention Nolan), and even Holland nowhere says this grammatical issue is limited by the parameters Spencer tells us it has to be (and as a reminder: every single person being discussed here has at least taken seminary level Greek EXCEPT for Spencer himself).

But it gets even worse – because while assisting another writer with the grammatical argument, STEVEN AVERY HIMSELF mis-stated the grammatical argument.

Click the link and look at the cover page:

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/11724872/a-defense-of-the-johannine-comma-study-to-answernet

The page EXPLICITLY says Steven Avery assisted Timothy Dunkin with this project. Now I would normally consider it unfair to make this reference except for the fact Avery failed to inform Dunkin that he didn’t have a clue what the grammatical argument was. The table of contents says that the grammatical argument points begin on page 36.

Note Dunkin’s precise verbiage on page 36:

“The grammatical difficulty which is found in this passage if the Comma is deleted rests on a rule of Greek grammar (as well as in many other languages) which demands gender agreement among parts of a sentence.”

Notice what Dunkin DOES NOT do:

He does not cite Bulgaris (he mentions him on the next page, but he doesn’t discuss the alleged limitations of this argument), does not limit this “only” to neuters and masculines (as Avery, contradicting himself from his assistance with Dunkin, has been doing on this board since May as he attacks me), and then refers to Nolan’s grammatical argument as “similar”, indicating Dunkin’s view that Nolan’s position was a little different than Bulgaris’s.

IF THE KJVOS CANNOT EVEN AGREE UPON WHAT THE GRAMMATICAL ARGUMENT ACTUALLY IS, YOU CANNOT BLAME ME FOR NOT RESPONDING TO EACH PARTICULAR ASPECT OR CLAIM.
 
Dunkin then kisses his intellect good-bye when he writes (37) “as there are no other known grammatical solecisms in the Greek Gospel and Epistles of John….” I hope the reader notices he CAREFULLY OMITTED REVELATION for the simple reason they’re all over the place.

Hence, Avery might want to worry more about straightening his own people out with his stellar Greek skills than trying to correct those of us who can easily point out that none of them agree with each other at all.

I’m not going over plowed ground again, Part 1.

And your thesis was simply wrong in stating that Horne was giving a "solecism anyway" argument,

1) My thesis never says anything about a “solecism anyway” argument. That’s your made-up term and so YET AGAIN we see you cannot even deal with the subject at hand.

2) I refuted your comment about Horne here: https://forums.carm.org/threads/syriac-peshitta-kjvo-pure-line-and-the-comma.9270/post-729765

You denying the reality of refutation doesn’t change the reality – any more than your denial of reality about the moon landing changes that.


Why not simply accept the correction?

Because you’re wrong.

You misunderstood the quote you gave from Horne
Mistakes happen.
You so much wanted it to be a "solecism anyway" quote that you did not look carefully.

Avery now contradicts his prior assertion about Horne changing his mind. But the only mistake I made is…none. This is documented in the link above, and no amount of denial from one who denies a moon landing is going to change it.

You misunderstood the quote you gave from Horne.
Mistakes happen
You so much wanted it to be a "solecism anyway" quote that you did not look carefully.

It’s always projection with a narcissist.
He didn’t know what was meant, blames me for it, demands I make a correction for what he got wrong.

And I understand that it is hard for you to accept and acknowledge your error on the 16 blunder verses. It would severely undermine your ongoing bluster writing.

A guy who: a) wrongly assumes the argument is limited to HIS understanding of the argument; b) can’t even read the Greek text he’s lecturing us on; c) doesn’t seem to know that even among the KJVOs there’s no agreement upon what the grammatical argument actually IS…gets mad because I refute the grammatical argument.

And lest he complain, Pappas IS mentioned in my thesis. Indeed, I began with him and worked my way back.

Indeed, the narcissism is prevalent in Avery’s response because he keeps thinking I have some sort of obligation to respond to HIS VERSION of the grammatical argument. If he wants to publish a work that argues and shows sentence grammar and why this is so – something beyond just quoting people – I’ll gladly respond. But in light of the fact he’s had 15 years now and done nothing, I won’t hold my breath lest I turn into a Smurf.

I’m guessing you’re disappointed because you were 100% sure that your name was in my thesis. But I only put the names of scholars in there who have presented arguments. I won’t even call those arguments coherent at this point.

Quit pretending you read French

The French debate has an historical element, the last of the series of important written debates, going back to David Martin vs, Thomas Emlyn. And I only picked up the gist from my high school French, however I did put together the only complete bibliography with urls.

“the French debate c. 1885 - Martin - Rambouillet - Manoury - Vacant - Didiot - Philippe”

Martin, who was the contra in the heavenly witnesses debate, is said to have written a superb book on the Mark ending, defending authenticity, comparable to Burgon. If I remember, his books have unusual script and formatting.

Not only can Avery not read French and has no idea who said what – it’s documented online in 2015, as I posted the correction posted here there at the same time. You’re welcome, Avery, that those CARM posts you’re always whining about disappearing are preserved in many cases.

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...-queens-ny-busted-cold-lying-t5799.html#p5456


Seven years, and this is the best he can come up with.


Do you see any place where Bill Brown actually tries to discuss any points through the reactive harumph posturing posting? I don’t.

Such an assertion assumes you would know this if you saw it.

Plus, he can never acknowledge a factual error. We see that in the 16 Blunder Verses,

You mean the carefully edited list that you’re upset I won’t retract – because I can read the NT text and you cannot? Hey, don’t blame me for YOUR MISUNDERSTANDING that I or anyone else is limited to YOUR understanding of the issue.

Remember, there’s a paper out there on the Net with your name on it that presents the argument as I refuted it, no limitations of neuters and masculines. So instead of misdirecting, why not go fix it, huh?

and now also in the Horne discussion. Throwing sand is his skill.

This has been covered. I don’t expect you to admit error when history shows otherwise.

When I rarely find him trying to make a semi-coherent point, I take the effort to respond right to point.

The guy who wrote this thinks…..checks notes…..the moon landing was faked…….

Then he tries a five-word dismissal.

Says the guy who dismisses things with the five words, “Already asked and answered” even when it hasn’t been….
 
Back
Top