the grammar of the heavenly and earthly witnesses

[Steven Avery]

How do you know there was a variant in the Greek? Do you have a time machine, and travelled back in time to check? Did an angel appear to you and tell you about it? Or did you get a supernatural revelation from heaven?

Too many conditionals.

You do not want Jerome to be the author.
Neither of us have the original c. AD 400 Vulgate.
The Vulgate Prologue has one reference to Spirit, and another to Holy Spirit.
We do not know the actual Greek or Latin variants.

On the last one, I indicated Greek or Latin. We can change my would to could.

This is an argument that you have been making, that the early texts omitted Holy.

 

[Steven Avery]

I've perused the main ANF/PNF (admittedly not exhaustively) this morning, and the missing "Holy" with "Spirit" is in quite a few of the more important references.

Which increases the possiblity that Jerome has Holy missing in some of his texts.

 

[Steven Avery]

I agree, he's pretentiously bluffing his way through this. He must have convinced (decieved) himself at some stage, that he really knows what he's talking about. His uncommittle and deflective focus is a dead giveaway too.

This is hilarious.
As a JW, it is HIGHLY unlikely that you agree with cjab that the Holy Spirit is personalized/masculinized grammatically.

And I pointed this out before, and recommended two books, from non-Trinitarians sources.
Here is Patrick Navas, appealing to Daniel Wallace

Divine Truth or Human Tradition? (2006)
Patrick Navas
https://books.google.com/books?id=KYktt_ZiTGcC&pg=PA485

54 New English Translation, p. 341. Most Trinitarian apologists have pointed to the use of the masculine pronoun (ekeinos) in connection with the Spirit as evidence of “personhood.” However, Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary, although a defender of Trinitarianism, observed: “contrary to the supposition that the proximity of pneurna to ekeinos in John 14:26 and 15:26 demonstrates the Spirit’s personality, because the pneurna is appositional, it becomes irrelevant to the gender of the pronoun ...The fact that pneurna and not parakletos is the appositive renders the philological argument in these two texts void.” Wallace also noted: “The grammatical basis for the Holy Spirit’s personality is lacking in the NT, yet this is frequently, if not usually, the first line of defense of the doctrine by many evangelical writers. But if grammar cannot legitimately be used to support the Spirit’s personality, then perhaps we need to reexamine the rest of our basis for this theological commitment.”
—“Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit", Bulletin for Biblical Research (Wallace-HS), 2003, pp 108, 125.

You only look for a position opposite of mine, whether consistent or sensible .. or NOT.

Why not deal with Naselli and Gons?
Oh no, you can't do that, because you would find out that I am right in the disagreement with cjab.

So we get more posturing and throwing of sand.

 

[Unbound68]

You do not want Jerome to be the author.

Because he isnt the author.

You do not want the testimony of the Greek manuscript record (the language of the NT) to be our trustworthy guide for what's an authentic reading of scripture, and what isn't. You therefore have to run to the LATIN (a KJVO no-no, not to mention a language in which NO OLD TESTAMENT OR NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE WAS GIVEN) and concoct all these ridiculous "possibilities," "dual text lines," etc. to explain why the Comma isn't found where it SHOULD BE found. Shame on you.

 

[Unbound68]

This is hilarious.
As a JW, it is HIGHLY unlikely that you agree with cjab that the Holy Spirit is personalized/masculinized grammatically.

And as one who doesn't read Greek or even know the Greek alphabet it is highly unlikely that you know what you're talking about.

 

[Unbound68]

Why not deal with Naselli and Gons?

Because:

1) you don't know Greek,
2) you don't know the Greek alphabet,
3) you don't understand Greek grammar,
4) you don't understand ENGLISH grammar,
5) you're the only one making Naselli and Gons some sort of authority.

 

[Steven Avery]

Because he isnt the author.

If there was a contra who wanted to really discuss this question, I'm ready.

Not you, though, after those unretracted bogus liar accusations.

 

[Steven Avery]

And as one who doesn't read Greek or even know the Greek alphabet it is highly unlikely that you know what you're talking about.

Do you have a position on the Naselli and Gons paper?
Do you agree with the wild attacks by cjab on that paper and the one by Daniel Wallace?

Let me know after you apologize for the bogus liar accusations.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Which increases the possiblity that Jerome has Holy missing in some of his texts.

And how many texts without "Holy", and how many with "Holy" did he have Steven? And how do you know?

 

[Steven Avery]

And how many texts without "Holy", and how many with "Holy" did he have Steven? And how do you know?

It would not matter if we knew, since Jerome could consider some texts as more helpful than others.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

So this lack of "Holy" with "Spirt" (e.g. in the Fuldensis paratext, Vulgate manuscripts, Vetus Latina manuscripts, and in important ECW references) which uncoincidentally makes an even closer syntactic parallel with both the preceding and following context of "the Spirit" without "Holy" in vs 6, AND "the Spirit" without "Holy" in vs 8 doesn't strike you as odd in anyway?

 

[Steven Avery]

So this lack of "Holy" with "Spirt" (e.g. in the Fuldensis paratext, Vulgate manuscripts, Vetus Latina manuscripts, and in important ECW references) which uncoincidentally makes an even closer syntactic parallel with both the preceding and following context of "the Spirit" without "Holy" in vs 6, AND "the Spirit" without "Holy" in vs 8 doesn't strike you as odd in anyway?

It is mildly interesting.

A scribe copying the true verse 7 heavenly witnesses may have had Spirit (without Holy) from verse 6 in mind. Far more interesting is the wide variety of variants in Verse 6. Since the earliest reference has the Holy Spirit (Cyprian), and there are other early references with Holy, and you have no early mss. without Holy, your scribal remodeling theory is basically defunct.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

It is mildly interesting.

A scribe copying the true verse 7 heavenly witnesses may have had Spirit (without Holy) from verse 6 in mind. Far more interesting is the wide variety of variants in Verse 6. Since the earliest reference has the Holy Spirit (Cyprian), and there are other early references with Holy, and you have no early mss. without Holy, your scribal remodeling theory is basically defunct.

You mean your hypothetical Jerome had verse 6 without "Holy" in mind, and he didn't copy the "true" Comma?

 

[Steven Avery]

You mean your hypothetical Jerome had verse 6 without "Holy" in mind, and he didn't copy the "true" Comma?

We do not know exactly the text brought forth by Jerome, it possibly had some variants from the TR text in both verses 6 and 7, and other 1 John verses.

e..g you could check 1 John 5:10

μαρτυρίαν τοῦ θεοῦ

τῷ θεῷ
τῷ υἱῷ

AV
He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

Vulgate
He that believeth in the Son of God hath the testimony of God in himself. He that believeth not the Son maketh him a liar: because he believeth not in the testimony which God hath testified of his Son.

 

[Steven Avery]

The neuter participle in 5.6 is explained in terms of the functioning of the Spirit, the spirit itself bearing its own witness. But in 5.7 & 5.8 a different aspect to the witnessing is being invoked -

The neuter participle in 5:6 is explained by the simple fact that Spirit, πνεῦμα is neuter.

The masculine participle in 5:7, the heavenly witnesses is because there are masculine nouns, Father and the Word, πατήρ, ὁ λόγος.

The masculine participle in 5:8 is due to the syntactic parallelism with 5:7.

Not getting the basics of even verse 6 right makes the rest of your post gibberish.

 

[Steven Avery]

It was in my list, but because of your genuine ignorance in this regard, you don't seem to realize that many manuscripts in this controversy go by different name's in different ages

Nope, just bluster, the Freisinger Fragment was not in your list, under any name, it was mentioned without detail after the list.

The list begins here.
https://forums.carm.org/threads/syriac-peshitta-kjvo-pure-line-and-the-comma.9270/post-713411

And you never listed or acknowledged the Leon Palimpsest. So your list and summary are defective.

Wait, you made this bogus claim about the Leon Palimpsest when questioned.

Was in the list, just like the Freisinger Fragment.

And I don't know why you simply try to rewrite history, the list is locked and shows you to be wrong. What is wacky is your inability to simply say "yes, I left those two mss. out" and instead you just try to fake-bluster your way through.

===================

btw, the Speculum should be mentioned too, since its origin date is around AD 400. It is on the borderline between an early church writing and a Bible manuscripts.

===================

The irony here is that your list itself was helpful, you just deep-sixed your presentation with the false claims about the inclusion manuscripts, (with the attendant boorish posturing) and leaving the Leon Palimpsest out of even the count of mss.

 

[Steven Avery]

Where and how did the Hebrew speaking, native born Israelite, the apostle John, learn the rules on Greek Concord from? About the agreement of gender, number, case, (which you effectively say the apostle John at 1 John 5:7-8 has violated) in the Greek language Steven?

Wrong. John wrote the heavenly witnesses verse. When one linguistic element, stylistic parallelism, trumps a localized “discord”, nothing is violated. You have superb Greek writing.

Maybe you agree with the theory that Revelation was written in Hebrew?

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Wrong. John wrote the heavenly witnesses verse. When one linguistic element, stylistic parallelism, trumps a localized “discord”, nothing is violated. You have superb Greek writing.

Maybe you agree with the theory that Revelation was written in Hebrew?

More and more modern Averian myths are being created all the time.

"Stylistic parallelism"

What happened to "syntactic parallelism"?

Have you ditched that one?

 

[Steven Avery]

Syntactic is the correct word, as in post #275 rIght above.

 

[Steven Avery]

Here is the doozy myth, and bogus accusation..

It was in my list, but because of your genuine ignorance in this regard, you don't seem to realize that many manuscripts in this controversy go by different name's in different ages (for which there are many reasons - to many to elaborate here), and your doubling up on manuscript references (and the same applies to some of your ANF/PNF references as well).

You had the chutzpah to accuse me of missing two phantom listings.