the grammar of the heavenly and earthly witnesses

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
The question is the neuter substantives with masculine grammar, which has been considered as unacceptably solecistic by world-class scholars. We will show what is written by Eugenius Bulgaris (1716-1806) and Georgios Babiniotis, the premier Greek linguist today. This has been a subject of controversy.

So let's get this straight.

1. Greek grammar books are irrelevant to your argument on Greek grammar rules being broken
2. Greek grammarians are irrelevant to your argument on Greek grammar rules being broken
3. Greek grammar rules are irrelevant to your argument on Greek grammar rules being broken
4. Your argument is about Greek grammar rules being broken

What else needs to be said.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
1) largely true, but some that are native Greek and not Anglo seminarian may cover the question well

2) false - any truly fluent Greek grammarian or linguist can weigh in and comment on Bulgaris and Babiniotis

3) the solecism is recognized by experts in Greek, not by the limited “rules” of grammar books. However, if any grammar books gave actual counters to Bulgaris, beyond constructio as sensum, that should be noted and would be contra ammo. So far, I have not heard of any such claims.

4) again, grating grammar is recognized by those truly skilled, and they can explain the grammar, as done by Eugenius Bulgaris
 
Last edited:

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
1) largely true, but some that are native Greek and not Anglo seminarian may cover the question well

2) false - any truly fluent Greek grammarian or linguist can weigh in and comment on Bulgaris and Babiniotis

3) the solecism is recognized by experts in Greek, not by the limited “rules” of grammar books. However, if any grammar books gave actual counters to Bulgaris, beyond constructio as sensum, that should be noted and would be contra ammo. So far, I have not heard of any such claims.

4) again, grating grammar is recognized by those truly skilled, and they can explain the grammar, as done by Eugenius Bulgaris

So now your saying grammar rules are important to your argument on grammar rules?
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
The Macedonians noticed the discord in the 300s in their discussions with Gregory Nazianzen, so it is not a new grammar discovery. Erasmus gave us a pithy note about it as well, since he was, at first, trying to defend the short solecism text.

Do you think Steven, the Greek grammar rule books were important to Gregory of Nazianzus?
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
So now we need the grammar rule books?
But what Greek grammar books are Steven Avery approved, for them to be relevant to the Steven Avery Greek grammar claim?
Any grammar at all.

If you find a counter-example, you wpn’t have to play 20 questions.

If you don’t that would tend to corroborate Eugenius.
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
Any grammar at all.

If you find a counter-example, you wpn’t have to play 20 questions.

If you don’t that would tend to corroborate Eugenius.

You mean from the Greek grammar rule books that you have been trying to say we're and are effectively unimportant to John the apostle, Dionysius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Eugenius, you and Gregorios etc?
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
You mean from the Greek grammar rule books

The grammar books tell you what happens in various situations, like #2 and #5 here, which are two of the constructio ad sensums.

Niblock
https://books.google.com/books?id=tBVgAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA124

They are not designed to tell you what does not exist.
Thus, they are very limited in the solecism issue.

However, I invite you to do your due diligence and try to find quotes from anywhere which will counter Eugenius.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
The grammar books tell you what happens in various situations, like #2 and #5 here, which are two of the constructio ad sensums.

Niblock
https://books.google.com/books?id=tBVgAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA124

They are not designed to tell you what does not exist.
Thus, they are very limited in the solecism issue.

However, I invite you to do your due diligence and try to find quotes from anywhere which will counter Eugenius.
Just to be clearer, my knock on grammar books has to do with trying to use them to resolve disputed New Testament questions.

Here are some examples, which can also apply to commentaries.

The three verses in John where paraclete is the masculine referent, not the neuter pneuma, is wrong in some grammar books.

The heavenly witnesses, the grammars show what is doable, not what is wrong, a solecism. They can be excellent for showing the basics.

The Granville Sharp “Rule”. The grammars have been influenced by the authors doctrinal position.

In addition, if the Critical Text is accepted, the grammars will attempt to give explanations that support the corruptions. This will include the heavenly witnesses and the lack of a referent in 1 Timothy 3:16. Also a corruption in Mark where an ultra-minority variant links pneuma with a devil to masculine grammar.

So please take my knock on grammar books only in this context.

Thanks!
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
You have not been honest with us, that you are in fact appealing to a GRAMMARIAN. ... hypocrisy

If you have any grammarians or commentaries or Bible scholars who disagree with Bulgaris and Babionitis, simply give the quotes.

What I said was clear, that the grammar books tell you what "works", they do not tell you what is discordant, a solecism.
Babionitis was going BEYOND the grammar books
when he shared on the heavenly witnesses.

You should read more carefully.

And you should avoid chintzy accusations that are based on misrepresentation.
Best, you should up your game.
 
Last edited:

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
If you have any grammarians or commentaries or Bible scholars who disagree with Bulgaris and Babionitis, simply give the quotes.

What I said was clear, that the grammar books tell you what "works", they do not tell you what is discordant, a solecism.
Babionitis was going BEYOND the grammar books
when he shared on the heavenly witnesses.

You should read more carefully.

And you should avoid chintzy accusations that are based on misrepresentation.
Best, you should up your game.

Yes. He went beyond grammar into his biased personal opinion, like your biased personal opinion.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Babionitis is a Grammarian. What you would otherwise refer to as a "text-crit dupe".
Babionitis is your "crutch" (in your own words ;) )

You are fabricating again.
As I NEVER wrote that all grammarians are text-crit dupes (that is why you do not actually quote my words in context.)

Focus.

Yes. He went beyond grammar into his biased personal opinion, like your biased personal opinion.

Another fabrication. I said that Babionitis went beyond the grammar books.

You change it to beyond grammar.
 

Maestroh

Active member
the grammar of the heavenly and earthly witnesses

Removed because this is a post about GREEK GRAMMAR not what someone who doesn't know it thinks it should match the English of his favorite Bible.

First we show the Textus Receptus text, as in the Authorized Version.

Who is "we"?

5:7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες εν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν.
5:8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἕν τῇ γῇ, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἐν εἰσὶν

The question is the neuter substantives with masculine grammar, which has been considered as unacceptably solecistic by world-class scholars. We will show what is written by Eugenius Bulgaris (1716-1806) and Georgios Babiniotis, the premier Greek linguist today. This has been a subject of controversy.

Except looking at what you've posted here:
5:8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἕν τῇ γῇ, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἐν εἰσὶν

your very post contains the very solecism YOU say that Bulgaris and Babinitos claim is "unacceptable."
So does that mean they and you are going to throw out verse eight, which isn't even questioned?

All you've shown me is two guys who are supposed to know Greek don't seem to know it very well (assuming you are fairly representing them).

In addition, we will look at a modern attempt, post AD 2000, to “overthrow” or “refute” the argument, using 16 New Testament verses. This will include a thesis accepted at Dallas Theological Seminary.

1) 32 examples
2) just deal with the one YOU gave above.


:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
 
Top