Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

Grammatical and natural gender

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Grammatical and natural gender

    A certain poster made the following comment in another thread:


    “Natural gender only applies to things with sex organs (though gods are thought to be distinguished by gender also, so that we have male and female gods in most mythologies).”

    This betrays an inadequate understanding of grammatical vs natural gender in Koine. For instance the spirit which possesses the young man in Mark 9:25-26 is referred to with masculine adjectives via ad sensum even though it is not even a physical being.

    ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι ἐπισυντρέχει ὄχλος ἐπετίμησε τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἀκαθάρτῳ λέγων αὐτῷ· Τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἄλαλον καὶ κωφὸν, ἐγὼ σοι ἐπιτάσσω, ἔξελθε ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ μηκέτι εἰσέλθῃς εἰς αὐτόν.καὶ κράξας καὶ πολλὰ σπαράξας ἐξῆλθεν· καὶ ἐγένετο ὡσεὶ νεκρὸς ὥστε τοὺς πολλοὺς λέγειν ὅτι ἀπέθανεν.




  • #2
    Ah, on that thread, you agreed with me. Now you don't. Not surprised. You're constantly changing what you claim, since you have no basis on which to make your odd claims.
    I have permission to post on the Biblical Languages forum, as per email correspondence with Diane S.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Jameson View Post
      Ah, on that thread, you agreed with me. Now you don't. Not surprised. You're constantly changing what you claim, since you have no basis on which to make your odd claims.
      I’m afraid that you mis-read me. I did not agree with you in that thread, nor am I agreeing with you in this one.

      Would you like to address the OP ?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by John Milton View Post
        For instance the spirit which possesses the young man in Mark 9:25-26 is referred to with masculine adjectives via ad sensum even though it is not even a physical being.
        The masculine participles κράξας and σπαράξας are simply ultra-minority corruptions. Likely put in a couple of mss due to the simple fact that the Alexandrian scribe behind Vaticanus, or its exemplars, was weak in Greek.

        κράξαν and σπαράξαν αυτον are (neuter) the pure Bible Greek readings, massively supported.

        This type of piddle Alexandrian corruption has turned around and corrupted Greek New Testament grammatical analysis.

        Comment


        • #5
          Here is one of the earlier posts, some have poofed.

          Constructio ad sensum in John 1:12

          Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
          Alexandrian ultra-minority corruptions skew Greek grammatical analysis

          e.g. Wallace claims a constructio ad sensum in Mark 9:25-26 based on nothing more than an ultra-minority corruption that is grammatically fine, normal grammar without constructio ad sensum, in the mass of Greek mss.

          However, the mass of Greek mss have κράξαν and σπαράξαν. It is truly an absurd claim to say that you are building an "indisputable" analysis of grammar on an ultra-minority corruption.
          And one with more detail

          Greek grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit- thesis and CT text incompatible.

          Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
          Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit (2003)
          Bulletin for Biblical Research 13.1 - Pages 97-125

          Daniel Wallace (b. 1952)
          https://www.ibr-bbr.org/files/bbr/BB...HolySpirit.pdf


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

          A fine paper in many ways, that works 100% with the Reformation Bible (Received Text) and almost works with the Byzantine Text.
          However it fails with the Critical Text supported by Daniel Wallace.

          btw, If any readers see any actual errors in the writing below, or feel that something is not logical, please share away. Iron sharpeneth.

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


          Variant #1

          Mark 9:25-26 (AV)
          When Jesus saw that the people came running together,
          he rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him,
          Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee,
          come out of him, and enter no more into him.

          And the spirit cried, and rent him sore,
          and came out of him: and he was as one dead;
          insomuch that many said, He is dead.

          v. 25
          TR-Byz -
          ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι ἐπισυντρέχει ὄχλος ἐπετίμησεν τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἀκαθάρτῳ λέγων αὐτῷ, Τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἄλαλον καὶ κωφὸν ἐγὼ σοι ἐπιτάσσω ἔξελθε ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ μηκέτι εἰσέλθῃς εἰς αὐτόν
          Alex -
          ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι ἐπισυντρέχει ὄχλος ἐπετίμησεν τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἀκαθάρτῳ λέγων αὐτῷ τὸ ἄλαλον καὶ κωφὸν πνεῦμα ἐγὼ ἐπιτάσσω σοι ἔξελθε ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ μηκέτι εἰσέλθῃς εἰς αὐτόν

          v.26
          TR-Byz - Καὶ κράξαν, καὶ πολλὰ σπαράξαν αὐτόν, ἐξῆλθεν· καὶ ἐγένετο ὡσεὶ νεκρός, ὥστε πολλοὺς λέγειν ὅτι ἀπέθανεν.
          Alex - καὶ κράξας καὶ πολλὰ σπαράξας ἐξῆλθεν· καὶ ἐγένετο ὡσεὶ νεκρὸς ὥστε τοὺς πολλοὺς λέγειν ὅτι ἀπέθανεν.

          Wallace, based on CT text:
          ... in Mark 9:26 the masculine participles κράξας and σπαράξας refer back to the πνεῦμα of v. 25.
          (p. 98)

          ]If, per the CT text Mark actually refers to the foul spirit with masculine personalization, in one spot, arbitrarily, it is hard to argue that John did not do the same, e.g. at 1 John 5:7-8, with the fair spirit. After all, masculinization and personhood would be a type of respect, this is one reason, beyond the grammatical harshness, why the usage seen in the CT text of Mark 9:25-26 is so grating.
          Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-05-19, 07:11 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            So, you agree that the masculine pronoun could be appropriate of τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
              The masculine participles κράξας and σπαράξας are simply ultra-minority corruptions. Likely put in a couple of mss due to the simple fact that the Alexandrian scribe behind Vaticanus, or its exemplars, was weak in Greek.

              κράξαν and σπαράξαν αυτον are (neuter) the pure Bible Greek readings, massively supported.

              This type of piddle Alexandrian corruption has turned around and corrupted Greek New Testament grammatical analysis.
              You're going with the manuscript which the KJV uses, since you think the KJV English writers were inspired individuals and did not make any mistakes. This is not wise nor true. The manuscript you prefer is a later ,smoothed out corruption of the original . The one I'm using is the older and more difficult manuscript reading and most scholars agree it is the genuine one. Here's Daniel Wallace, GGPHS:

              There are even one or two indisputabletexts that refer to an evil spirit with the masculine gender. For example, in Mark 9:26 the masculine participles κράξας and σπαράξας refer back to the πνεῦμα of v. 25.5

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by John Milton View Post
                You're going with the manuscript which the KJV uses,
                About 1500 mss. is my guesstimate. Against a couple of corruptions. (The exact numbers may be in Swanson.)

                You have to be heavily duped to accept corruptions like this one, and snipping the Mark ending.

                And then to try to make a grammatical point on the ultra-minority corruption is a laughable absurdity.

                And I know, you have too much invested in this absurdity, so I will simply smile .
                Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-05-19, 10:57 PM.

                Comment


                • #9


                  When it comes to textual criticism, it is not a numbers game. Manuscripts are weighted for accuracy, not counted for it. For instance, what percentage of your “thousands” are late manuscripts?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by John Milton View Post
                    When it comes to textual criticism, it is not a numbers game. Manuscripts are weighted for accuracy, not counted for it. For instance, what percentage of your “thousands” are late manuscripts?
                    The question is too vague, and quite irrelevant. If 100 of them are early, they weight a lot more than a couple of corrupt mss. known for poor Greek.

                    And how much does one or two manuscripts "weigh" when compared to 1,500?" Do you weight them, or are you just a lemming following whatever wind is blown from Metzger or Walalce?

                    Even if you drink the Westccott-Hort textual kool-aid, you should realize that trying to use the verse for a grammatical point is totally absurd.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                      The question is too vague, and quite irrelevant. If 100 of them are early, they weight a lot more than a couple of corrupt mss. known for poor Greek.

                      And how much does one or two manuscripts "weigh" when compared to 1,500?" Do you weight them, or are you just a lemming following whatever wind is blown from Metzger or Walalce?

                      Even if you drink the Westccott-Hort textual kool-aid, you should realize that trying to use the verse for a grammatical point is totally absurd.
                      How can it be “absurd?” It’s grammatical evidence. And it is not the only such example. Consider Mark 9:20–

                      καὶ ἤνεγκαν αὐτὸν πρὸς αὐτόν. καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτὸν τὸ πνεῦμα εὐθὺς συνεσπάραξεν αὐτόν, καὶ πεσὼν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐκυλίετο ἀφρίζων.

                      What’s the excuse here ?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                        The question is too vague, and quite irrelevant. If 100 of them are early, they weight a lot more than a couple of corrupt mss. known for poor Greek.

                        And how much does one or two manuscripts "weigh" when compared to 1,500?" Do you weight them, or are you just a lemming following whatever wind is blown from Metzger or Walalce?

                        Even if you drink the Westccott-Hort textual kool-aid, you should realize that trying to use the verse for a grammatical point is totally absurd.
                        So one scribe or set of scribes got inspired and copied a more errant Text. And they made like 2000 copies, of which we have 1450 or so. Proves nothing.

                        There are better translations, and they all have to do with cohesiveness. Since the Author of the authors is cohesive.
                        Shema will change the Christian World.

                        Turn it upside down. To where it once was, the POV of JESUS, his DISCIPLES and his SERVANTS.

                        Know God YHWH Elohim is One. And love Him with all. Mk 12, red letter words.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by John Milton View Post
                          How can it be “absurd?” It’s grammatical evidence.
                          On the very same verse there is massive "grammatical evidence" of the neuter form with no problem. Thus using a couple of oddball (and corrupt) mss, known for bad Greek, as the basis of a grammatical argument is absurd.

                          As I indicated, you have hitched your grammatical star to this absurdity, so I am not expecting any understanding or change on your side.

                          Originally posted by nothead View Post
                          So one scribe or set of scribes got inspired and copied a more errant Text. And they made like 2000 copies, of which we have 1450 or so. Proves nothing.
                          The genealogical evidence points strongly to the text which has no grammatical mismatch as being original.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                            On the very same verse there is massive "grammatical evidence" of the neuter form with no problem. Thus using a couple of oddball (and corrupt) mss, known for bad Greek, as the basis of a grammatical argument is absurd.

                            As I indicated, you have hitched your grammatical star to this absurdity, so I am not expecting any understanding or change on your side.

                            The genealogical evidence points strongly to the text which has no grammatical mismatch as being original.
                            What’s the excuse at Mark 9:20 ?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by John Milton View Post
                              What’s the excuse at Mark 9:20 ?
                              An explanation of the textual situation, which you did not know, is not an excuse. It is just pointing out that the mismatch is an unusual corruption, easily understood as resulting from the poor Greek of the Alexandrian scribes.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X