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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Barry Hofstetter View Post
    However, I note that only one person has responded to you, who doesn't really seem to get the issue, and your response. Nobody's going to learn anything from that, and I'm done with it.
    My reference was to the discussion:

    Mark 9:20 - Who's doing what
    - from Feb, 2017, started by S. Walch (putting aside declaring the ultra-minority corruption as the original text.

    the Majority texts amend the masculine participles to neuter ones.
    You are looking at the Mounce neuter gender discussion.
    Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-07-19, 05:57 AM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
      This is translation Greek from a Hebrew Bible that uses the masculine pronoun.

      1 Kings 22:21-22 (AV)
      And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I
      will persuade him. And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith?
      And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.
      And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.


      Oh, Barry covered this before:







      You are riding a grammatical reed that is extremely thin.

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

      And you follow Wallace in using the phrase "indisputable" evidences or texts for a weak argument.



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

      Here is a related point,
      Jameson can comment on its accuracy and strength as an analogy, although your issue is laid to rest by being translation Greek.

      What’s in a pronoun? The divine gender controversy
      by Lita Cosner
      Published: 20 August 2008 (GMT+10)

      Furthermore, when rûach is used for the Spirit of God, it is always combined with the masculine Elohim and takes on its masculine characteristics. E.g. in 1 Kings 22:24.: ‘Which way did the Spirit of the Lord go …?’, the word rûach takes the masculine verb עָבַר ‘ābar: ‘went’.5

      5 Taylor, C.V., Linguistics, Genesis and Evolution, Part 5: The Creator, Creation 7(4):21–22, 1985.

      ==============================================.
      There is ad sensum here also in the original Hebrew. Also why should “translational Greek “ make a difference here ? It’s still following the rules of Greek grammar .

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by John Milton View Post
        There is ad sensum here also in the original Hebrew. .
        You think it would have been normative to refer to "her" instead of him?

        And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth...
        Any analogous examples in the Hebrew Bible?

        Originally posted by John Milton View Post
        Also why should “translational Greek “ make a difference here ? .
        Translations will often follow the gender usage of the source.

        Originally posted by John Milton View Post
        It’s still following the rules of Greek grammar .
        Actually your point is that you claim the "LXX" text is not following the "rules of Greek grammar."

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
          You think it would have been normative to refer to "her" instead of him?

          Any analogous examples in the Hebrew Bible?

          Translations will often follow the gender usage of the source.

          Actually your point is that you claim the "LXX" text is not following the "rules of Greek grammar."
          My point is that the LXX is following the rules of Greek grammar— reference to antecedent by means of natural instead of grammatical gender, exactly as also the Hebrew here does. In both languages, there is ad sensum going on here.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by John Milton View Post
            My point is that the LXX is following the rules of Greek grammar— reference to antecedent by means of natural instead of grammatical gender, exactly as also the Hebrew here does. In both languages, there is ad sensum going on here.
            So are you saying that the normative Hebrew would be:

            And the LORD said unto her, Wherewith? And she said, I will go forth...
            Try to answer the question.

            We can focus on that before getting back to rules, exceptions and translational Greek.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
              So are you saying that the normative Hebrew would be:



              Try to answer the question.

              We can focus on that before getting back to rules, exceptions and translational Greek.
              If ad sensum is normal in Hebrew in such situations, then you could say this is normative. But I have not done an analysis. Point is there is definitely ad sensum here in the original Hebrew.

              Would you address Mark 9:20 by identifying the relevant noun and modifier and then explaining why there is no ad sensum here ?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by John Milton View Post
                But I have not done an analysi
                That is pretty obvious.

                Comment


                • #38
                  There is an indisputable example of constructio ad sensum at Mark 9:20 where a Spirit is referred to with a masculine modifier by ad sensum.

                  So this grammatical truth is pretty well attested for in Koine . There are more examples also in patristic literature.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by John Milton View Post
                    There is an indisputable example of constructio ad sensum at Mark 9:20 where a Spirit is referred to with a masculine modifier by ad sensum.
                    Nope. You seem to be quoting your own mental findings.

                    And I showed you that Buttmann specifically contests your claim here, saying that the spirit is not the one that saw Jesus.

                    Mark 9:17 (AV)
                    And one of the multitude answered and said, Master,
                    I have brought unto thee my son, which hath a dumb spirit;

                    Mark 9:20 (AV)
                    And they brought him unto him:
                    and when he saw him,
                    straightway the spirit tare him;
                    and he fell on the ground,


                    Westcott and Hort (the CT has its own variant here, see John Hurt)
                    καὶ ἤνεγκαν αὐτὸν πρὸς αὐτόν. καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτὸν τὸ πνεῦμα εὐθὺς συνεσπάραξεν αὐτόν, καὶ πεσὼν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐκυλίετο ἀφρίζων.

                    Byzantine
                    Καὶ ἤνεγκαν αὐτὸν πρὸς αὐτόν· καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτόν, εὐθέως τὸ πνεῦμα ἐσπάραξεν αὐτόν· καὶ πεσὼν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἐκυλίετο ἀφρίζων.

                    Alexander Buttmann says it was the boy (who received deliverance by the Lord Jesus) who saw Jesus, not the spirit, which makes perfect sense.

                    Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                    Here it looks like Alexander Buttmann is countering the idea of any constructio ad sensum, simply based on proper grammar parsing.

                    A Grammar of the New Testament Greek (1891)
                    By Alexander Buttmann
                    https://books.google.com/books?id=oA9CAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA130
                    p. 129-130
                    CONSTBUCTIO AD SYNESIN IN THE PREDICATE.
                    ... b) The predicate follows the natural gender of the subject. Of this the examples are most numerous in the Apocalypse, in accordance with the style of the author (see § 123, 7 p. 80). ... fj-ivuL. (But ... in Mark ix. 20 ἰδὼν does not refer to τὸ πνεῦμα see § 144, 18 c) p. 299.)
                    You ignored the reference and gave us your mental finding instead.

                    (My conjecture is that you sensed how weak is your claim, which is why you have danced around presenting specifics in this thread, and instead repeatedly and a bit boorishly asked for mind-reading of what you are thinking.)

                    Steven
                    Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-08-19, 02:51 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                      Nope. You seem to be quoting your own mental findings.

                      And I showed you that Buttmann specifically contests your claim here, saying that the spirit is not the one that saw Jesus.

                      Mark 9:17 (AV)
                      And one of the multitude answered and said, Master,
                      I have brought unto thee my son, which hath a dumb spirit;

                      Mark 9:20 (AV)
                      And they brought him unto him:
                      and when he saw him,
                      straightway the spirit tare him;
                      and he fell on the ground,


                      Westcott and Hort (the CT has its own variant here, see John Hurt)
                      καὶ ἤνεγκαν αὐτὸν πρὸς αὐτόν. καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτὸν τὸ πνεῦμα εὐθὺς συνεσπάραξεν αὐτόν, καὶ πεσὼν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐκυλίετο ἀφρίζων.

                      Byzantine
                      Καὶ ἤνεγκαν αὐτὸν πρὸς αὐτόν· καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτόν, εὐθέως τὸ πνεῦμα ἐσπάραξεν αὐτόν· καὶ πεσὼν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἐκυλίετο ἀφρίζων.

                      Alexander Buttmann says it was the boy (who received deliverance by the Lord Jesus) who saw Jesus, not the spirit, which makes perfect sense.





                      You ignored the reference and gave us your mental finding instead.

                      (My conjecture is that you sensed how weak is your claim, which is why you have danced around presenting specifics in this thread, and instead repeatedly and a bit boorishly asked for mind-reading of what you are thinking.)

                      Steven
                      What you quoted from “Bultnan” is not even relevant to the issue. It is very clear that the Spirit is being referred to by a masculine word. But you have no idea what this word even is. So you have no idea what is going on here. You are pretending to say something but in truth it is nothing at all.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by John Milton View Post
                        What you quoted from “Bultnan” is not even relevant to the issue. It is very clear that the Spirit is being referred to by a masculine word. But you have no idea what this word even is. So you have no idea what is going on here. You are pretending to say something but in truth it is nothing at all.
                        You are funny, and your mind-reading is a joke.

                        You have even posted your theory here on another CARM thread, and it is exactly what Alexander Buttmann refutes. .

                        The fact that you do not want to say anything clear on this thread, while making an "indisputable" claim is up to the level of hilarious. We can call it:

                        "Milton's Trolling Claim About Nothing."

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          No “minding reading.” The fact that you are unable / unwilling to identify the word which is referring by ad sensum to the noun in question in Mark 9:20 is the proof.

                          Comment


                          • #43

                            "Milton's Trolling Claim About Nothing."

                            Originally posted by John Milton View Post
                            No “minding reading.” The fact that you are unable / unwilling to identify the word which is referring by ad sensum to the noun in question in Mark 9:20 is the proof.
                            Proof of what? That you simply play games.
                            Rather than support your own position, you go around the mind-reading merry-go-round.

                            You placed your theory here, involving the word ἰδὼν being masculine.

                            Originally posted by John Milton View Post
                            Constructio ad sensum is unremarkable in the GNT ....
                            Now contrast this with the fact that the grammatical gender of evil spirits is sometimes jettisoned for their natural gender in the GNT.

                            Mark 9:20 --
                            καὶ ἤνεγκαν αὐτὸν πρὸς αὐτόν. καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτὸν τὸ πνεῦμα εὐθὺς συνεσπάραξεν αὐτόν, καὶ πεσὼν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐκυλίετο ἀφρίζων.
                            You claim that the spirit saw Jesus is some sort of "indisputable example."

                            Mark 9:20
                            And they brought him unto him:
                            and when he saw him,
                            straightway the spirit tare him;
                            and he fell on the ground,
                            and wallowed foaming.


                            Alexander Buttmann says you are wrong.

                            CONSTBUCTIO AD SYNESIN IN THE PREDICATE.
                            ... b) The predicate follows the natural gender of the subject. Of this the examples are most numerous in the Apocalypse, in accordance with the style of the author (see § 123, 7 p. 80). ... fj-ivuL. (But ... in Mark ix. 20 ἰδὼν does not refer to τὸ πνεῦμα see § 144, 18 c) p. 299.)
                            Then we get your pretend response.

                            Originally posted by John Milton View Post
                            What you quoted from “Bultnan” is not even relevant to the issue. It is very clear that the Spirit is being referred to by a masculine word.
                            It is funny, you are more interested in posturing than making a consistent or cogent argument. Rather than present a position, your goal is to posture and insult and waste everyone's time. And you play this game all the time.

                            And all this nonsense simlpy because you make a blunder claim.of an "indisputable example."

                            Originally posted by John Milton View Post
                            There is an indisputable example of constructio ad sensum at Mark 9:20 where a Spirit is referred to with a masculine modifier by ad sensum.
                            Steven Avery
                            Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-08-19, 07:56 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Mark ix. 20 ἰδὼν does not refer to τὸ πνεῦμα

                              That’s better. Why does it not , in your own words.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Ironically, you played the same type of "you tell me" game on this verse with S. Walch.

                                Originally posted by John Milton- Feb, 2017 View Post
                                Mark 9:20
                                Point out the "subject" of the participle ἰδὼν ?-- .
                                This thread will be bookmarked because you made multiple false claims, you spoke falsely about Buttmann, and instead of saying anything clear, simply played your 20 questions game.

                                See how in your post right above, rather than acknowledge your errors, you simply continue the 20 questions game. As I predicted would happen.. (Asking me something that is already answered in the thread.) You simply waste time, while not correcting your own errors.

                                Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                                Alexander Buttmann says it was the boy (who received deliverance by the Lord Jesus) who saw Jesus, not the spirit, which makes perfect sense.
                                Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-08-19, 08:12 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X