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

  • #46
    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.
    Your key blunder is claiming an "indisputable example", where you have multiple grammarians who simply have an alternative parsing that does not involve constructio ad sensum. And I tend to doubt that you will ever acknowledge that error, so I point it out again here.

    Then, I did laugh as you play your "20 questions" game, misrepresent Buttmann, do your silly mind-reading, and never say anything clear.

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

    However, in terms of actual substance, the key point is that the claims that Mark 9:20 or Mark 9:26 involve a masculine constructio ad sensum are quite dubious. And the verses are used wrongly by John Milton as the base of a reverse argument mind-reading the Gospel writers.

    The irony is that the basic argument (there is no evidence of the NT authors writing grammatically of the spirit as a person) remains sound. In the Reformation Bible text. (With the Critical Text, that argument that the Spirit is a person is often made with 1 John 5:8.)

    You simply wanted to stretch the argument (look, they declare the pneuma a person here or there) which is both unnecessary and based on weak examples, which are far from your "indisputable". (Granted, you picked up that "indisputable" error from Wallace on Mark 9:26, who was de facto claiming an ultra-minority corruption an "indisputable", a key logical absurdity even if a person considers the ultra-minority variant as more likely.)

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

    We were benefited by the Textkit discussion that was initiated by S. Walch. They mentioned Winer and Blass ,

    as Winer (WM., p. 710) and Blass (Gr. p. 283),,
    (the reference is from Swete, who supported the CAS idea, and "not an ancoluthon".)

    as contra the contructio ad sensum idea of the pneuma being used with masculine grammar.. To that we can add Alexander Buttmann, p.130 and p.384, and Moses Stuart.

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

    Steven
    Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-08-19, 10:30 AM.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
      Ironically, you played the same type of "you tell me" game on this verse with S. Walch.



      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.
      The Greek doesn’t allow for that. Bultman’s Greek is weak:’

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

      The referent of the participle ἰδὼν is always found in the same sentence in the GNT.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by John Milton View Post
        The Greek doesn’t allow for that. Bultman’s Greek is weak:’.
        You are welcome to dispute the Greek of Winer, Stuart, Buttmann and Blass.

        I'll mark it up as a disputable point, one that was discussed on Textkit.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by John Milton View Post
          The referent of the participle ἰδὼν is always found in the same sentence in the GNT.
          Do you have a reference for this assertion?

          And, either way, you look to be allowing it to be a writing phenomenon in classical Greek, or writings like the early church fathers.or the GOT (LXX).

          And that would immediately falsify your claim.

          Originally posted by John Milton View Post
          The Greek doesn’t allow for that.
          Logic 101.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
            Do you have a reference for this assertion?

            And, either way, you look to be allowing it to be a writing phenomenon in classical Greek, or writings like the early church fathers.or the GOT (LXX).

            And that would immediately falsify your claim.



            Logic 101.
            The GNT.

            More specifically when the participle ἰδὼν occurs immediately before or after a substantive of the same number and case ἰδὼν is invariably modifying that substantive I've looked at every example of this in the GNT, no exceptions:

            Τότε Ἡρῴδης ἰδὼν (Matthew 2:16)

            Ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς (Matthew 8:18)

            ἰδὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς (Matthew 9:2)

            ἰδὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς (Matthew 9:4)

            ἰδὼν Ἰούδας (Matthew 27:3)

            ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ Πιλᾶτος (27:24)

            ἰδὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς (Mark 2:5)

            Ἰάϊρος καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτὸν (Mark 5:22)

            καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτὸν τὸ πνεῦμα (Mark 9:20)

            ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς (Mark 9:25)

            ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς (Mark 10:14)

            ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ἰδὼν αὐτὸν (Mark 12:34)

            Ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ κεντυρίων (Mark 15:39)

            Ζαχαρίας ἰδών (Luke 1:12)

            ἰδὼν δὲ Σίμων Πέτρος (Luke 5:8)

            ὁ δὲ Φαρισαῖος ἰδὼν (Luke 11:38)

            ἰδὼν δὲ αὐτὴν ὁ Ἰησοῦς (Luke 13:12)

            ἰδὼν δὲ αὐτὸν ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν (Luke 18:24)

            ὁ δὲ Ἡρῴδης ἰδὼν τὸν Ἰησοῦν (Luke 23:8)

            ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ ἑκατοντάρχης (Luke 23:47)

            τοῦτον ἰδὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς κατακείμενον (John 5:6)

            Ἰησοῦς οὖν ἰδὼν τὴν μητέρα (John 19:26)

            τοῦτον οὖν ἰδὼν ὁ Πέτρος λέγει τῷ Ἰησοῦ (John 21:21)

            ὃς ἰδὼν Πέτρον καὶ Ἰωάνην (Acts 3:3)

            ὁ δὲ Μωϋσῆς ἰδὼν ἐθαύμαζεν τὸ ὅραμα (Acts 7:31)

            ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ Σίμων ὅτι (Acts 8:18)

            τότε ἰδὼν ὁ ἀνθύπατος (Acts 13:12)

            οὓς ἰδὼν ὁ Παῦλος (Acts 28:15)

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by John Milton View Post
              The GNT.. More specifically when the participle ἰδὼν occurs immediately before or after a substantive of the same number and case ἰδὼν is invariably modifying that substantive I've looked at every example of this in the GNT, no exceptions:
              Oh, this was only a very parsed and limited analysis, it was not some sort of NT rule.

              Worthless.

              This would be like a pro forma rejection of a specific type of specified contstructio ad sensum simply on the grounds that the specific set of circumstances only occurs once in the NT.

              Worthless is as worthless does.

              Anyway, now we know from what perch you declare yourself a great grammarian.

              Steven

              Comment


              • #52
                You do not seem to have understood the grammar involved here. Look at any example from above . Take for instance the following: ἰδὼν δὲ αὐτὴν ὁ Ἰησοῦς (Luke 13:12)

                ἰδὼν is modifying which noun ?

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by John Milton View Post
                  You do not seem to have understood the grammar involved here.
                  And I was just trying to understand what you were declaring impossible, supposedly correcting the group of grammarians who you say were all weak in Greek.

                  The better approach is that the integrity of simple grammatical gender is maintained, even if from an earlier sentence, quite analogous to the situations with a remote antecedent. This is more sensible than making a foul spirit into a person, against various verses and normative grammar.

                  The natural understanding is the boy speaking, and then the foul spirit begins to tare him.

                  Mark 9:17-20
                  And one of the multitude answered and said, Master, I have brought unto thee my son, which hath a dumb spirit; And wheresoever he taketh him, he teareth him: and he foameth, and gnasheth with his teeth, and pineth away: and I spake to thy disciples that they should cast him out; and they could not. He answereth him, and saith, O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him unto me. 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.


                  While I believe this is crystal clear, I can allow that either position may be disputable.
                  Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-08-19, 09:14 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                    And I was just trying to understand what you were declaring impossible, supposedly correcting the group of grammarians who you say were all weak in Greek.

                    The better approach is that the integrity of simple grammatical gender is maintained, even if from an earlier sentence, quite analogous to the situations with a remote antecedent. This is more sensible than making a foul spirit into a person, against various verses and normative grammar.

                    The natural understanding is the boy speaking, and then the foul spirit begins to tare him.

                    Mark 9:17-20
                    And one of the multitude answered and said, Master, I have brought unto thee my son, which hath a dumb spirit; And wheresoever he taketh him, he teareth him: and he foameth, and gnasheth with his teeth, and pineth away: and I spake to thy disciples that they should cast him out; and they could not. He answereth him, and saith, O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him unto me. 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.


                    While I believe this is crystal clear, I can allow that either position may be disputable.
                    What word is ἰδὼν modifying in below ? —

                    ἰδὼν δὲ αὐτὴν ὁ Ἰησοῦς (Luke 13:12)

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by John Milton View Post
                      What you quoted from “Bultnan” is not even relevant to the issue.
                      I'm waiting for your correction of this false statement.

                      (The name is Alexander Buttmann,)

                      Your games iof 20 questions are even more worthless if you make up dishonest claims.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                        I'm waiting for your correction of this false statement.

                        (The name is Alexander Buttmann,)

                        Your games iof 20 questions are even more worthless if you make up dishonest claims.
                        Ok the name is “Alexander Buttmann.” Answer the question.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by John Milton View Post
                          Ok the name is “Alexander Buttmann.” .
                          Why did you falsely pretend he was not relevant to the grammatical issue?

                          Where is your correction?

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Answer the question about the grammar. Not interested in bickering.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by John Milton View Post
                              Answer the question about the grammar. Not interested in bickering.
                              Your deliberate blunder, a deception claiming that the Alexander Buttmann section was not relevant, came first.

                              If you do not want to make the correction, that simply shows that you cannot take responsibility for your words, and thus discussion is a waste of time.

                              (Which has been shown before, but this was a new day, when you declared that Mark 9:20 was an "indisputable" construcio ad sensum .) When multiple grammarians take the other side, you simply claim that they are weak on Greek.

                              After that, you try more rabbit trails, as is your style. Ho-hum. (John 1:10 Milton.)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X