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

Mark 9:20, test of your ability to read and understand biblical Koine

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

  • Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
    No, you referred to unknown grammarians of the 1800s.

    Do you have any names yet?
    It is pretty telling that the only response that you made to anything that I wrote was an attempt to attribute your error to me. And, as usual, you are very much mistaken. I referred to your statement, "In the 1800s there was a pretty solid consensus for the subject being the boy." I assumed you knew what you were talking about, and I noted that your statement implied that there were other grammarians who disagreed with the consensus that you said existed. You then replied that you didn't know of any grammarians from the 1800's that thought that Mark 9:20 was ad sensum. I then asked you why you seemingly ignored other 1800's grammarians in favor of those four. The question you are asking me is yours to answer. Have you looked at all of what the 19th century grammarians have said? If not, how do you know that there is a "pretty solid consensus?" Why is James Macknight's agreement that ad sensum is a valid explanation not enough for you? You cited him as a reliable source and he died in 1800!

    Edit: This was a response to your original post. You have since added more.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
      Here is the title of the Naselli and Gons paper. That is one spot where all your posturing about John 16:13 is answered.

      You say no, I say you are wrong, and that is where the issue stands.

      You do not have to "waste your time". Since you already "know that the authors are wrong." It is your choice if you want to be willfully ignorant.
      If you thought this paper is relevant you were once again mistaken. I haven't been arguing with you that the personality of the spirit is proven by masculine pronouns. I have said that the spirit is referred to by masculine pronouns. The passages I have given make it clear that the Comforter is the Holy Spirit. Any pronouns that are used to describe the Comforter are by necessity referring to the Holy Spirit as well. Besides that you still have the nasty inconsistency in the AV where it clearly calls the Holy Spirit "He." John 16:13 "Howbeit, when hee the spirit of trueth is come, he wil guide you into all trueth: For he shall not speake of himselfe: but whatsoeuer he shall heare, that shall he speake, and he will shew you things to come." You still haven't answered the other question that I asked. Do you have more faith in the 1800's grammarians than you have in the "infallible" 1611 AV?


      Another distortion. I never spoke of "all the grammarians of the 1800s". Please, learn to read. And stop distorting.
      It can't be a distortion, because I never said that you referred to "all of the grammarians of the 1800s." You should follow your own advice.

      Yes, that might be smart on your end.
      Ha ha ha. Yeah, the guy clubbing your arguments like a baby seal should be terrified of your nonexistent physical or intellectual "might."

      Comment


      • A modern handbook by Bratcher and Nida points out that:

        Johann Albrecht Bengel, (1687-1752)
        Marie-Joseph Lagrange, (1855-1938)
        Helen Barrett Montgomery (1869-1948)
        Version Synodale (7th edition entierement revisee). Paris, 1952.
        Brazilian: O Novo Testamento de Nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo. Revisdo Autorizada. Rio de Janeiro, 1955.

        All favor the boy seeing Jesus.

        And why do the moderns favor the constructio ad sensum idea?

        Simply because of the Mark 9:26 textual corruption.
        Error begets error.

        A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of Mark (1961)
        By Robert G. Bratcher, Eugene Albert Nida
        https://books.google.com/books?id=ZcUUAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA285

        And this is how Barry Hofstetter was duped.

        Textual corruption creates translation and interpretation errors, and faux Greek grammar.

        Even if you support the modern Critical Text, you should be able to understand how the new text, with the loosey-goosey readings, has changed the Greek grammar perspective.
        Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-15-19, 11:19 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
          Any pronouns that are used to describe the Comforter are by necessity referring to the Holy Spirit as well.
          You are confusing grammar with translation issues, and the question of the equivalence of the Comforter and the Holy Spirit.

          You go around in circles and say nothing.

          By your non-logic, the Comforter is an "it", neuter, rather than masculine, because that is how the Spirit is referenced.

          Again, you say nothing, and you do it repetitively and with lots of faux accusation.

          Oh, yes, I remember that you also failed on the English understanding of the auxiliary phrase, which led to a lot of this nothing.
          Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-15-19, 11:19 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
            I I then asked you why you seemingly ignored other 1800's grammarians in favor of those four..
            Those were the four noted in the literature, that I have uncovered to date, who specifically reference Mark 9:20 with relevance to the discussion.. Plus they are all well-known and respected.

            All your "seemingly"s and similar stuff are simply junk.

            Note also the Bratcher-Nida book, showing that the solid idea went well into the 1900s. As for your twist and turns on Buttmann and McKnight, you just learn how to waste time.

            Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
            Ha ha ha. Yeah, the guy clubbing your arguments like a baby seal should be terrified of your nonexistent physical or intellectual "might."
            A perfect example of your tude and total cluelessness.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by John Milton View Post
              These Trinitarian “scholars” are not very good at Koine grammar if they think the above verses show the personality of Holy Spirit via ad sensum.
              The paper has been referenced in four threads so far, before this one.

              The Double Standards and Self-Contradictions of Dr. Wallace
              Trinitarian "grammarians" with poor Greek
              Lacking in basic knowledge of Koine grammar
              Bad Grammar by Trinitarian academics

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                You are confusing grammar with translation issues, and the question of the equivalence of the Comforter and the Holy Spirit.
                No.

                You go around in circles and say nothing.
                I understand why it seems that way to you. You are having a conversation with someone that you aren't capable of understanding and interacting with. That's why you have to try to find a source that deals with the content I am talking about. When you can't find a source that talks about that issue, you resort to ad hominem.

                By your non-logic, the Comforter is an "it", neuter, rather than masculine, because that is how the Spirit is referenced.
                You must've missed the part where I explicitly stated what should have been clear to you all along. To make it as clear as possible: I have not been discussing the gender or personality of the spirit or the comforter.

                Again, you say nothing, and you do it repetitively and with lots of faux accusation. Oh, yes, I remember that you also failed on the English understanding of the auxiliary phrase, which led to a lot of this nothing.
                More of your projection. I'll stop kicking you while you're down now. I'm beginning to feel sorry for you.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                  It really is strange watching Barry make up his own theories, like gender-flux, or leakage, or bending, simply because he has built his understanding of Greek from the corruptions in the Critical Text.

                  Rather than address the root of his problem, he creates a new rather incoherent theory, and rather than try to come up with a cohesive understanding, he tries to attack the messenger.

                  We see him struggling with these difficulties with various corruptions in his text, like 1 Timothy 3:16 and having only the solecism of the earthly witnesses. In 1 Timothy 3:16 he creates a theory of a metaphoric construction ad sensum. You can get any corruption you want, at the Hofstetter restaurant.

                  Barry's problem is the contradiction that as a pseudo-evanglelical, he sort of believes some Bible is the word of God, inerrant. And yet the Version he upholds is often wildly corrupt, textually and grammatically. This scholastic discordance leads to creative fabrications like gender leakage. and the metaphoric nonsense.

                  Then he gets upset that I point out his struggles. Mark 9:20 gave us a new insight into his difficulties, when he totally missed the view of 4 grammarians.
                  Actually, I built my understanding of Greek from reading lots of different Greek authors, not just the NT. You have no understanding of Greek at all. All you can do is cite various resources and filter them according to your cultic KJV obsession. It's okay -- a lot of people have your number, and they are not going to let you get away with it. Now, I think I'll get back to reading some more of the Iliad.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Barry Hofstetter View Post

                    Actually, I built my understanding of Greek from reading lots of different Greek authors, not just the NT. You have no understanding of Greek at all. All you can do is cite various resources and filter them according to your cultic KJV obsession. It's okay -- a lot of people have your number, and they are not going to let you get away with it. Now, I think I'll get back to reading some more of the Iliad.
                    Your NT Greek is defective (1) because you do not believe in the God of the NT which leads you to eisegesis certain texts (2) you are unable to distinguish Attic and Koine in even the simplest of Greek “compositions” ( seven or eight word sentences).

                    Keep reading the Iliad and leave the GNT to me.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Barry Hofstetter View Post
                      Actually, I built my understanding of Greek from reading lots of different Greek authors, not just the NT. .
                      However, you rarely give any Classical Greek references for you wild NT theories, like your gender bending, or the idea of a constructio ad sensum metaphor in 1 Timothy 3:16. When specifically asked, you try your fav ad hominem route.

                      When you spoke up here, on Mark 9:20, you made the major blunder of calling it a classical constructio ad sensum.

                      And a native Greek, who really knows the language, took apart major parts of your heavenly witnesses presentation. Often there is agreement with folks who are far from AV supporters. Truth is the issue, and you are upset that the AV is such an incredible pure Bible. (And you do not have any pure Bible you defend.)

                      Originally posted by Barry Hofstetter View Post
                      ... It's okay -- a lot of people have your number, ..
                      And folks are beginning to understand how the Critical Text obsession has crippled modern Greek NT studies. (As well as earlier stuff like the Granville Sharp Rule for Fools.)

                      The NT Critical Text studies, with hundreds (likely thousands) of ultra-minority corruption readings, and the attendant grammar errors, are a total disaster.
                      Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-16-19, 12:44 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
                        You must've missed the part where I explicitly stated what should have been clear to you all along. To make it as clear as possible: I have not been discussing the gender or personality of the spirit or the comforter..
                        And I remember your efforts to make a point on one verse, it was interesting but your assumptions were mistaken. And my response was quite clear, and it seemed to upset you that the AV text is solid, as is the TR text, and your assumptions of what pronoun was translated where were simply wrong.

                        Beyond that, you have given nothing that I remember, except more arrogance like your last sentence.

                        Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
                        I'll stop kicking you while you're down now. I'm beginning to feel sorry for you.
                        Your argumentation has been a total disaster in this thread. So I understand your need to try to puff yourself up, but it really does make you look very small.

                        And it reaffirms what a waste of time and energy are your posts.

                        Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
                        I don't waste my time interacting with papers when I know that the authors are wrong. .
                        Are you ever going to tell us where Naselli and Gons are wrong?
                        Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-16-19, 12:48 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                          And folks are beginning to understand how the Critical Text obsession has crippled modern Greek NT studies. (As well as earlier stuff like the Granville Sharp Rule for Fools.)
                          Says the UFO enthusiast: "Folks are beginning to understand that we are not alone in the universe."

                          Yes, we know that ignorant masses of people can be persuaded easily by the claims of conspiracy theorists. It doesn't matter how many people start to believe that the KJV is a magic book. Far more people walk away from fundamentalist religions daily than join them. That's not worrying.

                          As it is, though, no one in academy—no one with the relevant knowledge—is changing sides and suddenly declaring Textual Criticism to be Satanic. You feel like you're winning the debate, but (I'm sorry to tell you) you're really not.
                          I have permission to post on the Biblical Languages forum, as per email correspondence with Diane S.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Jameson View Post
                            It doesn't matter how many people start to believe that the KJV is a magic book.
                            Not magic. Simply the pure word of God.

                            Originally posted by Jameson View Post
                            As it is, though, no one in academy—no one with the relevant knowledge—is changing sides and suddenly declaring Textual Criticism to be Satanic. You feel like you're winning the debate, but (I'm sorry to tell you) you're really not.
                            All a straw man approach. The Academy is largely irrelevant to the Bible believer. So many absurd presuppositions, like late dating of the NT documents.

                            And some do learn a lot, precept upon precept, line upon line. Eta Linnemann (1926-2009) is a good example of a person who had been duped by Criticism theories switching towards Bible belief.

                            Myriad thousands of Bible believers pass up the Academy simply because of its irrelevance. Groups like SBL have become politically correct, thought police, perversion pushers, and have virtually nothing to do with Christianity. Bible believers should have nothing to do with such unrighteousness.

                            The issue is truth.
                            Sinners are called to repentance, it is wonderful when they respond to the Lord Jesus. This is far more important than any Academy pseudo-consensus.
                            Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-16-19, 01:03 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                              Are you ever going to tell us where Naselli and Gons are wrong?
                              You do have trouble following what I say, so I will say this before I go back to ignoring you. My initial comment was that if the paper said what you alleged then the authors were wrong. After looking at the paper it was clear that you misunderstood and misrepresented it. The authors weren't arguing that the term spirit was never used with the masculine. They were arguing, "the fallacious argument is that the masculine demonstrative pronoun ἐκεῖνος in John 14:26, 15:26, and 16:13–-14 proves [that the Holy Spirit is a person]." Your perversion of the content of the paper led to the confusion.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
                                it was clear that you misunderstood and misrepresented it. The authors weren't arguing that the term spirit was never used with the masculine. They were arguing, "the fallacious argument is that the masculine demonstrative pronoun ἐκεῖνος in John 14:26, 15:26, and 16:13–-14 proves [that the Holy Spirit is a person]." .
                                Do they say that the grammatical referent of the masculine pronoun is the spirit?

                                You were quite selective in your quoting..
                                Typical.

                                The consistent testimony of Scripture is that the Holy Spirit is a person, but John’s use of ἐκεῖνος in John 14:26, 15:26 and 16:13-14 has absolutely no bearing on the subject. A careful analysis of the texts in their contexts with sound principles of grammatical gender firmly in place demonstrates unequivocally that the antecedent of ἐκεῖνος is the masculine παράκλητος. The gender of the nouns and pronouns in these chapters neither supports nor challenges the doctrine of the Spirit’s personality. It is time to put this erroneous argument to rest once and for all.

                                Did John Use Bad Grammar to Teach the Holy Spirit’s Personality?
                                Phil Gons
                                http://philgons.com/2015/01/did-john...s-personality/
                                So all this is your latest boomerang attack:

                                "misunderstood and misrepresented .. perversion"
                                Clearly, you never read the article, or even the blog summary. You simply looked for a snippet to misrepresent. Your skill on this thread..

                                Are you going to write a note to Naselli and Gons that since the Comforter takes masculine grammar, the thesis of their paper is wrong?

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

                                Incidentally, John Milton could learn a bit here. Just like a masculine with the Spirit in those verses would be "Bad Grammar", so would be a masculine in Mark 9:20, if the referent was the devil spirit. Both John Milton and Barry Hofstetter could learn, if they could learn.
                                Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-16-19, 04:47 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X