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



  • Atheists and Trinitarians seem to derive their worth by invoking the testimony of other people, that is of numbers , most of whom they have not even met. But this is what happens when we deny the existence of the Only One who matters..

    I have an audience of only ONE in everything that I do and write. Trinitarians have at least THREE.

    Comment


    • I was just reading chapter 13 of John, and came across this. No way Jesus considered himself to be God:

      Ὅτε οὖν ἐξῆλθεν, λέγει Ἰησοῦς Νῦν ἐδοξάσθη ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, καὶ ὁ Θεὸς ἐδοξάσθη ἐν αὐτῷ

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Barry Hofstetter View Post
        One of my favorite late 19th-early 20th century NT scholars, Henry Barclay Swete ... has this to say:
        https://archive.org/details/thegospe...tuoft/page/198
        However, you did not give the whole section in your post.:

        Ἰδὼν αὐτὸν τὸ πνεῦμα—not, as Winer (WM., p. 710) and Blass (Gr. p. 283), an anacoluthon (ἰδὼν αὐτὸν [ὁ παῖς], τὸ πν. κτλ., cf. Syr.sin.), but a constructio ad sensum—the gender of the noun is overlooked in view of the personal action of the spirit; cf. Jo. 16:13 f. ἐκεῖνος τὸ πνεῦμα ... ἐκεῖνος, where if the masc. pronoun is suggested by ὁ παράκλητος (v. 7), its repetition would be impossible but for the personal life implied in τὸ πνεῦμα.
        Notice that Henry Barclay Swete (1835-1917) makes an analogy error with John 16:13 to support his constructio ad sensum claim in Mark 9:20. An indication of the weakness of the position. (The other common analogy is the ultra-minority corruption variant in Mark 9:26.)

        And Swete is properly included in the Naselli and Gons paper as one of the grammatical stumblers on this πνεῦμα with a masculine pronoun question.

        Originally posted by Barry Hofstetter View Post
        I will also note that nobody mentions anything about any "natural" gender of spirit-beings.
        One nobody who does exactly that is A. T. Robertson:

        A grammar of the Greek New Testament in the light of historical research (1919)
        Archibald.Thomas Robertson (1863–-1934)
        https://books.google.com/books?id=sRojAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA436

        surely this is merely treating πνεῦμα.as masculine (natural gender).
        Robertson also makes the πνεῦμα.with a masculine pronoun error in his discussion on p. 708-709 in discussing Gender and Number, as pointed out in the Naselli and Gons paper, and the Robertson section online in the book is at https://books.google.com/books?id=sRojAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA708 .
        Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-19-19, 03:47 AM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
          However, you did not give the whole section in your post.:



          Notice that Henry Barclay Swete (1835-1917) makes an analogy error with John 16:13 to support his constructio ad sensum claim in Mark 9:20. An indication of the weakness of the position. (The other common analogy is the ultra-minority corruption variant in Mark 9:26.)
          You don't even know the Greek alphabet, so you have no grounds to declare something is a mistake or to evaluate the statements or criticisms of those who have actually studied the language. The relationship of the pronouns to the main referent in John 16 is more subtle interplay than either "side" properly explores. However, I have no intention of discussing that with you, since it is as far above your head as the clouds are above the ground (and you are on the ground).

          And Swete is properly included in the Naselli and Gons paper as one of the grammatical stumblers on this πνεῦμα with a masculine pronoun question.
          It fascinates me as always that you think the KJV translators were better scholars than anyone before or after, and yet you still are willing to quote any scholar you think supports your agenda. How do you know that the scholars taking the opposing view are not the ones who are right?

          One nobody who does exactly that is A. T. Robertson:

          A grammar of the Greek New Testament in the light of historical research (1919)
          Archibald.Thomas Robertson (1863-1934)
          https://books.google.com/books?id=sRojAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA436



          Robertson also makes the πνεῦμα.with a masculine pronoun error in his discussion on p. 708-709 in discussing Gender and Number, as pointed out in the Naselli and Gons paper, and the Robertson section online in the book is at https://books.google.com/books?id=sRojAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA708 .
          EDITED
          Last edited by Mod10; 02-19-19, 10:38 AM. Reason: Flag, edited

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Barry Hofstetter View Post
            The relationship of the pronouns to the main referent in John 16 is more subtle interplay than either "side" properly explores. However, I have no intention of discussing
            The Naselli and Gons paper is superb and clear, and generally easy to understand. And there has been no significant scholarly push back.

            If you think they are wrong, why not write your own paper?

            And if you agree with them, why all the posturing?
            Why pretend there is a real counter-argument?

            Originally posted by Barry Hofstetter View Post
            How do you know that the scholars taking the opposing view are not the ones who are right?.
            Name any scholars that have said that Naselli and Gons (and also Daniel Wallace, on this issue) are basically wrong in their contention. And if you find one, tell us if you agree.

            The paper has been out many years, the internet makes it easy for other scholars to interact.

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

            Or do you give us yet another vague straddle, sans specifics.
            Maybe you want to bring in gender bending? (leakage). Make it up as you go along.

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

            And why should I waste time on your silly repeated genetic fallacy?
            Please, grow up, and try to discuss the issues.
            Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-19-19, 08:54 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Barry Hofstetter View Post
              It fascinates me as always that you think the KJV translators were better scholars than anyone before or after,
              Yes, they lived in a special age, with incredible skills and were part of the providential calling of the Reformation Bible.

              On this pneuma issue, it is funny that the AV has been severely criticized for verses like:

              Romans 8:16
              The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit,
              that we are the children of God:


              Doug Kutilek called these verses "The Greatest Defect in the King James Version" and the AV translators were accused of Socinian doctrine, Kutilek actually justified his accusation because of the same old error in the Johannine verses (as also made by Henry Barclay Swete, Archibald Thomas Robertson, Donald Carson and many others.)

              "The Spirit Itself" or, The Greatest Defect in the King James Version, "As I See It," vol. 2, no. 9, September, 1999, by Doug Kutilek

              By way of comparison, John--a native speaker of Aramaic (a sister language to Hebrew in which the word for "spirit" is also feminine)--occasionally uses the masculine demonstrative pronoun EKEINOS when referring to the Holy Spirit (John 14:25; 15:26; 16:8); once he uses the masculine pronoun AUTON (John16:7). Of course, in each case, John is quoting Jesus, who may have been speaking in Greek, or who may have spoken in Aramaic, which John, under the Holy Spirit's unerring guidance, translated into Greek. John uses masculine pronouns ad sensum, in "violation" of standard Greek practice, to refer to the Holy Spirit, a Divine Person. - As I See It, Doug Kutilek
              We can bypass his language diversions.

              In this Socinian accusation Kutilek was following George Campbell Morgan.(1863-1945).writing in:

              The Spirit of God, 1900,
              https://books.google.com/books?id=y549AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA27
              although Kutilek credited a later source, Emory Bancroft.

              More error begets error.
              Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-19-19, 09:38 PM.

              Comment


              • One point that Naselli and Gons makes that I would like to recommend to John Milton is noting the aspect of:

                subordinate clause
                parenthetical

                Understanding how those affect grammar could be of assistance in other discussions.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                  Yes, they lived in a special age, with incredible skills and were part of the providential calling of the Reformation Bible.
                  That is a theological presupposition on your part with no grounding in reality, and it certainly was not the position of the KJV translators themselves.

                  On this pneuma issue, it is funny that the AV has been severely criticized for verses like:

                  Romans 8:16
                  The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit,
                  that we are the children of God:


                  Doug Kutilek called these verses "The Greatest Defect in the King James Version" and the AV translators were accused of Socinian doctrine, Kutilek actually justified his accusation because of the same old error in the Johannine verses (as also made by Henry Barclay Swete, Archibald Thomas Robertson, Donald Carson and many others.)

                  We can bypass his language diversions.

                  In this Socinian accusation Kutilek was following George Campbell Morgan.(1863-1945).writing in:

                  The Spirit of God, 1900,
                  https://books.google.com/books?id=y549AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA27
                  although Kutilek credited a later source, Emory Bancroft.

                  More error begets error.
                  I doubt very seriously that the KJV translators, thoroughly confessional Trinitarians, intended anything like Socinianism in their rather over literal translation at this point.

                  Again, having never studied the language, you are in no position to judge those who have, whether or not you like or dislike their position.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Barry Hofstetter View Post
                    That is a theological presupposition on your part with no grounding in reality.
                    When you can get up and debate in Greek, then I might pay attention to your incessant whining about the AV.

                    Your main Bible "belief" seems to be that you do not like the Authorized Version.

                    Originally posted by Barry Hofstetter View Post
                    , and it certainly was not the position of the KJV translators themselves.
                    The learned men spoke of making:

                    one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against. That hath been our endeavor, that our mark. To that purpose, there were many chosen that were greater in other men's eyes than in their own, and that sought the truth rather than their own praise.
                    And they succeeded.

                    Originally posted by Barry Hofstetter View Post
                    ,I doubt very seriously that the KJV translators, thoroughly confessional Trinitarians, intended anything like Socinianism
                    We can basically agree up to here. I was showing you various stupidity from the AV attackers, including grammatical errors, especially the same error made by your hero Henry Barclay Swete.

                    Originally posted by Barry Hofstetter View Post
                    in their rather over literal translation at this point.
                    You are welcome to share with us your preferred translation, and the reasons.

                    And let us know if you translate with the presupposition that the Holy Spirit is one of three coequal, coeternal, consubstantial persons. That, of course, might encourage you to give a less literal text.

                    Originally posted by Barry Hofstetter View Post
                    Again, having never studied the language, you are in no position to judge those who have, whether or not you like or dislike their position.
                    There is really nothing complicated in these constructio ad sensum issues. A little careful historical and verse and section analysis goes a long way. Yet you seem to be continually stumbling, as in your recent confusions and errors on Mark 9:20, where I had to correct your statements again and again.

                    Similarly, Jameson and I understood the first chapter of John, where John Milton constantly stumbles, and I showed the basic truth of the matter with English grammar parsing, using the literal Authorized Version.

                    And, earlier, when I showed the Daniel Wallace error in his book on Acts 8:10, which had been missed for years, you said I had "nailed it".

                    And you are not so happy when I show how the corruption text has hurt your Greek grammar understanding, and leads to wild claims like your recent gender bending leakage stuff.

                    You would do better to really try to stay with the thread issues. The integrity way.
                    Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-20-19, 04:16 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                      When you can get up and debate in Greek, then I might pay attention to your incessant whining about the AV.

                      Your main Bible "belief" seems to be that you do not like the Authorized Version.

                      The learned men spoke of making:

                      And they succeeded.

                      We can basically agree up to here. I was showing you various stupidity from the AV attackers, including grammatical errors, especially the same error made by your hero Henry Barclay Swete.

                      You are welcome to share with us your preferred translation, and the reasons.

                      And let us know if you translate with the presupposition that the Holy Spirit is one of three coequal, coeternal, consubstantial persons. That, of course, might encourage you to give a less literal text.

                      There is really nothing complicated in these constructio ad sensum issues. A little careful historical and verse and section analysis goes a long way. Yet you seem to be continually stumbling, as in your recent confusions and errors on Mark 9:20, where I had to correct your statements again and again.

                      Similarly, Jameson and I understood the first chapter of John, where John Milton constantly stumbles, and I showed the basic truth of the matter with English grammar parsing, using the literal Authorized Version.

                      And, earlier, when I showed the Daniel Wallace error in his book on Acts 8:10, which had been missed for years, you said I had "nailed it".

                      And you are not so happy when I show how the corruption text has hurt your Greek grammar understanding, and leads to wild claims like your recent gender bending leakage stuff.

                      You would do better to really try to stay with the thread issues. The integrity way.
                      You deride modern scholars because they are allegedly inferior to the KJV translators, and you don't even know the alphabet. You know nothing but secondary interpretations from grammars and translations, presenting the appearance of knowledge while having none. The poorest first semester seminary student knows more than you. The only reason I mention the KJV is because that is your theological obsession, and all your playtime with Greek grammar (and that's all it can ever be) is about defending it.

                      Comment


                      • Barry, you are upset because I continually show your errors and false theories.

                        And you are always dancing around with silly theories like the gender bending, along with other vague nothings.

                        Why not deal with the substance of the threads? As an example:

                        Do you agree with Naselli and Gons that the masculine pronouns in the Johannine verses should not be used for any argument of personhood for the Holy Spirit
                        ?

                        Try to give some substance.

                        Originally posted by Barry Hofstetter View Post
                        The relationship of the pronouns to the main referent in John 16 is more subtle interplay than either "side" properly explores
                        Here, you hint that you think Naselli and Gons are wrong.

                        So give us some substance! Stop the shuffling and dancing.

                        If the pronoun is masculine because the referent is the paraclete, then you are again just giving us fuzz and buzz, fog and bog.

                        Thanks!
                        Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-20-19, 08:07 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                          Barry, you are upset because I continually show your errors and false theories.

                          And you are always dancing around with silly theories like the gender bending, along with other vague nothings.

                          Why not deal with the substance of the threads? As an example:

                          Do you agree with Naselli and Gons that the masculine pronouns in the Johannine verses should not be used for any argument of personhood for the Holy Spirit
                          ?

                          Try to give some substance.

                          Here, you hint that you think Naselli and Gons are wrong.

                          So give us some substance! Stop the shuffling and dancing.

                          If the pronoun is masculine because the referent is the paraclete, then you are again just giving us fuzz and buzz, fog and bog.

                          Thanks!
                          "Errors and false theories?" Very amusing. "Upset?" Hardly. I just like to point out Edit per mod.

                          Rule 12 personal attack. Infraction given.
                          Last edited by Mod20; 02-21-19, 01:48 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Barry Hofstetter View Post
                            .. I'm not going to be discussing Greek .
                            Once again, you make a feint and then cut and run.

                            Typical Barry Hofstetter.

                            Another bogus claim.

                            Originally posted by Barry Hofstetter View Post
                            . The relationship of the pronouns to the main referent in John 16 is more subtle interplay than either "side" properly explores.
                            Barry can not even say whether the masculine refers to the Comforter of verse 7 or to the subordinate, parenthetical phrase with the Holy Spirit (Spirit of truth.)

                            John 16:7
                            Nevertheless I tell you the truth;
                            It is expedient for you that I go away:
                            for if I go not away,
                            the Comforter will not come unto you;
                            but if I depart,
                            I will send him unto you.

                            John 16:13
                            Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come,
                            he will guide you into all truth:
                            for he shall not speak of himself;
                            but whatsoever he shall hear,
                            that shall he speak:
                            and he will shew you things to come.


                            Educated into ignorance.

                            This is not complicated. One or the other takes the masculine grammar.

                            Naselli and Gons showed that your favored Henry Barclay Swete got this wrong. So you are once again upset to be shown to be wrong. Plus the scholars like Swete build an edifice of errors around their errors here.

                            Constructio ad sensum became a loosey-goosey catch-all, even to your absurd claim of a metaphoric CAS in 1 Timothy 3:16.

                            Remember, I "nailed it" on Acts 8:10 as well .
                            Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-21-19, 02:10 AM.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X