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

Challenging Ridiculous Assumptions About the AV and the Holy Spirit

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

  • Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
    1) Robertson does not confirm what you say. I gave you one of those other places where Robertson quoted the phrase as τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιος but as usual you omitted that from my quote.
    You added a comment about other verses.

    " In other places he gives the proper phrase with the ὅ noticeably absent, "With πνεῦμα ἅγιον this is the usual order (as Mt. 3:11), but also τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα (Ac. 1:8) or τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον (Jo. 14:26)."
    https://books.google.com/books?id=sRojAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA418
    The ὅ is not "noticeably absent", it is a relative pronoun that only is used when there is a need for a pronoun with referent. Some verses will have it, others won't.

    However, see my post right above. I will agree that the placement of the relative pronoun makes it irrelevant in the Engilsh text translation. It probably was not switched in position in translation, it was simply ignored. The English text shows the syntax with its comma and added relative pronouns and their placement.
    Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-28-19, 09:50 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
      The Naselli and Gons paper agrees with me concerning how the text should be broken down and understood. "Τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον is appositional to ὁ παράκλητος, and the antecedent of ὅ is τὸ πνεῦμα. “The appositional clause here can therefore be regarded as parenthetical: ‘The Counselor (the Holy Spirit whom [ὅ] the Father will send in my name) will teach you all things....’”115 Taking the antecedent of ἐκεῖνος as ὁ παράκλητος thus is most plausible from a grammatical standpoint. Here is a link. https://andynaselli.com/wp-content/u...ooftexting.pdf Refer to page 80..
      This is what I have shared about the verses from the early days.

      You apparently are willing to now agree (whew) that the Greek is consistent in pneuma-neuter and paraclete-masculine. Good. Finally.
      Now your problem is not in the Greek.

      Now if you understood the English text, the only remaining issue would be whether the translation is solid. Unfortunately, you do not understand the grammar of the English text. And you still have not given the full paragraph that will explain the stray dogs watching the theater, as if they are an analogy.

      Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
      The Greek and the English refer to the spirit/pneuma in neuter, and the comforter/advocate/παράκλητος in masculine.

      Using slightly different syntax, the Greek and English are consistent in this fundamental element.
      We are a little closer though. You could easily understand the English text if you were not always looking back to try to do an ultra-literal translational connection to the Greek text. Maybe my tweak in the post above will be of assistance.

      The English text in both Johannine sections (3 verses total) we are discussing is very simple.
      Comforter is masculine, spirit is neuter.
      Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-28-19, 09:43 AM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
        This is what I have shared about the verses from the early days.
        This is not what you have been saying. You seemed to have missed the fact the authors clearly do not believe the text has two parenthetical expressions, as you called them. They understand this as one phrase "the Holy Spirit whom [ὅ] the Father will send in my name." This is what I have been saying all along. The authors of this paper also agree with me that the pronoun in the AV "ὅ" refers to "whom." It is plain in the text I have quoted. Your argument has been destroyed by your own source and still you keep babbling on!

        You apparently are willing to now agree (whew) that the Greek is consistent in pneuma-neuter and paraclete-masculine. Good. Finally.
        The point of this thread is to demonstrate that your logic concerning these matters is faulty. You cannot maintain that the Naselli and Gons paper is correct while simultaneously affirming that the AV is a 100% perfect text. The text of the AV refers to the Holy Ghost with a masculine pronoun. This means either the AV is not perfect and the paper is correct or the AV is correct and the paper is in error. This is the only logical conclusion that your assumptions allow.

        Now your problem is not in the Greek.

        Now if you understood the English text, the only remaining issue would be whether the translation is solid. Unfortunately, you do not understand the grammar of the English text. And you still have not given the full paragraph that will explain the stray dogs watching the theater, as if they are an analogy.
        I understand that the English text is ambiguous, and I have challenged you to provide evidence for the reading that you erroneously insist is the only reading possible. The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim, and I have preemptively destroyed an argument that you never bothered to make. This is why I can rightfully claim that I have won this discussion and can point out that you have not made a single attempt to defend your beliefs.

        We are a little closer though. You could easily understand the English text if you were not always looking back to try to do an ultra-literal translational connection. The English text is both Johannine sections we are discussing is very simple. Comforter is masculine, spirit is neuter.
        All you have to do is make a case for your position. The fact that you haven't done so by now is as good as an admission that you can't. All you are doing in this thread is protesting the truth.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
          I understand that the English text is ambiguous
          First things first.
          Time for you to unambiguously retract the "Ridiculous Assumption" you made in the accusatory OP.

          Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
          The AV clearly refers to the Holy Spirit with a masculine pronoun in John 14:26.
          If you think the AV text is ambiguous, then you are not making any claim clearly.
          Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-28-19, 10:57 AM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
            First things first.
            Time for you to unambiguously retract the "Ridiculous Assumption" you made in the accusatory OP.
            What I asserted was 100% true. The AV clearly refers to the Holy Ghost with masculine pronouns in John 14:26. I never made the claim that the AV was 100% clear on its own. I have explained this to you before. Your assumptions are ridiculous, and I have demonstrated that beyond a reasonable doubt.

            Comment


            • Post removed. Wong thread.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
                What I asserted was 100% true. The AV clearly refers to the Holy Ghost with masculine pronouns in John 14:26. I never made the claim that the AV was 100% clear on its own. I have explained this to you before. Your assumptions are ridiculous, and I have demonstrated that beyond a reasonable doubt.
                So what is ambiguous in the AV text grammar?

                Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
                I understand that the English text is ambiguous, .
                Give a very clear and direct answer.
                And we are discussing the English text.

                Or acknowledge that you have taken two contradictory positions, with one being part of strident accusation.
                Last edited by Steven Avery; 03-01-19, 01:20 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                  So what is ambiguous in the AV text grammar?



                  Give a very clear and direct answer.
                  And we are discussing the English text.

                  Or acknowledge that you have taken two contradictory positions, with one being part of strident accusation.
                  First of all, I have not given "two contradictory positions." I will not and cannot acknowledge something that never happened.

                  Concerning your other point, you and I have presented two different possible understandings of the AV. Your original claim was that there are two parenthetical phrases, as you called them, in the text and the object of the second phrase reaches back to the Comforter. I stated that the two phrases should be taken as a single phrase and that if you were to drop one of them, you would have to drop the other to retain the proper sense of the sentence.

                  You have insisted that your understanding is the only correct one, saying that the text clearly must be read in the manner you have proposed. However, you have not given a single argument for your understanding. The only thing that you have done is insist that your reading is correct. Even though you have made no argument, I have demonstrated decisively: 1) The two parentheticals should be understood as a single phrase in the English text. I cited Naselli and Gons as a witness which agrees with my understanding. 2) It is not always possible for a second phrase to reach back to a prior antecedent and not change the meaning of the sentence using two different examples to illustrate the point. 3) Your understanding of the English text is not a possible understanding of the Greek text and is therefore not a valid understanding of the English text.

                  Until you can give a convincing argument that refutes these three points, you have truly lost this discussion.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X