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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
    Have you retracted this assertion in bold?


    There is nothing for me to retract because they are two separate claims that have nothing to do with each other. I said, "The authors weren't arguing that the term spirit was never used with the masculine." The quote you provided says nothing about the spirit being referred to with a masculine pronoun. Read the quote carefully, "The consistent testimony of Scripture is that the Holy Spirit is a person, but Johnís 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 Spiritís personality. It is time to put this erroneous argument to rest once and for all." Where does it mention the spirit being referred to with masculine pronouns? It is clear it doesn't. The quote doesn't say what you allege, so there is no need for me to make a retraction.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
      And I made no such argument.
      If I misunderstood you I apologize. "Translation equivalence" is usually synonymous with "dynamic equivalence."

      The relative pronoun for which is in the Greek, the pronoun for whom was supplied by the AV text, and everything was grammatically consistent, the Holy Spirit has the neuter which, the Comforter has the masculine whom.

      Supplying a relative pronoun in translation is not what is meant by dynamic equivalence.
      If ὃ goes with the spirit as you have stated, the remaining sentence violates the rules of Greek grammar, and everything is clearly not "grammatically consistent." Look at the sentence without the part that you say refers to the spirit. "But the Comforter...whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." The Greek text, again removing the phrase you say refers to the spirit, "ὁ δὲ παράκλητος...πέμψει ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου, ἐκεῖνος ὑμᾶς διδάξει πάντακαὶ ὑπομνήσει ὑμᾶς πάντα ἃ εἶπον ὑμῖν ἐγώ." Notice that your understanding ironically leaves "the Comforter" by itself in the nominative case with no grammatical link to the rest of the sentence. Your explanation is untenable.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
        Naselli and Gons made the note about the parenthetical and subordinate phrase aspect. This separation of auxiliary, subordinate, and parenthetical phrases from the core grammar is trivially obvious in English grammar, and applies to the Greek as well.

        One correction, though, the reference should be to phrases rather than clauses, to be more inclusive of short phrases.

        Ironically, this is where John Milton goes astray in John 1, as I explained in a post that was highly acclaimed .
        Cite your source. Allusions aren't evidence.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
          There is nothing for me to retract ... I said, "The authors weren't arguing that the term spirit was never used with the masculine." The quote you provided says nothing about the spirit being referred to with a masculine pronoun. Read the quote carefully, ...

          Johnís use of ἐκεῖνος in John 14:26, 15:26 and 16:13-14... 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.
          It helps to remove all the doctrinal elements.

          The quote says specifically for the Johannine verses that the masculine is NOT for the Spirit.

          "demonstrates unequivocally that the antecedent of ἐκεῖνος is the masculine παράκλητο"

          If you want to concede the Johannine verses in chapters 14-15-16, and then dance around to other verses outside the Gospel of John, do so. Otherwise, you should retract your claim.

          "The authors weren't arguing that the term spirit was never used with the masculine."

          Which was in fact made in the context of the Johannine verses.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
            The quote says specifically for the Johannine verses that the masculine is NOT for the Spirit.

            "demonstrates unequivocally that the antecedent of ἐκεῖνος is the masculine παράκλητο"

            If you want to concede the Johannine verses, and then dance around to other verses outside the Gospel of John, do so. Otherwise, you should retract your claim.

            "The authors weren't arguing that the term spirit was never used with the masculine."

            Which was made in the context of the Johannine verses.
            In this passage the authors state that they believe that the pronoun ἐκεῖνος is used for παράκλητος. They are referring only to the passages they cite. The quote says absolutely nothing about whether or not masculine pronouns are used to refer to spirit in other places. There is nothing for me to retract. You look foolish for even suggesting it.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
              Cite your source. Allusions aren't evidence.
              When I get a chance later, I will see if I can find you a nice easy-read resource. The first step will be parenthetical phrases and clauses.

              Comment


              • #22
                When you wrote:

                Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
                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.
                Let's keep it simple.

                Do you agree that the reason for the argument being fallacious is that, per Naselli and Gons, in the verses the spirit is not used with the masculine?

                And do you agree that in the verses the spirit, the Holy Spirit is not used with masculine grammar?

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

                And, do you have any actual quotes from me about the Naselli and Gons paper that were wrong when you wrote the above and made your variety pack of accusations?
                Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-21-19, 04:10 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                  When you wrote:



                  Let's keep it simple.

                  Do you agree that the reason for the argument being fallacious is that, per Naselli and Gons, in the verses the spirit is not used with the masculine?

                  And do you agree that in the verses the spirit, the Holy Spirit is not used with masculine grammar?

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

                  And, do you have any actual quotes from me about the Naselli and Gons paper that were wrong when you wrote the above and made your variety pack of accusations?
                  The reason that your argument was fallacious is that you claimed the paper supported your assertion that "pneuma is not used grammatically as masculine, even to the Holy Spirit" and that statement went beyond the claims of the Naselli and Gons paper.

                  Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
                  [This only here to mark the post]
                  Originally posted by Steven Avery
                  See the two papers that point out the consistency that pneuma is not used grammatically as masculine, even to the Holy Spirit.
                  Originally posted by CL4P-TP
                  If the papers you reference say that, then those papers are wrong.
                  This should help you understand that I never said the papers were wrong. I said they were wrong if they made the claims that you attributed to them. The statement that you keep quoting from me is true.
                  The authors weren't arguing that the term spirit was never used with the masculine.
                  I don't know how else I can explain this to you. And won't do so again. I did not make an error. You did when you claimed that the paper supported your blanket statement about the usage of masculine pronouns with "pneuma."

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
                    The AV clearly refers to the Holy Spirit with a masculine pronoun in John 14:26.
                    John 14:26
                    But the Comforter,
                    which is the Holy Ghost,
                    whom the Father will send in my name,
                    he shall teach you all things,
                    and bring all things to your remembrance,
                    whatsoever I have said unto you.


                    Where?

                    Remember, this is the basis for your "Ridiculous" claim.

                    The parenthetical phrase "which is the Holy Ghost" has no masculine pronoun.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                      When I get a chance later, I will see if I can find you a nice easy-read resource. The first step will be parenthetical phrases and clauses.
                      Make sure the resource actually supports your argument this time.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
                        If I misunderstood you I apologize. "Translation equivalence" is usually synonymous with "dynamic equivalence."

                        If ὃ goes with the spirit as you have stated, the remaining sentence violates the rules of Greek grammar, and everything is clearly not "grammatically consistent." Look at the sentence without the part that you say refers to the spirit. "But the Comforter...whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." The Greek text, again removing the phrase you say refers to the spirit, "ὁ δὲ παράκλητος...πέμψει ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου, ἐκεῖνος ὑμᾶς διδάξει πάντακαὶ ὑπομνήσει ὑμᾶς πάντα ἃ εἶπον ὑμῖν ἐγώ." Notice that your understanding ironically leaves "the Comforter" by itself in the nominative case with no grammatical link to the rest of the sentence. Your explanation is untenable.
                        Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                        John 14:26
                        But the Comforter,
                        which is the Holy Ghost,
                        whom the Father will send in my name,
                        he shall teach you all things,
                        and bring all things to your remembrance,
                        whatsoever I have said unto you.


                        Where?

                        Remember, this is the basis for your "Ridiculous" claim.

                        The parenthetical phrase "which is the Holy Ghost" has no masculine pronoun.
                        You never provided any evidence that anyone agrees with your proposed understanding of the text, and I have already shown you that such a rendering is ungrammatical. Your claim is the ridiculous one, and I would love to see a couple of sources that agree with you. Happy hunting.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          ἅγιος Transliteration

                          hagios



                          Pronunciation
                          hš'-gē-os (Key)





                          Part of Speech
                          adjective



                          Root Word (Etymology)
                          From hagos (an awful thing) [cf ἁγνός (G53), θάλπω (G2282)]





                          Apparently no place it is not an adjective, ?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Jethro77 View Post
                            ἅγιος Transliteration

                            hagios



                            Pronunciation
                            hš'-gē-os (Key)





                            Part of Speech
                            adjective



                            Root Word (Etymology)
                            From hagos (an awful thing) [cf ἁγνός (G53), θάλπω (G2282)]





                            Apparently no place it is not an adjective, ?
                            It is used with an article to function like a noun quite commonly, both for people (Rev. 3:7 “And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: ‘The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens.") and things (Matt. 7:6 “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.")

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Sorry - no. Still an adjective from /according to all the resources available. (and in those references you used, still an adective).

                              p.s. Ekklesia is mis-translated in your post.


                              for follow-up/ research and edification, Yahweh Permitting:

                              "... ... ... One of the cultural problems that we are having in western civilization today is that we are adopting secular viewpoints into Christian thinking. We are amalgamating the two viewpoints and thinking that this is the way to reach people. No, it is not and it never has been. God does not want us to talk like them, to do what they do, to think like them, or to go where they go. He wants us to be different and a lot of us are afraid of being different. The message in society today is to be the same with everybody alike. No, Christians are to be different. God wants us different. I like to use the word "weird" or I throw in "wacko." God wants us to be different. Paul even said, "I am a fool for Christ's sake" (1 Corinthians 4:10, paraphrased).

                              Holiness refers to His people.
                              Turn back to Leviticus 21. The holiness of God refers to His unique person, to His exalted position, to the specific places where He dwells, and to His special people. It also refers to His designated priests. Boy, you get a glimpse, of holiness when you look at what God said about priests in Leviticus 21. There is no group of people on the face of the earth that have had higher standards than the priests of the Old Testament."
                              ... ... ...

                              https://www.blueletterbible.org/comm...tributes06.cfm

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Jethro77 View Post
                                Sorry - no. Still an adjective from /according to all the resources available. (and in those references you used, still an adective).

                                p.s. Ekklesia is mis-translated in your post.


                                for follow-up/ research and edification, Yahweh Permitting:

                                "... ... ... One of the cultural problems that we are having in western civilization today is that we are adopting secular viewpoints into Christian thinking. We are amalgamating the two viewpoints and thinking that this is the way to reach people. No, it is not and it never has been. God does not want us to talk like them, to do what they do, to think like them, or to go where they go. He wants us to be different and a lot of us are afraid of being different. The message in society today is to be the same with everybody alike. No, Christians are to be different. God wants us different. I like to use the word "weird" or I throw in "wacko." God wants us to be different. Paul even said, "I am a fool for Christ's sake" (1 Corinthians 4:10, paraphrased).

                                Holiness refers to His people.
                                Turn back to Leviticus 21. The holiness of God refers to His unique person, to His exalted position, to the specific places where He dwells, and to His special people. It also refers to His designated priests. Boy, you get a glimpse, of holiness when you look at what God said about priests in Leviticus 21. There is no group of people on the face of the earth that have had higher standards than the priests of the Old Testament."
                                ... ... ...

                                https://www.blueletterbible.org/comm...tributes06.cfm
                                Everything I told you is 100% true. "Those references I used" were Biblical quotations that illustrated what I said. I cut and pasted the quotes I provided from the ESV, and there is nothing wrong with those translations. You have no idea what you are talking about. I am sorry that I wasted my time giving you the answer to your question.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X