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

  • Challenging Ridiculous Assumptions About the AV and the Holy Spirit

    The AV clearly refers to the Holy Spirit with a masculine pronoun in John 14:26. Since this is the case, those who believe the 1611 contains no mistakes must believe that the Naselli and Gons paper concerning the pronouns used with πνεῦμα is incorrect.


    ὁ δὲ παράκλητος τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον πέμψει ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου ἐκεῖνος ὑμᾶς διδάξει πάντα καὶ ὑπομνήσει ὑμᾶς πάντα ἃ εἶπον ὑμῖν.
    The pronoun "ὅ" which I have highlighted in red in the citation above from John 14:26 in the Textus Receptus is a neuter pronoun. It agrees with the neuter noun phrase "τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον" that I have highlighted in blue in number, case, and grammatical gender. This pronoun is translated in the 1611 KJV with the masculine pronoun "whom" which I have underlined and put in green in the citation below.

    Originally posted by 1611 KJV John 14:26
    But the Comforter, which is the holy Ghost, whom the Father wil send in my name, he shal teach you al things, & bring al things to your remembrance, whatsoeuer I haue said vnto you.
    Since the pronoun agrees in case, number, and gender with τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον it cannot be in grammatical agreement with ὁ παράκλητος. This means that the 1611 AV uses a masculine pronoun for the "holy Ghost." If you believe the 1611 translators never made mistakes then you must believe that the paper by Naselli and Gons is incorrect.

  • CL4P-TP
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Steven Avery
    replied
    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, 02:20 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • CL4P-TP
    replied
    Post removed. Wong thread.

    Leave a comment:


  • CL4P-TP
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Steven Avery
    replied
    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, 11:57 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • CL4P-TP
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Steven Avery
    replied
    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, 10:43 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Steven Avery
    replied
    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, 10:50 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Steven Avery
    replied
    Here is a little change in analysis.

    The AV text has two distinct parentheticals, the Greek text has one in two parts, internally connected by ὅ. The change in grammatical structure makes the ὅ irrelevant, the comma and English pronouns are used to separate the two phrases. ὅ from the Greek is thus untranslated.

    Thus both relative pronouns in the English text, one with a verb and italics, are added for clarity.

    This makes two major changes.

    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.


    1) the AV italics for "which is" are appropriate, there was no editorial oversight
    2) incorporates the helpful part from CL4P

    All the other basics stay the same. The meaning is the same.

    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.
    Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-28-19, 10:51 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • CL4P-TP
    replied
    Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
    Balderdash. I showed you again and again that to grammar parse the second parenthetical you get the core grammar by dropping the first parenethetical. There is no "theological bias" to simply show you the consistency of the AV text.

    The rest is your convoluted position, mind-reading the translators falsely. Lets go back to your more robust try.

    And this is trivially easy to see in the AV text. You tried to have a stray dog managing a movie theater when you contested this simple point.

    Your claim was that what are in English two parenthetical phrases are one in Greek. That the syntax changes in translation. Which really changes nothing.

    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.


    Any exceptions are in the Greek Critical Text corruptions, and outside the Gospel of John.

    The sentence is awkward without the whom, as I have mentioned before.

    Here you confuse two languages.

    This is the first time that you made the blunder of saying that the English text would break the rules of Greek grammar. When you said the same thing more directly, I gave it its own thread.
    The first point shows that you are ignorant of English grammar.
    The second point is a quote from me that you have taken out of context. As I have stated repeatedly, this appears to be the only talent you have.
    Your third point was slain in my previous post.
    Your fourth point is right, but your implication is false. I never suggested dropping "whom." I stated the fact that "whom" refers to the "Holy Ghost" and not the "Comforter."
    Your fifth and sixth points are both false assertions.

    Leave a comment:


  • CL4P-TP
    replied
    I think the link is working now.

    Leave a comment:


  • CL4P-TP
    replied
    The link doesn't work. I am working on fixing it.

    Leave a comment:


  • CL4P-TP
    replied
    Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
    As far as I remember,, I said something close to that, you commented that technically it would not count as a parenthetical phrase, and I changed the wording a bit to not call the five words a parenthetical phrase. The five words together supply the English "which is the Holy Ghost." - "τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ὃ," - You actually affirm this below from Robertson.

    John 14:26 (AV)
    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.


    What other places? And why would they be relevant?

    In what you give clearly the ὅ is not "noticeably absent". It is given in the text and referenced as having πνεῦμα as its referent. The learned men of the AV understood the connection of :

    πνεῦμα and ὃ .

    and thus they gave us - "which is the Holy Ghost"
    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.

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

    And I think I understand your problem.

    If I say in English:

    This does not make the which "noticeably absent". It seemly was not needed in that expression.
    This comment isn't relevant. My comment about being noticeably absent referred to "ὅ" being absent in the phrase τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιος that Robertson quoted.

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

    You did not comment because you do not know the Naselli and Gons paper.
    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 should be all the proof that you need, since this is your source. However, I predict you will continue to complain about the facts as you have always done.

    Leave a comment:


  • Steven Avery
    replied
    Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
    I have never said that there is anything wrong with the the text of the AV or the Textus Receptus. What I have said is that your understanding of the English text is wrong. You are the one who is claiming that the English must be understood with the "first parenthetical" phrase (or whatever you called it) dropped out so that "whom" must refer to the Comforter, but you have not given a single argument (much less a convincing one) for why your understanding is the only one possible. This is because you don't have an argument. You have only a theological bias..
    Balderdash. I showed you again and again that to grammar parse the second parenthetical you get the core grammar by dropping the first parenethetical. There is no "theological bias" to simply show you the consistency of the AV text.

    The rest is your convoluted position, mind-reading the translators falsely. Lets go back to your more robust try.

    Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
    I agree that you can remove a parenthetical phrase and have the core grammar.
    And this is trivially easy to see in the AV text. You tried to have a stray dog managing a movie theater when you contested this simple point.

    Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
    However, "which is the Holy Ghost" is only half of the phrase that would need to be removed. In the text of the AV, the phrase "which is the Holy Ghost" is used to translate the phrase τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιος. The remainder of the phrase, "whom the Father will send in my name" still goes with the Holy Ghost. So the Greek with the parenthetical phrase removed would read, "ὁ δὲ παράκλητος ἐκεῖνος ὑμᾶς διδάξει πάντα καὶ ὑπομνήσει ὑμᾶς πάντα ἃ εἶπον ὑμῖν.
    Your claim was that what are in English two parenthetical phrases are one in Greek. That the syntax changes in translation. Which really changes nothing.

    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.


    Any exceptions are in the Greek Critical Text corruptions, and outside the Gospel of John.

    Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
    What I believe you are trying to say is that the translators of the AV used ὅ to become the "which" in the English translation "which is the Holy Ghost," and they added (for no good, clear, or discernible reason) "whom" to refer back to the Comforter.
    The sentence is awkward without the whom, as I have mentioned before.

    Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
    The problem with this statement is that ὅ is the object of the verb πέμψει, and you said that ὅ refers to the Holy Ghost. Since this is the case, the fact that "whom" cannot be a reference to the Comforter is clear..
    Here you confuse two languages.

    Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
    This demonstrates that your claim that your suggested reading is in harmony with all the rules of grammar is false.
    This is the first time that you made the blunder of saying that the English text would break the rules of Greek grammar. When you said the same thing more directly, I gave it its own thread.
    Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-28-19, 04:34 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X