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

new! -- an English text that violates Greek grammer ??

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
    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.
    "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. [W]hom" isn't in italics. It was translated. Your analysis is wrong.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
      Here you managed to add nothing.
      Because I'm having to repeat, and repeat, and repeat, and repeat the same blasted thing over and over again, in order for you to understand your incorrect position.

      You. Are. Wrong. Period.

      You have misunderstood the English of the KJV; incorrectly quote it constantly (you need to put that which is in italics); and are unable to accept the absolute fact that the KJV has used masculine pronouns to refer to the Spirit, and not the comforter.

      Again, your problem is simple, you do not understand the English grammar of the two sections.
      My only problem is having to explain the same thing over, and over again, to you. I understand the English grammar, and am able to see how it corresponds to the underlying Greek. You on the other hand lack these two basic things, and it shows.

      Wait. You say one new thing. that the AV would have mistranslated the Greek.
      (This is a better attempt,
      1) accept the AV,
      2) accept the Greek, but
      3) claim that the AV does not properly represent the Greek.
      CL4P never got that far., and I do not think he is capable of getting that far.)
      One can accept both 1) and 2) above, because the KJV represents what the Greek says. It does however use masculine pronouns to refer to a neuter antecedent.

      If one was to accept your misreading of the English text, then 3) above would be correct.

      Notwithstanding, your misreading of the English text is wrong, and so 1) and 2) above are correct, and 3) is incorrect.

      Your position is the only thing not "properly represet[ing]" the English.

      However, you are wrong. The AV learned men simply modified the grammar to keep the English sensible and consistent. That is why the two AV sections match.
      I am correct, because 1) and 2) above are fact - the KJV represents the Greek, however turns neuter pronouns into masculine pronouns to refer to the same antecedent - the Spirit of Truth in John 14:17, and the Holy Spirit in John 14:26 (SoT and HS being the same).

      That is why the two sections "match"; because the KJV has an English text that translates an underlying Greek one.

      Syntax and grammar can differ between language.
      This is true; however in this case there are only two things that differ: 1) order of words, and 2) neuter in Greek has become masculine in English.

      You are making the same error as in the title of this post.
      Not making any error. It's you that has completely misunderstood the very thing you idolise.

      Kinda ironic.

      Originally posted by CL4P-TP
      "[W]hom" isn't in italics. It was translated. Your analysis is wrong.
      Agreed.

      Hang on though, isn't this what we've been saying the entire time?!?!?

      Man, some people can be so incredibly slow to understanding something simple.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by S Walch View Post
        Agreed.

        Hang on though, isn't this what we've been saying the entire time?!?!?

        Man, some people can be so incredibly slow to understanding something simple.
        I feel that there comes a point when one would be justified in believing that a person understands the information and is choosing to spread falsehoods. In this case I believe we have reached that point.

        Comment


        • #34
          Falsehood spreading occurs a plenty when one is dealing with people who can neither understand their own supposed main language, and another one that they can't read nor understand.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
            "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. [W]hom" isn't in italics. It was translated. Your analysis is wrong.
            The difference is the inclusion of the verb, which was often the tipping point for italics.
            The analysis is sound.

            (And, as I pointed out, italics are not 100$ consistent in the AV 1611, nor the changes in future editions.)
            Last edited by Steven Avery; 03-01-19, 01:31 AM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
              I never made this argument, claim, or statement. The only thing that should be dropped is your insistence that I have.
              You should stand by what you write, or retract the statements.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by S Walch View Post
                Because I'm having to repeat, and repeat, and repeat, and repeat the same blasted thing over and over again, in order for you to understand your incorrect position. You. Are. Wrong. Period. You have misunderstood the English of the KJV; incorrectly quote it constantly (you need to put that which is in italics); and are unable to accept the absolute fact that the KJV has used masculine pronouns to refer to the Spirit, and not the comforter.
                You are simply wrong.
                And I do agree that the which is italics is helpful.

                Even CL4P has switched to a claim that the English text is "ambiguous", without explanation.
                (Actually not, the grammar gender consistency is crystal clear.)

                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.
                Originally posted by S Walch View Post
                My only problem is having to explain the same thing over, and over again, to you. I understand the English grammar, and am able to see how it corresponds to the underlying Greek. You on the other hand lack these two basic things, and it shows.
                If you understood the English grammar, you lost the understanding when you confused yourself with the Greek and could not understand how the learned men of the AV translated to the superb and clear English syntax.

                Originally posted by S Walch View Post
                One can accept both 1) and 2) above, because the KJV represents what the Greek says. It does however use masculine pronouns to refer to a neuter antecedent. If one was to accept your misreading of the English text, then 3) above would be correct. Notwithstanding, your misreading of the English text is wrong, and so 1) and 2) above are correct, and 3) is incorrect. Your position is the only thing not "properly represet[ing]" the English I am correct, because 1) and 2) above are fact - the KJV represents the Greek, however turns neuter pronouns into masculine pronouns to refer to the same antecedent - the Spirit of Truth in John 14:17, and the Holy Spirit in John 14:26 (SoT and HS being the same). That is why the two sections "match"; because the KJV has an English text that translates an underlying Greek oe. This is true; however in this case there are only two things that differ: 1) order of words, and 2) neuter in Greek has become masculine in English. Not making any error. It's you that has completely misunderstood the very thing you idolise. Kinda ironic. Agreed. .
                Nothing here but your inability to understand the simple and clear English grammar.

                The italics is discussed above.

                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.


                It is incredibly easy to see that the whom has the Comforter as the referent, and the which has the Holy Ghost as the referent. John 14:16-17 has a syntax that is virtually identical, in terms of the pronouns and referents.

                John 14:16-17 (AV)
                And I will pray the Father,
                and he shall give you another Comforter,
                that he may abide with you for ever;
                Even the Spirit of truth;
                whom the world cannot receive,
                because it seeth him not,
                neither knoweth him: but ye know him;
                for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.


                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.
                It is humorous that CL4P and S Walch are now reduced to wondering why the whom (without a verb) is not italicized. And they both are weak on the English grammar.

                They really, really want to believe their myth that the learned men of the AV bungled badly, despite their incredible consistency on this throughout the whole New Testament. Amazing blinders.

                And the two gentlemen tied themselves up in knots, so they can not take a tabula rasa approach, read the AV text afresh and acknowledge the obvious and clear gender consistency. Too much pride involved at this point. So they go the hubris road.

                This might be a result of confusing English with Greek, like when CL4P twice took the position that the English text violated, and was not in harmony with, the Greek grammar. (And would not retract his claims, he simply pretended he did not mean the words that he wrote.)
                Last edited by Steven Avery; 03-01-19, 02:42 AM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                  You should stand by what you write, or retract the statements.
                  You have proven repeatedly that you do not know how to read. I have stated in the strongest of ways that I stand by my statement, and you haven't given any reason for me to retract it. The fact that you misunderstood what I wrote is not a reason for me to retract anything.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                    It is humorous that CL4P and S Walch are now reduced to wondering why the whom (without a verb) is not italicized. And they both are weak on the English grammar.
                    I'll tell you what is truly humorous: the fact that we have explained this to you clearly and yet you think we are confused. You seem to be saying that whom doesn't have a verb. If this is what you meant, it is even funnier.

                    They really, really want to believe their myth that the learned men of the AV bungled badly, despite their incredible consistency on this throughout the whole New Testament. Amazing blinders.

                    And the two gentlemen tied themselves up in knots, so they can not take a tabula rasa approach, read the AV text afresh and acknowledge the obvious and clear gender consistency. Too much pride involved at this point. So they go the hubris road.

                    This might be a result of confusing English with Greek, like when CL4P twice took the position that the English text violated, and was not in harmony with, the Greek grammar. (And would not retract his claims, he simply pretended he did not mean the words that he wrote.)
                    I never said this. Every time you make this accusation you are lying, and the rules of the forum are misleading. A person who repeatedly tells lies is a liar, regardless of his or her intent.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                      You are simply wrong.
                      Nope, neither CL4P-TP nor me are wrong. You are incorrect, and laughably so.

                      If you understood the English grammar,
                      I do understand the grammar. It's you with the fault.

                      you lost the understanding when you confused yourself with the Greek and could not understand how the learned men of the AV translated to the superb and clear English syntax.
                      As the KJV is just a repeat of Tyndale word for word, it was the learned Tyndale who translated John 14:17 and 14:26 superbly, and changed neuter pronouns in Greek to masculine ones in English that refer to the Spirit of Truth/Holy Spirit.

                      It isn't my or anyone else's problem with the English. All the blame lies with you, and your inability to see the clear truth of the matter.

                      Nothing here but your inability to understand the simple and clear English grammar.
                      Projection. You understand neither the English nor the Greek. Your opinion here is absolutely worthless.

                      It is humorous that CL4P and S Walch are now reduced to wondering why the whom (without a verb) is not italicized. And they both are weak on the English grammar.
                      We're not wondering about why the "whom" isn't italicised - it's not italicised because it's translating an underlying Greek pronoun - ὃ - which refers to the Holy Spirit in both the Greek and the English.

                      Please don't misrepresent what we say.

                      They really, really want to believe their myth that the learned men of the AV bungled badly, despite their incredible consistency on this throughout the whole New Testament. Amazing blinders.
                      Projection again. The KJV merely repeats Tyndale, and he translated the Greek fine. The KJV has not corrected his usage of masculine pronouns that refer to a neuter subject because there was no need to.

                      Such a pathetic being you are. English escapes you (despite being your mother tongue), and you are unable to understand the very thing you idolise.

                      Woeful, and you have my pity.

                      Originally posted by CL4P-TP
                      I'll tell you what is truly humorous: the fact that we have explained this to you clearly and yet you think we are confused. You seem to be saying that whom doesn't have a verb. If this is what you meant, it is even funnier.
                      Just keeps getting dumber and dumber, doesn't it?

                      Avery: ὃ is an accusative, singular pronoun, meaning it has to have an active verb acting on it somehow - in this case, it is being "sent" by the father: πέμψει ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου.

                      This is also clear in the English, because whom is the objective case of "who", meaning it too has to have an active verb acting upon it, as per the KJV (aka Tyndale 6.0):
                      whom the Father will send in my name
                      The antecedent of both ὃ and its English translation whom is the Holy Spirit/τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον.

                      Can honestly say I'm not shocked at your new statement. As stupid as the other ones permeating this thread.

                      Edit:

                      Perhaps an interlinear will help you. They usually hinder ones progress in learning a language, but as we're not here to teach you Greek, this will do:

                      https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/14-26.htm

                      Notice that ὃ has whom below it.

                      Even the stupid interlinears agree with us. Being bested by an interlinear is not a good thing, Avery.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        A reminder: Steven Avery does not know Greek. He has never studied it, could not pick three pluperfects out of a list of 50, and has never studied the advanced grammar courses.

                        People who have not studied subjects have no business commenting on those subjects.

                        That is, in fact, a logical fallacy being committed.

                        One factor precluding a young age for Sinaiticus is the marginalia in Acts... This supplemental material...precludes the MS' production by Simonides. He just lied...It's something he was known for. I recommend that you accept that fact and move on.

                        Comment


                        • #42

                          Let the record show that when Redmond rightly points out Avery's complete and total (to say nothing of appalling) ignorance of Greek - Avery Spenser doesn't even bother to deny it.





                          Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                          Or, they can simply read the texts carefully, and think a bit, and realize that my analysis is totally sound.
                          You SHOULD realize that if someone reads Greek, they're not going to seek the analysis of someone who cannot.

                          Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                          Why did I get involved?
                          Narcissism?
                          Man-made tradition?
                          Because you're a pompous a$$?
                          Mental illness?

                          Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                          Simply because the attacks were so transparently silly.

                          The problem that CL4P and S Walch have is basically that they are weak on the Engilsh grammar, as shown above.
                          Actually, you have only been able to demonstrate minimal (to be charitable) reading comprehension.

                          Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                          It is a curious phenomenon that people want to be so skilled in Greek, when they bumble-stumble in Engilsh.
                          Says a man who repeatedly writes in fragments.

                          Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                          And their whole argument is built on their English confusion
                          Quick, let's get those stray dogs running the theater.
                          Not only are you a mental retard, they don't come any dumber.
                          One factor precluding a young age for Sinaiticus is the marginalia in Acts... This supplemental material...precludes the MS' production by Simonides. He just lied...It's something he was known for. I recommend that you accept that fact and move on.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Maestroh View Post
                            A reminder: Steven Avery does not know Greek. He has never studied it, could not pick three pluperfects out of a list of 50, and has never studied the advanced grammar courses.

                            People who have not studied subjects have no business commenting on those subjects.

                            That is, in fact, a logical fallacy being committed.
                            Several years ago he admitted (albeit a bit obliquely) that he had never even learned the alphabet, and that his Hebrew was barely bar-mitzvah level. I think knowledge of that fact is sufficient when forced to deal with his claims -- no need for hostility or insults. Just let the facts speak for themselves.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Barry Hofstetter View Post

                              Several years ago he admitted (albeit a bit obliquely) that he had never even learned the alphabet, and that his Hebrew was barely bar-mitzvah level. I think knowledge of that fact is sufficient when forced to deal with his claims -- no need for hostility or insults. Just let the facts speak for themselves.
                              Here are the facts speaking for themselves - as of two days ago, Steven Avery is clearly IMPLYING he can read both Latin and Greek:


                              ========
                              https://www.facebook.com/groups/pure...2%3A%22R%22%7D

                              Does he say where the numbers come from? And anytime you see numbers like that you want to telescope into one section and see how detail is handled.

                              I would like to see how one specific section comes out compared to the Vulgate. The specific agreements and disagreements. In my studies the Old Latin does not agree with the Greek Byz that much more than the Vulgate, and I have seen the Vulgate as pretty much halfway in between corruption text and Reformation Bible.

                              ======


                              Now - you and I both know this isn't true.


                              But this misleading information is out there, and we nowhere have the words, "I have studied neither language."

                              In this case, we have a PASTOR no less ASKING this guy for advice.

                              Just so we're clear - the intent to deceive and mislead is 100% intentional. He feels as long as he never says the words, "When I read the Old Latin" he's okay. But this is no different than Robert Louis Stevenson's observation that "the cruelest lies are often told in silence."
                              One factor precluding a young age for Sinaiticus is the marginalia in Acts... This supplemental material...precludes the MS' production by Simonides. He just lied...It's something he was known for. I recommend that you accept that fact and move on.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Maestroh View Post

                                Here are the facts speaking for themselves - as of two days ago, Steven Avery is clearly IMPLYING he can read both Latin and Greek:


                                ========
                                https://www.facebook.com/groups/pure...2%3A%22R%22%7D

                                Does he say where the numbers come from? And anytime you see numbers like that you want to telescope into one section and see how detail is handled.

                                I would like to see how one specific section comes out compared to the Vulgate. The specific agreements and disagreements. In my studies the Old Latin does not agree with the Greek Byz that much more than the Vulgate, and I have seen the Vulgate as pretty much halfway in between corruption text and Reformation Bible.

                                ======


                                Now - you and I both know this isn't true.


                                But this misleading information is out there, and we nowhere have the words, "I have studied neither language."

                                In this case, we have a PASTOR no less ASKING this guy for advice.

                                Just so we're clear - the intent to deceive and mislead is 100% intentional. He feels as long as he never says the words, "When I read the Old Latin" he's okay. But this is no different than Robert Louis Stevenson's observation that "the cruelest lies are often told in silence."
                                Very unfortunate, of course. As for me, if he shows up in any of my online places, I have no problem pointing out that he does not have qualifications to speak so confidently. That's actually true of more than one person on this forum, but i digress.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X