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

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

    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.


    Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
    They translated the Greek relative, which ... goes with the "Holy Ghost," with "whom." .
    The first sentence is inaccurate. The learned men did not translate which as whom. That is an ultra-dubious mental finding of CL4P.

    Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
    If they were referring to the "Comforter" with this pronoun,
    Of course they were. No if needed. Whom is masculine, and refers to the Comforter. The English grammar is clean and smooth, and easy to read and understand.

    Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
    they were violating the Greek grammar
    This was incredible, and why a new thread was begun.

    Here CL4P claims that an English text violates Greek grammar !!!! - amazing

    Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
    and translated the passage incorrectly.,
    There was no mistranslation. Both the English and the Greek are ultra-solid. The major difference is that the Greek does not have a masculine pronoun "whom", it is in the English for smoothness.

    Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
    This would mean that the AV is not 100% accurate. .
    The culmination of the CL4P confusion.

    Afaik, only CL4P has ever tried to craft an argument that an English text actually violates Greek grammar!

    CL4P did not respond to this point, so it deserves its own thread.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
    The first sentence is inaccurate. The learned men did not translate which as whom. That is an ultra-dubious mental finding of CL4P.
    They didn't "translate" anything - they stole it from William Tyndale.

    Secondly, the word that is translated as "whom" in John 14:26 corresponds to the Greek ὃ - this can only directly refer to the Spirit as its antecedent - the Comforter isn't the antecedent.

    If you want to argue that the "whom" actually refers back to the comforter in the English text, then the KJV reproduces something that violates the underlying meaning of the Greek.

    This would then indicate bad translation skill on behalf of William Tyndale. William Tyndale wasn't a bad translator, hence why the KJV just reproduced his translation.

    Of course they were. No if needed. Whom is masculine, and refers to the Comforter.
    "Whom" is certainly masculine - however it refers to its closest noun antecedent - that being the Spirit, not the comforter.

    The English grammar is clean and smooth, and easy to read and understand.
    Agreed. Why is it then that you can't understand it properly?

    This was incredible, and why a new thread was begun.
    Or perhaps, a new thread was begun because you're taking a leaf out of JM's book?

    Stupid is as stupid does.

    Here CL4P claims that an English text violates Greek grammar !!!! - amazing
    He is evidently talking from the perspective that the KJV is a supposed translation, Steven. Something which you seem to have not grasped.

    In the Greek, the referent for "whom/ὃ" is the Spirit, not the Comforter. If you want to argue that "whom" goes back to the comforter and not the Spirit, you testify to the KJV directly undermining (that is, lying about) what the Greek says.

    The Greek and English text is clear - "whom/ὃ" is to refer to the Spirit.

    There was no mistranslation. Both the English and the Greek are ultra-solid.
    Correct. Why is it then you can't see the easy meaning of the English translation?

    The major difference is that the Greek does not have a masculine pronoun "whom", it is in the English for smoothness.
    It is not in the English for "smoothness" - "whom" is there because it's translating the Greek ὃ, and the KJV (aka WT copy-Bible) was using a masculine pronoun as a translation of a Greek neuter one, referring back to the Spirit.

    The culmination of the CL4P confusion.
    CL4P-TP isn't the confused one. You are.


    Misrepresenting what CL4P-TP says then arguing against your misrepresentation is extremely dishonest.

    Comment


    • #3
      Please, stop trying to claim that an English text violates Greek grammar.

      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.


      Originally posted by S Walch View Post
      the word that is translated as "whom" in John 14:26 corresponds to the Greek ὃ - this can only directly refer to the Spirit as its antecedent - the Comforter isn't the antecedent.
      No, there is no such correspondence. The learned men of the AV were very aware of the difference of the two words. ὃ is which, whom was added for clarity.

      Originally posted by S Walch View Post
      If you want to argue that the "whom" actually refers back to the comforter in the English text, then the KJV reproduces something that violates the underlying meaning of the Greek..
      Wrong. Nothing is violated.

      Originally posted by S Walch View Post
      "Whom" is certainly masculine - however it refers to its closest noun antecedent - that being the Spirit, not the comforter..
      Antecedent proximity fallacy. The Spirit is in a parenthetical phrase, appositive to the Comforter, Comforter is the subject referemt.

      Originally posted by S Walch View Post
      In the Greek, the referent for "whom/ὃ" is the Spirit, not the Comforter..
      The Greek ὃ is unrelated to the English whom, two different words, two different referents.

      Originally posted by S Walch View Post
      If you want to argue that "whom" goes back to the comforter and not the Spirit,.
      Of course, This is obvious.

      Originally posted by S Walch View Post
      you testify to the KJV directly undermining (that is, lying about) what the Greek says.
      Your comment is a joke. There is no undermining, there is no lying. Both the Greek and the English stand strong.

      Originally posted by S Walch View Post
      The Greek and English text is clear - "whom/ὃ" is to refer to the Spirit..
      Nonsense - ὃ is which, not whom.

      Originally posted by S Walch View Post
      It is not in the English for "smoothness" - "whom" is there because it's translating the Greek ὃ, and the KJV (aka WT copy-Bible) was using a masculine pronoun as a translation of a Greek neuter one, referring back to the Spirit..
      Nonsense. Again. You are wrongly mind-reading. The learned men did not translate which as whom.

      It is silly that CL4P and you are trying to have an English text violate Greek grammar.

      CL4P dug himself into this mess. I have no idea why you want to join him in error.
      Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-27-19, 07:39 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Given that you cannot read Greek Steven, people should take your comments with a salt lick.
        "Qostiid sahlo aak. Just because you can do a thing, does not always mean you should." Paarthurnax

        Comment


        • #5
          Or, they can simply read the texts carefully, and think a bit, and realize that my analysis is totally sound. The idea that the learned men of the AV translated ὃ as whom, thus grammatically personalizing the Spirit only in this one place in the NT, is a joke. I simply showed the much clearer explanation.

          Why did I get involved? 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.

          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.


          Whom refers to the Comforter.
          Masculine, as always in the AV.
          Consistency, thou art a jewel!

          It is a curious phenomenon that people want to be so skilled in Greek, when they bumble-stumble in Engilsh.

          And their whole argument is built on their English confusion
          Quick, let's get those stray dogs running the theater.
          Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-27-19, 07:58 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
            Please, stop trying to claim that an English text violates Greek grammar.
            Please, stop trying to sound educated and claim false things about the KJV.

            No, there is no such correspondence.
            Yes, there is direct correspondence.

            The learned men of the AV were very aware of the difference of the two words.
            Agreed. You seem to be confused however.

            Your lack of understanding is indisputable.

            ὃ is which
            NO.
            IT.
            IS.
            NOT.

            which is was added for "clarity", HENCE WHY IT'S IN ITALICS. The KJV didn't add the italic words to translate anything in the Greek.

            whom was added for clarity.
            No it wasn't. Whom translates the Greek ὃ. Hence why it's *not* in italics.

            Wrong. Nothing is violated.
            If you want to argue that "whom" refers back to the comforter, then yes, the entire meaning is violated.

            But "whom" refers back to the Spirit, so it doesn't violate the meaning of the underlying Greek.

            Antecedent proximity fallacy. The Spirit is in a parenthetical phrase, appositive to the Comforter, Comforter is the subject referemt.
            Moronic understanding fallacy. The Spirit is the antecedent to ὃ and it's translated as whom.

            The Greek ὃ is unrelated to the English whom, two different words, two different referents.
            "whom" translates the Greek ὃ, and both refer to the same referent - the Spirit.

            The KJV uses masculine pronouns to refer to the Spirit. End of.

            Of course, This is obvious.
            Wrong. "whom" goes back to the Spirit, not the comforter.

            Your comment is a joke. There is no undermining, there is no lying. Both the Greek and the English stand strong.
            Your entire understanding of this verse is the joke.

            The Greek and the English do indeed stand strong. It's your misrepresentation of the English that is fallacious.

            Nonsense - ὃ is which, not whom.
            ὃ is whom; the added which is was included for clarity.

            You got the two mixed up. Perhaps if you correctly quoted the KJV, italics and all, you wouldn't have made this mistake.

            Do you even own a printed copy of the KJV?

            Nonsense. Again. You are wrongly mind-reading.
            Nonsense. I'm not mind-reading - the KJV doesn't have "whom" in italics means it has an underlying Greek word that it is the translation of, and it also happens to correspond to the exact place where ὃ appears in the Greek text.

            The learned men did not translate which as whom.
            The learned men stole from a translation that had translated ὃ as "whom", and didn't feel the need to correct it.

            Because William Tyndale translated the Greek words into English absolutely fine.

            It is silly that CL4P and you are trying to have an English text violate Greek grammar.
            The only thing silly is that you think 'which'is how the KJV translated the Greek ὃ, when the English corresponding translation is "whom".

            "Whom" was not added for clarity - it's there because it has an underlying Greek word. Both refer to the Spirit, and not the comforter.

            That you can't understand this (or don't want to admit it), is your own problem.

            You have been informed of the truth often enough on this matter. Be it on your own head if you want to remain deluded.

            Comment


            • #7
              The idea that the learned men of the AV translated ὃ as whom, thus grammatically personalizing the Spirit only in this one place in the NT, is a joke.
              Oh no, neither me nor CL4P-TP is claiming this.

              They used masculine pronouns in John 14:17 to refer to the Spirit as well. The KJV is quite consistent in having underyling Greek neuter pronouns as masculine English words when they refer to the Spirit.

              Whom refers to the Spirit; him refers to the Spirit in John 14:17.

              Steven Avery unfortunately doesn't understand the KJV.

              Kinda ironic, considering the idolising he does of said KJV...

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by S Walch View Post
                which is was added for "clarity", HENCE WHY IT'S IN ITALICS. The KJV didn't add the italic words to translate anything in the Greek..
                The italics are not the text, I explained this before. They were subject to changes, and inexactitudes. It is the text of the AV that counts.

                It is obvious from the text that whom was added for clarity.

                And it is obvious from the English grammar that whom refers to the Comforter.

                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.


                Your main problem is your English weakness.

                The rest is your repetitive error.

                Again, dozens of verses, with Comforter and Spirit.
                100% consistency.

                You have to falsely mind-read to try to claim that this is the one exception in the New Testament.

                Originally posted by S Walch View Post
                They used masculine pronouns in John 14:17 to refer to the Spirit as well. The KJV is quite consistent in having underyling Greek neuter pronouns as masculine English words when they refer to the Spirit. ...
                They simply kept the same superb structure of the English syntax in John 14:16-17 as they have in John 14:26. this is trivially easy to see.

                You need to stop the atomistic error and look at the full two verses. I told you about this error earlier.

                John 14:16-17
                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.


                All the masculine pronouns refer to the Comforter.

                Again, your core problem is your weakness in English.
                You should step back and simply read the AV text without glasses.

                Steven

                .
                Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-27-19, 08:16 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  https://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelt...ng James Bible

                  "The italicized words in the King James Bible are words that were added by the translators to help the reader. This is usually necessary when translating from one language to another because word meanings and idioms change. So, to produce a more readable translation, the King James translators (1604- 1611) added certain words to the Bible text. However, to make sure that everyone understood that these words were not in the available manuscripts they set them in italics."

                  which is in John 14:26 are added words - 'which' is not translating anything from the Greek in John 14:26.

                  Shall we try this again?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The italics are not the text, I explained this before.
                    Yes, I know this. Why then did you state:
                    ὃ is which
                    When the only "which" in John 14:26 in the KJV is in italics?!?!

                    ὃ can't be which as which is was added for clarity. This means ὃ has to have been translated using a different word.

                    Guess what that word is? Oh, that's right -WHOM

                    It is obvious from the text that whom was added for clarity.
                    It's obvious from the text that whom translates a word in the underyling Greek, and wasn't added for clarity.

                    So obvious, that it's frankly laughable that we've spent so long trying to get you to admit the obvious.

                    And it is obvious from the English grammar that whom refers to the Comforter. Your main problem is your English weakness.
                    Nothing wrong with my English nor Greek - it's your doctrine that has caused you to err, and err badly.

                    The rest is your repetitive error.
                    Other way around - it's your error that you have done nothing but repeat, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

                    You have to falsely mind-read to try to claim that this is the one exception in the New Testament.
                    Not something I have claimed, so this is a straw-man.

                    Perhaps you need some kindergarten reading lessons again?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      It is obvious that the Greek word missing is “whom”, added in the AV. The fact that the editing process on italics was not precise like the words is well known. There were various major changes, unlike the words, and Scrivener especially went haywire.

                      My position is clear and consistent, and the AV is perfect on the two words in every NT book and occurrence.
                      comforter/advocate - masculine
                      spirit - neuter.
                      Not complicated, 100% consistent.

                      You try to imagine a one-time, or two, personhood, constructio ad sensum, and all because you are weak on the English grammar. You would do better to simply accept the clarity and majesty of the pure AV text, than piggy-back on really absurd attack attempts.

                      And I give you a credit for raising two interesting issues, the italics and John 14:16-17, although you omitted the critical v. 16. This actually helped see the English AV consistency, and added some pizazz to the discussion. And if you spend a minute comparing the two AV sections, my position is made that much stronger.

                      Thus I respect your input, and would happily agree to disagree. I have little expectation that you can pull out of the dual-language confusions.
                      Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-27-19, 09:14 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        It is obvious that the Greek word missing is “whom”, added in the AV.
                        The Greek isn't missing anything, nor is the English in the KJV - the KJV translates the Greek ὃ as whom, it doesn't "add" it, meaning the KJV refers to the Spirit using a masculine pronoun.

                        This is as simple and obvious as it gets. Your own brainwashing is your own fault.

                        My position is clear and consistent,
                        Your position is wrong. The deluge of evidence against your understanding is insurmountable. No amount of saying "it's you, not me!" isn't going to change the fact that you are 100% factually incorrect.

                        and the AV is perfect on the two words in every NT book and occurrence.
                        KJV uses masculine pronouns to refer to the Spirit, in at least both John 14:17 and 14:26. That you don't like it is your problem.

                        comforter/advocate - masculine
                        spirit - neuter.
                        Not complicated, 100% consistent
                        Yet the KJV refers to the "neuter" spirit using masculine pronouns.

                        Your position is untenable.

                        You try to imagine a one-time personhood, constructio ad sensum, and all because you are weak on the English grammar.
                        Incorrect. You believe a lie due to your own dogma, and rather than admit it, blame everyone else for having "weak" something. The fact of the matter is that you're 100% totally and completely wrong about the KJV, and its use of pronouns to refer to the Spirit.

                        And I give you a credit for raising two interesting issues, the italics and John 14:16-17, although you omitted the critical v. 16. This actually helped see the English AV consistency, and added some pizazz to the discussion.
                        The Greek and the English of John 14:17 is crystal clear: the referent of the pronouns is the Spirit.

                        It is "the spirit of truth" that the world:
                        cannot receive,
                        because it seeth [the spirit of truth] not,
                        neither knoweth [the spirit of truth]:
                        but ye know [the spirit of truth];
                        for [the spirit of truth] dwelleth with you,
                        and [the spirit of truth] shall be in you.
                        I've replaced the pronouns above with their referent, as is clear from both the Greek and the English, in order to help you understand.

                        Your complete and utter misunderstanding of the KJV in these two verses is both sad and pathetic. You deserve pity for believing such nonsense.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by S Walch View Post
                          The Greek isn't missing anything, .
                          Correct. I should have more accurately have said:

                          "the English word missing in a literal translation is whom"

                          The rest of your post is handled by my explanation above, you add nothing after that mini-correction.

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

                          The learned men of the AV would put [the Comforter] where you have [the spirit of truth].
                          This is clear from the masculine pronouns.

                          It is a bit scholastically tacky that you continue to omit verse 16, simply because that makes the English text analogy with v. 26 super-clear.

                          John 14:26 (AV)
                          But the Comforter,
                          which is the Holy Ghost,

                          whom the Father will send [the Comforter] in my name,
                          [the Comforter] shall teach you all things,
                          and bring all things to your remembrance,
                          whatsoever I have said unto you.


                          This is the grammatical parsing in both verses.
                          Since [the Comforter] and the Spirit words are equivalent, you are welcome to substitute interpretatively.
                          .
                          Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-27-19, 09:30 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Wrong. The English "whom" translates ὃ. Simple. Your position is incorrect.

                            The masculine pronouns in the English of John 14:17 are translating the repeated Greek pronoun αὐτὸ, which can only have τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας as antecedent. If you want to argue that this αὐτὸ, translated as "him" in the KJV (copying Tyndale), actually refers to the comforter, then the KJV has translated the Greek incorrectly.

                            Thankfully, the KJV copied Tyndale here, and he didn't mistranslate anything, but translated αὐτὸ as him, directly referring to the Spirit of Truth as antecedent.

                            Arguing against this is utter foolery. But I expect you to do just that.

                            Alas! If only your English grammar knowledge wasn't so pathetic, this entire "discussion" could have been avoided.

                            KJV refers to the Spirit using masculine pronouns. This is the truth that you are unwilling to accept.

                            But that's your problem, no one else's.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by S Walch View Post
                              Wrong. The English "whom" translates ὃ. Simple. Your position is incorrect. The masculine pronouns in the English of John 14:17 are translating the repeated Greek pronoun αὐτὸ, which can only have τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας as antecedent. If you want to argue that this αὐτὸ, translated as "him" in the KJV (copying Tyndale), actually refers to the comforter, then the KJV has translated the Greek incorrectly. Thankfully, the KJV copied Tyndale here, and he didn't mistranslate anything, but translated αὐτὸ as him, directly referring to the Spirit of Truth as antecedent Arguing against this is utter foolery. But I expect you to do just that. Alas! If only your English grammar knowledge wasn't so pathetic, this entire "discussion" could have been avoided.KJV refers to the Spirit using masculine pronouns. This is the truth that you are unwilling to accept. But that's your problem, no one else's.
                              Here you managed to add nothing.
                              Again, your problem is simple, you do not understand the English grammar of the two sections.

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

                              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.)

                              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. Syntax and grammar can differ between language.

                              You are making the same error as in the title of this post.

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

                              You know full well that various grammatical elements can change in superb translation. e.g. The singulars and plurals from Hebrew to English. There is no mistranslation involved when Elohim is translated as God.

                              Wow, I misspelled the thread title. Apologies.
                              Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-27-19, 09:42 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X