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

Granville Sharps rules

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

  • Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
    I agree with you that "must be" is too strong for grammar, but I think it is in harmony with what Winer wrote. He didn't list or hint at any exceptions when he wrote, "does not receive the article." I'll take a look when I get a chance after I find out your feelings about the TR for Jude 4.
    The TR text is the scripture.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
      I don't understand what you mean when you say that the "English Authorized Version" may be considered "an independent edition of the Greek text." It can't be considered such because it is not Greek. For that reason, it can't be any version of a Greek text other than a translation.
      Uh, let me explain this one to you EDIT Address posters by their user names ONLY. Do not reveal private information on the boards won't come right out and actually SAY it.,


      The poster in question is a King James Onlyist. He holds to the Anglo-centric, anti-historical (and for that matter anti-biblical) view that the KJV is "it." All appeals to Greek are REALLY just subterfuge since they are irrelevant in the bigger picture, which is a perfect KJV. His verbiage here is basically co-opted from KJVO fundamentalist Edward F. Hills's 1956 book, "The King James Version Defended." Unlike the other rabid fundies who hold the KJVO position, Hills actually possessed an earned PhD in Textual Criticism from Harvard, where he wrote a dissertation about the Caeserean text-type.

      In his book, which became popular in the 1970s indy-fundy coffee house/church basement scene, Hills came up with a creative way to get around the unvarnished truth that there is no actual Textus Receptus that underlies the KJV. Here is what he wrote:

      "...THE KING JAMES VERSION OUGHT TO BE REGARDED NOT MERELY AS A TRANSLATION OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS BUT ALSO AS AN INDEPENDENT VARIETY OFT HE TEXTUS RECEPTUS. ... But what do we do in these few places in which the several editions of the Textus Receptus disagree with one another? Which text do we follow? The answer to this question is easy. We are guided by the common faith. HENCE WE FAVOR THAT FORM OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS UPON WHICH MORE THAN ANY OTHER GOD, WORKING PROVIDENTIALLY, HAS PLACED THE STAMP OF HIS APPROVAL, NAMELY, THE KING JAMES VERSION
      , or, more precisely, the Greek text underlying the King James Version" (Hills, KJVD, 220,223). Note that I grabbed this quotation from what is left on the net since my book is at home.

      What Hills is saying is this: "Yeah, I know there's a BUNCH (252 according to his count) of places where the KJV translators departed from their base TR. The reality is there IS no actual TR that underlies the KJV, just some readings here and there in DIFFERENT TRs."


      Again, the appeal to the TR is subterfuge. The appeal to Greek is subterfuge. Keep this in mind: EDIT Address posters by their user names ONLY. Do not reveal private information on the boards has repeatedly online for years claimed that the following:

      Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
      Actually my assertion is about today. The day in which we live.

      Before the Reformation era, we had preservation in both the Greek fountainhead and Latin historical lines, which is why we had the superb scholarship that led to the Geneva and AV.
      Put quite simply, the god of these people was a monumental failure who botched it twice, first in Greek and then in Latin.

      The appeal to Latin is only made because there are some places in the KJV with ZERO Greek MSS support where the Latin is the root source of the reading. It's backwards reasoning at its best, and it is, in fact, his position.

      Even this very thread has its roots in a rejection of Granville Sharp's observations that are not "really" based on anything to do with the Greek language (since the objector doesn't know Greek at all).


      The objection is only being made because the objector is a KJV Onlyist.


      I hope this helps.

      Last edited by Mod8; 12-13-17, 01:36 PM.
      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


      • Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
        A person, with integrity, could (mistakenly) claim the identity translations for a couple of the verses. To claim a "Rule" simply shows that modern Greek New Testament grammar scholarship is a total disaster. This is the key point.
        I would remind you that YOU YOURSELF advocate both the Comma Johanneum AND the wrong arguments advocated for it by Frederick Nolan:

        Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
        For #1, try to make this sensible. How do you determine that a “”good English ...Bible”” uses “Literary Criticism”? Try to actually name editionds and verses, with specifics, no this does not remain a throwaway junque theory .

        For #2, is a liberal, unbelieving scholar “authoritative” because they have some skills in “Literary Criticism and Linquistics”. How about John Gill or Frederick Nolan? Do they make your skill cut?

        Steven

        Yet the entire argument in favor of the CJ is based on rules of grammar. So to call this application on your part inconsistent is to be charitable to say the least.



        Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
        And it is embarrassing to New Testament studies that so much energy is wasted on a nothing.
        Then why do you continue to do it?

        Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
        The lack of fluency in the languages has contributed to this merry-go-round.
        Once again, irony escapes you doesn't it?



        Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
        Plus there is a seminary structure that is ossified.
        How can you possibly know what goes on in seminaries when you've never attended one?


        Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
        Stuck in scholsatic confusions and corrupt Greek texts with errors and solecisms, and liberal rut, and faux apologetics masking as grammar (the GSR.) This GSR stuff has actually undermined apologetics, by putting eggs in a rotten basket.

        Steven
        It is amusing to watch a person who by his own admission cannot read Greek and has never studied Greek grammar judge the fluency or competence of others who have.

        But note the irony:

        Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
        The lack of fluency in the languages has contributed to this merry-go-round.
        Again for good measure...


        Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
        The lack of fluency in the languages has contributed to this merry-go-round.
        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



        • A reminder:

          Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
          Do you have any comments ... the points made by Thomas Pearne (Gregory Blunt).?
          Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
          I haven't been able to find any comments by Thomas Pearne or Gregory Blunt,
          Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
          Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
          I'll take a look when I get a chance after I find out your feelings about the TR for Jude 4.
          Steven Avery
          Last edited by Steven Avery; 12-13-17, 11:28 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
            A reminder




            I've not forgotten. I will get to it by the end of the month. I have scant spare time at the moment from trying to wrap up loose ends at work before the Holiday Season. In fact, I will be surprised if I get a chance to post again for a few weeks, but when I do yours will be the first post I respond to. I am going to try to procure that book for closer reading in the meantime.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
              I've not forgotten. I will get to it by the end of the month. ...
              Thanks. Sometimes we actually communicate.

              Here is Lewis Campbell talking of the scholarship of Beza and Erasmus in the context of the Granville Sharp "rule". Bold added.

              Contemporary Review (1876)
              On the Revision of the English New Testament II p. 93-109

              https://books.google.com/books?id=fZzQAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA100

              Lewis Campbell (1830-1908)
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Campbell_(classicist)
              4. The translators are frequently accused of being ignorant of the niceties of Greek grammar. It is true that we have attained to a degree of certainty on some minute points, which was impossible for the early scholars. But what is gained in minuteness is sometimes apt to be lost in breadth; and the scholar of the future, if he should carry his minuteness so far as to look into what may be called the “literature” of Mr. Granville Sharp’s rule, and to compare it with a page of the Commentary of Erasmus, or even of Beza, will hardly be impressed with the advance in Greek scholarship which three centuries had produced in England. When Middleton says that Erasmus did not know much Greek, this is not to be taken on his authority. It has, indeed, been customary with English scholars to exalt the learning of Bentley and Porson over that of the sixteenth century. But the first editing of Greek books was a greater work than the emending of them; and, even amongst emendations, a larger proportion of those of Stephens have stood the test of time than of those of Bentley. Winer, in speaking of the Hebraisms of the New Testament, justly says of Beza and Stephens, “The views of these two excellent Greek scholars are evidently less extreme than is commonly supposed, and are, on the whole, nearer the truth than those of many later commentators.” p. 100

              There are some points about the use of the article, belonging rather to language generally than to Greek in particular, which were regarded as novelties in scholarship at the beginning of the present century (in England/, and yet were clearly known, not only to Beza, but to Erasmus, who was, further, aware of the possibility of exceptions to such rules. In this he was in advance of scholars like Middleton. (SA: and Wallace et al.) p. 101

              With regard to the omission of the article, the once-vaunted rule of Granville Sharp, that two nouns united under the vinculum of a single article must he attributes of one and the same subject (a rule insisted on by Beza, and in general terms by Erasmus long before), was soon found, first by the candid investigation of Mr. Sharp himself, and afterwards by the superior scholarship of Middleton, to be subject to such serious limitations as to make the whole question somewhat precarious. The principle of Middleton'’s concessions (which it has since been found necessary to carry further) amounts to this, that the rule must be assumed to hold, except where the nature of the subject makes it evident that two things or persons are spoken of, in which case the repetition of the article is not absolutely required. But this principle extends to the case of proper names, and of those words expressing titles and attributes which are approaching to the condition of proper names. The application of this remark to Eph. v. 5, and Tit. ii. 13, will be considered afterwards.p. 103-104
              From the third part of the Revision article.
              f. In Tit. ii. 13, it has been thought important by some revisionists to alter the Authorized Version in conformity with “ Granville Sharp’s rule,” by reading “ of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ” for “ of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” King James’'s translators have perhaps purposely left a passage ambiguous, respecting which there was a difference of opinion between Beza and Erasmus. Tyndale, following Erasmus, rendered “ of the mighty God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ;” and it is an indication of the haste with which their work was done that the Genevan translators, while following Beza’s version, “magni illius Dei ac Servatoris nostri, nempe Jesu Christi,” so far as to change “ the” to “that,” did not follow his interpretation by cancelling the second “of.”* Dean Alford has again returned to the interpretation of Erasmus, rendering “ of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ.” The chief question is whether the absence of the article before “Saviour” necessarily implies that the words “God” and “Saviour” both refer to one and the same subject, viz., Jesus Christ. p. .485

              And this is confirmed by our observing a slightly different class of exceptions to the rule, in which, while the two nouns refer to one subject only, a genitive is attached to the second of the two; whereas according to the rule, it should have been bound to both. p. 486
              And the verses are discussed in p. 485-487.
              This point on p. 486 first came from Gregory Blunt, about our possessive adjective.:
              We infer from these passages that a title such as “Christ” or “Lord” (and why not “Saviour”?), may dispense with the article, though applied to a different subject from that which has been previously mentioned with the article. p. 486
              If you follow the page, you will see that Campbell has shown that the discarded verses from Sharp actually disprove the basic rule, showing that it does not apply to these titles and descriptions from our Christological and ontological lingo. The article is easily omitted, without it being an identity translation.

              The bottom footnote on p. 485 similarly shows the inconsistency of the GSR, by verse comparison. Grammatically, what is good for the Lord should be good for the Saviour.

              Steven Avery
              Last edited by Steven Avery; 12-14-17, 04:17 AM.

              Comment


              • Lewis Campbell also does well explaining the grammatical expertise of the Reformation era compared to the Sharpite developments 200 years laters, as in p. 100-101 above.

                Since CARM does not allow the upload of the images, I'll show it online at a url in large size, and mini-size in google books for those who have access. There it is small and you might want to press the + sign.

                Lewis Campbell compares Reformation era Greek scholarship to the bumbling Sharp schools
                http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...&p=914#post914
                Google books
                https://books.google.com/books?id=fZzQAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA485


                You have the Latin of Erasmus and Beza there and the learned commentary of Campbell.

                "Will it be said after this that the scholars of the sixteenth century were ignorant of the refinements of Greek grammar?"

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


                And this type of learned writing helps to demonstrate the tawdry nature of the A. T. Robertson, Clifford Kuehne and Daniel Wallace writing, taking and faking the Winer bogey-man approach to the history of the Granville Sharp rules scholarship. That accusation is actually an insult to men like Lewis Campbell, Ezra Abbot and many, many others (Abbot lists many) who simply understood the Greek better than the Sharpites. They were not in the least intimidated by Winer, the rule basically died out because it had no basis, and many scholars exposed the soft underbelly of a rigged and embarrassing grammatical manipulation. It took Kuehne and Wallace to renew the embarrassment in the last 40 years. With Wallace able to confuse some of his students, leading to stuff like the absurdity of the statistics of J. Edward Komoszewski.
                .
                Steven Avery
                Last edited by Steven Avery; 12-14-17, 04:52 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                  Here is Lewis Campbell talking of the scholarship of Beza and Erasmus in the context of the Granville Sharp "rule". Bold added.
                  In a related story (since apparently), the earth is flat.


                  See, I can just put up a link and that settles the argument, right?


                  https://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions



                  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


                  • Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                    Lewis Campbell also does well explaining the grammatical expertise of the Reformation era compared to the Sharpite developments 200 years laters, as in p. 100-101 above.
                    Lewis Campbell gave his ignorant opinion, which has just been shared on CARM.

                    (Go look up "appeal to authority fallacy"......)



                    Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                    And this type of learned writing helps to demonstrate the tawdry nature of the A. T. Robertson, Clifford Kuehne and Daniel Wallace writing,
                    So, everybody, Lewis Campbell in 1876 was addressing A.T. Robertson in 1934 and people alive today.......truly amazing to put it mildly.



                    Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                    taking and faking the Winer bogey-man approach to the history of the Granville Sharp rules scholarship. That accusation is actually an insult to men like Lewis Campbell, Ezra Abbot and many, many others (Abbot lists many) who simply understood the Greek better than the Sharpites.


                    You insult scholars merely because you don't like what they say, and then want to say accusing others is "actually an insult."

                    Again - irony is lost on you.


                    Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                    Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                    They were not in the least intimidated by Winer, the rule basically died out because it had no basis, and many scholars exposed the soft underbelly of a rigged and embarrassing grammatical manipulation.
                    As you keep not answering this question, "How many years of study of Greek do YOU personally have?"





                    Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                    It took Kuehne and Wallace to renew the embarrassment in the last 40 years.
                    Again, your opinion and nothing more. Do you have ANYTHING to offer the biblical languages board at CARM other than some cheerleading from the sidelines?



                    Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                    With Wallace able to confuse some of his students, leading to stuff like the absurdity of the statistics of J. Edward Komoszewski.
                    .
                    The resentment of the better known continues to come out.

                    Incidentally, your presentation at SBL, where you were going to set all those Greek scholars straight about Sinaiticus, was indeed missed. I know that Dr Wasserman, who can actually read Greek, received a Tin Foil Hat for wasting his time responding to Internet hacks).


                    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


                    • Originally posted by Maestroh View Post
                      The resentment of the better known continues to come out.

                      Incidentally, your presentation at SBL, where you were going to set all those Greek scholars straight about Sinaiticus, was indeed missed. I know that Dr Wasserman, who can actually read Greek, received a Tin Foil Hat for wasting his time responding to Internet hacks).
                      Did Steven present this stuff in an SBL session? Or are you saying he was going to, but then didn't?
                      It is now certain that triunity is supported by the original languages.
                      Exegeses have revealed 21 ascriptions of "God," 70 conflations (inc. 8 direct OT substitutions), 150 divine allusions and actions, and 21 triune references. And counting.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by ACAinstructor View Post
                        Did Steven present this stuff in an SBL session? Or are you saying he was going to, but then didn't?
                        I think that was sarcasm, friend. That is, if Steven had such great evidence against א, he would have presented it in a symposium of the best Greek scholars of the Bible.
                        I have permission to post on the Biblical Languages forum, as per email correspondence with Diane S.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by ACAinstructor View Post
                          Did Steven present this stuff in an SBL session? Or are you saying he was going to, but then didn't?
                          I invited him to submit his paper proposal to SBL two years ago - so much so that I offered to both pay his membership and film and distribute his presentation at my own expense.

                          I happen to think that if you're going to fire off insults at people in a scholarly discipline (e.g. claiming J.K. Elliott's massively researched tome into the Simonides affair is "deficient" because he didn't mention a book from 1907 is a great example), you need to go into the forum where these people are (rather than post sophomoric screeds online) and subject your "research" to peer review.

                          It doesn't take an IQ of 5 to see why this offer was quickly rejected.

                          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


                          • Originally posted by Maestroh View Post

                            I invited him to submit his paper proposal to SBL two years ago - so much so that I offered to both pay his membership and film and distribute his presentation at my own expense.

                            I happen to think that if you're going to fire off insults at people in a scholarly discipline (e.g. claiming J.K. Elliott's massively researched tome into the Simonides affair is "deficient" because he didn't mention a book from 1907 is a great example), you need to go into the forum where these people are (rather than post sophomoric screeds online) and subject your "research" to peer review.

                            It doesn't take an IQ of 5 to see why this offer was quickly rejected.
                            Have any of you researched the term, "Compensatory Narcissism". It may give you some insights as to the reasons behind the outrageous patterns of thought and outlandish statements. You see everyone who has the "horsepower and discipline" to study the ancient languages at a graduate (or post grad) level can see through the sad posers who have neither the same "horsepower nor discipline". They want your "glory" but are attempting to steal it through bluff and bluster. So your engaging those troll-like comments is doing the opposite of your intentions: shutting down absurdities.

                            They trigger a "fight or flight" response in the narcissist personality, and rather than admit defeat, and shut up, the narcissist needs to "double down" and prove that he alone is correct. Yeah, that is not rational, but personality disorders are never rational. Essentially, y'all are throwing gasoline on a campfire in the hopes of extinguishing it. Can't be done.
                            MY FOUR APOLOGETIC AXIOMS

                            1. Any verse ripped from its context is a pretext 100% of the time

                            2. We attack lies so others will see the truth; that is proof of our love for all cultists, not our hatred .

                            3. Inconsistency is a tiny hobgoblin haunting every cult

                            4. "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire







                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Jameson View Post
                              ... if Steven had such great evidence against א, he would have presented it in a symposium of the best Greek scholars of the Bible.
                              Sinaiticus authenticity is not really a Greek scholarship issue, that is one of the lesser elements. If you spend a little time studying, you will easily understand why.

                              There is an exception in the linguistic arguments offered by the world-class Scottish scholar James Donaldson against the dating of Hermas and Barnabas. Barry H. got close to understanding this issue for Hermas a while back.

                              Also, the SART team has a gentleman in England who worked with the Greek scholarship. And found the homoeoteleutons in Sinaiticus that come from Claromontanus, or its sister ms., as the source ms.

                              The textualcriticism world has "deeply entrenched scholarship" (Malcolm Choat) regarding Sinaiticus which makes scholarly consideration very difficult.

                              A superb book, likely a two-volume, is planned to be out shortly. There is excellent material available online that covers a lot. And there is a need for a short summary paper, that I may try to do by January. There are two books out (at least as ebooks), however they are flawed in some fundamentals.

                              ===========

                              Sidenotes: As to the best Greek scholars of the Bible (only secondarily relevant), they would probably be at a conference in the region around Greece. There was a Simonides conference in Vienna in 2014 that led to excellent additional contacts. And that actually needs some additional followup.

                              If there was to be a paper at one of the conferences in the next year or two, I doubt that it would be the SBL November conference. The UK would be more likely. Someone who "invites" a paper should be someone on their steering committees.

                              ===========

                              It is a truly fascinating topic!

                              Steven Avery
                              Last edited by Steven Avery; 12-14-17, 02:16 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                                . If you spend a little time studying, you will understand why. Steven Avery
                                How can you state this to people who have graduate-level educations in ancient languages, and in the case of one poster, is a speaker of Hebrew?

                                The inherent arrogance and audacity of doing that goes far beyond the word "chutzpah".
                                MY FOUR APOLOGETIC AXIOMS

                                1. Any verse ripped from its context is a pretext 100% of the time

                                2. We attack lies so others will see the truth; that is proof of our love for all cultists, not our hatred .

                                3. Inconsistency is a tiny hobgoblin haunting every cult

                                4. "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire







                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X