+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: the jim (contra) reign of error

  1. Default the jim (contra) reign of error

    Hi,

    This is archived from CARM, where threads can vanish. This is a particularly solid summary of the conceptual, interpretative and analysis errors.

    Eugenius is solid in explaining the grammatical gender
    http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...=1#post6999792

    Later we can go back show some of the other difficulties, like how this new global rule of grammar was invented by Jim without his having checked a single text outside the New Testament (which only has one multiple series of nouns verse, and that is the one in discussion, with text missing.)


    Quote Originally Posted by Jim1 View Post
    Eugenius does NOT say that masculine or feminine substantives cannot be used with grammatically neuter nouns. He simply asks the question. We know that neuter substantives with grammatically masculine or feminine nouns is OK. What about the reverse? Is masculine or feminine substantives with grammatically neuter nouns OK? Eugenius’ objection is NOT to masculine or feminine substantives with grammatically neuter nouns in general.
    It would have been hard for this to be any clearer:

    "That it is certainly a peculiar virtue of our language that masculine and feminine nouns, in reference to ta pragmata, are constructed with adjectives and pronouns expressed in the neuter gender, is well known to all who are practised in the language. But no one would say that conversely neuter nouns substantive are also indicated by masculine and feminine adjectives or pronouns."

    Obviously he is not asking a question, he is describing the fact that neuter nouns will not normally have masculine or feminine grammar.

    You then miss the simple fact that his writing is divided into two parts:

    1) verse 8 does not stand without verse 7
    2) how the grammar works with both heavenly (7) and earthly (8) witnesses


    At certain spots I will note where you miss this distinction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim1 View Post
    The issue for Eugenius is NOT the GRAMMAR of the words. If the issue were the GRAMMAR of the words, then simply recognizing that John was being SYMBOLIC instead of being LITERAL in the MEANING of what he was saying would NOT solve the objection, because we would STILL have masculine substantives with GRAMMATICALLY neuter nouns. NOTHING would change.
    He is showing how the grammar and sense of verse 7 heavenly witnesses affects the earthly witnesses by the analogy. In a sense, this is the figure attraction, in that he is showing the grammatical connectedness of the two verses. So yes, it changes things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim1 View Post
    Therefore, the issue for Eugenius is NOT the GRAMMATICAL gender of the nouns (GRAMMAR), but the NATURAL gender of the nouns (MEANING).
    This is the basic blunder. Essentially nobody in the Bible world, except Jim, could read this:

    "That it is certainly a peculiar virtue of our language that masculine and feminine nouns, in reference to ta pragmata, are constructed with adjectives and pronouns expressed in the neuter gender, is well known to all who are practised in the language. But no one would say that conversely neuter nouns substantive are also indicated by masculine and feminine adjectives or pronouns."

    And assert that this is not a reference to the grammatical gender. I challenge you to find one person (even go back to your friend, quote him and give his name and background) who will say this is not grammatical gender being referenced. One person, with some reputation and background. Then we can have a discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim1 View Post
    In fact, Eugenius even uses the word “NATURAL” in his explanation of how he thinks 1 John 5:7-8 SHOULD be written IF John is being LITERAL instead of being SYMBOLIC.
    This is a total red herring. He is saying that, (if were not for the analogy) the natural and idiomatic language would be gender concord. Note that this is only about the full text, with 7 & 8, where he concludes that the reason is:

    the preceding verse seven, which by means of this immediate following verse eight, is explained symbolically and plainly/completely replicated, by the allusion made to that, which preceded it

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim1 View Post
    When first stating his objection to 1 John 5:7-8.
    The short text.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim1 View Post
    Eugenius objects to masculine substantives being used with “NOUNS OF NEUTER GENDER.” He does NOT say “NEUTER NOUNS,” as he does when he later describes the GRAMMAR of neuter nouns with masculine or feminine substantives. He says “NOUNS OF NEUTER GENDER.”.
    Grammatical gender of the nouns. Kewl. You do agree so far.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim1 View Post
    When restating “AGAIN” his objection to 1 John 5:7-8,
    Buzzz. Now We are talking about the full text, heavenly and earthly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim1 View Post
    Eugenius says that “DICTION NATURAL” would use NEUTER substantives (referring to THINGS)
    Buzzz. "referring to THINGS" is Jim irrelevance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim1 View Post
    with the spirit and the water and the blood, which he had previous stated to be “NOUNS OF NEUTER GENDER.”
    Right, natural idiom would start with the idea that neuter nouns have neuter substantives.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim1 View Post
    Why does Eugenius use the phrase “NEUTER NOUNS” when simply describing GRAMMAR in general and NOT objecting to using masculine or feminine substantives with “NEUTER NOUNS,” but use the phrase “NOUNS OF NEUTER GENDER” when objecting to the use of masculine substantives with “NOUNS OF NEUTER GENDER” in 1 John 5:7-8?
    The terms are synonymous.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim1 View Post
    Is it because the phrase “NOUNS OF NEUTER GENDER,” like the phrase “DICTION NATURAL,” is a reference to NATURAL gender (as opposed to GRAMMATICAL gender)?
    Obviously not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim1 View Post
    Eugenius’ objection regarding 1 John 5:7-8 is the use of masculine substantives (referring to PERSONS)
    Buzz.. No PERSONS .. As part of masculine grammar. The masculine nouns would not have to be "persons". Many masculine words are things. Here are a bunch for you. https://quizlet.com/30686866/greek-m...s-flash-cards/ Note river, horse, food, wine, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim1 View Post
    with “NOUNS OF NEUTER GENDER” (naturally neuter nouns referring to THINGS).
    Masculine, feminine or neuter nouns can refer to "things".

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim1 View Post
    According to “DICTION NATURAL” (natural gender)
    This is a laughable mangling of:

    Again here we read in verse eight: "three (m) that bear witness (m) in earth, the spirit (n), and the water (n), and the blood (n): and these three (m) agree in one (n). I ask, surely, here the natural and idiomatic language is better: "three (n) that bear witness (n) in earth, the spirit (n) and the water (n) and the blood (n), and these three (n) agree in one (n)?"

    All he is saying is that natural and idiomatic language is gender concord. Very clear.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim1 View Post
    Eugenius says that that is an “INCONSISTENCY” and a “SOLECISM,”
    The solecism was referenced earlier, in describing the short text.

    a false alteration which had crept into that place,

    verse eight, which follows, would not stand, unless verse seven were to proceed it,

    some violence of language, and through a most manifest grammatical solecism.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jim1 View Post
    that is, IF John is being LITERAL in 1 John 5:7-8. IF John is being SYMBOLIC in 1 John 5:7-8, so that the nouns (LITERALLY referring to THINGS) are SYMBOLICALLY referring to PERSONS, then the masculine substantives (referring to PERSONS) do NOT create an INCONSISTENCY or a SOLECISM.”
    There is nothing in Eugenius about symbolically referring to persons. "Persons" is never even discussed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim1 View Post
    Eugenius’ argument is that the heavenly witnesses have to be present in the text in order for the reader to know that John is being SYMBOLIC (as opposed to being LITERAL) in his use of masculine substantives (referring to PERSONS) with “NOUNS OF NEUTER GENDER” (referring to THINGS).
    The reader does not have to know any of this. There is simply an analogy in the grammar and sense that relates the earthly witnesses to the heavenly witnesses, that analogy extends to the two sharing one grammatical gender.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim1 View Post
    What Eugenius does not mention is that the phrase “THE WITNESS OF THE MEN” in the next verse (5:9) accomplishes the same thing..
    There is simply no grammatical connection between 1 John 5:9 and 1 John 5:7-8 in either the short text or the full text. You could end with the earthly witnesses and the grammar would be identical.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim1 View Post
    It confirms that John is being SYMBOLIC in the preceding verses (5:7-8).
    1 John 5:9
    If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater:
    for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.


    This verse is another confirmation that the section does not stand (a third is the stale repetition in verses 6-7 in the short text) in that it refers back to the heavenly witnesses as the "witness of God".

    1 John 5:7
    For there are three that bear record in heaven,
    the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
    and these three are one.


    The witness of men is not part of the grammar of the heavenly and earthly witnesses. And it is also not the spirit, water and blood.
    John Gill is generally excellent:

    The witness of a sufficient number of credible men, of men of good character and report, is always admitted in any case, and in any court of judicature; it was allowed of in the law of Moses; everything was proved and established hereby; upon this men were justified or condemned, cognizance was taken of men's sins, and punishment inflicted, yea, death itself, ( Deuteronomy 17:6 ) ( 19:15 ) ( Hebrews 10:28) ; and even in this case concerning the Son of God, his coming into the world, and the dignity of his person, the testimony of men is credited; as that of the wise men, who declared that the King of the Jews was born, and his star had been seen in the east, which Herod himself gave credit to, and upon it summoned the chief priests, and inquired of them where he should be born; and also of the shepherds, who testified to the appearance of angels, who told them that there was then born a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord, and who also related that they themselves saw the infant at Bethlehem; and especially of John the Baptist, whose testimony was true, and could not be objected to by the Jews themselves, who sent to him, before whom he bore a plain and faithful witness. Now if an human testimony may be, and is received, http://www.biblestudytools.com/comme...-john-5-9.html
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim1 View Post
    That may be the reason that Eugenius ends his letter by admitting that his argument is a two-gallon argument instead of a nine-gallon argument.
    I really suggest you research that Latin idiom, rather than giving commentary on your own translation mangling.

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

    While I expect Jim to repeat the same errors a dozen times, I think this post (with maybe a bit from earlier) sufficiently summarizes the errors, point-by-point. Thus I will save it on the PureBibleForum, along with some notes about how Jim invented a new grammar idea, mangled Wallace, did not check even one text outside the NT before declaring new universal rules for neuter nouns, etc.

    Steven Avery

  2. Default jim contra the grammarians


  3. Default

    The following thread would be good to archive as well, since it makes it clear how Jim's confusions lead to his accusations, as happenned in the Eugenius / solecism discussions.

    The Double Standards and Self-Contradictions of Dr. Wallace
    http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...-of-Dr-Wallace


    Jim avoids expressing his bogus theories in this thread, but that does not matter, it is easy enough to see how off-base is his attack on the Personality paper. (The Granville Sharp attacks are reasonable, although hard to follow from Jim's barely comprehensible writing.)

    Steven Avery

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •