Bill Brown's 16 irrelevant verses, claims HW analogy even with masc or fem sustantives - confuses James Snapp

Steven Avery

Administrator
This was Bill Brown on CARM.
He brought this up the other day on BVDB, so it is worthwhile to document his ignorance.

Bill Brown on CARM - Saved on other boards and groups.

Examples That Overthrow The Alleged Grammar Argument
A first (and easy) example comes from the same author who wrote 1 John. It's the opening of 2 John 1:
Ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτῆς οὓς ἐγὼ ἀγαπῶ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ
In this instance, the antecedent of the masculine pronoun (οὕς) is both a feminine singular (κυρίᾳ) and a neuter plural (τέκνοις).
Boom. There was the sound of the grammatical argument hitting the floor. But you have other examples. Keep in mind some knowledge of Greek is necessary to comprehend this grammatical discord. There are probably close to 100 examples of discord in the OT and NT combined.
These include:

Matt 25:32 [τα εθνη (N)…αυτους (m)];
Mark 3:8 [πλῆθος (N)…ἀκούσαντες (m)];
Mark 5:41 [τοῦ παιδίου (N) λέγει αὐτῇ (f)];
Luke 2:13 [πλῆθος (N) στρατιᾶς (f)…αἰνούντων (m) …λεγοντων (m)];
Acts 13:48 [τὰ ἔθνη (N) …ὅσοι (m)…τεταγμένοι (m)];
Acts 14:4 [τὸ πλῆθος (N) …καὶ οἱ (m)…οἱ (m)…];
Acts 15:17 [τὰ ἔθνη (N) ἐφ’ οὓς (m)];
Acts 26:17 [τῶν ἐθνῶν (N) εἰς οὓς (m)];
Rom 2:14 [ἔθνη (N)…οὗτοι (m)];
Rom 9:23-24 [σκεύη (N)...οὓς (m)];
Gal 4:19 [τεκνία (N) …οὓς (m)];
Eph. 2:11 [τὰ ἔθνη (N)…οἱ λεγόμενοι (m)];
Eph 4:17-18 [ἔθνη (N)…ἐσκοτισμένοι (m)… ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι (m)…αὐτοῖς (m)];
Col 2:19 [κεφαλήν (f) ἐξ οὗ (m)];
Phlm 10 [τέκνου (N) ὃν (m)].

None of these are remotely relevant to the heavenly witnesses solecism, which specifically involves masculine (or feminine) grammar with neuter nouns. Eugenius Voulgaris made all this exceedingly clear.

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

Recent Bill Brown foolishness on BVDB
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...enticity-of-1-john-5-7-t6020-s470.html#p81741
Btw - about 7 or 8 years ago, our friend with the little level of knowledge but the very big keyboard went off on CARM about natural and grammatical gender, and actually had the gall WHILE I'M WRITNG MY THESIS on grammar mind you - to say I didn't know something.

It is quite obvious that Bill Brown did not know the basics.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Bill Brown says nothing about his ongoing blunder:
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...enticity-of-1-john-5-7-t6020-s480.html#p81765

He does add some of his normal sickness.

Here is where Eugenius shows the solecism question applies to masculine or feminine grammar, with neuter nouns.

3) "That it is certainly a peculiar virtue of our language that masculine and feminine nouns, in reference to τὰ πράγματα [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."

The heavenly witnesses solecism involves masculine grammar, however the Greek grammar can be masculine or feminine.

Maybe Bill Brown learns something today.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
So it is clear that the 16 verses given by Bill Brown have absolutely nothing to do with the heavenly and earthly witnesses grammar.
Totally irrelevant.

Matt13weedhacker
I know where he's going with the feminine. It's to do with the Origen passage (I suspect).

Nahh.
All explained above.

As usual, you end up helping the defense of the various heavenly wtinesses evidences, although you only try to nibble around the edges.
See the next post, demolishing your last remaining refuge, trying to claim allegory!

Btw, just because Bill Brown is blundering on the heavenly and earthly witnesses does not mean that others can't try to write intelligently on the grammar of the two verses.

Wait, you Matt are the poster who simply lied about my supposedly changing earlier posts.
Oops. No integrity.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
William Craig Brownlee covers the allegory question on the Origen scholium.
https://books.google.com/books?id=_tk2AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA305

1618806189326.png
1618806235878.png


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

Knittel
https://books.google.com/books?id=QH5CAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA76
Now we do not discover, in the writings of the Greeks, the faintest indication that they understood 1 John V. 8 of the Holy Trinity.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Euthymius
Let the non-Greek "expert" then go through the Jn16 references to the Holy Spirit (neuter substantive and adjective) and *explain* the numerous masculine pronouns describing Him (or "it" as SA most likely prefers).
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...enticity-of-1-john-5-7-t6020-s480.html#p81770

John 14, 15, 16. I'm a bit surprised that you do not know the answer to your question. Check out the paraclete being the actual grammatical referent. Masculine. The Naselli and Gons paper is the best on the topic.

Anyway, it is good to have someone who is not sick and vulgar posting on the earthly witnesses solecism question. Could make for actual discussion and learning, iron sharpeneth.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator

What is the Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity consisting of different persons?

https://christianity.stackexchange....l-basis-for-the-personhood-of-the-holy-spirit


John 14:26: ... Other examples of this are John 15:26 and especially 16:13–14. However, some trinitarian scholars reject this argument as specious, saying that the rules of Greek grammar are not controverted in these verses: the masculine pronoun, they argue, can legitimately refer to the masculine noun Helper, not Spirit, even though (particularly in John 16) they are not in close proximity.

Naselli and Gons, "Prooftexting the Personality of the Holy Spirit," DBSJ 16 (2011). The analysis of the common argument begins on page 79. A list of adherents to the counterargument begins on page 83. An example of a theologian interacting with the counterargument and rejecting it is found on page 87.

Blog
https://andynaselli.com/prooftexting-the-personality-of-the-holy-spirit

PROOFTEXTING THE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT: AN ANALYSIS OF THE MASCULINE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS IN JOHN 14:26, 15:26, AND 16:13–14
by Andrew David Naselli and Philip R. Gons
https://andynaselli.com/wp-content/uploads/2011_prooftexting.pdf
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Time for a good laugh.

Bill Brown - https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...enticity-of-1-john-5-7-t6020-s480.html#p81771
Well, it would, but then they turn right around and make up more Greek rules to say "well pronouns are okay" and all that nonsense.

There are PLENTY of places that show Bulgaris was simply a clueless goof on this issue. And I reiterate - anyone who actually reads him realizes that even Bulgaris didn't place the emphasis on this point that the modern KJVOs do. They only do this because Fuller quoted Dabney, who was wrong.

Plan to comment in a bit :).

Clueless Goof Bill Brown!
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Now Matt13weedhacker is similarly totally confused:
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...enticity-of-1-john-5-7-t6020-s490.html#p81824

What are the three specific grammatical gender antecedents in the text below that the neuter gender phrase τὰ τρία "the three things" grammatically concord with?

Origen of Alexandria “Commentary on the Gospel of John,” Book 6, Chapter 26, MPG Vol 14, Col. 275-276.

And, what are the three specific grammatical gender antecedents in the text below that the neuter gender phrase τὰ τρία "the three things" grammatically concord with below?


Psuedographic Origen, "Selecta in Psalmos," Psalm 122.2 LXX, manuscript text.

Who cares? Read Eugenius Bulgaris.
Neuter gender grammar in phrases have nothing to do with the earthly witnesses short text solecism.

Remember, Euthymius also was totally confused about pneuma in John 14-15-16, and Bill Brown as well.
 
Top