placing the English of the AV on Bible and English grammar sites for study

Brianrw

Member
Worthless circularity again.

And I proved above that the English text of the AV is far more natural without an apposition claim.
No. An appositional phrase is a relative clause in which "who/that is" is omitted, and in nonrestrictive clauses it is set off by a comma, including at the end of a sentence. That is the rule. It is not circular logic. You, however, change the relative to a personal pronoun, and even include an example where you make a singular refer back to a plural, which violates the rules of Greek grammar.

The whole "ellipses" thing is weird. Where on earth did you get that from? An apposition is not considered an elliptical phrase. Elliptical clauses are a different function of the English language. Quite simply, we don't want to see "whose . . . whom . . . who is . . . who is . . . who is" in English. That's why these constructions exist.

"God blessed" is also nonrestrictive, and set off by a comma. It gives additional information of the subject that does not affect the point of the sentence. Otherwise, you're looking at, "and from whom Christ came God blessed forever." So now He came to us blessed by God? This is also why you had to introduce words in your explanation after you removed "who is over all."

Are you even applying critical thought to what you're saying?
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Let's keep it simple.

Read the AV text, and compare these two shortened versions:

1) Wonderful Christ came, (he is) God (who is) blessed for ever (by the people or creation). - Brian
2) Wonderful Christ came, (he is) God blessed for ever. - proposal

Give us your latest grammatical reasons why you claim (2) is impossible in English.
 

Brianrw

Member
Give us your latest reasons
This conversation is weird. I've not changed anything at all, you're the one who's all over the map in regards to grammar, interpretation (the new fad is Israel is blessed), misapplying rules, mistaking nonrestrictive clauses as restrictive, confusing the difference between an adjective and a participle verb, promoting wildly inaccurate Greek translations of the verse that don't even support your stated view, etc.

If my reading is so impossible, and yours is correct, how is it that so few received the memo?

When I worked at a restaurant, I had a simple philosophy: If I had trouble with one person's calls only, likely they were being too quiet or forgetting to call. If I had trouble with many calls, then the problem was me. I would sort it out from there, and usually things went well after. Sometimes it's not everyone else who's the problem.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
This conversation is weird. I've not changed anything at all, you're the one who's all over the map in regards to grammar, interpretation (the new fad is Israel is blessed), misapplying rules, mistaking nonrestrictive clauses as restrictive, confusing the difference between an adjective and a participle verb, promoting wildly inaccurate Greek translations of the verse that don't even support your stated view.

No, you call it weird because you have no response.

If you can not prove that (2) is a false English understanding of the AV text, then your mandatory apposition claims are totally falsified.

You are so confused that you can not even FOCUS on the English text.

1) Wonderful Christ came, (he is) God (who is) blessed for ever (by the people or creation). - Brian
2) Wonderful Christ came, (he is) God blessed for ever. - proposal

If you want to change your claim, and acknowledge that you can not claim that the English is an apposition, because the AV missed the Greek text understanding, go right ahead. That would actually be more honest on your end.
 

Brianrw

Member
No, you call it weird because you have no response.

If you can not prove that (2) is a false English understanding of the AV text, then your mandatory apposition claims are totally falsified.

You are so confused that you can not even FOCUS on the English text.

1) Wonderful Christ came, (he is) God (who is) blessed for ever (by the people or creation). - Brian
2) Wonderful Christ came, (he is) God blessed for ever. - proposal

If you want to change your claim, and acknowledge that you can not claim that the English is an apposition, because the AV missed the Greek text understanding, go right ahead. That would actually be more honest on your end.
My responses are in writing all over countless posts now. You can go back and read if you want, I'm not going to repeat myself ad infinitum.

If you want to change your claim, and acknowledge that you can not claim that the English is an apposition, because the AV missed the Greek text understanding, go right ahead. That would actually be more honest on your end.
Would you stop all the hundred ways of calling me "dishonest"? This seriously goes way beyond what I would consider normal or scholarly disagreement, as you somehow feel the need to constantly impugn my credibility, scholarly ability, honesty, etc. This is not at all acceptable.

It's not like I didn't provide ample evidence both among the English commentators to substantiate everything I've said, reading the AV as it is written, whereas you're pretty much striking out everywhere I've seen you asking questions fishing for validation of your view. I've literally not seen your interpretation expressed anywhere except a couple of websites and one English commentary. The heterodox, even, who might otherwise benefit from your view don't even mention it.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Your refusal to address 1-2 now constitutes proof that your claim of apposition of the English AV text is refuted.

You would have to show that (2) is a false understanding from the AV text. You made some tries earlier like the hyphen claim and the comma claim and they were shown to be false claims.

Your claims are now only for the Greek text, and the AV failing to match the Greek TR text.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
And I will be pointing back to #24 and #26 as the full refutation of your bogus claim that the AV text is grammatically mandatory as an apposition text. (See Cranford, too.)

May place them on a new thread.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
The heterodox, even, who might otherwise benefit from your view don't even mention it.

‘They simply would be very discomfited by:

Christ who is over all.
Christ who is blessed by God for ever.

They search for alternatives where God is over all and there is no intimation of eternal blessing upon Christ.
Low Christology.

They are easy to find, following the trail of Erasmus, Grotius, Crell, Wetstein, Abbot and many others.
 

Brianrw

Member
Your refusal to address 1-2 now constitutes proof that your claim of apposition of the English AV text is refuted.

You would have to show that (2) is a false understanding from the AV text. You made some tries earlier like the hyphen claim and the comma claim and they were shown to be false claims.

Your claims are now only for the Greek text, and the AV failing to match the Greek TR text.
You are articulating my position wrongly in your own words. You relate it as though I would form a prepositional phrase involving a participle verb construction instead of an adjectival. This is not what I am arguing at all, and based on this straw man argument you claim to refute me.

In the second option, you've quoted the AV but you have loaded it with your own meaning, and this would be both a loaded statement involving a false dichotomy.

My point about not going on ad infinitum is that I'm not going to argue in circles with you when consistently misrepresent what I'm saying that then pretend to refute it. My position is "Christ . . . who is over all, God blessed forever," where "God" is an appositive of Christ and "blessed" is a predicate adjective, but to you it is a compound adjective. Your interpretation turns a predicate adjectival construction, supported by the Greek, into a compound adjective unsupported by the Greek.

You keep seeing a participle construction here and no matter how many times you assert it, subject-verb-object is a verbal construction.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
In the second option, you've quoted the AV but you have loaded it with your own meaning, and this would be both a loaded statement involving a false dichotomy.

Since you refuse to try to refute the second option, (you can reword it back to the AV text rather than the short version) your claim of a mandatory apposition in the AV text is totally defunct.

You should argue it is a POSSIBLE apposition.
That would be consistent and honest to the issues.

You don't like that since it would eliminate all your circular arguments (e.g. apposition, ellilpsis.)
 

Brianrw

Member
Since you refuse to try to refute the second option, (you can reword it back to the AV text rather than the short version) your claim of a mandatory apposition in the AV text is totally defunct.
You should argue it is a POSSIBLE apposition.
That would be consistent and honest to the issues.
No, it wouldn't. In fact it would be harmful. We are not looking at English only. It cannot be true of either English or Greek, it has to be true of English and Greek. It is also not If English, then Greek, it is If Greek, then English. The English cannot change the Greek but the Greek can affect the English.

So that possibility you speak of (however awkward, unnatural or remote) only exists if the English matches the Greek in meaning. Had Paul written the passage strictly in English, maybe we could have this conversation. But he wrote in Greek, and the English is supposed to match the Greek meaning, I am telling you none of the other options are possible. I'm offering the only solution to the AV text where the translators would be following the Greek.

You don't like that since it would eliminate all your circular arguments (e.g. apposition, ellilpsis.)
This is not a substantive statement, but emotive appeal. As noted in another place you were answered this on Reddit already some time ago, to which the following rule from a 1784 English grammar by John Fell:

3. If the adjective be followed by a preposition with its attendant case, or if it govern another word, then it must be placed after the substantive, or if it govern another word, then it must be placed after its substantive: thus, he gave me money sufficient for the year, a house suited to my taste, and fields yielding a large increase.​
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
No, it wouldn't. In fact it would be harmful. We are not looking at English only. It cannot be true of either English or Greek, it has to be true of English and Greek. It is also not If English, then Greek, it is If Greek, then English. The English cannot change the Greek but the Greek can affect the English.

If you have to fall back on the Greek, then you have nothing, because I trust your Greek way below your English.

And your English has been a problem with bogus claims about hyphens and commas and apposition and your taking contradictory views on three direct affirmations about Christ.

The very fact that you are now misusing a 1784 English grammar book is the ultimate self-destruction of your position.
All the book might be saying is that:

God blessed him ... sensible.
blessed by God him ... nonsense

To think it has anything to do with the adverbial use of for ever just shows that you flunk English 101.

Your problem is that you let grammar books distract you from the actual flow of our English language.
This I normally expect from foreigners, for whom English is a secondary or tertiary language and they are not fluent.
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
I'm confident in my own integrity. If you have to continually misrepresent things, such as above, or form personal attacks, you've already lost the argument.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
I'm confident in my own integrity. If you have to continually misrepresent things, such as above, or form personal attacks, you've already lost the argument.

No misrepresentation.

Your use of the 1784 grammar book, following some fella on the grammar forum, is barely a joke.
 
Top