Chrysostom

[Steven Avery]

My position on 1 Timothy 3:16 has never changed. As for Hofstetter, I'm not a part of his group, so I can't see anything.

If the group is private, you can join it easily.
And I have no idea who is the admin.

And I do have the material mirrored here, to an extent. Just search for Hofstetter in the titles.

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

1 Timothy 3:16 needs a paper on the grammar. A German linguist is interested as well.
Have not found your position yet.

 

[Brianrw]

You do not seem to have done any study.

I read the one and responded to you. Thank you for noting it again.

 

[Brianrw]

And your position, claiming the AV simple reading is not matching the TR, is refuted here:

Which falls apart here.

 

[Steven Avery]

Which falls apart here.

Since you do not want to engage on BCHF, I will place your position there.

If I do it, I have to quote fully, including some negative comments.

If you do it, then you can post more helpfully for their forum.

 

[Steven Avery]

I read the one and responded to you. Thank you for noting it again.

This is, I think about the heavenly witnesses. I have not seen your response.

 

[Steven Avery]

You properly refute the Gary Hudson errors in his paper on the grammar. (I have to check though if you hit the core problem.)
Ironically, we see essentially the same errors today from Hofstetter, Snapp and Brown.

Moved to

heavenly witnesses grammar - Brian Winter refutation of Gary Robert Hudson article

heavenly witnesses grammar - Brian Winter refutation of Gary Robert Hudson article

This will be brought over from here: Chrysostom https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/chrysostom.2335/page-3#post-9289 That area is now pointing here!

www.purebibleforum.com

 

[Brianrw]

Since you do not want to engage on BCHF, I will place your position there.

If I do it, I have to quote fully, including some negative comments.

If you do it, then you can post more helpfully for their forum.

You offered "Spin" as a source. Since you posted it here, I addressed it here. It was not a refusal to address him directly (Note: I have posted a comment on the BCHF). His argument was utterly nonsensical, calling an adjective a "nominalized verb."

 

[Steven Avery]

You offered "Spin" as a source. Since you posted it here, I addressed it here. It was not a refusal to address him directly.

To address him directly, you would post on BCHF.
It would have been a smart idea, but you refused.
So I placed your posts, excluding stuff like your "fraud" comment.

 

[Steven Avery]

E.g., the rule of the article. You're biggest tell is in 2 Peter 1:1, where the AV translators moved the pronoun before "Saviour." In the Greek, it is actually attached to "God" (i.e., "our God"). They deliberately were using "God and our Saviour" to speak of Christ because of the way the Socinians and Unitarians were expounding the text.

You just made this up,
Your motivation speculation.