Grantley McDonald - overview

Steven Avery

June 21, 2020


Raising the Ghost of Arius - the superb, the good, the bad and the ugly.

Why do we care?
From Grantley's view it is a simple matter of philology contra 'theology'.
From our view the beautiful pure and majestic Bible, and the key verse in the battle of the Bible, has been subject to a wild and weird attack, under pseudo-scholarship, pseudo-science.


What are the key blunders and errors that reveal Grantley McDonald being a 'fish out of water' on Bible textual discussions?

How does institutionalized textcrit modern corruption version bias skew page after page, assertion after assertion?


Why is Grantley so concerned that he wants to go to a lawsuit to suppress this website, and the careful analysis that might harm his reputation?
ADDED Feb 28, 2021 - nothing came of this and we are seeking to be supportive friends! :)
Last edited:

Steven Avery


Turretin-Walther blunder is so quirky. Out of left field, on his own, Grantley has Turretin borrowing ("Turretin's source" - integrity issues implied) from the little known Michael Walther. Plus Grantley does not even name the two Turretin dissertations, one each on the heavenly and earthly witnesses, 30 pages total. While Walther has 5 pages total and is unmentioned in the heavenly witnesses debate history.

Mill-Tertullian-Cyprian is a unique upside down cake. From the Latin Grantley gives the OPPOSITE understanding than what Mill actually writes.

'spiritus' to Frederick Nolan shows us that Grantlley is clueless on the key grammatical (solecism) argument. And even pivots his own ignorance as an attack on the skills and understanding of Nolan!
2nd one in post

the 1 Timothy 3:16 blunder as to the variant supported by Erasmus, Luther and Newton, having them support the modern Critical Text variant ὃς (the solecism variant that led to hymn theory) == who, rather than their support for ὃ (which), which matches the Vulgate text. This again indicates ignorance on Grantley’s part as to the solecism issue on the Critical Text variant. As well as not understanding the textual history. And like the next doozy, shows that Grantley is a ‘fish out of the water‘ on New Testament textual analysis issues.
6th one in post

Peshitta and the ending of Mark. For Grantley not to know that the c. 500 Peshitta mss are 100% with the traditional Mark ending again shows us that Grantley’s textual background is minimal. The claim that they lacked the verse was astounding.
1st one in post


Plus these two get honourable mention!

Servetus quoting Calvin, not vica-versa
This was a little tricky, since Grantley was using Wesley as the source, but it should have been straightened out, as written by Grantley it does not pass the smell test.
5th one in post

Scrivener’s last Years!
It is understandable to get the date wrong, although this history is well known.
However, to then start conjecturing, with no historical source, that this is Scrivener's special last years labour is a bit much.
1st in post


In this group, I am skipping all the spin and integrity attacks and selection bias and omissions and stuff like that.
Above are simple factual problems.

Four were in RGA, thus missed by the learned men who reviewed the dissertation.
Last edited: