Steven Avery
Administrator
This became important because Brian made absurd claims.
You do not use a critical apparatus to make claims about all the manuscripts in the manuscript lines, since so much is omitted.
Textual Analysis 101.
Then Brian admits that there is differing punctuation in:
So why not simply acknowledge the blunder in his earlier claims?
More detail at:
Robert Hommel using material from Gregory Stafford.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160730225534/http://www.forananswer.org/Romans/Rom9_5.htm
Mitchell Andrews
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/1996-12/15926.html
Further, TO KATA SARKA represents a natural end to a complete grammatical sentence, there is nothing else needed to complete the clause. There is a natural pause after SARKA. This natural pause after SARKA is driven home by the fact that we find an punctuation point (roughy corresponding to a colon) after SARKA in all our oldest MSS, namely, A, B, C, L, ... and dozens of cursives have a stop after SARKA.
We can see difference in descriptions of the points between Stafford and Andrews on one side and Hommel and Winter on the other. Let them hash that out. Note, though, that Robert Hommel was far more honest in his analysis than Brian.
The simple fact is that Brian spoke untruthfully in writing:
Then, rather than admitting the error, he tries the normal Brian smoke and fog.
There's not "more than one Greek," nor are there multiple ways to read the Greek from which the AV was translated but there is more than one valid way to translate it into English. There's one Greek in the manuscripts and fathers, and then there are three or four proposed emendations among English translators
In this case, there's not a single variant listed in the NA28 text. This removes the only "variant" reading listed in the NA27, which is specifically noted as being "Schlichting cj," which means a conjectural (cj) emendation offered by Schlichting. There is also no variant listing in the UBS4 text, which reversed the previous conjectural emendation of the UBS3 committee that forced a doxology to the Father and was used in a small number of translations. The passage is punctuated the same in the critical texts and in the Textus Receptus. So what variant punctuation or variant are you proposing? Where's all the manuscripts with a full stop (not a middot) after "over all," etc., or supporting all these "various" readings you keep offering?
Greek punctuation among the manuscripts designates a short pause, long pause, or full stop. What we find in manuscripts such as Alexandrinus and other manuscripts is a middle dot, which corresponds with our comma, after "flesh." It is not a period. Thus you will find the middot in Stephen's 1550, and the comma in Beza's, and both signify one and the same thing.
You do not use a critical apparatus to make claims about all the manuscripts in the manuscript lines, since so much is omitted.
Textual Analysis 101.
Then Brian admits that there is differing punctuation in:
"Alexandrinus and other manuscripts".
"Greek punctuation among the manuscripts designates a short pause, long pause, or full stop."
So why not simply acknowledge the blunder in his earlier claims?
There's one Greek in the manuscripts and fathers
More detail at:
Robert Hommel using material from Gregory Stafford.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160730225534/http://www.forananswer.org/Romans/Rom9_5.htm
Mitchell Andrews
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/1996-12/15926.html
Further, TO KATA SARKA represents a natural end to a complete grammatical sentence, there is nothing else needed to complete the clause. There is a natural pause after SARKA. This natural pause after SARKA is driven home by the fact that we find an punctuation point (roughy corresponding to a colon) after SARKA in all our oldest MSS, namely, A, B, C, L, ... and dozens of cursives have a stop after SARKA.
We can see difference in descriptions of the points between Stafford and Andrews on one side and Hommel and Winter on the other. Let them hash that out. Note, though, that Robert Hommel was far more honest in his analysis than Brian.
The simple fact is that Brian spoke untruthfully in writing:
There's one Greek in the manuscripts and fathers
Then, rather than admitting the error, he tries the normal Brian smoke and fog.
Last edited: