solecism - ship of grammatical fools - BVDB - matt13weedhacker, Bill Brown, Euthymius

Steven Avery

“The Comma is missing from the actual original text (contra erasiers and replacements by later hands and later marginal notes) of all Pre-1500 A.D. (note before 1500 A.D.) Armenian manuscripts of the NT.”

Your proof of this claim?

No proof in your post.


There is no parable in Potamius saying that of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, “and these three are one”.

Do you know what is a parable?


“I suspect there is some doubling up of references to ECW writers”

Not likely.
References are vetted carefully.

And I have been checking carefully and have found additional references, but no doubles.


Your 8 questions are incoherent.
3,4,7,8 talk of the Latin Vetus Latina of Athanasius.

You are not familiar with the material.


"Some of them say Diotrophes created the solecism."

3 John 9 (AV)
I wrote unto the church:
but Diotrephes,
who loveth to have the preeminence among them,
receiveth us not.

And I would like to see who places Diotrephes as the omitter.
Wait, the spelling threw me, may have it, Keith Mason, and it made it to KJVToday.

Facebook - Textus Receptus Defense - 2013

Were the Apostle John’s Epistles Corrupted during His Own Lifetime?

We know from early manuscripts that 1 John Chapter 5 was corrupted at a very early stage. We know that passages such as Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) do not appear at all in some of the early manuscripts. So why would the Johannine Comma be removed from the scriptures when the Bible does not rely on this comma alone to prove the Trinity? Was there motive, opportunity and a logical suspect for the early corruption of Johns Epistles?

This only makes sense if we could find someone with the power and influence to change manuscripts that had motives specifically aimed at the Apostle John himself.

The Bible tells us that John had an arch enemy. He was named Diotrephes and he attempted to subvert John's doctrines. He is mentioned by name in John's Third Epistle at verses 9 to 10:

3 John 1:9-10
"I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church."

This is unprecedented in the scriptures. Nowhere else in the Bible do we read of a heretic preventing a community of believers from receiving the epistles of an Apostle. Diotrephes had the motive and could have modified the contents of John's epistles to suit his own theology and his congregation would not have known about it. We know he had enough power and influence to do so since even John could not get to the believers under Diotrephes' control. Diotrephes appears to be a prime candidate for corrupting John's epistles.

If Diotrephes removed the Comma before 100 AD, there would have been ample time for the corrupted reading to receive wide circulation. Thereafter the Comma-free copies may have gained irreversible ascendancy.

Of course, Diotrephes' deletion of the Comma is speculation. However, the fact that John had such an influential rival validates the hypothesis that John's epistles may have been corrupted during John's lifetime.


Last edited:

Steven Avery

”[The Apparatus, which you discount, is the very tool which documents the actual data and evidence]”

I simply point out that their documentation is grossly deficient and use should be with great caution.

The apparatuses are put together by idiots who can give the short corrupt Mark ending an A.
They are designed to deceive.

Steven Avery


Before these Armenian Church Councils, the Acts of the 4th Lateran Council (circa. 1215 A.D.) was held, where Pope Innocent the 3rd condemned a work by Joachim against Lombard which mentions problems with the Comma only being in "some" manuscripts.

The reference with Joachim Fiore and missing text historically refers to "and these three.." in verse 8. This question even went forward from the Lateran Council and Thomas Aquinas to the Complutensian Polyglot and its note. (A note that has its own problems with scholars tripping over the reference, with a weak idea of a cancel-sheet.) To be fair, the original text of Joachim is ambiguous, something to which I will put some attention.

In the robust Latin world the heavenly witnesses verse was virtually unchallenged.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

"You can run, but you can't hide MY objections to your theories.
I'll keep posting them."

Will they be as incompetent as your uncorrected reference to Athanasius and his Latin Vetus Latina.

Why would I bother with such nonsense? ... especially if uncorrected.

Why are you so much more concerned with posturing than accuracy?

Steven Avery

”So why didn't Avery write something like this? I have a feeling he does not want to commit himself to a final publication. Everytime some corrects his errors from his group, he alters them without any acknowledgment. He is a fraud. This action tells you everything you need to know about him. “

Putting aside your typical lies above, the norm for BVDB, there is a lot of work in The Witness of God is Greater that complements my efforts. E.g. lots of translation efforts. The book gives new references that had been overlooked.

And I am in a position to help in many ways, and make my contributions. A reasonable service.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

“He simultaneously says the corrupt (note corrupted = he needs to define exactly what he means by this) split line manuscripts existed circa 88(?) A.D., and says the solecism didn't exist this early on (synchronously).”

Keith Mason offered the idea that Diatrephes corrupted the text. His name means nourished by Jupiter (yahweh.) If so, that would be more like 65 AD than 88 AD.

The split line in the Greek likely began early, first or second century.
The conjecture from Keith Mason is interesting.

BVDB posters are totally unreliable.

Steven Avery

“You can run, but you can't hide MY objections to your theories.
I'll keep posting them.”

Like your Athanasius African Vetus Latina?

Steven Avery

M.M.R. (who can at least avoid the silly posturing and try to raise an argument)

On the weight of Latin Fathers and commentators, Scrivener states:

"We have little to say about citations from the Fathers. That the Latin ecclesiastical writers should accord with the Latin versions is nothing strange; perhaps some of them could not read, none of them used familiarly the Greek original. As witnesses for the readings of the Italic or Vulgate they are of course valuable: unless in the very rare instances where they expressly appeal to the Greek, their influence upon it is but indirect and precarious."

Scrivener acknowledged that the Italic, a first or second-century Bible, had the text. As with Cyprian.

However, the textual charlatans of the CT make no such acknowledgement.

There are many evidences from the Greek, or that show the Greek connection. Again, the textual charlatans look for ways to ignore and hand-wave those evidences.

[ Adding to this the fact that allusions and indirect quotations abound amongst such writers, their collective influence becomes even more precarious. What then is to be said of the present tally of late medieval Latin commentators that Mr. Avery continues to dig up?–In truth, they are of very little value, and have next to no influence when weighing in on the original form of our Greek NT. -MMR ]

The Latin evidences are massive from the 200s to c.1400.

Clearly the purpose of showing a 1000 AD. writer is different than showing from the Ante-Nicene era through Arian controversies into the 500s.

The charlatans have been lying about the Latin evidences. Grantley made a small improvement when he acknowledged about 15 later Latin writers in a quick list. However, he only scratched the surface.

MMR, if you really understood the evidences, you would at least move to a position of "unknown" authenticity. Or you would support the heavenly witnesses text.
Last edited:

Steven Avery


Yes, the Germanus and Herclianus discussion mentions Paul and Ephesians, however that does not supply tres unum sunt.

This is one of many evidences that came too late for the 1600-1800s debate. It is not a primary evidence by any means. Like, e.g. the Vulgate Prologue of Jerome, Cyprian, the Council of Carthage and the solecism in the Greek text (those are super-evidences.) Or De Triniate and Fulgentius and many more. However, it adds to the body of early allusions to the heavenly witnesses.


Now, please show me the Athanasius Latin Vetus Latina evidence.

Try to have a smidgen of integrity in correcting your errors.

Steven Avery

After one of his sick posts, Bill Brown explains his Bible philosophy.

Life is too short to be bothered by which Bible people use, especially when even Corporal Punishment himself concedes salvation occurs outside the KJV.”

Steven Avery

"Jerome himself was an instigator."

An instigator of what?

Is matt theorizing that Jerome created the heavenly witnesses
(Erasmus tried something similar to lessen the powerful evidence from the Vulgate Prologue of Jerome.)

This is the Matt that emphasizes the:

Latin Vetus Latina of Athanasius!

An example of no-integrity matt, no explanation, no correction.


On Germanus

It is hard to waste time on matt. He makes a big deal about the three books of Augustine,

"hic sunt tres libri Sancti Augustini" with "sunt tres" because it's not mentioning the Comma but merely says: "these are the three books of Saint Augustine."

and ignores:

Her. d.: Non sic credimus. Sicut enim unus pater, unus et filius et spiritus sanctus, unus uigor. Nam et tres unum sunt

What a dummy.

Last edited:

Steven Avery

It is amazing how matt13weedhacker is a combo of stupid and arrogant and clueless:

"He's all worked up over Athanasius!"

matt is the one who wrote about:

Post #90
.... then how come Latin Athanasius' African Vetus Latina manuscript has "et in Jesu Christo unum sunt" in verse 7?
... And if Latin Athanasius' African Vetus Latina manuscript has "et in Jesu Christo unum sunt" in verse 7
.... And if Latin Athanasius' African Vetus Latina manuscript has "et in Jesu Christo unum sunt" in verse 7

Post #93

... the errors in copying Latin Athanasius vs Greek Athanasius vs Tertullian vs Cyprian etc

matt, where are the Latin Athanasius African Vetus Latina manuscripts?

Steven Avery

If matt13weedhacker wants to learn about the various quotes in De Trinitate, he should study:

Grantley McDonald - De Trinitate

Which includes the Porson note.
Plus there is a bit more in other threads, especially:

De Trinitate and Contra Varimadum - English translations

Which includes all six locations of heavenly witnesses related quotes in De Trinitate, although one Bk I.55 is a light allusion, so call it five. Note how integrated the verse is into the discussions.

matt can obsess to the max, as is his style, lots of hot air.

Here is matt being his normal ultra-stupid:

It is highly probable and likely that this text was "altered" in such a way so that the Comma Johanneum was "inserted" or "added" (like the plethora of Vulgate ms which have tampered with texts).

The Vulgate reference just piles on more non-sequitur nonsense.

Last edited:

Steven Avery

matt knows nothing about De Trinitate and spins his wheels.

matt also ignores the actual quotes.
As usual, he does not care about context.

From The Witness of God:
De Trinitate was likely written by Eusebius Vercelli (at least the first 7 books). And READING the context where the verses are used indicates that these are not simply inserted, but rather the basis of the arguments of the author. That is why I translated the context with the passage. Making broad assumptions based on an ambiguous colophon is simply absurd and another desperate attempt. .... the Christendom usage and knowledge of the first 7 books of De Trinitate, negates his entire assumption about "altered texts". Complete nonsense.


There is zero basis for the "highly probable" absurdity from matt.

All of which supports the five heavenly witnesses references, which are also corroborative to Contra Varimadum, the Council of Carthage, Fulgentius and the other Latin references.


Such speculation is confirmation bias taken to a high art.

De Trinitate has a ton of scholarship, which is based on the extant manuscripts. If some of those manuscripts omitted any one of the heavenly witnesses sections, then you could question the particular evidence.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

To help out poor Matt:

The standard used in Witness is CCSL.
Thus, scholarship acceptable.

From what I see so far.

De Trinitate has two recensions.
One has 5 heavenly witnesses, accepted by CCSL. All are integrated into the context.
The other recension has 3 HW.

Will try to get more details.

The note in the ms. likely was a result of working with the two recensions.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

matt is clueless .





"I translated the context... "
Is obviously Witness of God is Greater,
not Steven Avery personally.

Yet on BVDB matt pretends that it is my claim to translate.
Doofus city.

matt is welcome to examine and collate and analyze every De Trinitate ms.
Especially if he thinks it will move the CCSL needle.

And if matt has not examined every De Trinitate ms. we can dismiss his posts as baseless bravado (by his claimed standards.)


matt .. we await your collation of your claimed Athanasius Vetus Latina mss.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

matt .. we await your collation of your claimed Athanasius Vetus Latina mss.


Summary for matt

As for De Trinitate, there are many mss.
There are two recensions.

CCSL is used for a couple of hundred quotes. It is generally accurate.
The textcrit dupes have ignored much of the actual evidence.

The shorter recension has three clear heavenly witnesses section.
The longer recension has five.
They are considered to be close to the same time.

The big question mark is whether that time is 4th century or 5th century.
And can we make a good author guess?

No scholar objects to the heavenly witnesses texts.
They were used over the next hundreds of years and more.

Your little note has no real scholarly relevance, it is likely simply comparing the two recensions.
"Oops, these paragraghs are in one recension, not the other."

You are welcome to contact the De Trinitate scholars and claim otherwise.

I just want to mention, that it is highly irregular to find a HEADING in capitals about insertions into and/or altering of an ANF or PNF manuscript - period!

It is irregular for there to be two recensions.

Which explains the note.

He was writing 600 years later, and saw the two recensions.

Your bogus and errant absurdist, myopic conclusions have had the beneficial effect of our looking at the scholarship more excellently. e.g. I had not specifically noted the two recensions earlier.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

matt .. we await your collation of your claimed Latin Athanasius African Vetus Latina mss.


matt13weedhacker goes on and on over nothing.
He surely knows how to waste his time.

CCSL shows the five heavenly witnesses - and they are all embedded in the context of the writing.
One recension shows 3
One recension shows 5

These texts were written either 4th or 5th century.
They are complimentary to similar writings of the time .. e.g. Council of Carthage and Contra Varimadum. So there is nothing unusual about showing the heavenly witnesses for its doctrinal elements.

The lines from c. 1000 AD talking about the text were almost definitely some one confused between the two recensions. Easy to understand his confusion, and of zero significance.

There is no need to play in this silly playground any more.


matt .. we await your collation of your claimed Latin Athanasius African Vetus Latina mss.

Notice that Matt does not even have the integrity to respond.
Last edited: