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

Steven Avery

Administrator
Sick Bill Brown
”This, quite frankly, is precisely what our moronic friend looks like to the rest of us normal people.
You can substitute "theologians and commentators for centuries", too, although his anti-vaxxer and atomic bombs stance justifies this.”

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...nty-new-york-world-clas-t5868-s30.html#p82085

===========

it is not hard to find stuff that was missed.

Here is a challenge. There is a huuuge difference between invisible (hidden) allegory and explanatory allegory. Find one commentator who discusses this distinction. (Even I did not write on this until the last 2 or 3 weeks.)

===========

I’ve been anti-vax and jab at least since the 1980s. (I ran a natural food biz in the 70s.) At that time there was one gal in NYC speaking clearly, Sharon Kimmelman of Vaccination Alternatives. Even earlier, 1976 swine flu, no jab, even my pop knew better. And I do not mind at all being called anti-vax, although the mRNA jabs (e.g. Moderna and Pfizer in the USA) are not vaccinations and are far more dangerous. Even in my local diner, the hubby of a waitress passed 3 days after Moderna-2, planning a trip to Greece (the jab was not necessary afaik.)

On the atomic bombs, I do not have a position. The case against them is interesting, that is as far as I can go,

Definitely do not believe there was a manned moon landing. Some of the neatest material has been posted By TXPatriot on Twitter. Similar with the supposed recent Chinese landing (A news blip - then silence.)

if you want one that was really difficult for me, here is one. Now I believe there is very decent evidence that Jackie was directly involved in the 63 events in Dallas.

Here is another you might appreciate. As far as I can tell, the “life-cycle of the virus” is a sham. The idea that these inactive/dead viruses come alive when pulled into a cell (spikes! yikes!) and hijack cell replication is a joke. Think about it, and try to find any hard evidence that this actually occurs.

Grace and peace in Jesus name!

=============
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Here this will show you how rock dumb is sick Bill Brown

Here is a challenge. There is a huuuge difference between invisible (hidden) allegory and explanatory allegory. Find one commentator who discusses this distinction. (Even I did not write on this until the last 2 or 3 weeks.)

SBB
Here's a challenge for you, numb nuts - go search any Internet post of mine or anything I've ever written and YOU SHOW ME WHERE I EVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT A HIDDEN ALLEGORY.

Go on and do it. You're an idiot to challenge me to something I've never said, and while this might work on your ride to work on the Short Bus, it doesn't work in the real world.

Really rock dumb.

The problem is that people did NOT realize the distinction. Not just you, but the various scholars over the last hundreds of years. Even the good defenders who accepted the Cyprian reference did not point out this hugggee distinction.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Sick Bill Brown
"So does he believe Japan went along with this when they built the Hiroshima Memorial???????"

If the city wasn't nuked, it was firebomed like Dresden (Slaughterhouse Five, Kurt Vonnegut, to my generation.)
The memorial would be appropriate either way.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Bill Brown
“As a reminder, it's pretty easy to be dumb enough to believe in a Simondes/Tischendorf (who hated each other) working together conspiracy if you're dumb enough to believe the moon landing was fake.”

The moon landing being fake is close to a slam dunk.

With Simonides and Tischendorf you have to follow the evidence. Simonides, considered a forger, ends up working in the Russian Historical Archives in St. Petersburg after the faked death (and after no confrontation in the Tischendorf belated 1865 London trip.)

Sounds like a quid pro quo.

People make deals with people they don’t like every day.

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

China on the moon.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/81931...on-mission-photos-faked-conspiracy-theorists/
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
ends up working in the Russian Historical Archives in St. Petersburg after the faked death

Bill Brown
Well, so says you, but you don''t know this.

This is the known history, which sources to Tregelles:

Pure Bible Forum
the Russians hire Simonides to prepare historical documents after the 1867 fake obituary in Alexandria
https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...l-documents-after-the-1867-fake-obituary.176/

Since you do not know the history, you would do better to learn rather than posture and try to mock from ignorance.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
brandpluckt shows us (again) that he is unable to think critically or accurately:

Everyday this man reveals his only methodology for discovering truth is confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is the methodology of conspiracy theories. It is no surprise KJVO "literature" is filled with both. I always like to point out that no one who matters will take this stuff seriously.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...nty-new-york-world-clas-t5868-s50.html#p82104

Naahh. I was "happy" with the NIV until I studied textual history, starting with a book by Daniel Segraves. (I saw Riplinger's book in a book store in Queens, NY, skimmed it and rejected it in the mid-80s. And I did like Final Authority by William Grady around that time period.) My first Bible reading was 76-77.

Naaah. I was happy with Sinaiticus being 4th century, until I really studied out the issues. Before I knew better, I even defended the impossible dream.

Naah. I was dabbling with the "Sacred Namers" for a few years, and for about 15-20 years I thought "yahweh" was an acceptable pronunciation of the Tetragram. Until I learned more excellently, it is actually the devil jupiter. And thus I rejected yahshua and other crapola non-names.

Many other positions have changed, as I learned more excellently. Even my position on topics like eschatology and marriage permanence and Hebrew Roots and Messianic beliefs have been subject to upheaval. Simply by hearing sound teaching and searching the scriptures.

And I continually critique errors in positions of AV and TR defenders. Two streams, incorrect arguments about Greek ms. that have the heavenly witnesses and anything that comes up.

As for conspiracy theories, so-called, with the shamdemic going on and on trying to jab the world with poisons, I think that phrase handle is losing some of its cachet, as a supposed accusation. In fact if you are not a "conspiracy theorist" today, that means you have lost critical thinking abilities. You are very likely a true-blue CNN and MSNBC and MSM watcher. Ironically, the recent day that Tucker really had on a woman whose husband and son were severely injured by the jabs, his show was showing "safe and effective" ads. A type of constructive dissonance.

You probably think that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone nut assassin, and building 7 went into free-fall because of a fire. You surely do not want to look at the Jan 6 videos that look to be crisis actors (the 21 minute video that shows the theorized shooting of Ashli Babbit.)

You probably think that snippets of RNA/DNA that are normally inactive, somehow wake up and hijack replication within cells. Despite the total lack of hard evidence for this pseudo-scientific phantasmagorical claim. You probably like Fauci, and think he follows the science. You likely think the thousands of deaths reported by the jabs are all simply coincidence.

You possibly have a morbid fear of "germs", yet eat junk food and are obese and unhealthy. And get jabbed every year, and are always looking for the latest and greatest new jabs. New variants, booster shots, new shamdemics, roll up those sleeves. You probably never studied out mRNA (messenger RNA) the latest experimental deadly jabs.

And I could go on and on, but I felt it would be good to give brandpluckt an answer to his handy-dandy confirmation bias absurdity. It really is a cheap, tawdry type of attack.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/462688161538501/permalink/525559221918061/
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Here we see the total lack of ethics from matt

matt13weedhacker
"He's doubly plagerising the old reference works and some (as yet presumably unidentified writer of a book called "The Witness of God is Greater") as if they were new and exciting stuff."
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...nty-new-york-world-clas-t5868-s50.html#p82106

Matt is clueless about what is plagerism.
Totally clueless. Imbecile.

The material from The Witness of God is Greater is used with total approval, (and at times has my handiwork in additions and corrections) and frequently, especially new material, the source is given. So only an imbecile would call that plagerism. Similarly using quotes, with references, such as Potamius, and hundreds of others, is obviously not plagerism.

Matt simply has no integrity.

JWs are often in a difficult place when it comes to issues of Bible authenticity. Thus the railing accusation.

And there is lots of new and exciting stuff that does add to the body of the discussion of heavenly witnesses authenticity. George Babiniotis, discovered by Nick Sayers, was one good example. Potamius is another. Properly demonstrating that the theory of invisible allegorizing is worthless is another. The whole debate has changed, and the contras are running, or making absurd accusations for diversion, like Matt. They really are clueless on the whole topic of inclusion and omission, because they are stained with Hortian nonsense residue..

Matt seems to think that the gnostics added the heavenly witnesses verse to the Bible, quite early. A very strange theory. It did give me a chuckle when I bumped into his position.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Now, matt13weedhacker has doubled down on his lack of integrity and his imbecilic accusation of plagiarism.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...nty-new-york-world-clas-t5868-s50.html#p82108

"Example Gregory of Naz Paschal Oration, and others he's recently plagerised." (sic)

If Matt is going to make false, bogus accusations of plagiarism, he should learn how to spell the word. Then he should look up the meaning and usage of the word.

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

As for his concern about Gregory of Nazianzen and a Paschal oration, as often happens he babbles incoherently. If he wants to dispute a quote, he should give the quote, give the argument used (and by whom) and make a coherent attempt at an argument.

The more emotive and insulting his replies pointed at me

The main issue at hand is simple. You have no integrity and have no idea what is plagiarism. And your convoluted writing and boorish posturing makes most of what you write worthless,.

If you had even an ounce of integrity, you would apologize for the bogus accusation. However, you have shown you would rather double down in incompetence.

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

Occasionally there is something of interest.
e.g. You pointed out an error I made in calling Origen's writing an invisible allegory. And that the verse references in Potamius within the quotes were not the Marco Conti references (Conti or his editors made another different error there in his referencing.)

When that happens, I will thank you, and/or BVDB, even though you have no integrity.

The Pure Bible Forum always strives for accuracy.

Of course, the main issue of invisible allegory claims is Cyprian, where the contra argument is simply nonsense. Then you go into Grantley's blunder of claiming 13 writings at once as earthly witnesses allegory, the super-doozy :) .

=====================================
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Some times Bill Brown goes out of his way to show us that he is an ignoramus.

In the discussion of Tregelles and the later history of SImonides, I omitted his last sentence.

So....we now have Avery cherry-picking Tregelles.

Bill Brown, this is one of the few quotes about SImonides after 1864. It would be important whomever the source. More so because it surprisingly shows him at the Russian historical archives!

As I pointed out above, Bill Brown will spit out anything at all, any ridiculous non-sequitur, to avoid actually discussing history and evidences.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
matt13weedhacker lies again:

“Don't forget, though, that Steven Avery Spencer fraudulently changed the verse numbering (recalcitrantly, deliberately, and consciously) in Marco Conti's translation of Potamius (in the English and the Latin) from 1 John 5:8-Part-D (KJV-numbering) to John 5:7-Part-D (KJV-numbering).”

Taken from my Potamius source. Their reasoning was good, but still a no-no. I explained it to them, and proper changes are being made. My page updated long ago, the day it was pointed out.

Once again, liar Matt simply has no integrity.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
MMR
”I really just want to see an exhaustive Apparatus Critica including all of these apparently "game changing" new/forgotten/missed pieces of evidence that Avery has been championing these last few years. I'm fairly certain that it will make one thing very clear: majoring in the minors is not a position of strength when adjudicating between New Testament textual variants. On the contrary–it's a position of desperation!”

Matthew Murphy Rose. If you think the Cyprian reference to the heavenly witnesses is a “minor” you should give up textual discussion. Read Pieper. Think.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
matt is always working to be dumbest, beating out dumb and dumber.

This one follows in the lead of absurdist Elijah Hixson who was concerned that some Greek mss. had "RCC provenance":

matt13weedhacker
You will notice that he's feverishly quote mining Counter-Reformation, post the Erasmian controversy era Patristic texts, mostly made by Catholics for Catholics, whose authors carefully and deliberately cherry-picked which manuscripts and sources (Pro-Comma of course "ahaaa no one expects the Spanish Inquisition") they used for their printed texts, and Steven is simply rehashing them for today's conspiracy minded puritanical traditionalists (i.e. KJVO's).

There are tons of fine writings by all types of writers. A lot of the best research was done by non-Catholic gentlemen like John Mills, Johann Bengel and Henry Hammond. (Prudent Maran and Charles Dolman would be examples of rcc who made solid contributions.) Generally the ECW references do not have any significant textual or translational issues.

And I have been researching this for over 15 years, on all levels, Ante-Nicene, later church writers, and the scholars of different ages. The only thing a little different is that some superb new references showed up in The Witness of God is Greater. And I am using those references and helping with improvements.

Try to write sensibly, Matt. Thanks!

(And stop the railing bogus accusations, they make you look very small and quite scuzzy.)
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
MMR
And add to this the late Latin commentaries and many other seemingly futile evidences you've been continually tallying for the side of Comma authenticity. It all comes across as a desperate scrapping together of every minute and insignificant piece of evidence one can muster, and all for the sake of bolstering ones argument. In short, a "multiplication of nothings."

(This is not to say that the Comma doesn't have any important evidences on its side, because it obviously does.)

So yes, I would very much like to see a finalized and exhaustive Critical Apparatus (preferably annotated) on the Comma with all of these many new/forgotten/missed pieces of evidence that you have been championing for the last few years.

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

You are being disingenuous. The people attacking the beautiful, majestic, necessary verse of scripture and constantly coming up with ridiculous, absurd and deceptive argumentation. They should receive your ire.

Apparatuses are 1-dimensional, tools, a crutch. You would do better to understand the Bible text, the writings of the Bible believers, the scriptural harmony and the evidences.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
brandpluckt
”What criteria is used to accept some conspiracy theories and yet reject others? The evidence for a flat earth is just a "good" as the evidence that the earth is the center of the universe.“

Putting aside “conspiracy theories”, flat earth has huuuge problems. One example. Look east on a clear day from the Front Range in Colorado, Pikes Peak, with a powerful telescope or binoculars. No matter what the weather you will never see Chicago or Omaha or any part of Kansas. One simple reason, below the curve.

Geocentrism, with a rotating universe, is scientifically sound, it is simply out of the school-taught comfort zone for many.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
My context was Cyprian, when you started this line of hesitation.

M.M.R. shows his spirit of unbelief.

I wouldn't call Cyprian minor, but it is disputed, and therefore hesitation (and questions) concerning the amount of weight that should be given to Cyprian is a reality.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...nty-new-york-world-clas-t5868-s60.html#p82123

You have to be a textcrit dupe to have "hesitation" about the Cyprian reference to the heavenly witnesses. Read Pieper, a straight-arrow study.

The whole New Testament is "disputed". Do you "hesitate" on the Pastorals, and 2 Peter and all the books that are not considered to be by their first person authors?

Dozens of scholar-writers dispute the virgin birth, do you "hesitate"?

These are some examples of what I had in mind:

"Lateran Council (1215)
Manuel Calecas (d. 1410)
Joseph Bryennius (c. 1350-1430)

There was a similar phenomenon in Armenian history, starting before the Synod of Sis (c. 1330)."

Those were recently brought up to respond to the deficient paper of Elijah Hixson. He focused on the Greek manuscripts and apparently did not even know of these evidences. Which help add critical context. The Greek manuscripts he was discussing were part of the same Greek (and Armenian) restoration phenomenon, which largely began c. 1200 AD. By the time of Erasmus, it was moving along nicely.

Try to understand the actual discussions.

MMR
(This is not to say that the Comma doesn't have any important evidences on its side, because it obviously does.)

There are at least four super-evidences, for which the contras are in denial. You should deal with their weaknesses. When James Snapp was more lucid, he tried on your forum on two of them.

However, all the evidences are important, for various reasons. The fact that you do not understand the dynamic is sad, but does not concern me too much.

If you studied more excellently, I believe you would become a heavenly witnesses supporter, after a short period of unraveling the old ways.

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

As for the apparatus, it is largely worthless on the heavenly witnesses. I did a series of posts on that some years ago. If you are really intereseted, I can spend time on the details (while putting it up on PBF at the same time.).

There is one fun-damental point.

Inclusion/omission analysis is totally different than alternate variant analysis.

===========================
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Bill Brown
”What's amusing is once again how everything these folks profess they believe boomerangs and hits them squarely in the nards. IF Cyprian knew Greek (as Clown Boy asserts) then why in the world don't we have his writings about that so-called solecism? Did he not know it well? How does this work in the minds of these dolts? “

At that time the Bibles generally had both heavenly and earthly witnesses.
There was no solecism.
And even if there was, a lot would depend on the level of Greek fluency and a high view of Scripture.

A bit later, the Macedonians brought up the solecism issue to Gregory Nazianzen.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Bill Brown
”Also nice of him to hide me from being referenced. His book is therefore deficient.”
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...nty-new-york-world-clas-t5868-s80.html#p82142

You are welcome to indicate any contributions that source to you.

”Mostly it reminded me of Maynard's piling of information.”

That is a compliment. Michael Maynard changed almost all elements of the heavenly witnesses discussion. It is helpful to understand the breadth and depth of church writer usage of both the heavenly and earthly witnesses. Rather than the textcrit scoffing at the word of God and atomistic error.
 
Last edited:
Top