One In The Greek

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

What is the Bible text of the ERV and the ASV?

Why do you use that to claim "one person".

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

In this quote you are lying outright about the ASV and the ESV.



Dalcour is right about your botch methodology, and the related critique that I quoted. However, what makes it worse is your ability to use phony references even after they have been shown to be false.

The other problem is that you simply are very weak in logic.

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

*Said the man who cannot even read his own selected quotes .

[Steven Avery]

The problem there was two different ERVs.

This is the one that was quoted by Dalcour
https://www.bible.com/bible/406/GAL.3.26-29.ERV

So your major lies from above were the ASV and JFB.

[Steven Avery]

(to be continued)

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

The problem there was two different ERVs.

This is the one that was quoted by Dalcour
https://www.bible.com/bible/406/GAL.3.26-29.ERV

*Well, perhaps that does indeed explain why he misunderstood what I was saying. I was not aware that there were two ERV’s. To be fair, I should have stated “one man” contra “one person”...although the overriding point remains in tact.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Quote the text of the ASV.

*Gladly, for the third time now:

There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are ONE MAN in Christ Jesus.

*Technically, I should have quoted “one man,” but the take-home is the same regardless. One person is still in view. Tell us Steven, how many “persons” are “one man”:__________?

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by rdp

*Well, perhaps that does indeed explain why he misunderstood what I was saying. I was not aware that there were two ERV’s. To be fair, I should have stated “one man” contra “one person”...although the overriding point remains in tact.

The overall point is that a small minority of translators and commentaries or grammars have seen Galatians 3:28 as translatable, or paraphrased, as one man or one new man or one person.

Maybe five to ten total out of hundreds, on this one verse.

And this is extremely rare in heis verses, so why is it done in Galatians 3:28?

The great majority of translations are in the mode of the pure AV, simply translating the text.

Galatians 3:28 (AV)
There is neither Jew nor Greek,
there is neither bond nor free,
there is neither male nor female:
for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

One reason is that the verse can be linked, with some difficulty, to Ephesians 2:15.

Ephesians 2:15 (AV)
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity,
even the law of commandments contained in ordinances;
for to make in himself of twain one new man,
so making peace;

As Esaias points out, "one person" is a bumbling text in Galatians 3:28, however Ephesians 2:15 has the words for new man.

So it is simply a stumbling hermeneutical paraphrase, inferior translation. Roger likes it because if fits a false theory about heis.

The vast majority of heis verses are masculine for one simple reason. The adjective one is in a phrase with masculine grammar for the substantives and participles.

Simple grammar consistency. No more, no less. The number one.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

The problem there was two different ERVs.

This is the one that was quoted by Dalcour
https://www.bible.com/bible/406/GAL.3.26-29.ERV

So your major lies from above were the ASV and JFB.

*LOL—the “lie” is that ASV and JFB do NOT denote one person—as anyone w. a first grade education can read. For about the 10th time now, how many “persons” is “one man”:____________?

*C’mon lil’ Stevie, you can answer this one...I just know you can !

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

The overall point is that a small minority of translators and some commentaries have seen Galatians 3:28 as translatable, or paraphrased, as one man or one new man or one person. This is extremely rare in heis verses.

One reason is that it can be linked, with some difficulty, to Ephesians 2:15.

Ephesians 2:15
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity,
even the law of commandments contained in ordinances;
for to make in himself of twain one new man,
so making peace;

*Now, to be expected, you’re moving the goal posts. How many “persons” is “one man”? And, does Thayer translate Galatians 3.28 as “one person” (something you flatly denied earlier)? Yes or no?

*And, no, the force of “one person” is NOT “extremely rare” regarding the masculine singular usage of “heis”—as quotation after quotation after quotation, and well as both LXX & GNT usage well demonstrates. You simply are not free to just make things up as you go along.

[Steven Avery]

btw, I will happily retract the lying accusation. Since the key case for that was the ERV, where neither Edward L. Dalcour or Roger Perkins straightened it out. Bumbling by Dalcour, since it really did not pass the smell test, and then Roger did not respond, an omission error in his rejoinder.

On my end, I should have checked it out more fully.

Apologies, and I am glad we could sort out some problems from about two years back.

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

While I see your presentation as botched in many ways, I do not see deliberate lying, once the ERV is off the table. The post above gives a review.

As for your barrage of insults sent my way, they are so dumb that they give mostly a smile. And your LOL seem a bit weird and puerile. Your double-mindedness in trying to compliment my 1 Timothy 3:16 presentation while supporting the corruption versions is quite interesting.

Yet we have recently seen one well-known Christian with a ministry to the islamists move to an Authorized Version position. The force of scripture consistency, a far stronger text and the perservational imperative, and a far superior textual methodology were likely factors. This gentleman use to rant against me, and my belief in a perfect Bible that I can read, much like Roger Perkins today. So, I know that people can move to a better Bible position.

And you seem to be especially obsessed that the claimed moon landing is questioned. If you understood the difficulties involved, and the very limited technology of the day, and the extremes of temperature and the various dangers to life, you would be very skeptical about the claim that six such launches went to the moon, including the funky aspects around the lunar landing module.

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

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Btw, I will happily retract the lying accusation. Since the key case for that the ERV, where neither Edeard L. Dalcour or Roger Perkins straightened it out.

While I see your presentation as botched in many ways, I do not see deliberate lying, once the ERV is off the table.

As for your barrage of insults sent my way, they are so dumb that they give mostly a smile.

*The odd thing is, I feel 100% identical (not merely being tit-for-tat). It’s real simple, if you can dish it out be prepared to receive it.

*Well, it’s my wife & my anniversary today, so, if I know what’s good for me I better REALLY just walk away this time .

*We vehemently disagree, but that’s nothing new. Probably won’t see whatever responses y’all might make. I will also retract my return fire. Take care Steve.