Yuku free message boards

KJVO evaluates evidence regarding the Johannine Comma on the basis of the Comma itself. According to KJVO, whatever supports the Comma must be true, and whatever refutes the Comma must be false. Validating the Comma on the basis of evidence which itself is valided on the basis of the Comma is circular reasoning. This kind of reasoning enables a person to invent false evidence to validate a desired false conclusion and to dismiss true evidence that refutes the desired false conclusion. It enables a person to simply make stuff up.

KJVO uses circular reasoning to conclude that Gregory of Nazianzus found fault with the grammar in 1 John 5:8 in the fourth century despite the fact that Gregory explicitly expressed the opposite of that.

KJVO uses circular reasoning to conclude that Cyprian quoted from the Comma in the third century despite the fact that Cyprian explicitly quoted from 1 John 5:8.

KJVO uses circular reasoning to accept the false grammatical claims of Nolan and Dabney in the nineteenth century in support of the Comma despite the fact that not even one example from the Greek New Testament can be found to support their grammatical claims and that multiple examples from the Greek New Testament refute their grammatical claims.

In his thirty-second oration (his fifth theological oration), in paragraphs 18 and 19, Gregory of Nazianzus in the fourth century presents five examples to refute the view of the person ("you") to whom he is writing (his debating opponent) that (1) things that are different in nature are not grouped together under one number and that (2) things of one gender are not grouped together under the number of a different gender. These five examples are (1) Proverbs 30:29-31 in the LXX (four things [N], a lion cub [M] and a goat [M] and a rooster [M] and a king [M]), (2) Exodus 25:18-19 / 37:7-8 (one cherub and one cherub) and (3) Matthew 6:24 / Luke 16:13 (two masters, God and money) in paragraph 18 and (4) 1 John 5:8 (three witnesses [M], the Spirit [N] and the water [N] and the Blood [N]) and (5) three different kinds of crab and three different kinds of dog in paragraph 19. Gregory presents all of the Biblical passages that he cites in his first four examples as correctly written proof texts to refute the view of the person to whom he is writing. As Gregory says in paragraph 19, "So you see how completely YOUR argument from connumeration has broken down and IS REFUTED by ALL these instances." Gregory himself no more finds fault with the non-grammatical-gender agreement in 1 John 5:8 (the fourth example) than he does with the non-grammatical-gender agreement in Proverbs 30:29-31 in the LXX (the first example). According to Gregory, both passages are correctly written and refute his debating opponent's incorrect view.

http://www.piney.com/HsNanzianzen.html

Nevertheless, some proponents of the Johannine Comma, choosing to think that 1 John 5:8 is incorrectly written and that this is evidence that John wrote the Johannine Comma, incorrectly claim that what Gregory says (above) corroborates their claim that 1 John 5:8 is incorrectly written, when in fact Gregory presents 1 John 5:8 as a correctly written proof text. It is not Gregory, but his debating opponent, whom Gregory says is wrong, who incorrectly thinks that things of one gender are not grouped together under the number of a different gender.

Some proponents of the Johannine Comma do the same kind of thing regarding what Cyprian writes in the third century regarding 1 John 5:8.

Whenever the Latin New Testament includes the Johannine Comma, the clause "et hi tres unum sunt" always appears in the Comma and either the clause "et hi tres unum sunt" or the clause "et tres unum sunt" appears in 1 John 5:8.

Whenever the Latin New Testament does not include the Johannine Comma, the clause "et tres unum sunt" always appears in 1 John 5:8.

Therefore, if someone quotes the clause "et tres unum sunt," then he is quoting 1 John 5:8, not the Comma.

Cyprian quotes neither the clause "et hi tres unum sunt" from the Comma nor the phrase "pater, verbum et spiritus sanctus" from the Comma.

Instead, regarding 1 John 5:8, which says, "...spiritus et aqua et sanguis, et tres unum sunt," Cyprian says, "de patre et filio et spiritus sancto, scriptum est, et tres unum sunt," quoting the clause "et tres unum sunt" in 1 John 5:8 and imposing on the phrase "spiritus et aqua et sanguis" in 1 John 5:8 the Trinity formula "patre et filio et spiritus sancto."

Just as Cyprian sees what he wants to see (the Trinity) in what John writes in 1 John 5:8, likewise some proponents of the Johannine Comma see what they want to see (the Comma) in what Cyprian writes regarding 1 John 5:8, and they offer what Cyprian writes regarding 1 John 5:8 as evidence that the Latin New Testament from which Cyprian is quoting includes the Johannine Comma, despite the fact that Cyprian quotes neither the clause "et hi tres unum sunt" from the Comma nor the phrase "pater, verbum et spiritus sanctus" from the Comma.

In the nineteenth century, Frederick Nolan and Robert Dabney respectively published a grammatical justification for the Johannine Comma. They wanted a grammatical justification for the Comma, so they invented one, each one presenting false grammatical claims for which he presented no corroborating example from the Greek New Testament, because no such corroborating example exists. They simply made the whole thing up, and proponents of the Johannine Comma have been perpetuating their false grammatical claims ever since.

Both Nolan and Dabney falsely claimed grammatical gender agreement with multiple nouns, which never happens in the Greek language. They simply made it up.

Nolan falsely claimed gender attraction between participles, which never happens in the Greek language. He simply made it up.

Dabney falsely claimed gender attraction between nouns, which never happens in the Greek language. He simply made it up.

The only attraction that occurs in the Greek language is when the grammatical case of a relative pronoun conforms to the grammatical case of its antecedent noun in the text instead of being determined by its own grammatical function in its own relative clause, the purpose of which is to emphasize the fact that both the antecedent noun and the relative pronoun refer to the same thing.

Not only is there no such thing as gender attraction in the Greek language, but also Nolan and Dabney falsely claim that gender attraction occurs between words or phrases that refer to different things, which would be a violation of the purpose of gender attraction (to emphasize a common referent) if gender attraction existed, which it does not.

There are only eight instances in the Greek New Testament in which the referent of a pronoun or substantival (functioning as a noun) participle is represented in the text by multiple nouns (Matthew 15:19-2 and 23:23, John 6:9, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Galatians 5:19-21 and 5:22-23 and Colossians 3:5-7 and 3:12-14), and grammatical gender agreement does not occur in any of these eight instances, even when all of the multiple referent nouns have the same grammatical gender (Corinthians 6:9-11 and Galatians 5:22-23).

The reason for this is that grammatical gender agreement can occur only when the referent (the idea to which a word or phrase refers) of the pronoun or substantival participle is represented in the text by a single noun, as dictated by common sense and as corroborated by what is consistently observed to actually occur in the Greek language throughout the New Testament.

Otherwise, whether the referent is represented in the text either by no noun or by multiple nouns, or whether the author simply chooses not to used grammatical gender agreement when the referent is represented in the text by a single noun, the gender of the pronoun or substantival participle is determined by the natural gender (the nature) of its referent, either neuter for a thing or things or masculine for a person or persons or feminine for a female person or persons, as corroborated by what is consistently observed to actually occur in the Greek language throughout the New Testament.

1 Corinthians 13:13 is not included in this list of eight examples because in this verse, it is not a pronoun or a substantival participle whose referent is represented in the text by multiple nouns, but a substantival (functioning as a noun) adjective, the demonstrative pronoun functioning as an adjective modifying the substantival adjective.

1 John 5:8 is not included in this list of eight examples because the referent of the substantival participle in this verse is not represented in the text by the multiple nouns in this verse. The equation between the substantival participle and the three nouns in this verse is not a direct (this is that) equation, but a comparative (this is like that) equation.

The referent of the substantival participle "the ones bearing witness" in 1 John 5:8 (Majority Text) is represented in the text by the single masculine noun "men" in the phrase "the witness of the men" in verse 5:9, hence the masculine gender of the participle in verse 5:8, just as the referent of the substantival participle "the thing bearing witness" in 1 John 5:7 (Majority Text) is represented in the text by the single neuter noun "Spirit" in the same verse, hence the neuter gender of the participle.

In 1 John 5:8-9 (Majority Text), John comparatively (this is like that) equates "the Spirit and the water and the Blood" in 5:8, which comprise "the witness of the God" regarding His Son in 5:9, to "the ones bearing witness" in 5:8, who comprise "the witness of the men" in 5:9, hence the masculine gender in 5:8.

The two-or-three-witness (men) Mosaic model, in which Moses prescribes two or three men to bear witness regarding a matter in order to establish the truth of the matter, is established in Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15 and is cited in Matthew 18:16, John 8:17-18, 2 Corinthians 13:1, 1 Timothy 5:19, Hebrews 10:28-29 and 1 John 5:8-9 (MT).

In 2 Corinthians 13:1, Hebrews 10:28-29 and 1 John 5:8-9 (Majority Text), two or three things are comparatively (this is like that) equated to the two or three men that Moses prescribes to bear witness to the truth of a matter.

In none of these 8 instances does the number of witnesses comprising the one witness regarding a particular matter exceed the two or three witnesses prescribed by Moses, and in none of them is the number "three" repeated. So based on the other 7 instances, there is a zero percent likelihood in the 8th instance (1 John 5:6-9 [Majority Text]) that the number of witnesses would exceed the prescribed two or three witnesses or that the number "three" would be repeated, and what appears in this 8th instance is consistent with this zero-percent likelihood.

It is the addition of the Johannine Comma to 1 John 5:6-9 in the Received Text that turns 1 John 5:6-9 into an aberration.

So not only is the grammar correct in 1 John 5:6-9 (Majority Text) in the absence of the Johannine Comma, but also the number of witnesses correctly conforms (in the absence of the Comma) to the two-or-three-witnesses (men) model prescribed by Moses, which proves that John did not write the Comma.