[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

As expected, a quick response from against that has no substance. This is rather common. Rather than real analysis, kick out a nothing post to look like you responded, to give an appearance sans substance.

Originally Posted by againstheresies

this passage is not “hotly contested even in the Greek-ish circles.”.

The context of that was your incorrect modal interpretation. You didn't even read properly my very clear writing, or if you did, you write deceptively.

Originally Posted by againstheresies

This is a very clear passage that would be better translated “make disciples” in verse 19

And the two posts above outlined quite nicely why this claim of yours is rubbish. I read the quick and weak defenses of "make disciples" and they boil down to "we translate that way because the verb is active and causative". Such a transformation in language needs an impelling reason. If somebody is told to "Instruct" .. that does not mean to make instructors, nor even to make students. And if a noun "disciples" was meant to be combined with a verb to make, the English and Greek could easily match up with a noun and a verb, as in John 4:1.

In fact afaik the earlier Greek experts did not even make this weak case that you call "very clear". This is a modernist confusion, rarely analyzed, and it beigins to appear in translations only at the time of the textual apostasy of the Revision. Error begets error.

Originally Posted by againstheresies

and teach in verse 20.

Finally you say something sensible.

Originally Posted by againstheresies

Jerome’s influence on this passage carried over to the English versions.

The Latin early versions, and the Aramaic, understood the Greek verb issue the same way as did all the English Reformation experts. The word-choice translation issue, which can only be addressed properly after the improper noun addition issue is addressed and discarded. likely drew from a lot of considerations. Which I was prepared to discuss if you gave an intelligent response. In general, in your one-dimensional claim, it looks like you are falling into a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. And you are totally unawares of the depth of Greek knowledge and understanding and precision of the Reformation translators, especially the King James Bible translators.

Originally Posted by againstheresies

At least you admit that you “have no Greek expertise” although that point is clearly evident from your line of reasoning.

Sometimes the lack of a Greek background of confusion makes reading through the scholastic muddles that much easier. You can see the modernist confusions so easily.

We notice that you addressed absolutely nothing about any point that I addressed, such as the dual error in the modern versions that brings forth the false doctrine of believer's disciples, or the historic truth of the clear and straight translation of Mathew 28:19, the related alexandrian corruption in Acts 9:25 that lays the doctrinal framework for the Matthew 28:19 translation error, how John 4:1 shows how a true "made disciples" verse is written, or the newness and controversy of your weak and dubious modal interpretation, the interpretation originally embraced and pushed by those defending infant baptism.

Originally Posted by againstheresies

By the way quoting from someone who refers to their own writings as “bleatings of an amateur reformational credobaptistic theologian” hardly bolsters your argument.

You don't like the word "bleatings" ? Complain to the author. Everything I quoted was sensible and strong, if you disagree you should try substance rather than a genetic fallacy attempt.

Thank you for showing the forum the superficial nature of anti-KJB attempts.

Shalom,
Steven