User talk:7Jim7

Deleted: The Masculine Gender In 1 John 5:8 In The Critical And Majority Greek Texts
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The Masculine Gender In 1 John 5:8 In The Critical And Majority Greek Texts, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Masculine Gender In 1 John 5:8 In The Critical And Majority Greek Texts
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The Masculine Gender In 1 John 5:8 In The Critical And Majority Greek Texts, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * Non-encyclopedic content; theological dispute

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Original research
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Stifle (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Non-encyclopedic content? Theological dispute? Personal research?
In my opinion, you are not being consistent in your evaluation. What is expressed in the article "The Masculine Gender ...," though perhaps inferior in writing style to the article "Comma Johanneum," from which it is linked, is no more non-encyclopedic in content and no more a theological dispute and no more personal research than what is expressed in the article "Comma Johanneum."

In both articles, the subject is the Johannine Comma. In both articles, there is disagreement on whether or not the Comma belongs in the text. In both articles, different sources expressing the various views on the subject are cited. In neither article is the author's personal opinion stated. None of the the three views presented in the article "The Masculine Gender ..." is the author's personal invention. To the contrary, those are in fact the three views that have been held by various people regarding this subject, as confirmed by the two cited sources. That is in fact what is out there.

So what's all this talk about "non-encyclopedic content" and "theological dispute" and "personal research?" If those accusations are true of the article "The Masculine Gender ...," then they are also true of the article "Comma Johanneum." Conversely, if they are not true of the article "Comma Johanneum," then neither are true of the article "The Masculine Gender ...." In applying these accusations to the one article but not to the other, you are not being consistent in your evaluation and you are showing personal prejudice. I submit that the article in question demonstrates more neutrality than do the ones who are making these accusations against it.

As for the writing style, maybe the article is inferior in style. Perhaps YOU should fix it instead of complaining about it and asking for its deletion. I myself don't know how to write it better than it is written. However, the information presented in the article is valid information, and it is NOT personal research, and it IS pertinent to the information presented in the the article "Comma Johanneum," and it DOES cite two sources (Dr. Wallace and Dr. Hills; if you click the links ["pages 331-332" and "chapter 8" in the text of the article], you can read what they say about it yourself) that attest to the three views which have been held by various people regarding this subject, which are explained in the article in question.

7Jim7 (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if there's anything I can say which will change your mind, but if you feel that any other Wikipedia article that should not be included, feel free to nominate it for deletion using the deletion process. Stifle (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It is inappropriate for you to post arguments for and against deletion on the talk pages of those who have voted in the AfD discussion. The comments should be posted in the discussion itself for all to see. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Cancel the above. I forgot we're in the prod process, not a formal AfD yet. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleted: The Masculine Gender In 1 John 5:8 In The Critical And Majority Greek Texts
I have nominated The Masculine Gender In 1 John 5:8 In The Critical And Majority Greek Texts, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Masculine Gender In 1 John 5:8 In The Critical And Majority Greek Texts. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The Masculine Gender In 1 John 5:8 In The Critical And Majority Greek Texts

The Internal Evidence in 1 John 5:7-9 (MT)

1 John 5:7-9 in the Majority Text (MT), which excludes the Johannine Comma [inserted in brackets below], states this (literal translation):


 * (MT) 1 John 5:7 And the Spirit (N) is the thing bearing witness (N), because the Spirit is the truth. 5:8 Because three are the ones bearing witness (M) ...


 * [in the heaven, the Father (M), the Word (M) and the Holy Spirit (N), and these three ones one thing they are; and three are the ones bearing witness (M) on the earth]


 * ... the Spirit (N) and the water (N) and the Blood (N), and the three ones for the one thing they are. 5:9 If the witness of the men (M) we accept, the witness of the God greater it is ...

Three explanations have been offered for the masculine gender of the substantival (functioning as a noun) participle “the ones bearing witness” in 1 John 5:8 (MT).

1. The masculine gender of “the ones bearing witness” in verse 5:8 (MT) is used in deference to “Spirit” in the appositional phrase “the Spirit and the water and the Blood” in verse 5:8 (MT) to affirm the personhood of the “Spirit.”

2. The masculine gender of “the ones bearing witness” in verse 5:8 (MT) is used to personalize (to personify, to treat things as if they were persons) “the Spirit and the water and the Blood” in verse 5:8 (MT), comparatively (this is like that) equating “the Spirit and the water and the Blood” in verse 5:8 (MT) to the “men” in “the witness of the men” in verse 5:9, to which (the “men”) the phrase “the ones bearing witness” in verse 5:8 (MT) refers, the phrase “the witness of the men” referring to the two or three witnesses (men) prescribed by Moses in Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15 to establish the truth of a matter. Thus, according to this explanation, John is comparatively (this is like that) equating "the Spirit and the water and the Blood" in verse 5:8 (MT), which comprise "the witness of the God" in verse 5:9, to "the ones bearing witness" in verse 5:8 (MT), who comprise "the witness of the men" in verse 5:9, hence the masculine gender of "the ones bearing witness" in verse 5:8 (MT). There are two precedents in the New Testament for things being comparatively equated to the two or three witnesses (men) prescribed by Moses, namely, 2 Corinthians 13:1, where Paul comparatively equates three things (his three visits to Corinth) to the two or three witnesses (men), and Hebrews 10:28-29, where the author comparatively equates three things (trampling the Son of God and considering His Blood to be ordinary blood and insulting the Spirit) to the two or three witnesses (men).

3. The masculine gender of the substantival participle “the ones bearing witness” in verse 5:8 (MT) is the result of grammatical gender agreement with the grammatically masculine nouns “Father” and “Word” in the phrase “the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit” in the Johannine Comma, the masculine gender of the substantival participle “the ones bearing witness” in the Johannine Comma being the result of gender “attraction” either between these two participles or between the neuter noun “Spirit” and the masculine nouns “Father” and “Word.” No corroborating example is presented in support of this explanation’s assertions that grammatical gender agreement with multiple nouns can and does and should occur and that gender attraction either between participles or between nouns can and does occur. These assertions are simply stated without any corroborating evidence.

On | pages 331-332 of his book “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics” (1996), Wallace endorses the second explanation and dismisses the first explanation, suggesting that the masculine gender is never used in reference to “pneuma” (Spirit/spirit) anywhere in the New Testament.

On pages 209-210 in | chapter 8 of his book “The King James Version Defended” (1956), Hills endorses the third explanation and dismisses the first explanation, suggesting that if the masculine gender is not used to affirm the personhood of the Spirit in verse 5:7 (MT), then there is no reason to think that this occurs in verse 5:8 (MT). However, his dismissal of the first explanation is the result of his attempt to dismiss the second explanation, which he confuses with the first explanation.

Edited by the original author 7Jim7 (talk) 12:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Comma Johanneum
It's not the number of changes that we should be concerned with, but their quality - do they improve the article? On a quick look, the vast majority of StevenAvery.ny's changes seem to be moving parts of the article around to create what he feels to be a better structure. If you have worries about the result, you can take it up with him directly on his Talk page, or ask some other editor with an interest in this area (You could try the editor called St Anselm, or the editor Editor2007). PiCo (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Pico. Quality is the issue. To be clear, I have added a lot of content in addition to trying to give the article real structure. (One section, doctrinal, Trinitarianism, Unitarianism, Arianism, is definitely behind in trying to get formulated .. in some senses it is the hardest section to get in good info with minimal POV .. I'm still thinking about how to approach it sensibly and fairly.) The section is important, but difficult, and still in a very raw state.

Suggested improvements and changes are most welcome. On any suggestion. If there are scholarly questions or changes, make them in the normal Wikipedia way, comments in the page, and discussion in the Talk, and personal interaction, and of course by sensible page updates. Any editor involvment is most welcome, I simply do not know much about how that occurs.

I think you can see that I have tried extra-hard to make sure that there is full and direct documentation, often from the primary sources, on virtually everything added. A good example of trying to show both points succienctly can be Tertullian, with the quotes from Kaye and Coxe counterposed. Both solid scholars, both deeply involved with the ECW, taking essentially opposite viewpoints. Both are posted, both are logical, the reader works with the result.

The comment from the anonymous poster in "Horrific" really had a lot of truth about the earlier article, and acted as a spur to try to place the thoughts in a coherent way. (I discuss this in Comma Johanneum-Talk.) Look at the earlier article. Again and again, it is simply claimed that the Comma was a Trinitarian interpolation, in various places. That view definitely should be part of the analysis, given clear expression ... but bascically put in one place as a POV that has various scholarship backings and exposition and counterpoint. Earlier, about a year back, I had added a lot of documentation to various points in the article. The big difference this time (in addition to more info) is giving form and structure. Basically, I have deleted nothing to date.

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

IP addresses
I'm sorry Jim but I have no idea how to do that. In fact I rather doubt it can be done at all. You need to consult an admin - I'm just a user, the same as you. But I don't think you have any reason to worry about having your IP address there - nobody can find out where you live from it, if that's what worries you :) PiCo (talk) 08:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That is good news :)
 * Enjoy your Christmas :) PiCo (talk) 11:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Comma
I even did not read all work of Steven Avery (only 10% or less). I really do not have time and I am editing not only on en-wiki. I am also active user on fr-wiki and pl-wiki. In 2011 I was involved in several edit wars with some users on pl-wiki (protestant fundamentalists and Jehova witnesses). It was a big problem for me at that time because I did not have too much supporters for my work on pl-wiki. On en-wiki there are more users who know the subject and I left this article (i.e. Comma Johanneum) for other users. I've never supported Textus Receptus, but I do not have time for edit wars. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my deletion of grammar section, this sections is really necessary. As I said I lost contact with this article after October 2011. I looked several times to it, and made some minor edits, but I did not read it until now. Can you give more references to it. I understand you want improve this article. It is too long. 90kB is enough. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment: Comma Johanneum
TO BOTH: 7Jim7 and Leszek_Janczuk: I appreciate your interest in the article itself, but much of your posts to the discussion on the good article status are not relevant to that topic. I am glad to see that they are being posted to the appropriate talk-page. Can we agree to complete the process and then delete the "off topic" material from the Reassessment Page where it simply makes following that discussion extremely difficult? I will gladly insert a short note there to explain what has been done, but would prefer both of you to be in agreement first. Thanks! Jpacobb (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)