Messiah != Son of God

[Steven Avery]

It is foolish to look at English when you want to know what a text says,

My perspective is different. I think there is a lot of foolishness in Greek analysis. Spin in fact is de facto claiming that the Greek has been mishandled by various commentators, and he lines up well with the AV.

[mlinssen]

It is foolish to look at English when you want to know what a text says,

My perspective is different. I think there is a lot of foolishness in Greek analysis. Spin in fact is de facto claiming that the Greek has been mishandled by various commentators, and he lines up well with the AV.

You just look at the Greek MS yourself with the LSJ and NA28 in hand, is the idea. Commentaries mostly sit on the same side of the fence as "translators", true

It seems awkward how you can say there is a lot of foolishness in Greek analysis while simultaneously praising spin's analysis of the Greek - or does it?

[Steven Avery]

You just look at the Greek MS yourself with the LSJ and NA28 in hand, is the idea. Commentaries mostly sit on the same side of the fence as "translators", true

It seems awkward how you can say there is a lot of foolishness in Greek analysis while simultaneously praising spin's analysis of the Greek - or does it?

Often the NA28 text is corrupt, and the TR text is superior. Not in this case though.
The commentaries and translators are on two or more sides of the fence.
And I find spin's analysis interesting, and different from the main two groups of translation/commentary.
Maybe in time we will discern its accuracy.

[mlinssen]

You just look at the Greek MS yourself with the LSJ and NA28 in hand, is the idea. Commentaries mostly sit on the same side of the fence as "translators", true

It seems awkward how you can say there is a lot of foolishness in Greek analysis while simultaneously praising spin's analysis of the Greek - or does it?

Often the NA28 text is corrupt, and the TR text is superior. Not in this case though.
The commentaries and translators are on two or more sides of the fence.
And I find spin's analysis interesting, and different from the main two groups of translation/commentary.
Maybe in time we will discern its accuracy.

The NA is primarily aimed at harmonising the various texts and obfuscating (and sometimes omitting) the differences, such as e g the Chrestians / Chreistians in Acts 11 / 26 and 1 Peter 4 in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Still, it's a handy work although not reliable, just as any other Christian work - their goal is to be in control so they can call the shots. The Coptic NT is so very different so very often, but no one would notice by reading NA

On a side note: Coptic Thomas places the adverbial phrase "in the flesh" with the object, whereas its Greek copy places it with the subject - and I am referring to physical location in the sentence.
It would seem that originally IS revealed himself to "them in flesh", implying that he was certainly not human (nor divine, for that matter)