Craig, instead of coming on here and making a fool of yourself, you should get your facts right in the first place, and then come back to put me right! Maybe, before you start to give Greek grammar lessons, you should take some in the first place, as your arguments are nonsense!
Firstly, you say: "Wrong! There is no participle, masculine or otherwise, in 1 John 5:8. The participle of which you speak is found in verse 7, just as it should be"
First mistake! There is a participle in verse eight, which you choose not to see! What then is "oi marturountes" (who bear witness), if this is not in verse eight? You yourself admit to this towards the end of your note, "The Greek masculine participle oi marturountes agrees with the Greek"! Can you at least KNOW what you are talking about, BEFORE making stupid assertions! By the way, the participle is in the right place, for your information!
You say that the masculine is used because of "Personification". Again, do you know the meaning of this word, or just us it because it is used by some who simply cannot honestly answer the plain fact that they are wrong? To "personify", is "to represent an abstract quality as a human being". Do you know what this means? It means that John was "treating the Holy Spirit as though He were a Person"!!! Do you get it? This is complete nonsense, as the Holy Spirit IS a Person, and not to be "regarded" as One! Again, your "facts" are flawed!
Let me give you the low down on the Greek grammar, if you would but listen
If you understand Greek grammar, as you claim to, then you should know that there is something known as "agreemtnt of gender"? In verse six, when dealing with the same nouns as in verse eight, "Spirit, water and blood", John speaks of the "witness of the Holy Spirit". But, note here, that he says: "to pneuma estin to marturoun", which agrees with the gender of the nouns, all in the neuter. This is in accordance with the rules of Greek grammar. Now, when dealing with the same nouns in verse eight, all again in the neuter gender, he would have written: "tria eisi ta marturounta", which is in the neuter gender! He would not have changed to the masculine gender in verse eight, for the sake of Personification, as you put it, as he has already mentioned the Holy Spirit in verse six, where he was content in keeping the language in the neuter! Facts are facts!
You can argue all you like, but the truth of the matter is very simple. Without the masculine nouns "Pater and Logos" in verse seven, there is not a reason in all the world why John would have used the masculine participle in verse eight! Even some who object to the genuineness of verse seven because of the manuscript evidence, admit that the Greek grammar does indeed cause a problem!
On word on the use of the definite article in verse eight "to hen" The Greek scholar who was and remains foremost on Greek grammar, espacially on the use of the Greek article in the New Testament, Bishop Thomas Middleton, says that the use of the article in verse eight must necessarily refer to the use of "hen" in verse seven. And that either both verses are accepted together, or rejected together (see, The Doctrine of the Greek Article, pp.633-653) Or, do you put yourself as a greater Greek authority than Bishop Middleton? It is interesting to see that Dr Daniel Wallace, who is a Greek scholar, has not put out an article to refute the internal evidence of this passage, but instead chose to write one on the testimony of Cyprian, which is incorrect!
As I have said more than once. The Greek grammar of the passage alone will destroy any attempt to rid the passage of verse seven. At least to the honest mind
