Yes. See thread here.

Which is not where the question should have been asked, so thank you for bringing it up here, where I can link to it, where it’s much more suited.

Oh good catch. Added.

Thank you for catching me up on that. So glad you finally got it!

Order cancelled, re-ordered, and I have just received my copy in London — printed on demand nearby in England. I try and read a chapter at each mealtime, now about half-way through. Excellent. Indeed, the bibiography on its own is excellent!

All six are grammatically correct.

You can research each one. They are all known grammatical constructions.

Referring to the first 3, not the latter 3? I’ll defer to your judgement there; maybe I’m too rigid. Many thanks again.

Those are all correct grammar.

You appear to just not be familiar with the idioms employed.

Some more minor ones and then a few that aren’t errors but which I feel read a bit cleaner with minor amendments (IMO):

Page 323: says “this verse is of no use establishing” instead of ‘for/in establishing’.

Page 329 (paragraph 1): says “sit a then-eternal throne” instead of ‘sit on/upon a then-eternal throne’. 

Page 352 (paragraph 2): says “This is not a very strong evidence”, where ‘a’ is not necessary.

—

Then there were three non-error ones that I thought were worth bringing up, regardless. Could just be a matter of personal style, so no need to even respond regarding these if you disagree:

Page 326: says “So the Christian’s options were aplenty”, which I think reads a bit better as “the Christians’ options”, even though both make grammatical sense and make the same basic point.

Page 337 (preceding the block quote): says “precisely here that we find Paul say”, which might be better expressed as “precisely here that Paul says” or “here that we find Paul saying”.

Page 374: says “was already made twice now” which I think reads better as “has already been made twice now”.

—

Anyway, thanks for the read. Very happy with my purchase and learned a lot of new details from this follow-up work.