Freethought & Rationalism Archive

WILLOWTREE · 03-01-2005, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

WT, I hope you aren't confusing Rav Ashi with Rashi. Different people, different times, different places.

No, of course not.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...d=121&letter=R

WT

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-01-2005, 07:09 PM

Mod note: Please do not bring baggage from other message boards into IIDB. Any personal issues abot matters not related to this MB should be taken to PM or email. Anyone who believes that a member is breaking rules can report to the mods or start a complaint thread.

Thank you.

DtC- Moderator, BCH

WILLOWTREE · 03-01-2005, 07:10 PM

Stunning Prophecy Fulfillment !

Matthew 21:15,16

And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the son of David; they were sore displeased,

And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise ?

The KJV translators, in this passage, use the Septuagint/LXX to quote Jesus who is citing Psalm 8:2

But if you go to Psalm 8:2 in the KJV it reads differently:

Psalm 8:2

Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.

Here, a different KJV body of translators used the Masoretic Text/MT to translate Psalm 8:2

The crucial difference is "PRAISE" in the Matthew/LXX quote, and "STRENGTH" in the Psalm 8/MT quote.

The MT translation makes no sense unlike the LXX translation.

The MT deliberately changed the original meaning of the hebrew word as a reaction to the perceived christian takeover of the LXX source.

The LXX was produced hundreds of years before the MT and its manuscripts were of Ezralitish origin.

Now, Jesus enters Jerusalem and the Temple, when immediately children who are in the Temple see Him they spontaneously begin to cry out praises to Him. The Pharisses see this and become angry. Jesus responds to their anger by quoting Psalm 8:2 which identifies the enemy as those who are angered by this outburst of praise !

God, centuries prior, through David speaks a Messianic prophecy that little children will praise the Messiah on sight. Little children are too young to be influened by the hatred of the "enemies"/Pharisees.

When the Pharisees saw the little children cry out praises spontaneously they became angry and said to Jesus, Matthew 21:16, "do you hear what they are saying ?"

Jesus responds by quoting Psalm 8:2 and fulfills the prophecy and identifies the enemy of that verse to be those who became angry with the little childrens praises.

The power of God to forsee the reaction of little children and their ability to recognize the Messiah on sight !

A stunning prophecy fulfillment !

WT

source: Dr. Gene Scott (Ph.D. Stanford University)

Celsus · 03-01-2005, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

I gave Joel a compliment/apology and yet he remains implacably angry.

No I'm not.

Quote:

The SP has has about 1500 deviations from the MT.

The SP and the LXX have a fraction of that amount.

This means the much older LXX is corroborated by the SP which exposes Rashi and his gang of revisionists to be deliberately translating the MT to evade Messianic Christology.

Sorry, but this is nothing more than assertion and completely wrong to boot. Let me explain how you're supposed to synchronise the chronologies. Let's start with Adam to Seth:

MT: 130 years
SP: 130 years (hang on, didn't Willow just say the SP contradicts the MT??)
LXX: 230 years (Codex Alexandrinus)
Jubilees: 130 years

How about where SP and LXX agree, but disagree with MT? Shelah to Eber:

MT: 30 years
SP: 130 years
LXX: 130 years
Jubilees: 71 years

That should be straightforward enough. Now for some fun: Lamech to Noah:

MT: 182 years
SP: 53 years
LXX: 188 years
Jubilees: 55 years

Hm... Come on Willow, you haven't got a clue about chronology, which is evidently clear because, when challenged, you didn't respond with a knockout demonstration of your familiarity with the chronologies, but came up with a gross generalisation about the SP-LXX similarities versus MT, yet, in dealing with your chronology, the SP, LXX, and MT all differ and agree by about the same amounts. Not to mention that this shift in your position is very clear because earlier you claimed that they were merely using "different systems" and could be synchronised. As I said, you have, by opening your mouth, revealed your ignorance about the source material, and further ignorance about the chronological data.

Quote:

Your insults are embarrassing to your known calm approach.

Also, insults are rage-based caused by inability to refute.

Sorry, but I'm neither insulting you nor "rage-based". I am simply telling you what I have observed from the sort of arguments you've been coming up with. That is, you know nothing about chronology, nor about linguistics and philology, nor about your source materials. Actually, the more you do reveal about what you "know" the more it looks like you know nothing about ever-increasing sets of subjects.

Incidentally, Percy is a theist. Way to "insult" him.

Joel

Donnmathan · 03-01-2005, 07:42 PM

I think you're missing a few key facts, WT. Several people are trying to clarify things, but you seem hung up on the idea that it's all "atheist conspiracy" stuff. Let me try - I am most certainly NOT an atheist, so please don't level that accusation at me; I've gone a round with people here about attitudes towards religion in the past.

Fact 1: There are cultures, including that of the Sumerians, that predate the Hebrew culture...several are even mentioned in the Bible, including the Hittites. This leads us into the simple fact that stories like the flood can be traced back in time, from one culture to another. The Sumerians got it from a culture before them, and then passed it along to the Hebrews, along (most likely) many other influnces. This happened throughout history, and still does, so we're not claiming any special cases, here; look at the Greek and Roman myths if you don't believe me.

Fact 2: Most early cultures arose around water, be it a river, lake, sea, or what have you. Judging by some of the underwater and near-shore finds I've read of, it is very possible that every single one of those early cultures experienced some form of crippling or near-completely-fatal flood. Indeed, evidence suggests that some early cities/cultures were completely wiped out by such events. Flooding would likely be the single most common natural disaster around the world, in an era where anything that was part of the natural world was seen as supernatural - actions of the god(s), in other words. Hence, most cultures world wide have some story or myth regarding a catastrophic flood. Your assumption that all flood stories come from one source is suspect first simply because it is not at all necessary, and requires a great deal of extra work to accommodate.

Fact 3: Even more significantly, there are VAST differences in the many flood myths, everything from no survivors, large groups, bizarre sources, multiple floods and promises of more to come, and varied reasons. Given this wide variation, and given that key particulars are often in opposition to the Hebrew version, it makes little sense to postulate that version as a source. A good anthropologist can point to local derivations that are handed down through time in their areas, some dating before or long after the supposed time of the Genesis event, leading us to look for a local source for the local variation.

Fact 4: The very fact that some cultures' flood myths predate that of the Genesis account, and some cultures that have flood stories did not develop them until long after any possible contact with the Hebrews (ie, the Americas), scatters the stories around in history. This, too, points to the likelihood of multiple local sources, rather than a single central one.

Fact 5: As it happens, there is just no evidence to support the idea of a global flood of that magnitude. Where the water came from would be irrelevant...it would leave plenty of recognizable traces of itself behind. Those traces are completely absent in the natural world.

In short...atheists and their opinions aside, there just isn't enough real support for the Genesis flood myth being the "original" for all of them world wide.

WILLOWTREE · 03-01-2005, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Sorry, but this is nothing more than assertion and completely wrong to boot. Let me explain how you're supposed to synchronise the chronologies. Let's start with Adam to Seth:

What are you talking about ?

I told F-Space I would respond to his serious post by Friday.

Now you create some show offy post that has nothing to do with anything I said previously.

YOU SAID I didn't know what SP meant - did you forget ?

Quote:

MT: 130 years
SP: 130 years (hang on, didn't Willow just say the SP contradicts the MT??)
LXX: 230 years (Codex Alexandrinus)
Jubilees: 130 years

I said there were about 1500 deviations between the SP and the MT - this doesn't mean one of the 1500 is above - why have you deliberately mis-quoted me ?

The initial context of these exchanges was Ancient Chronology:

YOU initiated doubts about Biblical chronology based on the obvious differences seen in the LXX and MT.

I responded by saying the two sources use different systems and when each system is understood they both are correct.

Now you produce this post.

Here is what I am going to do.

I will answer F-Space like I said AND incorporate your material as well.

WT

WILLOWTREE · 03-01-2005, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Sorry, but I'm neither insulting you nor "rage-based". I am simply telling you what I have observed from the sort of arguments you've been coming up with. That is, you know nothing about chronology, nor about linguistics and philology, nor about your source materials. Actually, the more you do reveal about what you "know" the more it looks like you know nothing about ever-increasing sets of subjects.

If I know nothing than it should be easy to refute me.

But you haven't.

You just insult = inability to refute.

Actually, you despise the implications of my arguments and evidence and incessantly claim I don't know = opponent rage/atheist rage silently appealing for a Mod to rescue him.

Until you refute other than insult you are demanding unwarranted censorship.

Your rejection of my linguistics produced by Dr. Scott is typical secular pro-Roman origin history evading the plain evidence of Hebrew names in history because IF any Biblical history is true then maybe the Deity claimed to be in control is real = motive for atheists to evade and corrupt.

WT

WILLOWTREE · 03-01-2005, 08:32 PM

Where did the ruddy features of the Irish race originate ?

Hint: Forget about Rome LOL !

waiting...

WT

BTW:

How many ruddy nations exist ?

Celsus · 03-01-2005, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

I said there were about 1500 deviations between the SP and the MT - this doesn't mean one of the 1500 is above - why have you deliberately mis-quoted me ?

Again you forget your conclusion, that "This means the much older LXX is corroborated by the SP which exposes Rashi and his gang of revisionists to be deliberately translating the MT to evade Messianic Christology." Do I really have to spell these things out for you Willow? First you said they were using different systems, then you accuse the MT of mistranslation when it's clear they are not. If you were not bringing up this point to reinforce your claims about the chronology that exactly what were you bringing it up for? Yet another red herring?

Quote:

I will answer F-Space like I said AND incorporate your material as well.

Very well. Please don't waste anybody's time until you have done so.

Joel

Narapoia · 03-01-2005, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godless Wonder

I would like to zoom in on this one bit:

So if everybody not on the Ark was drowned, who might have recorded these other flood accounts around the world which supposedly corroborate the global flood, considering there were no survivors not on the Ark, according to the canonical tale? After all, dead men tell no tales.

Noah & crew's descendants? But wouldn't their tales be clones of Noah's tale? And yet this is not the case.

I would love to see an answer to this too but I'm not holding my breath.

03-01-2005, 07:10 PM	#33
WILLOWTREE Banned Join Date: May 2004 Location: LOS ANGELES Posts: 544	You think the MT is accurate ? Stunning Prophecy Fulfillment ! Matthew 21:15,16 And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the son of David; they were sore displeased, And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise ? The KJV translators, in this passage, use the Septuagint/LXX to quote Jesus who is citing Psalm 8:2 But if you go to Psalm 8:2 in the KJV it reads differently: Psalm 8:2 Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger. Here, a different KJV body of translators used the Masoretic Text/MT to translate Psalm 8:2 The crucial difference is "PRAISE" in the Matthew/LXX quote, and "STRENGTH" in the Psalm 8/MT quote. The MT translation makes no sense unlike the LXX translation. The MT deliberately changed the original meaning of the hebrew word as a reaction to the perceived christian takeover of the LXX source. The LXX was produced hundreds of years before the MT and its manuscripts were of Ezralitish origin. Now, Jesus enters Jerusalem and the Temple, when immediately children who are in the Temple see Him they spontaneously begin to cry out praises to Him. The Pharisses see this and become angry. Jesus responds to their anger by quoting Psalm 8:2 which identifies the enemy as those who are angered by this outburst of praise ! God, centuries prior, through David speaks a Messianic prophecy that little children will praise the Messiah on sight. Little children are too young to be influened by the hatred of the "enemies"/Pharisees. When the Pharisees saw the little children cry out praises spontaneously they became angry and said to Jesus, Matthew 21:16, "do you hear what they are saying ?" Jesus responds by quoting Psalm 8:2 and fulfills the prophecy and identifies the enemy of that verse to be those who became angry with the little childrens praises. The power of God to forsee the reaction of little children and their ability to recognize the Messiah on sight ! A stunning prophecy fulfillment ! WT source: Dr. Gene Scott (Ph.D. Stanford University)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-01-2005, 07:09 PM	#32
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Mod note: Please do not bring baggage from other message boards into IIDB. Any personal issues abot matters not related to this MB should be taken to PM or email. Anyone who believes that a member is breaking rules can report to the mods or start a complaint thread. Thank you. DtC- Moderator, BCH

03-01-2005, 07:42 PM	#35
Donnmathan Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Minnesota, USA Posts: 1,511	I think you're missing a few key facts, WT. Several people are trying to clarify things, but you seem hung up on the idea that it's all "atheist conspiracy" stuff. Let me try - I am most certainly NOT an atheist, so please don't level that accusation at me; I've gone a round with people here about attitudes towards religion in the past. Fact 1: There are cultures, including that of the Sumerians, that predate the Hebrew culture...several are even mentioned in the Bible, including the Hittites. This leads us into the simple fact that stories like the flood can be traced back in time, from one culture to another. The Sumerians got it from a culture before them, and then passed it along to the Hebrews, along (most likely) many other influnces. This happened throughout history, and still does, so we're not claiming any special cases, here; look at the Greek and Roman myths if you don't believe me. Fact 2: Most early cultures arose around water, be it a river, lake, sea, or what have you. Judging by some of the underwater and near-shore finds I've read of, it is very possible that every single one of those early cultures experienced some form of crippling or near-completely-fatal flood. Indeed, evidence suggests that some early cities/cultures were completely wiped out by such events. Flooding would likely be the single most common natural disaster around the world, in an era where anything that was part of the natural world was seen as supernatural - actions of the god(s), in other words. Hence, most cultures world wide have some story or myth regarding a catastrophic flood. Your assumption that all flood stories come from one source is suspect first simply because it is not at all necessary, and requires a great deal of extra work to accommodate. Fact 3: Even more significantly, there are VAST differences in the many flood myths, everything from no survivors, large groups, bizarre sources, multiple floods and promises of more to come, and varied reasons. Given this wide variation, and given that key particulars are often in opposition to the Hebrew version, it makes little sense to postulate that version as a source. A good anthropologist can point to local derivations that are handed down through time in their areas, some dating before or long after the supposed time of the Genesis event, leading us to look for a local source for the local variation. Fact 4: The very fact that some cultures' flood myths predate that of the Genesis account, and some cultures that have flood stories did not develop them until long after any possible contact with the Hebrews (ie, the Americas), scatters the stories around in history. This, too, points to the likelihood of multiple local sources, rather than a single central one. Fact 5: As it happens, there is just no evidence to support the idea of a global flood of that magnitude. Where the water came from would be irrelevant...it would leave plenty of recognizable traces of itself behind. Those traces are completely absent in the natural world. In short...atheists and their opinions aside, there just isn't enough real support for the Genesis flood myth being the "original" for all of them world wide.

03-01-2005, 08:32 PM	#38
WILLOWTREE Banned Join Date: May 2004 Location: LOS ANGELES Posts: 544	Where did the ruddy features of the Irish race originate ? Hint: Forget about Rome LOL ! waiting... WT BTW: How many ruddy nations exist ?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.