Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jeffevnz · 04-12-2006, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tholzel

It's simple, really. Either you BELIEVE what you ar taught, or you are a scientist--who doesn't "believe" anything.

As to the vaunted truth of science, have you been following the scientific path of food suppliments lately? Just about everything that was bad for you is now good for you, and vice a versa. Melatonin doesn't do squat; St John's Wort doesn't do squat; Vitamin E doesn't work; Vitamin C does absolutely nothing for colds; Even the bulletproof prostate herb Palmetto has zero effect on the prostate. With a record like that, it's no wonder the faithful are just not listening to "scientists" any more.

You're kidding, right? That's like saying that all Christianity must be nonsense because faith healing doesn't work.

Chris Weimer · 04-12-2006, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phlox Pyros

I just ordered Lamdin's Grammar. Ready to move forward with more!?

Ah, we should start some sort of Coptic Club.

Since we all have Lambdin's (well, you, Peter, and I) it could be done.

Phlox Pyros · 04-12-2006, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Ah, we should start some sort of Coptic Club.

Since we all have Lambdin's (well, you, Peter, and I) it could be done.

Heh... The person I contacted sent me a good list of references and Lambdin's seemed to be the highest recommended, so we're sittin' good...as long as scholars are not dishonest.

Gimme a PM if you'd like the list.

Peter Kirby · 04-12-2006, 07:02 PM

I'm down for the Coptic Club.

regards,
Peter Kirby

Phlox Pyros · 04-12-2006, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

I'm down for the Coptic Club.

Hmm... Seriously? I suppose it might help to learn it together. How/where would we do this? A new thread here? A new yahoo group? My house after work?

(that last one was a joke...)

Peter Kirby · 04-12-2006, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phlox Pyros

Hmm... Seriously? I suppose it might help to learn it together. How/where would we do this? A new thread here? A new yahoo group? My house after work?

(that last one was a joke...)

Probably best to make it just a thread at IIDB. It could work fine that way, and there's plenty of eyeballs.

regards,
Peter Kirby

MJ67 · 04-12-2006, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

You can start by dispensing with the notion that I think the experts are deceptive. (I suggested nothing of the sort.) Once that is done, there's nothing left of your reply. You might want to try again.

regards,
Peter Kirby

Okay, I will for edification, submit once more, as, "try," as you would accept it, is a term which to me presupposes something with which I am unfamiliar...failure. So then I counter with...why bother with this redundancy?

Quote:

Originally Posted by YOU

Now when will an amateur translation or illegal transcription of the English appear on the 'net??...

and this redundancy?

Quote:

…one of my goals made several months ago was to get better at Coptic in particular,…

and this redundancy?

Quote:

Well, I've been working on the first line, and I'm still completely stuck on one word (which Meyer et al. translates 'before he celebrated'). Here are the words I've worked out, taken literally….

And this redundancy?

Quote:

If the transcription is correct, then I think that the F is the reflexive pronoun meaning 'he' or 'him'. That would make R a separate word or one conjoined to the one on the next line; however….

And this redundancy?

Quote:

No, I expect the differences not to effect the "gist." I would expect to obtain a better knowledge of what its saying, not a knowledge of it saying something else entirely. Of course, a little Coptic is a dangerous thing.

So then, why all the machinations, or, the pretense of verifying the translations if in fact you believe the experts are not deceptive?:- “You can start by dispensing with the notion that I think the experts are deceptive.”

Either they are, or they aren’t, and if they are not, then there is no need to dissect their work, is there?

My regards also.

SkyDancer_0202 · 04-12-2006, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trout

My question would be to any believers that if/when historical evidence surfaces that the basis of biblical stories are false or at the very least "different" is that enough to re-work your beliefs? Are you willing to accept change and how would you deal with it?

And how can one version of what's "holy" or right conflict with another (from the same church) yet everyone just keep on accepting things no matter what?

I can answer that since I just got my ass chewed by my most favorite resident fundie on another site

It's going to drive a wedge into christianity, and horrible christian haters such as myself are determined to spread the information about the Gospel of Judas around for that very reason! (according to him)

question for this thread, though. There are many texts called "gospels" which do not appear in the bible. My understanding is that "gospel" roughly translates to "good news" and is a word of the time period. In other words, many people of that general time period might call their text a 'gospel'

I am now being told that I am incorrect, that "gospel" is a biblical word and is supposed to be reserved for the texts in the bible.

I suspect my original understand is too simplistic but closer to accurate. Anyone care to fill me in properly?

Peter Kirby · 04-12-2006, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ67

Either they are, or they aren’t, and if they are not, then there is no need to dissect their work, is there?

The experts are not deceptive, and there is value in looking at the original language of a text rather than just a translation.

regards,
Peter Kirby

Phlox Pyros · 04-12-2006, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

The experts are not deceptive, and there is value in looking at the original language of a text rather than just a translation.

Correct. MJ67 is certainly not interested in translations, and by his pretentious langauge appears to only be picking an out-of-place philosophical fight. Of course he must realize that by not learning the language himself, he is blindly taking someone else's word for truth (whether it is or is not). For those who do not care to learn and understand new things, this is fine.

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

04-12-2006, 07:02 PM	#64
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	I'm down for the Coptic Club. regards, Peter Kirby

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.