jgibson000

Four things to note:

1. Your "apology" contained charges of deception and falsity on Spin's and my part respectively as well as a denial that you really had anything to apologize for. Some apology.

2. Leaving aide my request to you to point me to where your apology appeared, I asked you four questions. Hardly an "overwhelming outpouring" (i.e., a "barrage").

3. Each of these questions are legitimate and easy to answer.

4. You haven't answered a single one of them.

So much for inspiring the trust you claim you so richly deserve.

JG

spin

Judges 13:2-7
And there was a certain man of Zorah,
of the family of the Danites, whose name was Manoah.
And his wife was barren and had not borne any children.
And the angel of the LORD appeared to the woman,
and said to her,
Behold now, you are barren, and have borne no children:
but you have become pregnant HRYT and shall bear a son.
Now therefore be vigilant, and do not drink wine nor strong drink,
and do not eat any unclean thing:
For, behold, you are pregnant HRH and shall bear a son;
and no razor shall come on his head:
for the child shall be a Nazarite to God from the womb:
and he shall begin to deliver Israel from the hand of the Philistines.
Then the woman came and told her husband, saying,
A man of God came to me,
and his countenance was like the countenance of an angel of God,
very terrible:
but I didn't ask where he was from,
nor did he tell me his name:
But he said to me
Behold, you are pregnant HRH and shall bear a son;
and now do not drink wine nor strong drink,
nor eat any unclean thing:
for the child shall be a Nazarite to God
from the womb to the day of his death.

Steven Avery

For the simple reason that my falsity was a factual mirror image of Spin's falsity. Using the improper term "the Greek" when the evidence was split, and calling one of the two major evidences "the Greek". I retracted my mistake, with apologies.

Spin continued to try to claim his falsity and then came up with blunders like:
"Vaticancus .. is directly derived from the Hebrew"
specifically to support his falsity.

As to not answering various questions that you ask on this forum
other individuals who are aware of your posting style can each decide
the significance thereof individually.

They can even repeat your various questions to me if they consider
them as are sincere and germane and helpful to the thread. Or even
if simply germane.

In fact, you can even try to extract questions relevant and reask.
Sometimes there might actually be a signficant question that I pass
over during personal time and research considerations.

To give an example of one question that I passed over (on another thread). You wanted to know who is Shosh W, the poster on b-hebrew, vis-a-vis Rashi's view of rounding. She is a lady familiar with rabbinical writings (whom I have met) and is known (and respected) on b-hebrew. After your request I wrote her a note asking how she would like to be referenced, meanwhile Api defacto acknowledged that the Rashi quote was accurate. So the question you asked was legit, the tude was JG, I was off to work. In that case I didn't jump to give a response and the factual aspect for the forum was quickly confirmed, I had no objection to the question except that it was in your normal style of posting a number of combative and accusatory questions. I also know from experience how the dialogs deteriorate .. and derail the IIDB thread. And how on your own forums (that you own or have a significant mod position) there has been a kabosh of response and examination of your accusations. So knowing all this I really have no interest in going down Gibson Question Rabbit Trails.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Will feel so free. Thank you for going back and confirming that there was nothing even remotely like a "promise" involved.

spin

Speaking profoundly about the texts under consideration, praxeus finds old ways to flog dead horses.

This is basically his analysis of Jdg 13:5 and Isa 7:14:

"the Greek" mumble, mumble, "Vaticancus .. is directly derived from the Hebrew", mumble, mumble, "Spin's falsity, mumble, mumble, "a translation of the Hebrew", mumble, mumble...

Sounds very useful.

Stick around and you'll hear him say even more:

"the Greek" mumble, mumble, "Vaticancus .. is directly derived from the Hebrew", mumble, mumble, "Spin's falsity, mumble, mumble, "a translation of the Hebrew", mumble, mumble...

Enlightening stuff.

How does one respond to such meaningful stuff? or better :notworthy: .

Keep it up, praxeus. Somebody pass the popcorn.


spin

Apikorus

spin's translation of Judg 13 makes good sense both grammatically and contextually. It is consistent with the picture I described where the pregnancy of Manoah's wife triggered the divine visitation. Adducing support from the Vaticanus is also quite reasonable. One certainly can argue the point whether the Vaticanus provides a reliable linguistic exegesis of the Hebrew Vorlage of the Old Greek, but in his extended harangue of spin and ridicule of spin's position praxeus has done more to sink his own reputation than anything else.

Jack the Bodiless

Indeed, this is like watching a train-wreck in slow motion.

Praxeus, if you're trying to accuse others of "blundering", you really should be more careful not to make blunders yourself. You've sort-of-confessed to one, but you're still blundering in falsely claiming that Spin "blundered" in his own claim that Vaticanus is a pretty accurate translation from the original Hebrew (it is evident that this is a scholarly opinion, therefore citing it is not a "blunder"). You're also backing away from what does seem to be a "promise" to defend your reading of "pierced" (a promise doesn't have to include the phrase "I promise..." to be a promise). And there's your false accusation that Apikorus declared Vaticanus to be "pristine": this latter blunder of yours is particularly ironic given the following comment (from here):
The Bible is, of course, very far from "perfect"!

jgibson000

Let's note, then, that with this barely comprehensible non answer, you lose any and all rights to ever again excoriate anyone for not answering/responding to questions you post.

JG

Steven Avery

Hi Jack,

If spin had said that it would be dumb and wrong and vague (what would be the "original Hebrew" being referenced ?) .. but not necessarily a blunder.

What spin actually said, in the context of comparing Vaticanus to Alexandrinus, was that -

"Vaticanus .. is directly derived from the Hebrew"

A gross and blatant and huge blunder, that anybody without an agenda and a tude would simply retract with an "oops" and the thread would go on.

Spin could not do that, apparently because -

a) I pointed out the blunder.
b) The blunder was a derivation (for protection) of his
methodology of manipulation.

And Jack, as I pointed out carefully, I very carefully do not make 'promises'. That should not be hard to understand. In this case I expressed some interest and more (you can put the exact words in) and if there really was a spin-free-zone so there could be real dialog and respect and savvy it is likely we would continue. The technical problem is that essentially we were trying to continue the discussion from the point of view that the verbal reading has good support, without lots of extraneous noise, and that was not possible at the time and place.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Actually that was clear enough.
In brief, Jeffrey .. everybody knows your shtick.