jgibson000

Glad you answered. I thought it might be "anti Mishnah"

But what precisely is "anti-missionary" and why should what "missionary folks" have to say be something that anyone should listen to?

JG

spin

That's interesting. Tell me if exei is future in say Mt 8:20, 9:6, 11:18, 13:12, and all 92 times in the the nt?

Hopeful, but wrong.

The only thing that I can see that might have caused any equivocation is my inconsistent transliteration of "will give birth", to whit *texh, which should have been tech. Where I used a X for chi and should have used C for xi. This could confuse someone who didn't look at the relevant verses in the LXX. Mea culpa.

It means though that, of course, Mt 1:23 which reads epsilon-xi-epsilon-iota is future, while Isa 7:14 with epsilon-chi-epsilon-iota is present, along with Jdg 13:5 epsilon-chi-epsilon-iota-sigma.


spin

Steven Avery

Two questions.

What happens when two people with all the "tools necessary" disagree?

===
And, instead of just theory -
.. let's look at the current example.
What about the situation a few posts back on this thread ?

Spin probably has all the "tools" you desire yet writes as if
Judges 13:5 is a present tense in the Greek OT.
And you said nothing.
Why ?

What happened there to the "tools necessary" ?

Shalom,
Steven

Chris Weimer

What's the disagreement, prax?

Steven Avery

I try to answer reasonable and sensible questions, from almost any source.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson I thought it might be "anti Mishnah"

lol

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson But what precisely is "anti-missionary"

They give themselves the name, it generally is 'traditional Jewish' apologetics against Jesus as Messiah. A google search will find lots of examples of what they write. JW gets a lot of his material from them, skeptics like Richard Carrier uses their material as well. (And vica versa, the anti-mish use skeptic material, insofar as it relates to the NT and Jesus as Messiah, not insofar as it relates to Tanach.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson and why should what "missionary folks" have to say be something that anyone should listen to?

Aren't you assuming that the "anti-missionary" groups are the ones who accurately will define and label those who are "missionary folks" ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

On Judges 13 ? Oh, I am just wondering a bit, does anybody want to
weigh in on the issue, agreeing with spin on his present tense
assertion, or not ?

Perhaps this won't be like the Josephus pronoun issue, where everybody else is silent (which is surprising, since we agree
on using the translation text and are only talking about a fairly simple English grammar-and-context issue).

Remember we had one of these grammar questions in the
Doherty thread on 1 John and 2 John a while back ? If I
remember you made a little goof and handled it quite gracefully.
(This is only from memory.)

Shalom,
Steven

Chris Weimer

Do you know anything about Hebrew tenses? Specifically concerning future tense? I'm curious.

The Greek is clear. It's "You are pregnant (present) and will bear a child (future)."

But Isaiah, as far as I can tell, has εξει, not εχει, at least according to Bibleworks' edition of Rahlf's, and supported by an online version. Where have you gotten the chi from in Isaiah, spin?

jgibson000

Because εχειs is present tense.

Perhaps you can tell me. You certainly doesn't possess them.

Jeffrey Gibson

jgibson000

I already have. With respect to the tense of εχειs, he's right. You are not, by a long shot.

But that you should want or need or even have to ask for other people to "weigh in" on the matter of what tense εχειs is, is scandalous.

But it does prove my point about you lacking the tools to know what "pans out" and what doesn't.

JG

jgibson000

This is totally irrelevant to what the Greek text of Jdgs. 13:5 says, since these translations are not made from that text and do not reflect what that text says.

That you should think that you can say something about the Greek text by appealing not only to English translations, but to English translations of something that was in Hebrew, not Greek, is further evidence that you do not have the tools -- or even the understanding of the proper ways of using them -- to know what "pans out" and what doesn't.

Jeffrey Gibson