Jack the Bodiless

...Interesting. Though you don't provide a link to "JW#2" (what is "#334"?), I note that there isn't actually a contradiction between JW#1 and JW#2 as you present them.

If Luke's Cainan WAS copied back into the Greek OT, then Joe was literally correct when he identified the Cainan of Gen. 11:12 as "Luke's Cainan" (though it does mean that I misinterpreted Joe).

Steven Avery

JW#2
www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-60947.html
Also on the Tektonics site. <edit>

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless I note that there isn't actually a contradiction between JW#1 and JW#2 as you present them.

This is what readers will see..

a) Luke took from the LXX
b) The LXX added Cainan hundreds of years later to match Luke

No contradiction ?
Are pigs flying ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless If Luke's Cainan WAS copied back into the Greek OT, then Joe was literally correct when he identified the Cainan of Gen. 11:12 as "Luke's Cainan" (though it does mean that I misinterpreted Joe).

It is amazing how much one skeptic will try to cover for another.

When JW goes ..

The LXX:Genesis 11:12 "καὶ ἔζησεν Αρφαξαδ ἑκατὸν τριάκοντα π�*ντε ἔτη καὶ ἐγ�*ννησεν τὸν Καιναν" There's "Luke's" Cainan "Καιναν" (last Greek word). The LXX Chronology also shows "Cainan".

JW#2 is clearly trying to give the impression that Luke took from the LXX. <edit>

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Gullwind

You may have missed the point that it doesn't matter if there was a generation skipped as you suggest, because he was still 35 when the child was born, and that is what the dating is based on. There could be two or three generations in there and it wouldn't matter because he was STILL 35. It is simply adding up the dates from the time the person is born to the time the first child is born. The number of generations in between is irrelevant.

Jack the Bodiless

Actually, JW#2 speculates that the LXX "Cainan" came from Luke, not vice versa.

JW#1 doesn't speculate, either way.

I have no need to "cover for another": there is no contradiction here to "cover" for, just two different styles of presentation. Though the ErrancyWiki entry could use some expansion.

Backtracking to see where the subject of "Cainan" first came up, I see that this goes way back to post #6, well over a year ago. And my reply, in March of last year, where I said "Not that it matters, of course. The dating still holds, and there was no Flood, and no Babel". As many have pointed out, then and since, the dating does still hold. And an "omission" would still be an error, in any case.

Steven Avery

Jack, even a sharp cookie like you were fooled into thinking that Luke was quoting the LXX. That looks to be the goal of the presentation on the errancy wiki. (And JW#2 knows that this is not what the evidence supports.)

Otherwise why mention the Greek OT at all ? <edit>

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless Though the ErrancyWiki entry could use some expansion.

Most assuredly. The way it is will fool most anybody not very familiar with the material.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

It seems now that every time he is faced with something from the LXX, praxeus is going to play, but is it really the LXX or is it just the vast amount of witnesses? praxeus of course cannot look it up for himself. He apparently has some disability which prevents him from checking the text.

praxeus wouldn't know if Joe Wallack is reliable or not. Jack, you are certainly wasting your breath in this sort of discussion with praxeus. He simply doesn't know and won't find out. He would rather make baseless accusations.

Let me save people the effort here. The LXX clearly has Kainan. Just look here for the Sinaiticus and check the last word of verse 12.

Or check out the Church of Greece's version here, which looks like both the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus.

Or here for something called the "LXX".

Rahlfs of course has: kai ezhsen arfaxad ekaton triakonta pente kai egennhsen ton kainan. But praxeus doesn't want me to call that the LXX. He doesn't seem to have a clue what the LXX actually is. It's just not what everyone else thinks it is.

So, how does praxeus, who must consider himself "very familiar with the material", explain the presence of Kainan in the genealogies of the LXX when it isn't supported by the MT, Syriac or Vulgate?


spin

Sven

As pointed out in the other thread, the quote says exactly the opposite of what you need.

She says that the period must fall within this time frame by any dating, not that there's a shred of evidence that it indeed falls within this time frame.

IOW: One needs these datings, but they don't exist.

Reading comprehension problems, anyone?

Steven Avery

Yes, if that is Sinaiticus it definitely will count as an early Greek OT witness with Kainan. (against e.g. Josephus). So would you please indicate where you find that as from Codex Sinaiticus, 4th century ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin Or check out the Church of Greece's version here, which looks like both the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus.

Really ?
Do they say this is Sinaiticus and Vaticanus ?
Hmmm.. or are you winging it, spin, making it up as you go along ?

Oh, and what do they have on Judges 13 in 'the LXX' ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin here for something called the "LXX".

Oh.. 'the LXX' .. let's see what we have in Judges 13.

Judges 13:3
And the angel of the LORD appeared unto the woman,
and said unto her, Behold now, thou art barren,
and bearest not:
but thou shalt conceive, and bear a son.

Judges 13:5
For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son;
and no razor shall come on his head:
for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb:
and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.

Hmm.. is that 'the LXX' ?

What confusion among spin and JW and Jack and Carrier about the Greek OT. Jack got fooled by JW's presentation into thinking that Luke quoted the LXX. Carrier has to rewrite his article to try to make it sensible and coherent (imo an impossible task and still maintain his thesis). Spin ignores the same editions to which he now appeals. Maybe you ought to have a conference and come up with one cover story.

Oh, when you really do have the earliest Cainan evidence please so indicate. Remember JW#2 takes the position that Cainan is a later, post-Luke, addition to the Greek OT text. Make sure you have both JWs in on the conference.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Jack the Bodiless

I think most people here are rather more interested in your amateurish apologetics back in post #6, Praxeus (attrempting to redefine the Hebrew YLD as "descendant or grandson", overlooking the fact that this wouldn't be "a major problem in your thesis" even if it wasn't apologetic hogwash, attempting to pretend that an omission would not be an error, and so on).

Not to mention the wholly imaginary "tons of huge anomalies" in mainstream science, your mislabeling of old-Earth science as "evolutionary theory" (and your earlier reference to "evolutionary presups" in radiocarbon dating), and your implication that there WAS a "Flood".

Given this unscholarly nonsense, your "I am more scholarly than you" pretense is somewhat unimpressive.

RED DAVE

From praxeus (Post 6):
Okay.

From praxeus (Post 6):
Okay. Actually, that’s cosmology, not evolution, but we’ll let that pass. A good figure is about 13.7 billion years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_universe

From praxeus (Post 6):
Wrong. A good figure is about 4.6 billion years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_earth

From praxeus (Post 6):
Please mention one or more with citiations.

From praxeus (Post 6):
Wrong, the most likely date is now about 250,000 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

From praxeus (Post 6):
You mean written history.

From praxeus (Post 6):
Actually, symbol systems go back about 3000 years earlier than that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_writing

From praxeus (Post 6):
Problem is, praxeus, if we accept your offhand figure, "4500 years ago," that lands us during the Old Kingdom, a most productive period in Egyptian culture (pyramids and all that).

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehisto.../timeline.html

So, as I stated in post 25:

And we're still waiting.

RED DAVE