stephan huller

And to spin's observation there is an interesting new post at Vridar that is worth mentioning:

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2010/12/...rks-bad-greek/

spin

This material is no longer rocket science. Casey knows all about the Latin angle and argues against it.


spin

neilgodfrey

So I have just been informed, and I have quoted his argument in a comment to my post. Remarkable that he uses "bad Greek" to argue for an Aramaic source but then uses "bad Greek" to argue against a Latinism!

avi

Avi Cenna was a physician and a scientist. I hope I can live up to his name.

The observation of a black swan REPUDIATES, REFUTES, and DISPROVES the hypothesis that all swans are white.

Senor, that black swan most certainly DOES NOT FALSIFY the hypothesis, that all swans are white, unless,
(are you paying attention spin?)
UNLESS,
someone has deliberately, fraudulently, altered the normal white plumage, of the swan, so that it only APPEARS to be black, even though, in reality, it is white, like all the other swans.

In that narrow circumstance, i.e. where there has been deliberate fraud, (in this example, someone attempting to deceive us, by altering the color of the plumage,) one indeed, should write "falsify". Falsify, ALWAYS, no exceptions, ALWAYS connotes fraud.

Since some forum members are very sensitive to my repeated allegations that the bible is 100% myth, let us try a different medium to explain this concept. How about FINANCE. Yeah!!! money talks, the rest walk, right? If you write that xyz falsifies abc, in the world of commerce or business or science, you are implying fraud, not repudiation, deception, not discredit.

Learn to communicate properly, by using the English language as a tool, rather than as a weapon, a weapon in this case, intended to deflect comprehension, so as to convey to the uneducated, a notion of incomprehensibility, which must surely represent a brilliant author.

No, that author is quite ordinary flesh and blood, just like the rest of us, he simply writes with an aura of superiority, inflicting upon us arrows, whereas we anticipate arrival of only doves.

avi

show_no_mercy

Synonym
Falsifiability

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/...ification.html

I think you might want to take up your remonstrance with the entire scientific community. Maybe write them an angry letter or something.

Either that, or provide some evidence (and not anything like your above assertion) that falsifiability only follows your rigid interpretation.

stephan huller

Now that we have demonstrated that Eusebius wrote the Ecclesiastical History c 280 CE the followers of Pete are demonstrating a cult like denial of reality. This theory has once and for all been disproved unless they can come up with an argument AGAINST the third century authorship of the text.

But then again they never come up with rational arguments do they? At best it is a deceptively simple argument designed for popular consumption. Too bad about the lack of evidence to support the theory but then this doesn't seem to matter for some.

Now we have decisive evidence to disprove the theory.

avi

a. what signs are these?

b. Isn't it more probable, that the author of Mark lived in Rome, was influenced by Roman mores, and language, and accordingly adopted some latinisms into his writing style?

c. Unless I badly misunderstand Roman history, those folks were fluent in Latin, not Greek, with a minority of intelligentsia studying, learning, and using Greek, in the same way that those well educated intellectuals, who lived in former French Colonies, spoke, read, and thought, in French, not Berber, or VietNamese, or Swahili.

I doubt, very much, that Mark was written for a Roman audience. I think it was intended for the Eastern Mediterranean region, including Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Egypt. That large region would have had a large quantity of Greek speakers, unlike the capital of the Roman Empire.

A good analogy, in my opinion, is the USA, where German, not English, was nearly the official language of the new country, at about the time of the War with England in 1812. There were so many German speaking residents of the Ohio valley, Kentucky, Indiana, and what is today called Illinois, that the congress succeeded in retaining English by only a handful of votes. All those German mercenaries, hired by General Washington (since the English speaking colonists preferred to remain as colonists, governed by King George), stayed behind, after the victory. Within two generations, German was displaced. The ordinary folks spoke English, the school teachers spoke English, and only a handful of octogenarians, could speak German.

Once Greece had been conquered, there would have been an interlude, maybe even a century, before Latin predominated, but, by the middle of the second century, when Mark was written, Latin, not Greek, was the language of Rome. Very few people would have known Greek, living in Rome in 150 CE.

avi

avi

oops, Karl Popper?

Are you certain that you wish to invoke a GERMAN philosopher, to sustain your argument?

Auf Deutsch, vielleicht geht dass, aber nicht auf Anglisch.

Please provide a reference from an English linguist to refute me, not a German popinjay.

avi

mountainman

The Date of Eusebius Historia Ecclesiastica


A footnote in this review below states the following:

mountainman

Sorry, but I disagree. Carrier expresses this mainstream view in the following terms:

This is clearly an either or, and as far as I am concerned, I am researching a revisionist history based on the hypothesis that Eusebius was a liar in respect of critical historical truths that he represents to his readers. This hypothesis, not conclusion, is imo emminently warranted to be investigated.