jgibson000

And this is the danger of determining the meaning of a Hebrew word by using a concordance to an English tranlsation of the Bible as your guide.

What you should have done -- and what is surpriseing that you did not do since you claim that you don't come to any conclusions on the meanings of words until you've done thorough research in the relevant and appropriate resources -- is to have looked at resources like TWOT or BDB which do not bear out your claim. To wit:



JG

Apikorus

The notion that Jesus is somehow prefigured in the Hebrew Bible is patently ludicrous.

Strange that these Christian theologians who wrote the TWOT don't see that Muhammed is prefigured in their New Testament.

jgibson000

Yes, I didn't see the Christian bias until after I sent it.

I don't have access to the TDOT or I would have sent that work's article on DQR instead.

Nevertheless, what I did produce still shows (in my eyes at least) that Steve has been attempting to foist Procrustes bed on the linguistic data, even apart from the fact that any data on or assertions about DQR is irrelvant to all except those who assume apriori (and in defense of the KJV) that "piereced" is/has to be the original reading in Ps 22.

Jeffrey.

Steven Avery

So many diversions by Api and Jeffrey in so few posts.
Probably I can only deal with this one fundamental one till post-Yom-Kippur.

The claim is made for DQR that it is an alternate, supposedly superior, reading for 'pierced' (in Psalm 22) all over the web - on sites like Paul Tobin (Pasacal's Wager) and 'Messiah Truth'. IIDB posts.

This is used for a two-fold argument, that the Psalm 22 word is -

1) not the right verb for piercing.
2) not a verb at all
('digging' of flesh not making much sense in the context)

That is, that DQR would be the more proper verb if piercing was meant. Therefore the original Psalm 22 would not be a verb but a noun. KRW is by this reasoning the 'wrong' verb to have any sense of piercing. DQR would supposedly be much more in the semantic range.

However a simple check of usages in Tanach shows this is not true.
Finito. Clear.

In reference to Api's emphasis, I showed that the Jewish scholars disagree with him, Soncino and Judaica Press and JPS-1917 all using the translation of "thrust-through". A disgrace element is only auxiliary (whether implied in context or in etymology). So if the claim that there is a bias is true, it is a non-Messianic recent anti-mish bias to try to claim an emphasis of disgrace for DQR rather than thrust-through, the straight Hebraic translation understanding. The one that does not fit Psalm 22. (Yet does fit Zechariah 12 per even multiple Jewish translations.)

And Jeffrey's statement above is simply false. DQR is clearly relevant if the meaning of DQR has been misrepresented to argue for the noun vs. verb.

Which it has.

Your nice TWOT reference (finally you actually posted something relevant to the discussion) is basically a support of my stance, if you read without glasses. So I thank you for putting in something actually germane.

"Normally the piercing results in death. But in Jer 37:10 the term refers to men who are seriously wounded. The weapon associated with d¹qar is usually the sword, though a spear is the instrument in Num 25:8."

Not applicable for Psalm 22.

And therefore Jeffrey above is simply wrong .. the discussion of DQR is clearly relevant to Psalm 22 since a basic argument was made for "like a lion" based on an incorrect claim about DQR. This is all a response to a false anti-mish argument rehashed by the folks like Tobin, spin, JW. Very relevant.

Is this the most important issue on Psalm 22? Nope. Not at all. However it is very relevant and significant.

And we see an excellent example of the type of diversionary responses we will find, the attempted yappings and encirclings, to the simple, true point about DQR. Why Api and Jeffrey can't simply agree .. (I realize that spin and JW would likely never agree for political reasons) I dunno. However if they still want to contend against the rather clear and obvious (DQR is not a good fit in Psalm 22) that is their decision.

Jeffrey, on 1 Timothy 3:16 it would be good for you to stop stonewalling on the references, especially Origen and Epiphanius. You can simply withdraw the claim (and I can pass that on to Fundebate). Although it would be better to share what you found or didn't find in your attempts to support the claims. A year or more has gone by, its time to respond properly.

If you prefer we can set up a 1 Timothy 3:16 thread here or any forum with mutually acceptable moderation (for this purpose this one is ok by me). I will start by simply linking to your original claim and my request for your actual primary source references and/or quotes. You never responded at that time, despite multiple requests, you simply left the forum, so you can take it up from there now.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

spin

Repost, because praxeus must have missed this:

Now, praxeus, would you like to tell us all what exactly you are doing? You have shown very convincingly that you are incapable of dealing with the issue in this thread on the necessary philological level, which has always been what you have been asked to do. Instead you have felt the need to seek aid in your old-fashioned apologetic sources and kindly rehashed them for us. Though I appreciate your efforts, I wonder why you are posting such stuff while avoiding all responsibility to deal with the subject asked of you, ie to defend your preferred reading, "pierced"?


spin

jgibson000

LOL!! We've made diversions?

Are you actually saying that because the claim is made on the internet, not to mention on these particular often academically execrable sites, that the claim is true. let alone that it should be taken seriously?

And that "piercing" is meant is the very thing you have to prove. What, other than your apriori committment to the KJV, shows that it is "meant"?

Leaving aside the question of whether you know or have any idea what "responding properly" is, or that I should be bound by your criteria of what it is, let alone that I have any obligation to respond at all or in any way to your nonsense, I have to say: Good gawd, Steve. Can you say obsession? And why do you keeping using this thread to bring up a wholly irrelevant topic?

But if you must, here's the deal: If you think I'm wrong in my claims about Origen and Epiphanius, produce your counter evidence.

In the meantime, I'd be grateful if you'd point us to the messages in Fundebate which showed and in which you admitted (or mitigated the facts)

(1) that you were wholly incapable of, and frequently wong in, assesing the validity of the claims about Greek and about Metzger that were made in the web pages you relied on for your "arguments" about the text of 1 Tim 3:16,

(2) that, to defend your own claims, you passed on false information, and

(3) that the claims about Greek and about Metzger that were made in the web pages you relied on for your "arguments" were not only false but were based on the sort of lying and misrepresentation of data that the you and authors of those pages accused people like Metzger of engaging in?

JG

Lugubert

May I interrupt the flow by asking how these two compare to Gesenius: Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament and Koehler/Baumgartner: Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros?

Steven Avery

My posts have actually been quite good (if I say so myself ).
Although perhaps the best poster was banned.

Discussing issues like the -

1) fascinating Emanuel Tov letter
2) DSS picture on the web
3) signficance of minority readings in the Masoretic Text
4) abundance of early verbal evidence (agreed by Api)
5) evidence still in discussion such as the Masorah
6) DQR error by the anti-mish
7) semantic range of KRW with attention to Psalm 40

Some elements I have simply studied and paid attention,
such as Api discussing the chiastic structure. I actually
come to a thread like this to learn and discuss. Apparently
that is a difficult for some.

In constrast you have shown yourself rather incapable of sensible
dialog on the thread. You are excellent on insults however, your
great skill. Once you almost managed a dozen in a short post.

Api at least acknowledges that there is good evidence for a verbal
reading. A bit of an embarrassment for the JW/spin spin even if Api
(not surprisingly) may not appreciate that being pointed out and
would prefer to emphasize his differences with the 'pierced' translation
(and any Chrisotological application). Yet the verbal translation discussion
is clearly the secondary issue from a translational perspective. The noun/verb question being the primary.

And you do everything possible to deny even that fundamental fact
of the discussion, that the verbal reading has good support.

It is was actually quite funny watching you tailor your viewpoints
the match the desire to hold that position, such as all of a sudden
only caring about the majority of Masoretic Text manuscripts.
eg. other Hebraic and translational evidences, minority readings,
.. ahh fergetaboutit

So there is little or no point in going further with you.
However the thread continues, hopefully educational for some.

Jeremiah 12:5
If thou hast run with the footmen,
and they have wearied thee,
then how canst thou contend with horses?
and if in the land of peace,
wherein thou trustedst,
they wearied thee,
then how wilt thou do in the swelling of Jordan?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

jgibson000

Not as thorough. But they are, notably, also resouces that Steve did not consult, despite his claims that he does thorough research before he comes to any conclusion on matters syntacitcal, grammatical, and lexicographical!

And speaking of diversions, you'll note how Steve (conveneiently?) ignored that point.

Jeffrey

Steven Avery

Definitely it should be taken seriously (obviously I do not consider it true).
Since it is being made and referenced by the people in this
very discussion, on IIDB, both directly and from their fav sources.

Note that you did not counter the error. I did. Simple enough.

So actually you would do better to critique those who
made the DQR error, not those who corrected same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 ..here's the deal: If you think I'm wrong in my claims about Origen and Epiphanius, produce your counter evidence.

On Origen what 'evidence' would I 'counter'.?

=======================================
Origen

Where did you give a quote, any reference for Origen ?

Here was your original Origen claim.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fundebate/message/16259
Re: [Fundebate] 1 Timothy 3:16 - God was manifest in the flesh
Origen (d. 254) testifies to hOS more than a century before the earliest Patristic citation of QEOS.

You were asked for substantiation, multiple times, and you skedaddled.

(Noting and putting aside your silly blunder of claiming no patristic citations for QEOS before the fourth century.)

Yet you actually did try to research the issue of Origen.
(Clearly you realized then the importance of the need for substantiation.)

And yet you STILL, even today, stonewall, refusing to share
what you found, or did not find.

Nor have you retracted or even modified the original claim above.

======================================
Ephiphanius

And for Ephiphanius both your sources and your accusations
were simply wrong, incomplete, skewered. I covered that, counter-evidence given.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fundebate/message/16297
1 Timothy 3:16 - Awaiting the citations - Epiphanius

(ergo.. there really is no need to cover Epiphanius more, although it would be good for you to acknowledge the correction)
========================================

So you seem to have this backwards, Jeffrey.
"He who asserts must prove"
"He who makes the claim supplies the evidence"

You make an undocumented Origen claim,
clearly he would be a significant evidence,
yet you supply no reference spot or quote at all.

(like Iasion throwing out Theophilus as a 2nd-century evidence
against the Johannine Comma and then becoming non-responsive)

And you want a counter ?
And you are supposed to be approaching this as scholarship ?

For the Fundebate discussion in general, anybody can read the discussion.
If you want to rehash other parts of the discussion, that is fine.
Or start it afresh. We can do either one on a 1 Timothy 3:16 thread.

eg. I listed a summary of the early evidences at..

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fundebate/messages/16299
1 Timothy 3:16 - "God was manifest.." - before 300 A.D.

Just don't keep up the facade of scholarship on the Origen claim
left totally hanging from above.

Either support the claim as given, modify the claim, or retract the claim.
Supply evidence for any claim left standing.

Or even do a temporary
"I'm checking, will get back to you."
hold/suspension/retraction.

On the forum above you simply (snipped) and ignored
multiple requests .. and then left in a huff.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic