Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 03-04-2005, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Although moderation is doing a wonderful job containing this thread, what has it got to do with BC&H?

. . .

From the sticky at the top of the page:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

Scope of Biblical Criticism & History

This forum embraces all historical and exegetical issues concerning the Bible, its antecedents, and its descendants. Islam is a major descendant in the Abrahamic tradition, as is Mormonism. An antecedent would be Zoroastrianism. Discussion of non-Abrahamic religion and philosophy (including history of those faiths) belongs in the forum moderated by Grizzly. Discussions of theological/atheological points belong in General Religious Discussions.

The Book of Jasher qualifies as a descendant of the Hebrew Scriptures.

spin · 03-04-2005, 10:43 PM

Damn.

Toto · 03-05-2005, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Damn.

Can't tell if this is surprize or disappointment.

BCH covers pre-modern Christian history - the Inquisition, the witches trials, etc. I think we have also entertained threads on the Da Vinci Code

Vorkosigan · 03-05-2005, 01:09 AM

More like, they have entertained us.

WILLOWTREE · 03-05-2005, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Although moderation is doing a wonderful job containing this thread, what has it got to do with BC&H?

The book of Jasher is not biblical. It's a late Jewish composition which didn't appear before 1552 and was apparently translated into English around 1840. There were comments when published that the translation followed the rabbinical text faithfully.

Is there a forum for late rabbinical hagiography?

spin

The authority of Spin has spoken.

The only thing that needs to be remembered is that Spin is of Darwinist/secular anti-Bible worldview.

This explains his assertions contrary to the facts.

WT

Javaman · 03-05-2005, 11:23 AM

What date do you put to the book, then?

Amaleq13 · 03-05-2005, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

The authority of Spin has spoken.

The only thing that needs to be remembered is that Spin is of Darwinist/secular anti-Bible worldview.

This explains his assertions contrary to the facts.

Your speculative assertions about spin's motivations explain nothing and are ultimately irrelevant to a rational discussion.

Why do you have to be repeatedly reminded of this fact? Your persistent inability to grasp this seemingly simple concept is becoming quite tiresome. Address the argument and stop speculating about any alleged biases on the part of the person making the argument.

spin · 03-05-2005, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

The authority of Spin has spoken.

Thank you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

The only thing that needs to be remembered is that Spin is of Darwinist/secular anti-Bible worldview.

Awww, Wiwwow Twee, shooting the man doesn't change the information.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

This explains his assertions contrary to the facts.

Which assertions and contrary to which facts? Please try to be specific with your accusations so we all can understand what you intend. Can you supply a documented trajectory for how this Book of the Jasher came to light?

Wemembew, you wiww be hewd accountabwe fow what you say one day...

spin

WILLOWTREE · 03-05-2005, 02:04 PM

Spin:

Let me put it this way:

If an idiot like Benny Hinn said the Book Jasher was authentic this would refute your typical atheist assertions and rhetoric saying it isn't.

But in reality, the brightest Biblical scholar of all time, a man who has collected ancient Bible's and mss in the same league (and surpassing in many areas) the Huntington, N.Y. Central, and the British Museum, a man who has mastered Greek, Hebrew, Ethiopic, Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic, Latin, and Armenian ancient languages says the book of Jasher is authentic.

Jewish sources say it is authentic.

The Bible itself cites it two times.

I provided unsubstantiated proof of one claim.

Spin the Atheist asserts it not authentic.

I invoke a moron like Benny Hinn to give you a reference point as to the weight of your assertions.

WT

WILLOWTREE · 03-05-2005, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Your speculative assertions about spin's motivations explain nothing and are ultimately irrelevant to a rational discussion.

Why do you have to be repeatedly reminded of this fact? Your persistent inability to grasp this seemingly simple concept is becoming quite tiresome. Address the argument and stop speculating about any alleged biases on the part of the person making the argument.

Your opinion is noted.

Assumption that an argument was made.

None was.

Spin evaded and spinned.

WT

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-04-2005, 10:43 PM	#32
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Damn.

03-05-2005, 01:09 AM	#34
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	More like, they have entertained us.

03-05-2005, 11:23 AM	#36
Javaman Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Nebraska Posts: 1,708	What date do you put to the book, then?

03-05-2005, 02:04 PM	#39
WILLOWTREE Banned Join Date: May 2004 Location: LOS ANGELES Posts: 544	Spin: Let me put it this way: If an idiot like Benny Hinn said the Book Jasher was authentic this would refute your typical atheist assertions and rhetoric saying it isn't. But in reality, the brightest Biblical scholar of all time, a man who has collected ancient Bible's and mss in the same league (and surpassing in many areas) the Huntington, N.Y. Central, and the British Museum, a man who has mastered Greek, Hebrew, Ethiopic, Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic, Latin, and Armenian ancient languages says the book of Jasher is authentic. Jewish sources say it is authentic. The Bible itself cites it two times. I provided unsubstantiated proof of one claim. Spin the Atheist asserts it not authentic. I invoke a moron like Benny Hinn to give you a reference point as to the weight of your assertions. WT

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.