jgibson000

No. I have not the time or the inclination to do so, especially in the light of how in the fundebate forum and on every occasion elsewhere in which you have "defended" the particular reading of 1 Tim that you believe is correct, you have

(1) played fast and loose with the idea of "allusions" to suit your claims and actually manufactured evidence that isn't there;

(2) kept shifting the burden of proof;

(3) showed yourself totally reliant for your claims upon authors of web pages who were not only extremely biased but liars and incompetents when it came to assesing both the textual evidence and the scholarship on 1 Tim 3:16;

(4) are yourself, being Greekless, incapable of understanding what the evidence is and what it imports;

(5) work not on the basis of evidence, but a theological apriori;

(6) engage over and over again in petitio principii when you argue your case;

(7) cook the evidence that you bring to the table;

(8) have no idea of what a good argument is and how yours often violate the rules of logic; and

(9) ignore, distort, and unduly dismiss any evidence that falsifies your case.

What's the point?

JG

spin

This all sounds sadly familiar. Talking about someone we know?


spin

jgibson000

Can you not read?

Jeffrey

JoeWallack

Tov Vibrations

JW:
Here is the offending email from Tov:

"dear sir i am not a rabbi and the fact that i did something for the book does not mean i agree with their views. as for the reading, this is very complex. the most important is probably the fact that the septuagint (lxx) has the verbal form, probably ka'aru, and this translation is jewish and not touched by christians. aquila (akilas) the most jewish of the translators has also a verbal form, they bound. the same reading is found in the psalms scroll from nachal hever (not qumran) which is one of the most jewish scrolls so to speak almost identical to the text of the middle ages (masoretic text). i think that the masoretic interpretation with the etnachta under hikifuni also may favor a verbal form there. therefore the whole distinction between a jewish and christian interpretation is artificial. but it remains a difficulty.
chag sameach
e.t."


JW:
"the most important is probably the fact that the septuagint (lxx) has the verbal form, probably ka'aru, and this translation is jewish and not touched by christians."

This is poorly worded. The "septuagint" (Jewish) is not the same as "lxx" (Christian). What Tov probably means is that the "septuagint" or Jewish Greek translations dated earlier than the Christian era have K)RW.

"aquila (akilas) the most jewish of the translators has also a verbal form, they bound. the same reading is found in the psalms scroll from nachal hever (not qumran) which is one of the most jewish scrolls so to speak almost identical to the text of the middle ages (masoretic text)."

Aquila appears to have had two different translations, "they bound" and "they disfigured" indicating he wasn't sure what to use. As indicated in this Thread even the Christian Bible scholars have noticed that Aquila sometimes confused "yods" with "vavs". How does Tov make the claim "the same reading is found in the psalms scroll from nachal hever"? Since the claimed reading of Nachal Hever (legibility in general and ability to distinguish "yod" vs. vav" at this time is disputed even by Christians) is K)RW which doesn't mean "they bound" or "they disfigured", all Tov must mean is that NH (Nachal Hever) also appears to have a verb. "almost identical to the text of the middle ages (masoretic text)" is another surprising claim to make since, as demonstrated in this Thread, the next line of the NH scrap appears to have a spelling error.

"therefore the whole distinction between a jewish and christian interpretation is artificial. but it remains a difficulty"

I think all Tov is saying here is that the original 22:17 is an open question. I'm not sure if Tov would even say he thinks it Likely that 22:17 originally had a verb. I think he is only saying there are good reasons to think so. I would agree that there are good reasons to think a verb was original but the bottom line for me is that the evidence of the Original language, including related commentary, must outweigh the evidence of Translations.

By the way, I also saw a follow-up email from Tov where he was apparently bothered by some people taking the above email as evidence that he supported "pierced" and making clear that his email in no way supported a translation of "pierced".



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

spin

If there had been a tongue firmly in cheek icon, you wouldn't have been so confused.


spin

jgibson000

Ha! Got it. Thanks.

Jeffrey

Apikorus

Why is a different verb demanded in these cases? Nails pierce the flesh, a sword pierces the flesh. Seems the same to me.

Steven Avery

Look forward to continuing after a little break-time

Shabbat shalom
Chag sameach Yom Teruah.

May you have a specially fine shofar and all Api.
Thanks for your thought JW and Spin and Jeffrey.

jgibson000

You can show us that you are sincere in your thanks by actually presenting the evidence you've been asked to produce and by not trying to divert attention, as you have done by asking to start another thread on an entirely different topic, from your failure to do what you've been repeatedly asked to do.

You could also show this by refusing from now on to do what you normally do to "demonstrate" your claims about what Greek or Hebrew texts, namely, adduce English translations of those Greek and Hebrew texts as "evidence" for your claims.

Sadly, however, I have little hope that you will comply with these requests.

Jeffrey Gibson

JoeWallack

JW:
Like I keep saying, all Direct Hebrew commentary I Am aware of says "like a lion". The Talmud generally dresses Esther with Psalm 22. You know, the big prayer scene before the confrontation with the Lion King. If you can find an English translation of Tractate Megillah 15a online I think there is a reference to Esther being "disfigured" because the Shekinah left her as she approached the idol worshippers. In the Talmud the Shekinah has this magnetic type opposition to idol worship. You'd actually be much better off looking for allusions to that man in Josephus' version of Esther. Remember, counter-missionaries have the best apologies.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page