Zwaarddijk

Throughout The Christ Conspiracy and The Suns of God, she never once provides any insight based on the Greek or Latin original texts when quoting church fathers and the like, she invariably relies on translations; at times, she even relies on details in the wording of translations to conclude something about what the church father was saying. This contrasts nicely with her claims about meticulousness in consulting the original sources.

Zwaarddijk

You should really read up on the art/science of translation. It's not as clear cut as you seem to think.

Stuff will invariably be lost - and inserted - along the way.

A professional translator *couldn't* make a non-awkward translation of "that's what she said" into Finnish no matter how he tried, without losing some information - Finnish simply doesn't have the he/she distinction; that's just one trivial example - less trivial ones can be found by the dozen in any text longer than just a few pages.

And this becomes a problem when, like Acharya does on occasion, too much is read into accidents of wording in the translation.

Zwaarddijk

I wouldn't actually conclude that she doesn't know any language with grammatical gender - people tend to be surprisingly unaware of what's going on in languages they speak.

For over a decade, I've been active in various hobbyist linguist fora. In the main one, typology is occasionally a topic that comes up. Well - often, questions that pertain to typology come up. Sometimes, people will say something like "So, I've been studying loads of languages, and I've been wondering - no language I've come across has feature X. X seems like a natural enough typological thing for a language to have, so why is it no language has it? Is there some universal against it?"

"Feature X" can basically be pretty much any grammatical or lexical detail or phonological thing you can think of. Surprisingly often, X happens to be a feature of their native language! More often, it's a feature of one of the languages they know fairly well.

It's not unusual for people to fail to realize that their native language has some arbitrary feature. (For slightly obscure bits of grammar, I only point it out when their native language is one of {Swedish, Finnish, English}, the three languages whose grammars I know the best. For less obscure typological things, I rely on typological literature, typological databases and what grammars I have read - which is a few handfuls). More generally, one will often fail to realize the presence of a feature that one has learned by exposure to it (rather than explicitly being taught it).

(I actually had a rather intense argument once over pronouns in languages with genders with a person who does speak passable Spanish; he claimed all non-humans are normally referred to by neuter pronouns in _all languages_ - exactly like in English, even in languages where grammatical gender is present. Yet texts he had written in Spanish the previous week disagreed with his own understanding of how languages work!)

aa5874

If you want to argue about Translations of ancient writings please just go and find the Translators and argue with them.

I deal with the TRANSLATED passages from INDEPENDENT sources and will not accept personal convenient translations of those whom I argue against.

It is wholly unethical for those whom I argue against to attempt to translate ancient writings just to win an argument.

I am not naive.

Robert Tulip

Spin uses the Russian baddie Boris from Rocky and Bullwinkle as his avatar. I called him Boris out of mild irritation at the spray of wild insults he directed at me, and not as an allegorical reference to Rocky as on the side of the angels. I thought spin might take Boris as a term of endearment rather than as evidence that I am a “dullard”. Sorry if anyone finds Boris an offensive nickname, I won’t use it again.

As compared to my use of the avatar B[…]s as a nickname, spin managed to ridiculously and maliciously insult me as “a true acolyte who knows nothing about the issues but trusts implicitly the words of the guru”, guilty of “nauseous stupidity”, and “a shill for nonsense”. Against the backdrop of these bizarre and foolish attacks, spin then falsely accused me of ad hominem criticism for simply and correctly observing that his views on these matters are ignorant and bigoted.

Despite his obvious high intelligence, spin seems not to know what ad hominem means. I was not criticising spin personally, I was pointing out that his claim that new age thought “does not relate to reality” is ignorant and bigoted. That is about his argument, not about spin in general.
My comment directly addressed a false argument about new age thought and I would be pleased to explore this topic in more detail. In my view spin’s comment is as bigoted as saying that astronomy does not relate to reality.

The concept of a New Age is deeply controversial, rejected out of hand by academic consensus but having broad popular appeal. Very often in this topic people speak past each other, using the same words to mean different things, and revealing prejudicial ignorance. The Age of Aquarius is variously used to mean the astronomical period of the next two millennia when the March equinox will be in the constellation of Aquarius, a cultural constellation of alternative concepts such as astrology, crystals and magic, or the hippie peace and love movement of the 1960s.

My own view, which I maintain is entirely rigorous and scientific, is that the Biblical concept of Age or World refers directly to the astronomy of precession of the equinox, and that Biblical eschatology can be understood scientifically against this cosmic framework. This is a complex empirical argument. To reject it out of hand without reason, as spin has done, is with all due respect bigoted and ignorant.
But neither spin nor anyone else has shown why “it” is in the slightest bit relevant to Zwaarddijk’s false attack on Acharya’s discussion of Ezekiel’s use of ‘she’ as allegory, which is the actual context of the thread. Spin is introducing a pure red herring here. The syndrome we see here is that people take Acharya’s words out of context and then distort them for god knows what malicious intent. When we restrict the discussion to what she actually said it makes perfect sense, although in some cases she could have worded things a bit more clearly even though the meaning is obvious.
Compared to my critique of spin’s actual argument about new age thought, this personal attack on me by spin is the very model of a modern false ad hominem. It is quite a meaningless outburst, apropos of nothing. Spin seems insulted that I find his red herring to be meaningless and irrelevant.
Perhaps Spin has not bothered to actually read the thread? The point of the allegory discussion was an obtuse failure by the great “rocket scientist” Zwaardijjk to understand Acharya’s simple reference to the allegorical use of pronouns in Ezekiel. At #604 Z said Acharya “even thinks referring to feminine nouns by feminine pronouns in the Hebrew Bible is allegory”. Yes, referring to Jerusalem/Oholibah as ‘she’ is allegory, as spin pointed out.

‘ Fucking’ is such a desperate intensive, especially as a first resort.
So what? Again, this entire discussion of “it” is a whopping irrelevance introduced by spin, god knows why. Again with all due respect to the esteemed spin, that is an entirely false statement. Ezekiel uses the pronoun “she” allegorically to refer to Israel as a prostitute.

Zwaarddijk

Maybe you aren't naive, but your views on texts in other languages absolutely is.

Besides, most people who do read these texts in original languages don't do it to win arguments - they do it to find out what the texts actually say, and what they actually say is rather central to evaluating their content, don't you think?

Do you really think you can evaluate *details* in a text written 2000 years ago in a foreign language based on a modern translation? If so, you're really naive.

Zwaarddijk

Again, as he is prone to do, Robert ignores what Acharya says in order to defend what Acharya says. A paradoxical approach, but it seems he doesn't understand the problem with it.

Robert, let us look at exactly what Acharya wrote:

"It is also evident that this type of allegorical speech is used more often in the Bible than its writers and proponents would wish to admit. As in the lusty Ezekiel tale, a number of other biblical places, nations and tribes are frequently referred to allegorically as "he" or "she," which makes it difficult to figure out whether the speaker is talking about a person, group, place or thing. [1]"
Let us look at this paragraph sentence by sentence, and try to see how they interact with each other in context - although I realize you, much as Christian apologists really mean "let's ignore context" if you say "you have to look at the context" - and see what she really says:

"It is also evident that this type of allegorical speech is used more often in the Bible than its writers and proponents would wish to admit."

I do wonder how often the writers would wish to admit to using allegorical speech - alas, I am the kind of uncultured person who didn't attend the event when my book club had invited the author of Job to speak about his use of allegory. However, why is it evident?

Well, she provides a justification for that:
"As in the lusty Ezekiel tale, a number of other biblical places, nations and tribes are frequently referred to allegorically as "he" or "she,"..."
"as" here basically serves the pragmatic function of telling us that what follows after it provides a justification of the previous claim - viz. that it is evident that this kind of allegory is very common throughout the Bible. Allegory in the bible also sometimes occurs with plural pronouns, you know.
All ways of parsing what Acharya says here leads to similar problems. Turns out she's using an argument that might sound profound if you're ignorant of things, but is weak if you actually know things - and there's no surprise there, considering she calls her books equivalent of Ph.D. theses, but haven't put them through any comparable scrutiny, and instead markets her thesis to people who don't care about this kind of accuracy.

"... which makes it difficult to figure out whether the speaker is talking about a person, group, place or thing."
Again, yeah, unlike in the non-allegorical parts of the Bible, where things are "it", places are "there", groups are "they" and persons are "he" or "she". No really, Robert, this is the meaning of what she says, and it's dumb. Try reading it honestly without deciding ahead of time that Acharya never can say anything stupid.

spin

You are so holy, Robert Tulip.

The irony is noted.

We're getting ready for the dictionary defense...

And, as non sequiturs go, that's not bad.

All we need now is a rousing burst of the Fifth Dimension.

You are free to believe whatever you like, Robert Tulip. But that's all you can do.

As there is no way in Hebrew to say "it" rather than "he" or "she" relying on pronouns as an indication of non-literal communications simply fails. Sorry, Robert Tulip, but Murdock's statement, already alluded, to is a clanger. If you can't see that it is only egg on your face.

What you don't know is visible to others.

As it still hasn't dawned on you yet, I have to say that it is meaningless to say that "referring to Jerusalem/Oholibah as ‘she’ is allegory". There is no other way with Hebrew pronouns to make the reference, so obviously your claim is rubbish. It's got nothing to do with pronouns and thus "she". It's plain simple Jerusalem/Oholibah. It still isn't rocket science, for chrissake. :banghead:

You certainly aren't the linguist here, Robert Tulip.

If you'd only reflect on your earlier blunder in this post, ie "referring to Jerusalem/Oholibah as ‘she’ is allegory", you might start to see the error of this latest statement of yours.

Ezekiel uses a prostitute to refer to Israel. There's the loose allegory. It has nothing to do with pronouns. This whole Murdock thing about "a number of other biblical places, nations and tribes are frequently referred to allegorically as “he” or “she,”" is complete nonsense, as there is no other way in Hebrew to refer to these things with pronouns other than "he" and "she". If there is no "it" in your language which pronoun do you use? The one that matches the grammatical gender of the noun. Yes, in English there is no grammatical gender, but in many European languages nouns can be masculine, feminine or neuter. The sun is feminine in German, which is a "she". The moon is masculine, so one uses "he". In Italian the sun is masculine, hence "he", and moon is feminine. In Hebrew, Jdg 19:14 the sun is feminine, for the verb is 3rd person singular feminine, but in Gen 19:14 it is masculine as the verb is 3rd sing. masculine. (The verb gives pronominal information.)

Iskander

Ezekiel 23:19


http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16121

1. Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying:
2. "Son of man, there were two women; the daughters of one mother were they.

two women: Two states, which are like two women.
the daughters of one mother: The two of them were from one nation, separated into two in the days of Rehoboam
3 And they played the harlot in Egypt; in their youth they played the harlot. There their bosoms were pressed, and there they squeezed their virgin breasts
.
http://www.taggedtanakh.org/Chapter/...5-9589b4ce71c4

Ezekiel Chapter 23 | Parsha:

The word of the Lord came to me: 2O mortal, once there were two women, daughters of one mother. 3They played the whore in Egypt; they played the whore while still young. There their breasts were squeezed, and there their virgin nipples were handled. 4Their names were: the elder one, Oholah; and her sister, Oholibah. They became Mine, and they bore sons and daughters. As for their names, Oholah is Samaria, and Oholibah is Jerusalem.
5Oholah whored while she was Mine, and she lusted after her lovers, after the Assyrians, warriors 6clothed in blue, governors and prefects, horsemen mounted on steeds—all of them handsome young fellows. 7She bestowed her favors upon them—upon all the pick of the Assyrians—and defiled herself with all their fetishes after which she lusted. 8She did not give up the whoring she had begun with the Egyptians; for they had lain with her in her youth, and they had handled her virgin nipples and had poured out their lust upon her. 9Therefore I delivered her into the hands of her lovers, into the hands of the Assyrians after whom she lusted. 10They exposed her nakedness; they seized her sons and daughters, and she herself was put to the sword. And because of the punishment inflicted upon her, she became a byword among women.
11Her sister Oholibah saw this; yet her lusting was more depraved than her sister’s, and her whoring more debased. 12She lusted after the Assyrians, governors and prefects, warriors gorgeously clad, horsemen mounted on steeds—all of them handsome young fellows. 13And I saw how she had defiled herself. Both of them followed the same course, 14but she carried her harlotries further. For she saw men sculptured upon the walls, figures of Chaldeans drawn in vermilion, 15girded with belts round their waists, and with flowing turbans on their heads, all of them looking like officers—a picture of Babylonians whose native land was Chaldea. 16At the very sight of them she lusted after them, and she sent messengers for them to Chaldea. 17So the Babylonians came to her for lovemaking and defiled her with their whoring; and she defiled herself with them until she turned from them in disgust. 18She flaunted her harlotries and exposed her nakedness, and I turned from her in disgust, as I had turned disgusted from her sister. 19But she whored still more, remembering how in her youth she had played the whore in the land of Egypt; 20she lusted for concubinage with them, whose members were like those of asses and whose organs were like those of stallions. 21Thus you reverted to the wantonness of your youth, remembering your youthful breasts, when the men of Egypt handled your nipples.
ה

aa5874

Please, are you claiming to know all ancient languages and can evaluate all ancient languages within the Roman Empire associated with the study of Biblical History??

It is most laughable that some who know one or two words of Greek want to give the impression that they have some abilty to evaluate all ancient languages associated with Biblical History.

NT manuscripts have been found in many ancient languages--Not just Greek.

Can you evaluate all those ancient manuscripts WITHOUT translators??

Please, it is most common throughout the world that ordinary people, at any level, have evaluated translations of ancient languages.

Please, it is most absurd and illogical to give the impression that ordinary people cannot evaluate translated versions of the NT Canon and writings associated with the stories of Jesus.

Why do we have TRANSLATED versions of the NT Canon in the first place??

Why do ordinary people READ and EXAMINE Translated versions of the NT??

It is clear to me that you really are just on a propaganda drive.

This forum was NOT really designed for propaganda.

Now, tell me can Bart Ehrman evaluate all the ancient languages associated with the Gospels??

Bart Ehrman claimed the Gospels are among the best attested books of the ancient world even though he admitted the Gospel accounts of Jesus contains accounts of Jesus that did NOT happen. See Did Jesus Exist by Bart Ehrman page 180-184.

The BS in Did Jesus Exist by Bart Ehrman EXCEEDS all the writings of every writer involved in the HJ/MJ argument.

Remember, you did claim that you Document BS.


Document the BEST BS there is. Document the BS in Did Jesus Exist and put it on the internet like you are now doing against Acharya.

Bart Ehrman himself may need some kind of evaluation.

Those who promote an Historical Jesus have probably produced the most BS known to mankind in the history of Biblical studies.

Essentially, one can select at random any book supporting an Historical Jesus while being blind-folded and wearing ear-muffs, and it will be discovered after examination to be INUNDATED with predictable BS from beginning to end.

Those who promote an Historical Jesus and use the Canon to do so have Publicly discredited their source as a Pack of BS while still using the very discredited NT for the history of their fabricated Jesus.

The very NT claims Jesus was the Son of a Ghost, walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended in a cloud.

What else could the authors have written to convince HJers that their Jesus was NOT a figure of history??

They even wrote that Jesus was God the Creator.

HJers still refuse to accept that the Jesus story is a Myth Fable like those of the Jews, Greeks and Romans.

What else could the Church have done to convince HJers that Jesus was derived from Mythology???

The Church actually BOLTED the OT to the NT.

HJers still refuse to accept that Jesus was a product of Myth Fables.

HJers accept that the OT is a major source of Jewish Mythology.

Why are HJers Peddling the BS called an Historical Jesus when the Church itself PUBLICLY described their Jesus as a Myth???

Why, Why, Why???

If Jesus was NOT a Myth then the NT cannot be trusted.

If Jesus was NOT a Myth the NT would be an historical LOAD of BS.

Matthew 1:18 CEB