Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 03-29-2007, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Yes, if that is Sinaiticus it definitely will count as an early Greek OT witness with Kainan. (against e.g. Josephus). So would you please indicate where you find that as from Codex Sinaiticus, 4th century ?

Perhaps you could check my links.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Really ?
Do they say this is Sinaiticus and Vaticanus ?

Does it matter? You couldn't make anything of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Hmmm.. or are you winging it, spin, making it up as you go along ?

There's no point in responding. You wouldn't be able to tell either way and you certainly don't want to hear it. You could trust the authority of the sites I linked to, if you want. Or you could try a letter for letter comparison.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Oh, and what do they have on Judges 13 in 'the LXX' ?

Too bad you can't cite the original. I can appreciate you being burnt over Judges 13. You did make a schemozzle. But it's not relevant here. If you want to reopen the thread, I'll respond to you there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Hmm.. is that 'the LXX' ?

We reconstruct the LXX from the earliest manuscripts. You know, principally the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

What confusion among spin and JW and Jack and Carrier about the Greek OT.

You have a fixation about the wrong things. Instead of a fixation to learn about what you need to learn about, ie the languages you are so ignorant about, you fixate on people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Jack got fooled by JW's presentation into thinking that Luke quoted the LXX. Carrier has to rewrite his article to try to make it sensible and coherent (imo an impossible task and still maintain his thesis). Spin ignores the same editions to which he now appeals. Maybe you ought to have a conference and come up with one cover story.

You wouldn't be able to know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Oh, when you really do have the earliest Cainan evidence please so indicate. Remember JW#2 takes the position that Cainan is a later, post-Luke, addition to the Greek OT text. Make sure you have both JWs in on the conference.

I merely pointed anyone interested to the LXX testimony. You can now happily go into denial about it. You have never been interested in the evidence.

If praxeus wants to do something useful, he might respond to the question, referring to Gen 11:12, that he didn't respond to before:

So, how does praxeus, who must consider himself "very familiar with the material", explain the presence of Kainan in the genealogies of the LXX when it isn't supported by the MT, Syriac or Vulgate?

spin

Steven Avery · 03-29-2007, 06:20 AM

Hi Folks,

When you deal with a methodology of manipulation it is very hard to get a straight answer. Let's just take one point to make it easier.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Just look here for the Sinaiticus and check the last word of verse 12.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

please indicate where you find that as from Codex Sinaiticus, 4th century ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Perhaps you could check my links.

Been dere, done dat.

We see a complete "LXX" text, unlabeled.

http://septuagint.org/LXX/
LXX Greek Text

Not very likely to be Sinaiticus, which is far from complete. So again, please indicate where you find that as from Codex Sinaiticus, 4th century ?

It is interesting with spin how he tries to evade simple questions with a barrage of nothing, as in his last post. Especially when he gets caught in his unsupportable claims. This is becoming a rather common spin motif. Make a false claim, then handwave and rant.

It was especially funny interesting watching spin recommend "the LXX" text that contradicts his own Judges 13 theories. Amazing.

Make careful note, however. The key issue. When spin makes a claim, such as the Sinaiticus one above, that looks like his own fabrication, he stonewalls and handwaves and changes the topic rather than give a scholarship response. Note carefully.

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

Steven Avery · 03-29-2007, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

If praxeus wants to do something useful, he might respond to the question, referring to Gen 11:12, that he didn't respond to before:

So, how does praxeus, who must consider himself "very familiar with the material", explain the presence of Kainan in the genealogies of the LXX when it isn't supported by the MT, Syriac or Vulgate?

In fact this has been answered a lot above. Even JW#2, surprisingly, got that one right.

And I explained it in more depth, how the Greek OT is unreliable, smoothed to the NT, as in the Psalm 14 example.

Shalom,
Steven

spin · 03-29-2007, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

In fact this has been answered a lot above. Even JW#2, surprisingly, got that one right.

And I explained it in more depth, how the Greek OT is unreliable, smoothed to the NT, as in the Psalm 14 example.

Shalom,
Steven

Could I have a straight answer please?

So, how does praxeus, who must consider himself "very familiar with the material", explain the presence of Kainan in the genealogies of the LXX when it isn't supported by the MT, Syriac or Vulgate?

Thank you.

spin

Steven Avery · 03-29-2007, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Could I have a straight answer please?

how does praxeus.. explain the presence of Kainan in the genealogies of the LXX when it isn't supported by the MT, Syriac or Vulgate?

Thank you.

The answer of how the late Greek OT had Cainan inserted is fully above.
The Greek OT text has numerous 'smoothings' (corruptions) towards the NT,
with the Psalm example being the most glaring and blatant. This is another.

Now why don't you explain how you are supposedly quoting
Sinaiticus from a general "LXX" text ?

How can anyone trust your references if they are done with
an agenda off-the-cuff <edit> rather than
real scholarship ?

This reminds me of your recent escapade of quoting the the
photographer's extrapolation and not the inscription itself,
vis a vis Lysanias. I am beginning to wonder if any of your
quotes can be taken at face.

(Putting aside your own absurd claims .. more significantly,
it looks like we cannot even trust your references.)

Anyway, if you give a straight answer on Sinaiticus it would
be a good start. Better late than never.

Even saying "I'm not sure ..checking .. get back to you" would
be far better than handwaving and changing topics when the
accuracy and credibility of a reference is at issue.

Shalom,
Steven

spin · 03-29-2007, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

The answer of how the late Greek OT had Cainan inserted is fully above.
The Greek OT text has numerous 'smoothings' (corruptions) towards the NT,
with the Psalm example being the most glaring and blatant. This is another.

So corruptions are to be expected in christian texts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Now why don't you explain how you are supposedly quoting Sinaiticus from a general "LXX" text ?

I was in the middle of responding, so don't get too anxious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

How can anyone trust your references if they are done with an agenda off-the-cuff <edit> rather than real scholarship ?

How would you know?

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

This reminds me of your recent escapade of quoting the the photographer's extrapolation and not the inscription itself,
vis a vis Lysanias. I am beginning to wonder if any of your quotes can be taken at face.

So you have nothing better to do than to obfuscate another apparent error in Luke. Good work. Apologetics is obviously a synonym for deviousness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

(Putting aside your own absurd claims .. more significantly, it looks like we cannot even trust your references.)

I provide references for you to check out. You usually have nothing to provide.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Anyway, if you give a straight answer on Sinaiticus it would be a good start. Better late than never.

I wish I could say the same for you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Even saying "I'm not sure ..checking .. get back to you" would
be far better than handwaving and changing topics when the
accuracy and credibility of a reference is at issue.

All things come to those who wait.

spin

spin · 03-29-2007, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Hi Folks,

When you deal with a methodology of manipulation it is very hard to get a straight answer.

And this is a typical example.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

We see a complete "LXX" text, unlabeled.

Not very likely to be Sinaiticus, which is far from complete. So again, please indicate where you find that as from Codex Sinaiticus, 4th century ?

Working from this site, there is a link to the Apostolic Diakonia (Church of Greece), which is classified as "Entire OT online, using (I believe) Tischendorf's text." Tischendorf's was the Sinaiticus. However, on further investigation, Tischendorf must have other sources to supplement the Sinaiticus where this latter is lacking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

It is interesting with spin how he tries to evade simple questions with a barrage of nothing, as in his last post.

Evasion is your specialty, praxeus, as you can't deal with the texts themselves. You evade your responsibilities of doing your own research, because you can't, and you have to rely on others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Especially when he gets caught in his unsupportable claims. This is becoming a rather common spin motif. Make a false claim, then handwave and rant.

If you would like to complain about anything I said in the post you are responding to that is not accurate, then by all means explain it. The rest is empty rhetoric.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

It was especially funny interesting watching spin recommend "the LXX" text that contradicts his own Judges 13 theories. Amazing.

What's amazing is your efforts at obfuscation and topic changing. (But please reopen the thread about Judges 13, if you think you have something meaningful to say.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Make careful note, however. The key issue. When spin makes a claim, such as the Sinaiticus one above, that looks like his own fabrication, he stonewalls and handwaves and changes the topic rather than give a scholarship response. Note carefully.

It's very difficult to take you seriously when you refuse to get your hands dirty learning anything about the languages you are supposed to be dealing with.

spin

Jack the Bodiless · 03-29-2007, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

The answer of how the late Greek OT had Cainan inserted is fully above.
The Greek OT text has numerous 'smoothings' (corruptions) towards the NT,
with the Psalm example being the most glaring and blatant. This is another.

So you're saying the NT is corrupt, and this corruption spread to the OT in the "late Greek OT" (though you're not saying what "late" means)?

How did the NT become corrupt in the first place?

Where did Luke's "Cainan" come from?

Steven Avery · 03-29-2007, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Tischendorf must have other sources to supplement the Sinaiticus where this latter is lacking.

Thanks.
With spin that is generally as close as you will get to "I was mistaken".

Spin tried to hide this in a blizzard of nonsense comments in two posts.
Nice try, spin.

So spin was simply wrong above and tried to snow his
way through for a season.

Next question .. what about your Vaticanus reference ?
Is that one your 'final answer' ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin · 03-29-2007, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Spin tried to hide this in a blizzard of posts.

Wishful as ever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

So spin was simply wrong above and tried to snow his
way through for a season.

Wrong about what exactly?

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Next question .. what about your Vaticanus reference ?
Is that one your 'final answer' ?

Wot?

Here are the variants cited by Kraft from here (3.5mb).

Code:

<gk>*KAINAN</>] > 56: cf praef p 14(>2103) 71(||, absc 1632) 64(>15865) 407(absc 1271) 58(>9844) 
  (>28)82-376 53' 319{txt}(c pr m) Arm == MT(>28) 
  108{txt}(>30)(%%) 
 : <gk>KAINNAN</> 72 
 : <gk>KAINAM</> Sa{20} 
 : <gk>SALA</> 135 {Lat}QIul Hil <it>Curs</> CLX 11 Isid passim Lib geneal

56, 72 and 135 are miniscules and Sa is codex Sarravianus (4th/5th century).

That's the last bit of research I'll do for you. If you want to know more, get off your ass.

spin

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.