Amaleq13

It is interesting, though not surprising, that you consider requesting the evidence upon which your scholar's claim is based to be "nonsense".

I'm asking for the basis of the claim. Seems perfectly reasonable. In fact, I think you've done the same quite often for the claims of others. What is the word for someone who expects others to do something they are not willing to do? Hmmmm.

How is it a "diversion" to request the basis for the scholarly opinion you offered in support of your position? That is how a rational discussion is generally conducted, Steven.

I would be just as interested in the evidence supporting the claim if he had said "possible".

This appears to be a rather long-winded way of admitting you have no idea upon which evidence, if any, Gill bases his claim. That seems like the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority to me. You certainly wouldn't accept such a lame defense of a proffered scholarly claim that disagreed with your beliefs. Why not just follow your own rules of integrity and admit this from the beginning rather than engage in sad delaying tactics?

What is that word I'm trying to recall that describes such behavior? Starts with an "h", I think.

Your questions continue to be irrelevant to my own. You seem incapable of understanding the difference between requesting support for a claim you have proffered and attempting to support a claim you oppose.

I'm not attempting the latter.

Toto

Everyday English - if it was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me.

But I don't recall that you discussed the original language of the Bible here.

spin

Once again praxeus doesn't make sense, but you can tell that he is covering his rear about something. He has difficulty expressing himself meaningfully because he has to defend the indefensible. We know that he would like Matt to agree with Luke, but that's rather difficult when they are two different stories with little in common.

He cannot understand that a narrative which is coherent doesn't give hope for him to inject ideas from a different narrative into it.

When Matt tells of Joseph taking Mary as his wife (1:24) and she give birth to Jesus (1:25), it's a little difficult to inject a trip to another city in between these events, for the narrative itself doesn't permit it. praxeus simple doesn't care what the text says. He's willing to sacrifice it in order for there not to be any "errors". That's why he distorts Matt to say what he thinks it should.
He cannot understand that when Matt says "[Joseph] came and dwelt in Nazareth" the text implies that he didn't live there before. If you cite an authoritative Greek dictionary about the significance of the terminology, praxeus goes into denial.

He refuses even to read what Matt says and give a reading that justifies his attempts to inject Luke's change of venue into the text. He has been asked many times to show how he can eke a change of venue out of the Matthean text. He knows he cannot do it, so he will avoid the issue. I don't know if this is self-deception or not. He may know that he is wrong. It doesn't matter he will avoid the issue.

Note how praxeus is being rigid with language after shamefacedly saying "the language is flexible, in the Bible and in everyday English".

This is part of praxeus's hipocritical modus operandi. He will be rigid about everything and when language doesn't support his position he will pretend that language is flexible. (Remember his ridiculous defense of Isa 7:14, the virgin issue and the fact that the woman is pregnant?)

praxeus doesn't know anything about the languages involved or linguistics in general, so when he makes statements about language, you can happily ignore them.

praxeus's bald dribble doesn't even get a pretence of justification.

I wish praxeus was so easily convinced about contradictions.

Dontcha just love the "strained and convoluted rhetoric?

Which is, as you must guess, irrelevant. We are trying to work out what we can about the Matthean narrative.

Oh, Gill's a god. We know.

Just like you avoid your responsibilities in analyzing the narrative of Matthew? You know -- how can you see the writer of Matthew indicating a chnage of venue? I'm sure Amaleq13 will continue to to deal with the issues in the thread and not avoid them as you do.

Yup, here we see praxeus in action trying to make other people be just as rigid about language as he is.

This mightn't have dawned on you, praxeus, but people aren't really interested in supporting Sanders per se. We are interested in what the text actually says, an interest wholly foreign to your mindset.

It has nothing to do with grammar. It has to do with

• narrative cohesion in Matt, and
• lexical collocations with regard to the verb in question

As you refuse to read the text and know nothing about the language involved, obviously you get the subject wrong.


spin

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

All of this was answered earlier.

In much more detail than should be necessary, at least for anyone
with a little smarts and savvy and common sense, sans ultra-bias.

Amaleq simply adds nothing to the discussion except his attempt
to avoid the deep issues like the Sanders multiple mistaken claims of Luke or Matthew error. Or the doubly-refuted grammatical attempt of spin to shore up one of the Sanders claims.

The sad thing is that this comes from one in the IIDB authority
heirarchy.

John Gill gives a sensible peripheral view, easy to understand,
and simply a mild side support to multiple refutations of false
accusations against the Bible in the thread. And with support
within the very verse (given) and Amaleq will go on and on for days.
Maybe he wants one of those statistical zen-type charts that seem
to be popular on IIDB.

Amazing.
And an excellent example of the sad state of much of IIDB.
There are none so blind...

Shalom,
Steven Avery

PS.
Oh, Amaleq, since you appear to disagree with Gill's usage of "probable" for the priest from Samaria having previously dwelled in Bethel why don't you tell us the probability or likelihood that you assign to such a dwelling history. (Bethel is in Samaria, in case you are unawares.)

Thanks.

Steven Avery

Toto, nobody even made a claim that there was anything intrinsically different between the source languages and our English understanding of the Kings verse (from Hebrew) or the Matthew verse (from Greek).

However, you are right about one thing. If it was good enough for Jesus, I am blessed to receive the crumbs from the table. His word is magnificent and beautiful, and sustenance for the soul.

Shalom,
Steven

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Let's see if spin offers any substance. Other than his normal little nothing critiques. What a sad posting 'style'. If spin really didn't understand my earlier posts then his supposed comprehension abilities are quite low.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin (snip spin junque) He cannot understand that when Matt says "[Joseph] came and dwelt in Nazareth" the text implies that he didn't live there before.

Earlier spin had claimed that the text insisted this.
At least he has corrected one major error in his earlier presentation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin He refuses even to read what Matt says and give a reading that justifies his attempts to inject Luke's change of venue into the text.

Nobody can really know what spin is asking for here. The harmony is justified prima facie and the supposed textual contradiction is fabricated.

One can go on and on about supposed implications and conjectures and suppositions without anybody making any headway. I prefer to avoid wasting time on nothings.

(snip a lot of junque)

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin It has nothing to do with grammar. It has to do with narrative cohesion in Matt, and lexical collocations with regard to the verb in question As you refuse to read the text and know nothing about the language involved, obviously you get the subject wrong.

Your lexical/grammatical arguments were weak from the get-go and fell apart when you tried to list Bible verses and omitted the Kings verse. Oops.

Also when you realized (if you ever did) that Jesus never had dwelt in Nazareth.
Oops.

The narrative cohesion question is more interesting and of course we look at Bible texts from very different perspectives. With someone like Ben there might actually be possible a good discussion on that question.

Shalom,
Steven

spin

Substance? First, you need to know what you're looking for.

Nobody understands poor little praxeus.

Ever the hairsplitter, praxeus.

Notice the dishonesty here. Pure subterfuge. He refuses to read the text and asserts that a harmony is justified. In fact the stories are very different and the only way to reconcile them is through a harmony corrupting both texts to make a new one, which reflects neither the Matthean nor the Lucan texts.

Can't you get it straight just once? It has nothing directly to do with grammar despite your silly insistence. It is a matter of lexis. Go and read the dictionary, will you?

This mantra is more Hindu than christian. I think praxeus is in the wrong religion.

? You are arguing against yourself. I talked of the family moving to Nazareth or Joseph moving to Nazareth. Oops.

Ben can discuss it with me any time he wants.

But you have to stop the subterfuge and say where Matthew indicates that there was a change of venue.


spin

jgibson000

What was this "grammatical attempt" to shore up one of Sanders' claims and how in particular was it refuted?

JG

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Nope, again little substance in this one.
One correction is needed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin Substance? First, you need to know what you're looking for. Nobody understands poor little praxeus. Ever the hairsplitter, praxeus. Notice the dishonesty here. Pure subterfuge. He refuses to read the text and asserts that a harmony is justified. In fact the stories are very different and the only way to reconcile them is through a harmony corrupting both texts to make a new one, which reflects neither the Matthean nor the Lucan texts. Can't you get it straight just once? It has nothing directly to do with grammar despite your silly insistence. It is a matter of lexis. Go and read the dictionary, will you? This mantra is more Hindu than christian. I think praxeus is in the wrong religion. ? You are arguing against yourself.

What a mess.
The above is IIDB junque-in-action.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin I talked of the family moving to Nazareth or Joseph moving to Nazareth. Oops.

Double spin-oops.
The Bible text talks very specifically about Jesus ..

Matthew 2:23
And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth:
that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets,
He shall be called a Nazarene.

So if you were talking about others, like Joseph and Mary, then you are (finally) acknowledging that your whole grammatical argument was strawman-false. (Doubly so, actually).

Jesus came and dwelt in Nazareth.
Halleluyah .

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin Ben can discuss it with me any time he wants. But you have to stop the subterfuge and say where Matthew indicates that there was a change of venue.

Since I never claimed that Matthew indicates a "change of venue" (read my posts again) your "subterfuge" accusation is only your own confusion.

Shalom,
Steven

Steven Avery

Jeffrey, this is all in the thread.

The earlier spin affirmative claim, now toned down to implied, that "came and dwelt" means that the person could not have dwelt there in an earlier time. Refuted by Bible and simple common sense examples.

Doubly refuted in terms of the purpose of the spin claim since Jesus never previously dwelt in Nazareth except in utero.

There have been other mild attempts to shore up the Sanders chronological assertion of Luke or Matthew error. Nothing of much import, however.

And none have been offered for the Sanders very strange flight of numerical fancy, attempt to find error in Joseph being of Davidic lineage. Where Sanders apparently is making an implied claim that there was not a tribal lineage system in place in 1st century Israel. Without offering any evidence.

The surprising thing is how oblivious the IIDB experts are to such major issues when they are quibbling about the parsing of "c. 4 BCE" or a commentator using the word "probably" in a sensible auxiliary phrase.

Shalom,
Steven Avery