WILLOWTREE

Mindless christian hatred, accusations, innuendo, and insults.

When the messenger is attacked, this reveals the quality of the message.

To also have to resort to tabloid non sequitors of IRS fraud, speaks volumes about the deep penetrating fear of Dr. Scott's research.

Again, all these obvious lies say absolutely nothing about the evidence, except, its validity and the inability to refute with evidence.

Dr. Scott's Ph.D. is from the university itself and not from any department, which means a more difficult criteria to obtain was in place. His degree is a research degree, with a minor in religion and comparitive religion. He is the only person in the history of Stanford to get his minor in geography via ORAL exam. He requested the oral to free up more time for other studies. He passed. His doctoral dissertation: the theology of Reinhold Niebuhr.

Dr. Scott owns the largest private Bible collection in the world, including a copy or facsimile or reproduction of every codex and manuscript in existence, including the manuscripts of the Old and New Testament in hebrew, greek, ethiopic, arabic, both dialects of coptic, latin, aramaic, and syriac. Dr. Scott is recognized as being the leading authority in all these languages as to their english translation.

By whatever measure of lie and smear intended to deflect away from the truth is in direct proportion to the actual truth being communicated.

Nothing infuriates the world more than Dr. Scott and his irrefutable research, every personal tabloid lie testifies to this inescapable fact.

WILLOWTREE

I provided irrefutable evidence of Rashi admitting to text corruption and you respond with a reply that denies the earth is round.

You demonstrate massive ignorance or massive dishonesty pertaining to the MT origins of 300 AD to 1100 AD. Nobody disputes this generic information.

You claim knowledge in hebrew, yet you assert "oz" is strength - it is "uz", the origin of the Israeli machine gun, could it be your MT "scholars" inserted the wrong vowel point ?

It doesn't really matter, Matthew used the LXX which says "praise", which he cites Jesus quoting to the Pharisees who became indignant when small children spontaneously cried praises to the Messiah on sight.

Rhetorically speaking, how does "strength" make sense in Psalm 8 as opposed to "praise" - it doesn't.

How do young children mouth "strength" ?

How Divinely "ironic" for uncorruptible children to cry out praises to Jesus, which Jesus then pointed to Psalm 8 when the enemies of that Psalm complained about that spontaneous outburst. Psalm 8 is a Messianic Psalm because Jesus gave substance to the shadow of its meaning.

The LXX produced by Jews way before Christ says "praise", so does the hebrew translation of the Aramaic Targum/pre-MT say "praise", but we are to ignore this and arbitrarily say post-Christ MT Jewish scholars had no bias in mind when they changed Psalm 8 from praise to "strength".

Rashi has been evidenced to admitting to text change for the single purpose of "meeting" the Schismatics/christians and all you can do is deny the obvious - [removed ad hominen that does not advance the discussion - mod].

Rashi and his MT scholars have been proven to deliberately change the correct hebrew rendering made in the LXX and Aramaic Targums.

WILLOWTREE

You assert Matthew "invented" this claim.

You are calling Matthew a liar - now that is a very reputable "refutation".

To say Matthew lied speaks volumes about your inability to provide evidence as such or even a plausible explanation.

Comfort yourself with your invention of Matthew a liar - a fraudulent accusation that reveals fear of what was pointed out.

There is nothing out of context except your brilliant refutation of branding Matthew a liar.

Intelligitimate

The author of GMt isn't a liar; he is copying a known fiction GMk and adding his own fictional elements into his Gospel. Tolkien isn't a liar just because none of the stuff wrote in LotR ever happened.

funinspace

When you say research, most people think of published works. Yet he has no works published. Inconceivable!

What evidence?

Wow, he's smart. Did anyone say he wasn't. What does that prove. Einstein was pretty smart too, and he didn't believe in a personal god.

Recognized by whom? His faithfull flock of sheep? Inconceivable! Oh my god he's rich enough to own actual books.

Again what research? Hum, lies, what lies? Pot-kettle syndrom?

DK

Dean Anderson

Utter rubbish.

To recap what happened, for the benefit of anyone reading this (since you and I already know)...

In this thread, you claimed that Gene Scott was the world's leading expert on pyramids. You quoted some of his 'research' - and his conclusion that because of the sacred mathematics encoded in the dimensions of the Pyramid of Khufu, it must have been created by God as a mystical sign.

I merely supplied the relevant calculations and numbers to prove that neither of the two pieces of 'sacred geometry' were actually true. The claims were simply false. I also pointed out the original - fraudulent - source of one of the claims.

There was no innuendo, no 'hatred', just simple unambiguous mathematics that anyone with a basic grasp of geometry and algebra can repeat for themselves proving your/Dr Scott's claims false.

I am not attacking the messenger. I am simply warning the messenger (you) that the source of his messages is not trustworthy and reminding him/her that the last message he/she delivered from that source turned out to be completely wrong.

NOGO

WILLOWevcTREE,

Here is a good example of what NT prophecies are about. A tribute to the reliability and truthfulness of its authors.

When Jesus entered Jerusalem he sat on a donkey. This symbology in the old testament was used by the king or the anointed one of God (remember that Christ means anointed) to show humility etc. So Jesus goes out of his way to remind people that he is the anointed one of God in the tradition of the old testament when he enters Jerusalem upon a donkey.

In Matthew the author attempt to relate this event to a verse in the old testament. A prophecy of sorts.
Note first that he mis-quotes the verse.

Note the bold characters. "Them" implies that there are more than one. "and on a colt" as if someone can mount two animals at the same time. Note the actual verse in the old testament says "even unpon a colt". A colt is a young ass.

The expression "even upon a colt" means what?
There are many istances of this hebrew expression in the old testament here are a few.

Ezek 4:1-2
Thou also, son of man, take thee a tile, and lay it before thee, and portray upon it a city, even Jerusalem,
and lay siege against it

1 Sam 28:17
Yahweh hath rent the kingdom out of thy hand, and given it to thy neighbor, even to David

Deut 4:13
And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even the ten commandments

2 Samuel 7:6
"For I have not dwelt in a house since the day I brought up the sons of Israel from Egypt, even to this day; but I have been moving about in a tent, even in a tabernacle.

1 Kings 6:16
He built twenty cubits on the rear part of the house with boards of cedar from the floor to the ceiling; he built them for it on the inside as an inner sanctuary, even as the most holy place.

1 Kings 12:27
"If this people go up to offer sacrifices in the house of the LORD at Jerusalem, then the heart of this people will return to their lord, even to Rehoboam king of Judah; and they will kill me and return to Rehoboam king of Judah.''

From these examples you can see what ", even ..." means:
- a city, even Jerusalem - the city is Jerusalem
- thy neighbour, even to David - thy neighbour is David
- covenant, even the ten commandments - the covenant is the ten commandments
- in a tent, even in a tabernacle. - The tent is the tabernacle.
- sanctuary, even as the most holy place. - The sanctuary is the most holy place.
- Lord, even to Rehoboam king of Judah. - The lord in question is Rehoboam king of Judah.

There are many more of these ", even ..." in the old testament all you have to do is search for ", even" and you will find a dozen more examples easily.

CONCLUSION
The author of Matthew mis-read and mis-interpreted the old testament verse which shows that he is not familiar with Hebrew.
It is therefore not Matthew.
He has Jesus entering Jerusalem on two animals rather than one.
The other gospels only have one as the verse in the old testament has only one.
This show how well meaning authors strive to prove that Jesus is the anointed one of God and therefore King of Israel by quoting the old testament and when they can't match the facts to the writing so they change the facts.
The facts that were changed here is the number of donkeys present. The OT says one but the author misread it as two, so when he made up his story he matched the story to his misreading of the OT.
A small thing, perhaps, but the distortion of truth it seems is not an obstacle when the goal is to convince an audiance.

ichabod crane

Huh?

You continue to misunderstand and/or misrepresent what I say. If by "Masoretic Text" you mean the vowel-pointed, accented text, then yes, that originated from 300 to 1100 AD. But if you mean how the consonantal text itself reads, that is much more ancient, as everybody knows, and as I presented evidence for which you ignored.

Nope, you're showing your complete ignorance here. It is `oz, not uz. Firstly, you've ignored the `ayin, secondly, you've mistransliterated the vowel holem, which is o not u. Are you claiming priority for modern Hebrew over Biblical Hebrew? Please consult an elementary Hebrew text book like Kelley, P.H., "Biblical Hebrew: An introductory grammar". Unlike you, I have studied Hebrew and excelled at it. Perhaps I should ask you some elementary questions about Hebrew grammar and see how you fare?

I've already explained this in a previous post, which apparently you have ignored.

Because the Aramaic Targum, which has nothing to do with the MT, followed the Septuagint. It is irrelevant as evidence. What is relevant are the Qumran scrolls, which pre-date Christianity.

The quote you gave showed that he wanted to interpret the word "`oz" differently, not that he changed the text. You persistently fail to understand the difference between (a) altering the text, and (b) adopting a different meaning for a word in the text. You persistently fail to say which of these occurred. You fail to address any of my evidence, such as the overwhelming textual evidence that "`oz" means strength.

Instead of evidence, you only spew forth vitriol and insults. But I leave it to the reader to decide who is telling the truth. I'm getting less and less interested in "debating" with you, because you simply assert absurdities without providing evidence, and then attack the people as dishonest and idiots who disagree with you. {irrelevant insult}

Sven

I asked you once, I asked you again: By whom is he recognized as being this? And no, your last answer "his peers" won't do, I'm asking about specific names.

Jack the Bodiless

...But we already know that "Matthew" was a liar!

There's the fradulent use of out-of-context OT scriptures in the "Emmanuel prophecy", the "Bethlehem prophecy", the "Out of Egypt prophecy" and the "Massacre of the Innocents prophecy".

There is also his reference to "scriptures" which don't exist, such as the false claim of "prophecy" that Jesus would be called a Nazarene, or that priests who profaned the Sabbath were "blameless".

There are numerous other examples of misquotes or fabrications, such as the fictional genealogy of Jesus (artificially created to provide three groups of 14 generations from Abraham to David, from David to the Babylonian captivity, and from thence to Jesus) which contradicts both Luke and the Old Testament genealogies in numerous places.

See the SAB's False Prophecies section on the Gospel of Matthew (the largest section on any NT book).