gregor

Dr. Gibson
Why don't you just explain alternative translations rather than acting pedantically.

jgibson000

Out of the mouth of babes ....

Nevertheless, I think my point still stands. Do any of those who post here under strange and silly monikersever introduce themsleves to anyone anywhere in any live social setting under those names? If not, why not?

No matter where it occurs, the practice is, as even Earl agrees, extremely juvenile and gives the impression to outside observers that this board is on the level of an NG.

Jeffrey Gibson

jgibson000

Even assuming I am acting pedantically, why under the circumstances is that wrong?

In any case explaining alternative translations is not my job, since the issue is whether Jake can back up his claim that the English translation he referred is sufficiently accurate to support the assertions he makes about similarities between the Euripides text and particular ones found in the NT.

Jeffrey Gibson

Celine

Then perhaps you've simply walked into the wrong bar?

gregor

because it adds nothing to the discussion and makes you look petty.

jgibson000

Jesu. What bars do you habituate?

Jeffrey Gibson

Celine

Dark bars. Neither overly friendly, nor overly hostile. Depending on your demeanor. "Drinking bars," I call them. It's my highest compliment.

Toto

That depends on your purpose here. If you want to make friends and influence people, acting pendantically might cause the audience to dismiss your message and you, and thus defeat your purpose.

If this were a court of law, and you were trying to get Jake's testimony struck as without a sufficient foundation, you might have a point.

But it's not.

The issue is whether you want to persuade your audience that you have a better interpretation.

jgibson000

Hardly. The issue is, and has been from the get go, whether it's true that in Euripides Bacchae 1-5 Dionysus says what Jake (on the basis of a particular English translation of that text) thinks he says and therefore whether the similarities that Jake asserts as existing between what (Euipides') Dionysus says about himself and certain claims made by NT writers about Jesus really do exist. In other words, the issue is whether Jake's interpretation of what is said in the text, and the conclusion he derives from it, have anything going for them.

So I ask again:

1. Does Euripides' Dionysus actually say what Jake says he says?

2. Are the particular similarities that Jake says exist between what Euripides' Dionysus says about himself in Bac. 1-5 and what certain NT writers say about Jesus really there? And

3. If they are, can we really say, as Jake certainly seems to think we can (and should), that the claims about Jesus are based on, derived from, and have their primary conceptual background in what Euripides' Dionysus says about himself?

Jeffrey Gibson

Amaleq13

No, Jeffrey, what "Jake feels" about the evidence is utterly irrelevant to a rational discussion of that evidence and, IMO, making a discussion personal in that way tends to impair the ability of either side to remain civil let alone rational.

I calls 'em as I sees 'em, Jeffrey, and it is my opinion you are wasting time playing ego-driven games when you could be educating people. It has become tiresome in the extreme.

Are you kidding? You are participating in a discussion forum about the Bible, Jeffrey!!!! You are seriously deluded if you believe choosing your real name as your screen name makes you any less of a "wierdo" or "nerd" to the rest of the word. :rolling:

And, yes, I have been quite happy to provide anyone in the real world who is interested with the name under which I post here. It seems to me that only individuals who take themselves far too seriously would consider it a problem.

I think choosing to focus on the linguistic ability of a poster rather than simply stating what is demonstrably wrong with their post is far more juvenile and certainly less innocuous.

As always, I look forward to your substantive responses.