spin

You aren't qualified to judge.

Ie, he knew more than you.

It does in no way help your erroneous reading of "pierced". This is what has consistently been asked of you and you have failed to provide, justfication for your reading. You have not defended your preferred reading at all.

How does it help you, when you can't justify the spelling?

Ie, forget about the majority of MT readings because of your a priori commitments. You were asked to defend your "pierced" reading, not talk about other things.

The vague possibilities of a verb don't help you much when you can't justify your verb. Try justifying "pierced" and stop the smokescreening.

?

You are arbitrarily refusing to look at evidence which doesn't support your desires.

I can't help your reliance on the erroneous Phlox two-step here. I responded to Phlox here but got no reply. Perhaps you could do better.

Oh so you didn't come here with the a priori conviction that it must be "pierced" and you are trying to get ways of arguing for it from the engagement.

Hypocrisy won't help you.

I don't agree and have given reasons for not agreeing.

The only embarrassment in this thread are your repeated evasions. You have been asked to justify your support for "pierced" and you hav edone everything here but that.

You haven't read the original sources. You are not capable of commenting. You don't know the linguistic issues. You aren't able to respond to the fact that the text has consistently given K)RY. All you are doing is talking the talk.

The fundamental fact of the discussion is that you cannot defend your reading.

If it makes you happy to write this hypocrisy, I'll wait for you to defend "pierced".

"Further" is the wrong word. You have gone anywhere, so you can't go further. We are still waiting for you to start defending your "pierced" reading. Obviously, you can't, otherwise you would have done so by now. So we end where you should have started: defend your "pierced" reading and don't continue to change the subject.


spin

jgibson000

Do not consider what true?

That it is made here (if it is) has nothing to do with whether the claim sould be taken seriously. Most of the stuff posted here is wholly uninformed. Take "Philosopher" Jay's recent claim, for example. And most of your claims about Greek.

Huh? What DQR error did you counter? And how precisely did you show that it was the original reading of Ps. 22?

You are putting words in my mouth. As is clear from what I actually wrote

it's not evidence I'm asking you to counter. It's my claim.

It's ironic that one who claims that he is among the few here who attempts to carry on true dialogue, misrepresents what someone says to do so.

In any case, you would counter it -- my claim -- by showing either (a) that there is no qoutaion of 1 Tim 3:16 in Origen or (b) what quetes there are do not use hOS.

Simple as that.


So how about applying this to your claim that the author of Ps. 22 meant "pierced".

But in the thread started by you on Fudebate, you were the one who made the claim that there was

What I did was to call into question that claim by saying:

And as to not supplying the data, you seem to be ignoring that I wrote:

Again, if you insist in pursuing this topic in a thread which has nothing to do with it, show me either that Origein nowhere quotes 1 Tim 3:16 or that when he does, he gives witness to the TR reading.

JG

JoeWallack

JW:
Ahem. Getting back to the Hebrew Manuscript evidence, on Page 29 of Introduction To The Tiberian Masorah, Yeiven indicates the following Base for BHS Textual Variation (Rudolf Kittel, a Christian, was founder of BHK):

1) Kennicott, a Rector, gave an Inventory of Textual variation in 1776, briefly describing how he used hundreds of Manuscripts mostly from Northern and Western Europe. Some of these Manuscripts are full of scribal errors.

2) De Rossi, a Priest, provided a similar study in 1784.

3) Ginsburg, another Christian, identifies all 75 Manuscripts and 19 Printed versions, mostly from the British Museum, for his 1908 Inventory.

So it would appear that the main criteria for Manuscript inventory in BHS is Convenience.

BHS indicates that two Manuscripts have KRW, "they dug". I have never seen any specific identification of these two Manuscripts.

BHS indicates that 3-10 Manuscripts have K)RW. Hebrew Manuscripts went Eclectic in the 12th century. The few available before all have K)RY, "like a lion", and none of the related Masorahs show any related commentary such as spelling variation. Once the Masorah went eclectic there are two subsequent related Masorah comments but neither gives a spelling variation. They just imply a different meaning for 22:17. If someone like Ben-Chayyim, a Christian, was creating an eclectic Manuscript or Printed Bible and thought a Verb was original, instead of "like a lion", I find it strange that they would select K)RW, which would have been to them and still is an unknown word.

I have seen two of these 3-10 Manuscripts identified as Kennicott and De Rossi so presumably they were discovered by the Christian Clergy above. I wonder who created these two Manuscripts and what their condition was at the time they were inventoried.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Amaleq13

This thread is about Psalm 22:17 not 1 Tim 3:16 so any continuation of this irrelevant tangent will be edited. Start a new thread if you want to discuss this other topic.

Thanks in advance,


Doug aka Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

ETA: Jeffrey has already started the new thread and it can be found here.

jgibson000

Thanks!

Jeffrey

Apikorus

As Steven hasn't responded to this post, I haven't much more to add.

spin

I think praxeus should be left to talk to himself until he can face what he must: justify "pierced" or abandon it.

Jack the Bodiless

It seems rather obvious that DQR would be a better fit than "dig", if piercing was what the author intended (though there is still no indication that this is the case). To complain about DQR, while simultaneously pushing "dig", is amusingly hypocritical.

Apikorus

Either DQR or NQB would be used for the piercing of a hand. Indeed, NQB is used in precisely this sense in 2 Kgs 18:21 (= Isa 36:6).

Steven Avery

We were discussing the claim from Messiah Truth, Paul Tobin, Outreach Judaism and some of the posters here that DQR would be a more likely word in Psalm 22 if the Psalmist was looking to give a sense of 'pierced'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 That it is made here (if it is) has nothing to do with whether the claim sould be taken seriously. Most of the stuff posted here is wholly uninformed. Take "Philosopher" Jay's recent claim, for example. And most of your claims about Greek.

However this claim is made on a number of sites that are considered generally informed, and is used on this thread without objection. Clearly the claim is quite dubious at best, I will be posting more on it in response to Api who has a post asking a question or two.

And If you have a specific claim that I made about Greek that you want to address share away. I don't think you will find too many Greek discussions here, so you probably have do some Jeffrey-rummaging.

Also please demonstrate that whatever you do find is "most of" my Greek claims.

Do you have a listing of all my claims ? Wow.
How many are accurate ?
How many are contested and unresolved ?
How many were inaccurate and are now corrected ?
How many are inaccurate and uncorrected?

As an example I made a statement about nusso being a hapax. Be sure to include all the evidences and analyze them accurately.

I am especially interested if there are any in the bottom group.
As I do not know of any.

And without that analysis we will have to discard your statement as unscientific.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 Huh? What DQR error did you counter? And how precisely did you show that it was the original reading of Ps. 22?

Jeffrey I did not realize you were posting from such a position of such cluelessness. Please simply reread the thread. As an example I never remotely claimed or indicated or suggested that DQR was the original reading of Psalm 22. You are too far off-track to take the time to go over the discussion.

The 1 Timothy part is brought over to the new thread.

Shalom,
Steven Avery