Steven Avery

Spin, I don't do Hebrew beyond phonetic reading. I do notice a lot of individualistic experts peddling unusual theories in Biblical languages that don't pan out on examination. Here, I have discussed this issue with various folks, even the anti-mish, and have checked translations and commentary. And have run into your view very rarely. Even the anti-mish are uncomfortable trying to peddle this idea. However you are welcome to keep your unusual perspective on Judges 13, which you need for your case on Isaiah 7.

And when you actively engage Hebrew scholars (such as on b-hebrew) I will read most intently. And even go over the discussion with friends very strong in biblical Hebrew if that seems helpful. Until you do such engaging or writing your view of Judges 13 can be explicated here as much as you like and you can probably get a reasonably favorable skeptic and infidel response.

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

spin

Do you use the term "unusual" as merely statistically infrequent? If not, why do you use the term?

I gather you are confirming my earlier comment: This rhetoric seems to mean you are unable to deal with the issue.

If you don't do Hebrew beyond phonetic reading, why do you, of your own admission unprepared, comment on philology at all?


spin

Steven Avery

Simply because I have learned to research an issue and I have become a reasonable discerner of good scholarship. My posts will speak for themselves. Often issues are quite easy to deal with, other times they are complex. If a person has a highly unusual take on an issue they can simply bounce it off professional and skilled layman linguists and translators in a public forum, or a paper, and any reader can consider the points raised. If they don't do that it will be noted as a significant omission.

As for "unusual" it also involves the context, sense and commentary on the verses in question. Not just a numerical count, although that is a factor, especially if the high count is accompanied by sensible reasons and explanations. Even more so if they are willing to engage in the public forums with grace and dialog.

And if I actually thought you had some real good track record in Biblical Hebrew I would take the discussion over to b-hebrew myself.

However, as I said, it is not a special concern if you have a little coterie in agreement among the skeptics and infidels. They really have many other objections way beyond your individualistic attempts at Biblical Hebrew parsing and would rah-rah just for show rather than real involvement.

Shalom,
Steven

Chris Weimer

Depends. Often the discussion about early Christianity is about the time before 70 CE. 70 CE ushers in a whole new era.

And yes, the virgin birth is indeed important to both Matthew and Luke.

You're begging the question. Why is the virginal birth opposed to the divine one? Why can't both be important?

These myths didn't stem from Judaism, play no part in Jewish theology/christology, and usually cause a reaction from Jews. Why are they relevant again?

Parallelism is long dead.

spin

I'm afraid they do.

If you don't have any linguistic skills that makes some sense.

So it has nothing to do with the analysis of the text itself, but whether the discussion has been aired in places you like.

But you've already indicated you don't have the facilities that would allow you to discern. However, the issue is not rocket science. We have three strictly similar language usages each producing, for our purposes, Greek translations, yet the English versions are inconsistent, so you cannot rely on them on the issue. You must return to the Hebrew text and Jdg 13:5 gives you no reason in itself to translate HRH with future reference. The word is not inceptive, but reflects a state, so it's difficult to get "you shall conceive" out of it. That's why I referred you to Jdg 13:3 which is the only material that has the slight hope of providing grounds to argue for a future context for HRH in v.5.

You will do what you will. If you were interested you would make further enquiries, but you don't seem to be, so you won't.

This is empty rhetoric. It contains nothing meaningful for our discussion. You are showing you have not one useful thing to say on the subject, which is understandable because you can't say anything on your own admission, other than about being "a reasonable discerner of good scholarship".

All you are doing in typical rhetorical style is attempting to muddy the waters, for nothing better to do, talking of "a little coterie in agreement among the skeptics and infidels". Who are these people you imagine have dealt with the philology of the material I have mentioned? Nobody of course. You were just talking through your hat. I would be happy if you would or could deal with the material instead of engaging in evasive rhetoric.


spin

Steven Avery

Why do you consider Greek translations relevant to this issue ?

Right, I have no intention to. You are the one who could represent your theories properly and interact in the public arena with professionals and laymen skilled in Hebraic issues. Afaik you never do that (with the exception of discussions with Api sometimes) and it obviously is noted. It is easy to be a big fish in a shallow pond.

We had a lot of these discussions a couple of years ago with the anti-mish. In those realms (on 3 sides, actually, Christian/Messianic .. independent .. and anti-mish) there are various folks with good expertise. There are also the historic Jewish commentaries which are referenced.

Did we go over your exact parsing ? Dunno. How exact, there are always more nuances that can be brought up. eg. We paid no attention whatsoever to the Greek. It was a couple of years ago, I have seen a little similar to your view on the net since.

If you have a theory to override the historic Biblical grammar understanding (eg. Kimchi) that is your prerogative but it really doesn't affect anybody except the little skeptic rah-rah group. For whom all this is basically a minor, cutesie side-claim.

And if you want someone to "deal with" your Hebrew theories simply go on b-hebrew. They are happy to "deal with" grammar questions.

In depth, specifics, point-to-point.

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

spin

Because they show the ancient understanding of the material before apologetics took over the intellectual property.

This is important. How does someone without the necessity to read the text in a particular prevalent way (to today's society) understand it? It's not guaranteed to be right, but the understanding needs to be dealt with. We cannot ask the Hebrew writers what they meant.

The Hebrew form doesn't suggest diverse meanings, nor does the Greek translation. That leaves the more modern translators to be dealt with.

So we can drop the coterie rhetoric then.

You didn't follow your own previous comment. You were trying to say something about me interacting in "a little coterie in agreement among the skeptics and infidels" and I asked you to explain who they were.

But back to your musings...
If you were a participant, you couldn't.

If you want to bring out some philological nuances in the issue, I'd be happy. However, as I have tried to indicate, the Greek is an important witness to the language involved. It shows what should be obvious from the Hebrew: there is basically nothing that is different linguistically between the three examples of HRH WYLDT I was considering.

But what exactly does Kimchi say that impacts on the differentiation between usages of HRH WYLDT?

(This verbiage has no content other than ad hominem.)

I've put forward a clear presentation on a linguistically simple issue. What you propose, because you admit that you are unable to deal with it, is that I go somewhere else and represent the same stuff. Hey, if you want to deal with my argumentation, fine, but changing the venue won't help you overcome your lack of expertise. You've apparently had many years to learn something about the wares you are purveying and you have simply refused. You prefer to read predigested apologetics which reflects what you already believe to supply you with your sales pitch. So at this stage, if you want to criticize the material I've put forward, it's time for you to cough up something meaningful or tace.


spin

Steven Avery

I have never heard a Hebrew scholar say that trying to bring Hebrew grammatical forms over to English past-present-future tenses is a "linguistically simple issue" in texts where there are a variety of time frames possible.

Simple enough, since that is the best single forum where the folks who make Biblical Hebrew their first (or very high) scholastic priority reside. And the backgrounds of the posters are quite varied, the scholastic interplay level is high.

The fact that you do not interface on such a forum shows clearly that you enjoy being a big fish in a shallow pond and deliberately avoid working with the folks who specialize on the matters on which you pontificate. We see it is easy for you to make smug pronouncements on this forum where apparently only one other person has extensive Hebrew background and he is slow to contradict you, or even offer counterpoint, in threads with believers.

And you are simply wrong about "predigested apolgetics" of course. You tend to try to do ad hominem stuff. Anybody who reads this forum can see that.

Simple example, recent. It was my challenge to the Carrier LXX confusion that has led to Richard's current attempt to reformulate his article to be sensible and accurate (with the additional extra input especially of Jeffrey). Hmmm.. you had nothing to offer of substance there.

Or taking on your strange ideas about Josephus translating the Tanach histories, where most everybody else is strangely silent when you claim that Josephus translated the Tanach histories. By your using a strained reading of convenience of the Antiquities Prologue.

On Biblical Hebrew I will study careful grammatical parsing with folks very fluent when it seems to be a significant question. That is one reason I follow and ask on b-hebrew (where you do not tread). And I will send stuff out, especially to a Paltalk Jewish friend who is extremely familiar with the mik'raot gadaloth and various hebraic writings, and discuss in depth. As an example we went over the understandings of Jeremiah 8:8, a verse of primary significance, and where the scholars really are in two camps (unlike your attempt in Judges 13).

So rather than try to engage your theories in a public forum where folks specialize in the grammar and translation issues you raise, you try rather lamely to strut your stuff in this little pond where you can pretend to be the great Hebrew scholar rewriting most all the translations and previous scholarship.

Its a little funny, actually.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

A number of problems to start with, huh? First, if you read through my comments, I haven't put the issue down to tense. Second, "linguistically simple" doesn't necessarily mean simple for someone who is not versed in linguistics: it does mean that the linguistics which requires a coherent, rather than an ad hoc, approach to the issue does clarify the matter. This is done first with the original language and then through an early translation which supports the Hebrew conclusions.

And if I suggest that you find a vacuous pedantry forum to sell your stuff, will you go?

More vacuous ad hominem.

Ah, and so you who admittedly knows nothing about the subject want me to go somewhere else so you can hopefully get other people to do what you can't.

But anyone who has had dealings with you on this forum would contradict you. You bring in sources, often hush-hush, because you'd be embarrassed to admit them.

I have no trouble calling a spade a spade. No-one would deny that.

But then I wasn't following the Carrier sub-thread. Sorry, I didn't notice your scholarly efforts there. :banghead:

I could have waltzed for another number of pages with you avoiding a relatively straightforward issue, but I didn't think it was worth the effort. You would simply not understand what the text says or what other people said about it anyway. This is shown by the confused ways you attempted to rehash the matter.

Why don't you give in and learn some Hebrew? You've been farting around for years now, haven't you?, you're apparently on list with people who know Hebrew. But you will not learn.

Bicycles aren't difficult to ride when you stick to training wheels.

Getting other people to do your work for you.



Don't you think it would be a bit better to bite the bullet and learn something rather than go through this sort of tantrum because you are not prepared to learn, yet still want to contradict people when you disagree with them?

See above image.


spin

Steven Avery

Of course not.

And I had no idea that was your view of the b-hebrew forum.
On what do you base this accusation ?

Since I probably do as complete notating and linking as anybody it would be interesting to see you substantiate this "often hush-hush" claim. Or do you simply wing it and fabricate stuff as you go along ?

However, you showed absolutely no other person than yourself who claimed that the Prologue showed that Josephus took time to translate the history Tanach books. So who are these "other people" ? Thackeray, eg. says no such thing.

Not even your forum skeptic backers came out to back you up on this one.

And where do they agree with your strange parsing of "it" as
referring to "Wars" rather than "Antiquities". To any simple reading you just buried yourself in a very difficult and confused interpretation.

"but because this work would take up a great compass,
I separated it into a set treatise by itself"

You actually claim that "this work" is Antiquities, and "it" is Jewish Wars. Amazing. Worse, you pile a whole theory of translation upon this. So who else agrees with this ? Names ? Quotes ?

I'll copy this part over to the Setpuagint thread and you can answer there.

The rest of your post is junque (more like the earlier Spin)
so I'll stick with substance.

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