Steven Avery

Api, I realize that is your view.

My questions to you are really simple.

1) Do you think that spin's attempt to use Vaticanus as a prime element of his evidence is a sound methodology - that this is actually a very major element in the analysis, way beyond other external evidences.

2) Do you see any significant problem or difficulty in my overall review of a sound methodology of viewing external (non-Masoretic Text) evidences.

There is no problem discussing the Judges verses if there is some sound basis for discussion. Until you answer those two questions in a direct and forthright and clear way the speakers here are so far on different tangents that discussion has little meaning. You simply play a cover-spin game.

And Api, I really when you try to attack my rep. The problem here is that spin blundered bad, real bad, and I pointed it out to the forum and proved the case over and above and more. Spin dug his own scholastic grave by not even saying "oops.. I erred" on his fundamental claims meant to buttress Vaticanus, such as :
"Vaticanus .. is directly derived from the Hebrew".

Beyond that, of course, his whole methodology was fatally flawed. Grade-school-level type stuff. As I demonstrated.

Of course pointing that out will get flak from some, including from yourself, since spin is a an icon of sorts to the forum. Others on this forum can see a type of cabal in action and you have shown how strange and accusatory you get when your arguments against the Bible fall to pieces.

Shalom,
Steven

Apikorus

This question is phrased in a highly tendentious manner. For the record, it was you, praxeus, who first brought up the issue of Vaticanus vs. Alexandrinus (here). It would perhaps be more appropriate to say that it is you who has relied upon the Alexandrinus as a "prime element of evidence".

In his response, spin pointed out that the Alexandrinus is a century later than the Vaticanus, and that its text has incurred numerous Hexaplaric corrections and is regarded by many scholars as unreliable on the LXX. The evidence I adduced from Jobes & Silva and from Tov is in strong agreement with spin's remarks. The Vaticanus is regarded as the best witness we have of the Old Greek.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Api, what a classic case of avoidance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus For the record, it was you, praxeus, who first brought up the issue of Vaticanus vs. Alexandrinus

Most assuredly.
In response to the spin claims that "the Greek" was the big issue
and - Vaticanus is "the Greek".

So, is "the Greek" the big issue ?
Or is, essentially, the whole spin methodology bogus, out of the box.

Try to answer at least one question.
I added a few words to the first one.

1) Do you think that spin's attempt to use Vaticanus (called by spin "the Greek") as a prime element of his evidence is a sound methodology - that this is actually a very major element in the Judges 13 analysis, way beyond other external evidences.

2) Do you see any significant problem or difficulty in my overall review of a sound methodology of viewing external (non-Masoretic Text) evidences.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

Most assuredly auto-ironic.

This has been consistent and deliberate misrepresentation on praxeus's part which shows that he neither understands that the Hebrew itself is the major element in the analysis nor that the Greek, of which Vaticanus is the chief representative for the Jewish literature, is supportive of the Hebrew in Jdg 13:5 (and is backed by its equivalence in Gen 16:11) and that he is continuing a discussion he knows he cannot win by honest linguistic analysis.

No Hebrew analysis is proffered by praxeus from his apologetic sources. I have indicated that the Hebrew supplies an adjective which means "pregnant". There is nothing in the text which suggests that the pregnancy is to come. As the adjective is stative, not inceptive, it is extremely difficult to translate it with the implication of "become pregnant". All one has to do is provide an instance in which HRH actually must mean "become pregnant" with future implication, ie "will become pregnant". Naturally, praxeus has not done so. The Hebrew is plain: the adjective HRH is the resultant state of having conceived.

He has consistently refused to deal with Gen 16:11 which is a direct illustration of where there is no contest that the Greek supports the Hebrew. He suffers from memory loss on the issue, preferring that it didn't exist for if he acknowledged its existence he would know that he would look an utter fool.

The same Hebrew wording is translated by the same Greek wording. And praxeus says they should not be the same, despite the fact that praxeus knows nothing about the languages.

Gen 16:11
HNK HRH WYLDT
idou su en gastri exeis kai texh uion

Jdg 13:5
HNK HRH WYLDT
idou su en gastri exeis kai texh uion

What does praxeus say about the fact that the Hebrew and the Greek are the same in each? He says, , nothing... other than attempt to shoot the Vaticanus. Understandable, but in vain.

What does he say about the translation I cribbed together from the Hebrew for the first part of Jdg 13? Once again he says nothing. He is unable to criticize the translation on any level. He is unable to offer a translation of his own. He cannot engage in the problem in any meaningful way.

Does anyone see the methodological flaw in praxeus whinging about the Hebrew and the Greek texts when he doesn't understand either language?

Has anyone seen anything praxeus has brought to the texts under consideration that reflects on the meaning of the texts themselves?

Has anyone seen him do anything other than attempt to twist other people's words as much as he possibly can to wrench them away from the topic and hide the fact that he has nothing constructive to say on the issue?

Can anyone see any motivation that might drive praxeus to continue this absurd effort at self-delusion?

As we are in the theatre of the absurd, I say again, pass the popcorn. :wave:


spin