Steven Avery

In fact, I gave a number of references of scientific studies for a non-constant speed of light. Why not check the threads, I am pretty sure it was on IIDB. If not here I will be very happy to supply. If I did so supply then your assertion is simply false.

Smilarly we have had some fascinating discussions about the accuracy of Ron Wyatt. Simply because you disagree on the conclusion is not a reason to say that I "did not address". That is rather disingenuous.

However let's focus on the third first. What unaddressed assertion did I make about the "LXX derivation of 'virgin". Did I even address the "LXX derivation" at all ? Please show me where, I am quite curious.

Shalom,
Steven

Steven Avery

Actually that was your issue, which I already addressed by showing that the one time I used the word "interchangeable" it was in the context of the Gospel accounts (ie. the tetrarch would be a king). Clearly tetrarch would be a subset of the full usage of basileus. For a tetrarch in the gospels they could be used interchangably unless the goal was to show the official Roman title, something which Luke took extra efforts to do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 When did the issue become who Caesar named as king?

If that is not your claim then you have no claim at all. The widespread NT usage (both general rulers as well as specific men like Caesar and Pharoah) simply refutes any contention that the Gospel writers resticted basileus to the Roman title. So of course it is 100% germane, in fact it is essentially a refutation of the position of spin and yourself.

For all your attempts at raising non-issues pseudo-issues and minor issues that is the primary question here.

It is clear that basileus (king in the NT) is not used like "President", or "Prime Minister" a title .. but like "top leader" or "supreme ruler" or "big man".

This proves that Mark was well within proper literary grounds to call Herod Antipas a basileus, a king. He was the supreme ruler, the big man, of his regions.

It is also quite likely that Anitpas was called that in his court and by his subjects at times (Matthew and Mark being two strong evidences) however neither of us can prove definitely one way or another how much the term was used. You would have to claim zero, for your position, but of course cannot. (That is why you raise auxiliary issues instead). I can assert basileus was used (based on the NT widespead usage) but cannot give additional "tape recorder" evidence. However if the term had the same meaning then as given in the NT then clearly basileus would have had usage.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Note that spin is accepting and relying upon his own unsupported and rather absurd 'fatigue' theory of Matthew. (Along with other assumptions which I believe are quite false.) There is not a snippet of real evidence that anybody tried to "get rid" of anything, spin is just in his own wonderland.

This is as bad as spin creating an interpolation for a text that refutes his position (in three Corinthian verses). A methodology of manipulation. Only here he creates a "spin non-interpolation". It has the same level of absurdity, not at all scholarship. The non-interpolation is just a reverse spin fantasy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin Too bad that none of them actually show the term basileos being used for an entity who was not designated a king.

Where were Caesar and Pharoah designateed king/basileus ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin There are references like "governors and kings" and that was the state of the Roman empire which had provinces and client kingdoms.

However the term was any rulers, clearly, by context. Perhaps Jewish rulers in the synagogues. Future rulers. The terms were being used as a full-orbed generality, totally refuting the spin-Gibson attempt to straightjacket 'basileus'. That is 100% clear simply by reading the verses above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin as both Matt and Luke specified that Herod was a tetrarch and references to him as "king" have been either removed or mostly removed.

spin is so desparate that he is hoisted on the petard of believing his own textual fantasies. His whole argument is based on a private personal textual view not given or referenced in real scholarship.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin I don't understand why you are disputing the fact that both Matt and Luke wanted to be sure readers understood that Herod Antipas was actually a tetrarch and not a king.

And I have stated quite the opposite in fact. (Hmm.. do you even read the thread ?). Luke was interested in precision to the nth degree on Roman titles (remember the post that gave many examples that you try so hard to handwave) so for his writing that would be the driving force in deciding 'which word'. In other contexts Mark and Matthew would choose based on other criteria. Really rather simple, actually. Why you beat this totally dead horse is really the question now.

It is a huge joke on the IIDB forum that spin has to base an argument against Mark on his own private theory that no real scholar gives or defends. It shows how confused he is. Struggling to come up with an accusation against a Bible author, spin has to use such a transparent flim-flam.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

jgibson000

So .. Michael Goulder and Mark Goodacre, as well as B.W. Bacon, E. Haenchen, and M. Dibelius, are not "real scholars"?

No. What it shows is how poorly acquainted you are with the world of scholarship.

JG

Doug Shaver

To an inerrantist, only inerrantist scholars are real scholars.

gregor

Item 1 - I welcome where you can demonstrate a defense to the apologetics pasting for the slowing of the speed of light - rather that abandoning the issue.

Item 2 - I welcome where you can demonstrate where you set forth evidence of the accuracy of Wyatt's claims, rather than abandoning the issue.

Item 3 - I do admit an error on item 3? The dodge that I meant to refer to was the "like a lion" - it was reposted in the virgin thread just 30 days ago.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...hlight=promise

And as for Dr. Gibson's request, you assert (explicitly or implicitly) that others outside the bible used the terms interchangeably - prove it

jgibson000

Indeed he does explicitly do so, despite both his denial that he's done so and his assertion that he's not the one who raised the issue about the alleged interchangeability of BASILEUS with TETRACHS. See here and also here where he asserts that "Anyway I already showed about that historically [emphasis mine]the two words were often used interchangably".


Jeffrey Gibson

spin

For want of anything meaningful to say, praxeus pretends that the notion of fatigue is novel and that I somehow invented the notion. We know that praxeus is behind the times, but the real question is just how far.

I have no need for interpolations. It is the way that makes sense to explain why the term kurios can apply to two different ideas without any cueing. Languages don't work like that. I don't really care if you don't understand the necessity of dealing with the linguistic problem. You are too busy justifying yourself to notice that there are more things in this world than your limited perspective will allow.

To make such an accusation not seem silly, you'll need more than bluster to get there.

Just keep stroking yourself, praxeus. If you won't face necessity, I won't be able to communicate with you.

What is the point of this question?

To give you an answer to shoot at, Augustus and his dynasty avoided the term king for political reasons and chose other titles which carried the the content but not the word, such as imperator and autocrator, but they were called kings (basileos) in some Greek texts such as Polycarp to the Philippians. The Ptolemaic pharaohs used basileos on all their coins.

Baloney.

What is 100% clear is that you don't understand what you are talking about. The verses cited do not show what you fancy they do.

You wouldn't know real scholarship if it bit you. Almost everyone on BC&H will tell you that. Most people on the other less fundamentalist forums you might attach yourself to will also tell you that.

Incoherence is one problem that your interlocutors are often faced with.

I wouldn't couch things in such an impudent way, but I think we might agree here.

So why did Matt remove the basileos reference three times in the one short passage?

It's obviously not dead enough yet. You still make the same mistakes.

Why don't you set up a survey on ii to see if you can justify your speculation? You wouldn't bother because you know you are talking bs.

Back to the pot looking for a kettle to call black.

You're the one I'd call a flim-flam artist and your victim -- you -- is totally taken in.

When one finds a "problem" one usually tries to find an explanation for it. Your approach, when it comes to biblical issues, seems to be "problem? what problem?"

The issue regarding kurios is simple enough: either Paul uses the term coherently (which I think he does), or he uses it incoherently (as most christians do), ie either Paul used it to refer to the one entity (god) or he used it to refer to two (god and Jesus), yet Paul was not binitarian, so we logically must eliminate the second, incoherent option. As I explained a writer doesn't set out to obfuscate their subject and confuse the audience by rendering a text irresolvably unclear. I have merely outlined a simple means of resolving the problem. At the same time I have little real care on the matter, but you desperately care.

The issue regarding basileos and tetrarch is such a pedantic waste of your own time. Again a simple explanation to deal with the phenomenon of Mark having blithely used basileos for Herod Antipas and the others removing it -- oops, with one exception -- is that the Marcan writer didn't know any better, but the other writers did -- and you agree with regard to Luke. You are just left with finding an ad hoc explanation for Matt's evidence.


spin

JoeWallack

JW:
Being Jewish I always root for the underdog.

Psst, Steven:

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/t...hus/ant17.html

"4. The like accident befell Glaphyra his wife, who was the daughter of king Archelaus, who, as I said before, was married, while she was a virgin, to Alexander, the son of Herod, and brother of Archelaus; but since it fell out so that Alexander was slain by his father, she was married to Juba, the king of Lybia; and when he was dead, and she lived in widowhood in Cappadocia with her father, Archclaus divorced his former wife Mariamne, and married her, so great was his affection for this Glphyra; who, during her marriage to him, saw the following dream: She thought she saw Alexander standing by her, at which she rejoiced, and embraced him with great affection; but that he complained o her, and said, O Glaphyra! thou provest that saying to be true, which assures us that women are not to be trusted. Didst not thou pledge thy faith to me? and wast not thou married to me when thou wast a virgin? and had we not children between us? Yet hast thou forgotten the affection I bare to thee, out of a desire of a second husband. Nor hast thou been satisfied with that injury thou didst me, but thou hast been so bold as to procure thee a third husband to lie by thee, and in an indecent and imprudent manner hast entered into my house, and hast been married to Archelaus, thy husband and my brother. However, I will not forget thy former kind affection for me, but will set thee free from every such reproachful action, and cause thee to be mine again, as thou once wast. When she had related this to her female companions, in a few days' time she departed this life.

5. Now I did not think these histories improper for the present discourse, both because my discourse now is concerning kings, and otherwise also on account of the advantage hence to be drawn, as well for the confirmation of the immortality of the soul, as of the providence of God over human affairs, I thought them fit to be set down; but if any one does not believe such relations, let him indeed enjoy his own opinion, but let him not hinder another that would thereby encourage himself in virtue. So Archelaus's country was laid to the province of Syria; and Cyrenius, one that had been consul, was sent by Caesar to take account of people's effects in Syria, and to sell the house of Archelaus."



Joseph

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

Steven Avery

Thanks, Joe.

Hopefully spin and Jeffrey will now simply acknowledge that they took the wrong position in accusing Mark and Matthew (putting aside the little fatigue junque of spin).

To me the whole issue was nonsense top to bottom (ie. after some research, at first I thought it might be a serious and significant objection) so it did not need Josephus confirmation (which you supplied with the ethnarch Archelaus being referred to as king). However the reference should put to rest this whole thread's false accusation of error against Mark and Matthew.

This was far more significant than being a "pedantic waste" of the forums time, we see how deeply confused folks can get when they want to try to falsely accuse the NT of error. In this case spin and Jeffrey working in tandem.

However we can expect them to come up with a whole bunch of diversions and handwaves :wave: instead of properly acknowledging their error.

Todah.

Shabbat shalom,
Steven

PS.
One more time on "interchangeable". The terms "speaker of the house" and "congresswoman" can usually be used interchangably for Nancy Pelosi. That does not mean that their meaning is the same. Context is basileus. Personal style is important. Various factors can determine choosing what word to use when there are a choice of accurate words.