mountainman

UNKNOWN. All the data available on Torrens and/or his theory
available has been posted on this thread, much of it run through
a SPANISH-ENGLISH auto-translation service.

Further data exists in an earlier thread.
Additionally, the author has a blog.
However, my Spanish is limited to agua.

jgibson000

And I note not only that he has no training in Biblical studies or in ecclesiastical history, but that his "books" on these subjects are "published" through a vanity press.

Jeffrey

jgibson000

The is no religious studies department at this university. Nor is there one at the University from which he received his doctorate.

Sorry, but with this, and the facts that he appears to be Greekless and that his "book" on Constantine and Eusebius, is self published, alarm bells are going off.

Jeffrey Gibson

gstafleu

You may be right:
Using Generic Romance as a translation tool, it looks as if he finished his studies in industrial engineering in 1970. He then defended his thesis in March 2001. His subject seems to be something like the synthesis of mechanisms (? that can't be right) and numerical methods. He holds some sort of job/title in the University School (affiliated college?) since 1999. History seems to be a hobby.

I suppose it is not all that surprising his acronyms don't work out. It reminds me a bit of these squares you can apparently make if you are some sort of kabbahlist. Given enough freedom in size and positioning of these squares you can find just about anything. Oh well.

Gerard Stafleu

mountainman

Everyone has their own method of using a sieve, or alarm bells,
by which to obtain the core claims of an author, and superficially
your gut feeling could be on the money.

However Condes' core claims remain unspecified in English.
They may be on his website in Spanish, but I cannot tell.

The core claim is that this correlation exists on a large scale
throughout the NT. We do not yet know the method by
which the claim is to be demonstrated, except for the one
example provided, in which the SIMON is highlit (and mispelt,
according to your earlier post).

I have emailed him asking which codex he is working from.

jgibson000

Besides being patently obvious and a trivial trusim (if not a tautology) of little worth, that everyone has his or her own method in obtaining something isn't the issue. It's whether the methods a person uses are any good.

Superficially??

Why would what codex he is using (even if he is using one rather than, as it appears, a critical edition of the NT) be in any way important?

JG

gstafleu

A codex would only be important if he is using a formula for determining where the SIMONs are (one that allows a statistical measure that shows that there are more tan one would expect). But if his method is simply to see where it says SIMON the codex would be irrelevant, because it will say SIMON everywhere.

Gerard Stafleu

Gorit Maqueda

I have read through this guy's blog and website. By the way, I'm also Spanish, and I'm also an Industrial Engineer. Well, I am not impressed. It seems that everything has to do with methods of finding "simon" in the NT (in Greek or even in a Spanish translation, it doen't seem to matter too much). Oh, and you have to buy the book to learn the real proofs. Well, I'd bet I could find the word "bush" (or the arab equivalent) in the Koran at least a thousand times...

mountainman

Academic methodologies are best reserved for the academics
in their specialised fields, which are growing at a rapid rate.
Inter-disciplinary academic methodologies need also to be
necessarily evaluated, and according to "methodologists"
rated good-better-best. Both method and data-results are
important.


By "superficially" I wanted to denote that our analysis (ie: those
who had contributed to date on this thread) was "superficial".
The reason that it necessarily was superficial, as outlined, was
that we do not have all the data.

When we do not have all the data, any analysis performed
is necessarily - in some manner - superficial.

In addition to what has already been said on the above,
because this is also a forum for the discussion of history,
and because his claim is that a certain specific author
(Eusebius of Caesarea) somehow left some form of acrostic
message throughout the NT.

Therefore, I would like to see this claim and METHOD
enacted upon the oldest surviving codex, closest in
historical authenticity, to the physical time and era
in which the codexes of the Constantine Bibles were
first prepared by Eusebius c.330CE.

jgibson000

Sorry. This won't do.You are either totally oblivious to what the issue is or you are avoiding it. And it's this: Is the "methodology" employed by your Spanish author a sound one, is it any good for proving his claim, and has it been applied in such a way that he hasn't skewed the "data" he relies on to support the claims he is making? Or, like the Bible code nonsense, is it so elastic and ill founded that anybody can "prove" anything they want to prove by employing it since it is designed so that one can always obtain the "proof" one desires? And does the author even have the academic and linguistic skills necessary to find what he hopes to find, let alone to see whether or not what he thinks or hopes is in the NT (i.e., acrostics of Σίμων) really is there?

You are also ignoring the fact in you rating of methodologies that there are indeed bad, unsound, and wholly execrable methodologies.

Moreover, since you are unable to read Greek (as you've admitted previously), how are you yourself able to say one way or the other that the "data" found by this methodology is what the author claims it is, let alone that the conclusions based upon it are sound?

JG