Steven Avery

Your claim that Kainan was in Sinaiticus.
So soon you forget ?
Amazing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin That's the last bit of research I'll do for you. If you want to know more, get off your ass.

That is spin-speak for
"I was also wrong about Vaticanus".

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

it's better to at least try to get the information. This stuff is as rare as rocking horse shit on the net. And what there is certainly isn't signposted well. But you wouldn't know, because you haven't looked.

No, it's what I say to a lazy person who shows no desire to find the information for themselves and, if they did, they wouldn't know what it was they were looking at.

I'm glad you've come clean and admitted that there is corruption in christian texts.


spin

Jack the Bodiless

Praxeus, why do you imagine that Vaticanus can tell us anything about "Kainan" in Genesis 11:12?

From here:
So, Vaticanus (dragged into this discussion by you) says... nothing, either way.

Why are you still unable to explain where the name came from? May I remind you that YOU brought up this subject in the first place?

You could at least confirm or deny your apparent belief that Luke is corrupt.

Steven Avery

So you blundered badly twice, making totally false assertions and then tried to cover your tracks when you were nabbed.

And you want a tin star for not even admitting you were simply wrong ?
Please.

And you are simply speaking falsely as to what I have researched on this. Unless you are hacking my computer and know my library you have no idea.

Once your own blunders are exposed you try to make every smokescreen possible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin I'm glad you've come clean and admitted that there is corruption in christian texts.

Please .. spin .. stop deceiving yourself.

I have always claimed very strongly that the alexandrian NT texts are grossly corrupt (see e.g. the recent thread on Bethesda) While the Textus Receptus is the pure text. I have written about this in literally dozens of posts.

And also the same on the Greek OT - for a variety of reasons, some of which I have place on this forum. I even emphasize the Romans-->Psalms tampering, again alexandrian manuscript based (the same manuscripts that mess up the NT) as to why the Greek OT should not be trusted.

My position has been 100% consistent and it is disingenuous and not an honest dialog effort for you to claim otherwise. .

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Please, Jack.

*spin* brought in Vaticanus. I simply asked you for the date of the earliest evidence for Cainan in the Tanach. Remember Luke wrote in the 1st century. Reread the thread.

And there is plenty of evidence that the early Greek did not have Cainan (as pointed out by JW#2 but not JW#1). Early writer references I have seen given include Josephus, Irenaeus, Africanus through Eusebius and Jerome. Digging up all the actual references might be a little project.

And very worthy of note was Spin - how he calls the same references "the LXX" that he disowned earlier. Whatever is convenient.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless You could at least confirm or deny your apparent belief that Luke is corrupt.

Jack, Do you even read the thread ?
It would help to do so before putting words in my mouth.
Amazing.

In posts 69 and 70 I state very specifically my view that Luke is very fine,
ie. not corrupt. Luke is including a name that is not in the Tanach.
I think I even posted as to how this shows that you cannot assume
that begat in Tanach is necessarily father-son. (Which is also shown
elsewhere within Tanach.) That is where we came in, I used Luke 3
to point out that one should be careful as to how rigid they make the
Tanach chronology.

Anyway, off to work. Have a wonderful day

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

Jack the Bodiless

No, YOU did. In post #51:
You were still talking about Vaticanus in post #62:
Spin didn't even join this thread until post #76.
No, this issue goes way back to post #6.

The Hebrew "YLD" does indeed mean "begat" (it even shares the same root as the Hebrew word for "child"). You were repeating a lame excuse invented by apologists attempting to resolve the Bible's errors: I was hoping you'd have something better, but apparently not. Not only does the word not mean "become the ancestor of", but this makes no sense from the context: a person doesn't "become the ancestor of" a yet-to-be-born descendant when he reaches a specific age (long before that descendant is born), and in many cases the Tanach specifically says that the person later "begets" OTHER kids.

If the name is "not in the Tanach", then the Tanach is in error (and it follows that the LXX copies have been "corrected" on this, not "corrupted"). Furthermore, you can STILL add up the ages regardless, and they give an impossible date for the Flood: therefore, again, the Tanach is in error.

Of course, there was no global Flood anyhow since the dawn of humanity (the evidence would be unmistakable): so, again, the Tanach is in error.

(BTW: you still haven't explained where Luke got the name from: I assume you don't know)

spin

This is great. You aren't interested in anything but games there, praxeus.





This is where your true colors become clear. Content seems to have no value. You just feel the overburdening need to obfuscate your own religious insecurities. Sir, I deserve a star. It's alright, praxie: you'll get one.

You don't mind that you've opened yourself up to admitting christians manipulated texts. You can happily forget about that. But that is your method for explaining why the surviving LXX manuscripts now feature an extra generation.

You display what you know and think when your participate here. Because you don't know anything about the languages you have to rely on secondary sources all the time. You see, what you don't know can hurt you.

Nice projection. I can see this is how you operate. Here's an example:

Do you like the smokescreen? I didn't write this:

The answer of how the late Greek OT had Cainan inserted is fully above.
The Greek OT text has numerous 'smoothings' (corruptions) towards the NT,
with the Psalm example being the most glaring and blatant. This is another.

This is an admission of christian corruption of texts. You might now deny it but it is glaring and blatant. It is also an indirect admission that the Lucan text is corrupt, for you freely admit that the version seen in the MT which has nothing about Cainan in Gen 11:12 is correct and therefore Luke must be incorrect. Interesting when you claim that the TR is a pure text.

This is irrelevant to the LXX.

Yes, christians do tamper with texts.

What evidence do you have that the Textus Receptus is any different?

The claim that the LXX is not to be trusted is to ignore evidence. All evidence must be treated carefully. There are no 100% certitudes except in fantasies.

Consistency is not a sufficient condition for understanding and 100% consistency is not a sign that you are able to take part in honest dialog. It can be a sign of total self-justification.


spin

RED DAVE

praxeus, I would appreciate a response to my post #80.

RED DAVE

Steven Avery

Yes Vaticanus was mentioned. And in none of this is Vaticanus anything special. Simply one of the early Greek OT manuscripts. (It was spin who declared that Vaticanus is "the LXX" and then started to wrongly reference Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.)

My concern was to show you that Cainan came in late.
Even Aleph or B would be very late (like in the Psalms 14
disaster, which I believe is in Vaticanus and/or Sinaiticus)
.. however our extant evidence is even later than that.

More importantly we found out also that it is clear that JW#2
was right, Cainan was added to the Greek OT. The Bible
(Targumim, Vulgate, Peshitta, etc) and extra-biblical evidence
(Josephus, Africanus, and more) is conclusive.

Spins blunders (and complete inability to say 'oops, I made
a mistake' .. far more telling) made for a fine sideshow, and
the sideshow was started by your getting fooled by JW#1.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless The Hebrew "YLD" does indeed mean "begat" (it even shares the same root as the Hebrew word for "child"). You were repeating a lame excuse invented by apologists attempting to resolve the Bible's errors:

My understanding is that the Tanach itself gives examples of
begats that are more than one generation down. I would be
happy to look at this closer (even Api might give some
background) but you write in such a horrid strawman fashion that
it becomes a waste. Where did I ever say that begat means
"become the ancestor of" ? - Combining tenses in reverse.
Amazing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless I was hoping you'd have something better, but apparently not. Not only does the word not mean "become the ancestor of"...

This is a funny strawman, so we will stop here.
Come back when you actually quote a real definition I have given.

Your error here then leads to your accusation against the Tanach.
Error begets error.

As for why Cainan is in the NT that is another fascinating study.
Whether it is worth the time and effort here will be considered.

It is more a fascinating Bible question that believers like to share
upon, skeptics would have little to offer.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

It is always funny to see an attempt to repeat that which has already been shown to be totally false.

After blundering, spin switches to theatrics and disinformation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin You don't mind that you've opened yourself up to admitting christians manipulated texts.

spin, this is essentially something that I heartily assert. As do all Christians
with a Reformation perspective. That folks considered 'Christians'
messed up some texts. The Vulgate was a tampered text and that
was a major part of the Reformation spiritual battleground
between the Bible believers and the RCC. Time to go back to
Whitaker and Owen and all. One problem today is that Christians
have missed so much of their heritage.

And the two alexandrian texts are just junque. Far worse than
the Vulgate. It took a cultish fiasco of the 19th century to try to
give them any import. Any sensible and logical view of the
Bible would dispose of Aleph and B, as done by Dean Burgon in his
devastating appraisals over a century ago.

So I heartily condemn certain alexandrian texts.
And these texts are heavily involved in three different elements.

1) Attempting to obscure the beautiful and majestic NT text
2) Apocrypha
3) Greek OT corruption

Those alexandrian manuscripts are a triple-disaster, the Greek
OT has corruptions from multi-sources, probably the original
Jewish text (as they claimed) and Jewish and Alexandrian
'Christian' tampering.

The rest of your post is the regular spin-snides, repetition and already answered.

Shalom,
Steven Avery