Steven Avery

Api, you don't know my schedule or interests. I'm actually more involved in the Factnet threads right now than this stuff.

Suggestion.. you be a mensch and retract and/or apologize for the tacky stuff in your posts, two things pointed out.

1) The book insult

2) The repeated deception that I cared one dither about your verse number nonsense, and spent ANY time on it at all after 1 Samuel 12:9

<deleted>
One retraction would be appropriate and show integrity.

Apikorus

Steven, these charges of "tackiness" are laughable. For example, in this post you also accuse me of being "tacky", and "misremembering other threads" when I claimed that you had not followed up on a certain question. In my response (here), I quoted myself, asking you the very question I had claimed. Ironically, this came from an earlier post in the same thread, so rather than me "misremembering other threads" it was you who had "misremembered" the current one. Or perhaps you were just evading the question.

At any rate, when I find I have something to apologize for, I will certainly do so. In fact, I have an item right now. In 1980, in my very first Presidential election, I voted for John Anderson. I should have voted for Carter. I apologize.

Steven Avery

And this HAD been covered in the earlier thread.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...hlight=goliath
Which is why I sluffed off your requests as tacky.

You have a nasty habit of ignoring an answer in one thread and pretending it did not exist in another. That is tacky, however it is not something for which I would ask or expect an apology, its simply Api being Api.

Your snotty false insult about not referencing a book on the Apocryphon.
Your repeated <edit> junque trying to claim I was researching something I clearly stated was of absolutely of no interest to me.

By your refusal to address these, you show your mettle, or lack thereof.

Shalom,
Steven

Apikorus

Steven, you had said It was in response to this statement that I asked my question. Can you provide a link to the post where you respond? All I could find was this one, which doesn't quite address the point of why the KJV's translation of 2 Sam 21:19, which adds words not in the Hebrew, is "accurate."

Incidentally, the word is "sloughed."

Hmmm...this one has your knickers in a twist, eh? Perhaps you can point me to a post where you did cite a book. From what I can tell, your source is the UPenn web page. Later on you come up with some story about consulting Flint, Abegg, and Ulrich. But I don't see this in your initial response to Loomis.

At any rate, there is plenty of good information available on the web. It is, however, incomplete, and often of uncertain provenance. And, much to your chagrin, sometimes you might not quite understand the limitations of your sources. I do confess a certain disdain for "google scholars" who think that everything can be found on the internet. (Invariably they get their comeuppance.) If this comes across as snottiness, then so be it.

Steven Avery

Oh, please, stop ultra-parsing. You can see that that post offers one very clear explanation for precisely what you are asking, including a reference to the b-hebrew thread discussing exactly that point. The second viewpoint would have to do with Goliath being more a title of a type of soldier and the King James Bible translators adding "brother of" in italics as a translation help since in English Goliath looks like a proper name. That would be embedded in our give and take about the word "Goliath".

Why not simply acknowledge that you were asking me something that I had precisely addressed on another thread and you had forgotten. Just because you may not agree with the viewpoints does not allow you to say that I ignored the issue.

Ahh the same arrogance and outright lying accusation. "come up with some story" . You are showing that you have no integrity at all in dialog.

And therefore it is time to take leave of this discussion.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Apikorus

No, as I said your post provided no such explanation. Rather, you baselessly asserted that the KJV translation of 2 Sam 21:19 conveys "perfect sense and consistency". You admitted that the KJV translators identified the words "the brother of" as a "contextual ellipsis," and therefore italicized them. This is of course true, but it does not answer my question -- why is it there at all? Finally, you quoted a response of another poster on another board, which was typical pie-in-the-sky "maybe this was a normal way of speaking at the time" speculation. All in all, a big zero.

This is a poor substitute for proof, Steven. Your response to Loomis mentioned no book, but it did immediately link to the UPenn page.

It is getting uncomfortably hot for you, I see. Look, Steven, as far as I'm concern you've dug your own grave here. Not only was your response to Loomis regarding Gen 14:22 vis-a-vis 1QapGen completely false, it was delivered in a most high-handed and obnoxious manner. You persisted with your harangue of Loomis even after he quoted from Wise, Abegg, and Cook, even including a gratuitous swipe at yours truly.

Now, when you have been definitively and emphatically proven wrong, you play the aggrieved party. In my right hand, I have the world's tiniest violin...

Steven Avery

Api, why did you <misinform> the forum about my quoting Flint, Abegg, and Ulrich, claiming it was something I had come up with post facto. I even wrote the unresponsive moderators to have them call me and I would read them any section from the book, a book that I had researched before any posts on the GA topic (and demonstrating to them that it omits Genesis 14:22). Why have you lied to the forum claiming I came up with that later ? Why can't you be a mensch and retract and apologize on such tawdry stuff.

And why would you expect me to have any dialog with you after that ?

Please do not address any posts to me.
And if you do, please understand that I have no interest or intention to answer, unless and until you get straight on the above.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Apikorus

Goodness Steven, you are desperate. So far as I can tell, everything I've said is correct. I've searched the thread and found that the first mention of Flint et al. is in your post #102. You cited the UPenn web page in your initial response to Loomis, and subsequent to that there was no mention of any other source until after I suggested you visit the library. So your story about checking this text did come later, exactly as I said. Whether or not your story is true, I don't know, and I don't care, as it is irrelevant to my point.

I imagine the moderators have better things to do than listen to you read to them over the phone. Besides, how would they be able to ascertain when you came into possession of the book? Maybe you borrowed it from your neighbor yesterday at 8:18 pm. Maybe it sat unopened on your bookshelf for five years. What do you expect them to do, Steven?

You made your own bed, and now you must lie in it. I'd suggest you get off this horse and devote your attentions to 1 Sam 1:24 over in the other thread.