Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Tercel · 07-20-2002, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bede:
I think he's what Tercel was calling enlightened atheist.

I see at least someone understood that comment! ...even if it was only another Christian... ~sigh~ why do the non-Christians here never understand anything I say...

Hey King Arthur,
Great post.

Quote:

If this is the shoddy way atheists work, then I guess I'll just have to be the atheistic HelenSL until you guys wake up and smell the coffee!! I don't wanna be in the same group with a bunch of people who think they have to twist the facts in order to make a case for atheism. This kind atheist might as well be referred to as a fundamentalist!!

I can but agree with you. It always disappoints me when atheists do the same evidence-twisting (and even outright lying) that is so typical of fundamentalist apologists.
If atheism is true (or in my case: If theism is), then surely we believe that the evidence as-is supports our case? So why not just deal with stuff as it is without twisting it?

But apparently not all freethinkers think this to be the case and for your troubles of debunking the crap that passes for athiest apologetics you get accused of being a Christian in disguise! Join the club: I've now been accused 3 separate times of not being a true Christian.

Toto · 07-20-2002, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by King Arthur:

If this is the shoddy way atheists work, then I guess I'll just have to be the atheistic HelenSL until you guys wake up and smell the coffee!! I don't wanna be in the same group with a bunch of people who think they have to twist the facts in order to make a case for atheism. This kind atheist might as well be referred to as a fundamentalist!!

...

From <a href="http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/christ.htm" target="_blank">Carr's main page</a>:

Quote:

Please note that I make no claims to profound scholarship or startling originality. If you feel that there are any mistakes, or poor arguments in these articles, I am happy to print your views and corrections.

In other words, Carr does not claim to set the standard for atheist scholarship, and your efforts to hang all atheists by what you think are a few problems on his site mark you as an overly hostile but not logical combatant.

You might notice that Carr has published two lengthy responses by Peter Kirby to his article.

I suggested that you email him because he may have an explanation for his translation of 2 Kings 4:13.

Are you challenging the idea that the writers of the NT read the Septuagint and borrowed phrases and ideas from it? It seems to be a fairly well accepted idea, even if you think there is a problem with this example.

Vorkosigan · 07-20-2002, 06:49 PM

But apparently not all freethinkers think this to be the case and for your troubles of debunking the crap that passes for athiest apologetics you get accused of being a Christian in disguise!

Sorry, Tercel, but this is NOT why King Arthur has been met with such skepticism here.

..crap that passes for athiest apologetics...

This from a Christian? ROTFL.

Perhaps the King has a web page we could all admire for its skilled atheist arguments and superior erudition.

[ July 20, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]

Liquidrage · 07-20-2002, 06:51 PM

I think the King is confused and a little high on himself.

As Toto was kind enough to point out and link, the author whom KA is trying to trash makes no claim to being an expert and in fact invites critique and correction.

It would seem to me that if KA was actually concerned with scholarly work he would use this as an opportunity to help refine Carr's view information.

But instead this ancient critic of wisdom has bestowed upon us such tidbits of intellectualism as "Bzzzt! Wrong again!!".
KA also apparently has the ability to see the hidden motives of indivduals and tell us "why" Stephen can bend the truth.

There's a ton of information on Carr's site. I would expect some to be wrong and I would expect Carr to care about the accuracy.

KA's schoolyard call out was not just unnecessary but uncalled for.
It doesn't appear as if KA cares as much about getting the facts straight as he does about comparing dick sizes and coming out on top.

Steven Carr · 07-21-2002, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by King Arthur:
. . . . full of misinformation!

<a href="http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/mirc1.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/mirc1.htm</a>

Here, he seems to imply that the Gospels are only rehashed stories from the ancient Greek Old Testament and attempts to point this out by using the Greek Septuagint.

See! He copied the phrase "two complete consecutive words" directly from Finegan and one could even make a strong case that Steven's "it does not have" and Finegan's "there are no" are just different ways of saying the exact same thing!

Why does King Arthur think he can detect plagiarism by me, but denies to his dying breath that plagiarism in the NT of the OT can be detected?

Steven Carr · 07-21-2002, 04:31 AM

KA

<a href="http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/mirc1.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/mirc1.htm</a>

Mark 5:42 says that after the miracle, the parents were 'amazed with great amazement' (exestesan ekstasei megale),
...while 2 Kings 4:13 we have 'amazed with all amazement' (exestesas... pasan ten ekstasin tauten)

CARR
Aren't these pretty similar, and hasn't KA chopped out a lot of my arguments?
KA
Brenton's Septuagint (2Kings 4:13):
And he said to him, Say now to her, Behold, thou hast taken all this trouble for us; what should I do for thee? Hast thou any request to make to the king, or to the captain of the host? And she said, I dwell in the midst of my people.
Most other translations bear this out as well:

Young's Literal Translation:
And he saith to him, 'Say, I pray thee, unto her, Lo, thou hast troubled thyself concerning us with all this trouble; what -- to do for thee? is it to speak for thee unto the king, or unto the head of the host?' and she saith, 'In the midst of my people I am dwelling.'

New Revised Standard Version (NRSV):
He said to him, "Say to her, Since you have taken all this trouble for us, what may be done for you? Would you have a word spoken on your behalf to the king or to the commander of the army?" She answered, "I live among my own people."

CARR
Is KA quoting translations of the Septuagint here? IS youngs and the NRSV a translation of the Septuagint?

In Mark 4 'feared with great fear ([kai - KA added this because it's important to Carr's case] ephobethesan phobon megan)'.
In Jonah (LXX) 'feared the men with great fear' ([kai - KA added this too because it's important to Carr's case]ephobethesan hoi andres phobon megan)

Doh! Embarrassingly, Steven misses the best comparison which is in (of all places) 1 Maccabees 4:41 (! It is a word for word match with this phrase in Mark 4!! Of course, Luke uses the exact same phrase as well.

CARR
And the revelance is?

KA
Hmm... You suppose this could have been a common idiom?

CARR
No.

KA quoting me.
Luke copies 'kai egeneto' (and it came to pass). 'Kai egeneto' is used many, many times in the Greek Old Testament and Luke used this phrase from the Septuagint so much that it has become a cliche.

KA
Do I even need to touch this one?? If it was used "many, many times" it sure seems like it must've been a phrase in common use. And Luke ain't the only one who uses it!! It's in nearly every book of the Bible!

CARR
SO if people copy a lot, it is not plagiarism? KA admits that the NT writers copied from the Septuagint?

Steven Carr
According to Acts , Peter, an Aramaic-speaking Jew managed, in a moment of terror, to remember the exact phrase from the Greek translation of Ezekiel 4:14! Was it realistic for somebody described in Acts itself as ignorant (idiotes) and illiterate to bring to mind a Greek translation that he would not have known? I think not. I suspect Luke 'borrowed' words from the Greek translation of Ezekiel 4:14 to put into the mouth of Peter. It is not as though it is a common phrase which Peter might have hit on himself. 'Medamos, Kyrie' (By no means,Lord) is used only here and in Acts 11:8.

KA
'Medamos, Kyrie'! Wow! I can't believe an ignorant screw-up like Peter could manage to say the two word phrase "No, Lord!", "No way, Lord!", or "By no means, Lord!". "Medamos" is a very commonly used word. Tack on "Kyrie" and you got the right phrase...

CARR
Boy, two times God commands people to eat unclean food, and the same Greek phrase pops up! Plagiarism!

KA
Steven even bends the truth to make his case look good by saying that 'Medamos, Kyrie' is "only found "here" (Ezekiel 4:14) and in Acts 11:8"! Bzzzt! Wrong again!!

KA
Steven missed the other use of this short phrase in Ezekiel - 21:5 (unless, of course by saying "here" he really meant within the whole book of Ezekiel, yeah right). What about Acts 10:14? Hey! He also missed, Jonah 1:14 and he was right there in Jonah for his previous example! Poor... Really poor...

CARR
So what?

Steven Carr
In the miracle of turning water into wine, the words of the woman (Ti, emoi kai soi) from 1 Kings 17:18 reappear exactly as words of Jesus [in John 2:4].

KA
Let's see... 'Ti, emoi kai soi'. Where else have I heard that exact phrase used before??

Oh, I know... Judges 11:12, 2 Kings 3:13, 2 Chr 35:21, 1 Esdras 1:26, Mark 5:7, and Luke 8:28. Now which of those stories was John using again?

CARR
KA has , of course, chopped out all the other similarities I pointoutinmy article.

KA
You can see how Steven ripped off the quote, right? I mean, kinda like the examples he gave from the new testament, Steven couldn't have come up with that phrase on his own.

[b]Steven - It does not have two complete consecutive words written on it.
Finegan - there are no two complete consecutive words on the entire piece

See! He copied the phrase "two complete consecutive words" directly from Finegan and one could even make a strong case that Steven's "it does not have" and Finegan's "there are no" are just different ways of saying the exact same thing!

CARR
But KA you deny plagiarism in the NT!!! How then can you suddenly be show sure of plagiarism by me, without being a hypcorite??

Steven Carr · 07-21-2002, 05:35 AM

KA writes about
<a href="http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/mirc1.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/mirc1.htm</a>
Steven even bends the truth to make his case look good by saying that 'Medamos, Kyrie' is "only found "here" (Ezekiel 4:14) and in Acts 11:8"! Bzzzt! Wrong again!!

Steven missed the other use of this short phrase in Ezekiel - 21:5 (unless, of course by saying "here" he really meant within the whole book of Ezekiel, yeah right). What about Acts 10:14? Hey! He also missed, Jonah 1:14 and he was right there in Jonah for his previous example! Poor... Really poor...

CARR
Of course I should also have included Acts 10:14. A bad mistake.

But does it really spoil my case that Luke was putting words in Peter's mouth? After all Acts 10:14 and Acts 11:8 are both exactly the same story about Peter!!! King Arthur seems to have missed that the *only* place in the NT where this phrase , from a Greek translation about eating unclean food, appears in the mouth of an Aramaic speaking Jew when asked to eat unclean food.

The fact that it appears twice (because it is the same story retold) hardly devastates the view that it is only used about Peter!

Who exactly is bending the truth here? Somebody who makes a bad mistake typing in a Bible reference or somebody who misses out important , highly relevant, information when trying to throw mud?

[ July 21, 2002: Message edited by: Steven Carr ]

King Arthur · 07-21-2002, 02:54 PM

These are weak excuses Steven. Very weak.

These were all pretty common Jewish, everyday kind of phrases. It's kinda hard to get around that fact.

The other point is that you missed references which were exact matches for ones that were only so-so. In other words, you don't know what you're doing really, do you?

Anyhoo, I'm going over to the other thread since you decided to create another one. Since you created it, we'll hash it out there in more detail if you so desire.

Or you could just take your whole website down. That would be even better.

Tercel · 07-21-2002, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:
Sorry, Tercel, but this is NOT why King Arthur has been met with such skepticism here.

King Arthur has been met with skepticism because you disagree with his conclusions. ie You'd prefer to hold on to false and biased crap just so long as it supports your position. ie You guys are in every way as bad as the worst of the YECs.

Quote:

..crap that passes for athiest apologetics...

This from a Christian? ROTFL.

I didn't say Christian apologetics were not biased crap: In fact I distinctly remember arguing that much of it was. There is some utter crap out there on both sides of the fence, and some quality scholarship on both sides of the fence.
Unfortunately many posters at the Sec-Web seem to have a propensity for preferring the crap - just so long as it makes them completely happy in their secure atheism and allows them to do Christian-bashing.

Steven Carr · 07-21-2002, 10:24 PM

Kings Arthur weighs into me as follows
Anyhoo, to get on to it, Steven attempts to compare the following: Mark 5:42 & 2 Kings 4:13.

quote:
Steven Carr
Mark 5:42 says that after the miracle, the parents were 'amazed with great amazement' (exestesan ekstasei megale),
...while 2 Kings 4:13 we have 'amazed with all amazement' (exestesas... pasan ten ekstasin tauten)

There are two words in common between each of these completely different phrases and they are even separated by different words. The phrases mean two totally different things, and this is obvious from the context. As a matter of fact, the respected English versions of the Septuagint bear this out.

quote:

Brenton's Septuagint (2Kings 4:13):
And he said to him, Say now to her, Behold, thou hast taken all this trouble for us; what should I do for thee? Hast thou any request to make to the king, or to the captain of the host? And she said, I dwell in the midst of my people.
Most other translations bear this out as well:

Young's Literal Translation:
And he saith to him, 'Say, I pray thee, unto her, Lo, thou hast troubled thyself concerning us with all this trouble; what -- to do for thee? is it to speak for thee unto the king, or unto the head of the host?' and she saith, 'In the midst of my people I am dwelling.'

New Revised Standard Version (NRSV):
He said to him, "Say to her, Since you have taken all this trouble for us, what may be done for you? Would you have a word spoken on your behalf to the king or to the commander of the army?" She answered, "I live among my own people."

Seems like the consensus is that what Steven translates as "amazed with all amazement" in 2Kings 4:13 doesn't even make any sense in the verse and would be rejected by nearly every biblical translator out there. Even the Hebrew, which after all is what the Septuagint is a translation of, does not translate as "amazement".

CARR
The actual verse can be seen at
<a href="http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/greek01.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/greek01.jpg</a>

Does anybody know enough Greek to translate this please? I'm pretty sure King Arthur is translating the wrong verse, but it would be nice to have that double checked.

07-20-2002, 06:49 PM	#23
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	But apparently not all freethinkers think this to be the case and for your troubles of debunking the crap that passes for athiest apologetics you get accused of being a Christian in disguise! Sorry, Tercel, but this is NOT why King Arthur has been met with such skepticism here. ..crap that passes for athiest apologetics... This from a Christian? ROTFL. Perhaps the King has a web page we could all admire for its skilled atheist arguments and superior erudition. [ July 20, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

07-21-2002, 05:35 AM	#27
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	KA writes about <a href="http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/mirc1.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/mirc1.htm</a> Steven even bends the truth to make his case look good by saying that 'Medamos, Kyrie' is "only found "here" (Ezekiel 4:14) and in Acts 11:8"! Bzzzt! Wrong again!! Steven missed the other use of this short phrase in Ezekiel - 21:5 (unless, of course by saying "here" he really meant within the whole book of Ezekiel, yeah right). What about Acts 10:14? Hey! He also missed, Jonah 1:14 and he was right there in Jonah for his previous example! Poor... Really poor... CARR Of course I should also have included Acts 10:14. A bad mistake. But does it really spoil my case that Luke was putting words in Peter's mouth? After all Acts 10:14 and Acts 11:8 are both exactly the same story about Peter!!! King Arthur seems to have missed that the only place in the NT where this phrase , from a Greek translation about eating unclean food, appears in the mouth of an Aramaic speaking Jew when asked to eat unclean food. The fact that it appears twice (because it is the same story retold) hardly devastates the view that it is only used about Peter! Who exactly is bending the truth here? Somebody who makes a bad mistake typing in a Bible reference or somebody who misses out important , highly relevant, information when trying to throw mud? [ July 21, 2002: Message edited by: Steven Carr ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-20-2002, 06:51 PM	#24
Liquidrage Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Tallahassee Posts: 1,301	I think the King is confused and a little high on himself. As Toto was kind enough to point out and link, the author whom KA is trying to trash makes no claim to being an expert and in fact invites critique and correction. It would seem to me that if KA was actually concerned with scholarly work he would use this as an opportunity to help refine Carr's view information. But instead this ancient critic of wisdom has bestowed upon us such tidbits of intellectualism as "Bzzzt! Wrong again!!". KA also apparently has the ability to see the hidden motives of indivduals and tell us "why" Stephen can bend the truth. There's a ton of information on Carr's site. I would expect some to be wrong and I would expect Carr to care about the accuracy. KA's schoolyard call out was not just unnecessary but uncalled for. It doesn't appear as if KA cares as much about getting the facts straight as he does about comparing dick sizes and coming out on top.

07-21-2002, 04:31 AM	#26
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	KA <a href="http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/mirc1.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/mirc1.htm</a> Mark 5:42 says that after the miracle, the parents were 'amazed with great amazement' (exestesan ekstasei megale), ...while 2 Kings 4:13 we have 'amazed with all amazement' (exestesas... pasan ten ekstasin tauten) CARR Aren't these pretty similar, and hasn't KA chopped out a lot of my arguments? KA Brenton's Septuagint (2Kings 4:13): And he said to him, Say now to her, Behold, thou hast taken all this trouble for us; what should I do for thee? Hast thou any request to make to the king, or to the captain of the host? And she said, I dwell in the midst of my people. Most other translations bear this out as well: Young's Literal Translation: And he saith to him, 'Say, I pray thee, unto her, Lo, thou hast troubled thyself concerning us with all this trouble; what -- to do for thee? is it to speak for thee unto the king, or unto the head of the host?' and she saith, 'In the midst of my people I am dwelling.' New Revised Standard Version (NRSV): He said to him, "Say to her, Since you have taken all this trouble for us, what may be done for you? Would you have a word spoken on your behalf to the king or to the commander of the army?" She answered, "I live among my own people." CARR Is KA quoting translations of the Septuagint here? IS youngs and the NRSV a translation of the Septuagint? In Mark 4 'feared with great fear ([kai - KA added this because it's important to Carr's case] ephobethesan phobon megan)'. In Jonah (LXX) 'feared the men with great fear' ([kai - KA added this too because it's important to Carr's case]ephobethesan hoi andres phobon megan) Doh! Embarrassingly, Steven misses the best comparison which is in (of all places) 1 Maccabees 4:41 (! It is a word for word match with this phrase in Mark 4!! Of course, Luke uses the exact same phrase as well. CARR And the revelance is? KA Hmm... You suppose this could have been a common idiom? CARR No. KA quoting me. Luke copies 'kai egeneto' (and it came to pass). 'Kai egeneto' is used many, many times in the Greek Old Testament and Luke used this phrase from the Septuagint so much that it has become a cliche. KA Do I even need to touch this one?? If it was used "many, many times" it sure seems like it must've been a phrase in common use. And Luke ain't the only one who uses it!! It's in nearly every book of the Bible! CARR SO if people copy a lot, it is not plagiarism? KA admits that the NT writers copied from the Septuagint? Steven Carr According to Acts , Peter, an Aramaic-speaking Jew managed, in a moment of terror, to remember the exact phrase from the Greek translation of Ezekiel 4:14! Was it realistic for somebody described in Acts itself as ignorant (idiotes) and illiterate to bring to mind a Greek translation that he would not have known? I think not. I suspect Luke 'borrowed' words from the Greek translation of Ezekiel 4:14 to put into the mouth of Peter. It is not as though it is a common phrase which Peter might have hit on himself. 'Medamos, Kyrie' (By no means,Lord) is used only here and in Acts 11:8. KA 'Medamos, Kyrie'! Wow! I can't believe an ignorant screw-up like Peter could manage to say the two word phrase "No, Lord!", "No way, Lord!", or "By no means, Lord!". "Medamos" is a very commonly used word. Tack on "Kyrie" and you got the right phrase... CARR Boy, two times God commands people to eat unclean food, and the same Greek phrase pops up! Plagiarism! KA Steven even bends the truth to make his case look good by saying that 'Medamos, Kyrie' is "only found "here" (Ezekiel 4:14) and in Acts 11:8"! Bzzzt! Wrong again!! KA Steven missed the other use of this short phrase in Ezekiel - 21:5 (unless, of course by saying "here" he really meant within the whole book of Ezekiel, yeah right). What about Acts 10:14? Hey! He also missed, Jonah 1:14 and he was right there in Jonah for his previous example! Poor... Really poor... CARR So what? Steven Carr In the miracle of turning water into wine, the words of the woman (Ti, emoi kai soi) from 1 Kings 17:18 reappear exactly as words of Jesus [in John 2:4]. KA Let's see... 'Ti, emoi kai soi'. Where else have I heard that exact phrase used before?? Oh, I know... Judges 11:12, 2 Kings 3:13, 2 Chr 35:21, 1 Esdras 1:26, Mark 5:7, and Luke 8:28. Now which of those stories was John using again? CARR KA has , of course, chopped out all the other similarities I pointoutinmy article. KA You can see how Steven ripped off the quote, right? I mean, kinda like the examples he gave from the new testament, Steven couldn't have come up with that phrase on his own. [b]Steven - It does not have two complete consecutive words written on it. Finegan - there are no two complete consecutive words on the entire piece See! He copied the phrase "two complete consecutive words" directly from Finegan and one could even make a strong case that Steven's "it does not have" and Finegan's "there are no" are just different ways of saying the exact same thing! CARR But KA you deny plagiarism in the NT!!! How then can you suddenly be show sure of plagiarism by me, without being a hypcorite??

07-21-2002, 02:54 PM	#28
King Arthur Banned Join Date: May 2002 Location: Camelot Posts: 290	These are weak excuses Steven. Very weak. These were all pretty common Jewish, everyday kind of phrases. It's kinda hard to get around that fact. The other point is that you missed references which were exact matches for ones that were only so-so. In other words, you don't know what you're doing really, do you? Anyhoo, I'm going over to the other thread since you decided to create another one. Since you created it, we'll hash it out there in more detail if you so desire. Or you could just take your whole website down. That would be even better.

07-21-2002, 10:24 PM	#30
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	Kings Arthur weighs into me as follows Anyhoo, to get on to it, Steven attempts to compare the following: Mark 5:42 & 2 Kings 4:13. quote: Steven Carr Mark 5:42 says that after the miracle, the parents were 'amazed with great amazement' (exestesan ekstasei megale), ...while 2 Kings 4:13 we have 'amazed with all amazement' (exestesas... pasan ten ekstasin tauten) There are two words in common between each of these completely different phrases and they are even separated by different words. The phrases mean two totally different things, and this is obvious from the context. As a matter of fact, the respected English versions of the Septuagint bear this out. quote: Brenton's Septuagint (2Kings 4:13): And he said to him, Say now to her, Behold, thou hast taken all this trouble for us; what should I do for thee? Hast thou any request to make to the king, or to the captain of the host? And she said, I dwell in the midst of my people. Most other translations bear this out as well: Young's Literal Translation: And he saith to him, 'Say, I pray thee, unto her, Lo, thou hast troubled thyself concerning us with all this trouble; what -- to do for thee? is it to speak for thee unto the king, or unto the head of the host?' and she saith, 'In the midst of my people I am dwelling.' New Revised Standard Version (NRSV): He said to him, "Say to her, Since you have taken all this trouble for us, what may be done for you? Would you have a word spoken on your behalf to the king or to the commander of the army?" She answered, "I live among my own people." Seems like the consensus is that what Steven translates as "amazed with all amazement" in 2Kings 4:13 doesn't even make any sense in the verse and would be rejected by nearly every biblical translator out there. Even the Hebrew, which after all is what the Septuagint is a translation of, does not translate as "amazement". CARR The actual verse can be seen at <a href="http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/greek01.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/greek01.jpg</a> Does anybody know enough Greek to translate this please? I'm pretty sure King Arthur is translating the wrong verse, but it would be nice to have that double checked.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.