Freethought & Rationalism Archive

King Arthur · 07-19-2002, 07:29 PM

. . . . full of misinformation!

Steven seems to enjoy bending facts and showing off his supposed knowledge of Greek and ancient history.

For instance, he makes many mountains out of molehills on the following page:

<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.

He makes statements that seem intended to conjure up in his readers minds the notion that Christians are somehow attempting to dismiss and hide this embarrasing Greek translation of the OT known as the Septuagint.

Quote:

Steven Carr
"Nowadays, Christians tend to reject the Septuagint..."

"...from the Septuagint (remember that this translation is largely rejected by Christians today)"

Reminding us again:
"...from the Septuagint (remember that this translation is largely rejected by Christians today)"

Now, if one remembers that the Septuagint is a Greek translation, then it becomes clear that it really wasn't needed anymore once Greek began to be replaced by Latin. Latin speakers now had need of a translation. Would they want to translated the Greek translation into their own language? A translation of a translation?! No, Jerome, who was responsible for the Latin Vulgate, went directly to the source - the Hebrew originals - as we eventually did in English. No big surprise. No big cover-up.

So it's obviously no big surprise that we don't find the Septuagint in English, but one might expect to find it used where people still speak Greek. As a matter of fact, Orthodox churches still use the Septuagint today and consider it divinely inspired!

As if that weren't enough, Christian seminaries make great use of the Septuagint in their studies, using it in the fields of textual criticism as well as Theology.

So, Steven appears to be blowing things out of proportion when he acts as if Christians are rejecting the Septuagint today.

Next, since early Christians were very familiar with the Septuagint, it is no great surprise to find that their language occasionally reflects the usage found there. As a matter of fact, many of the overly short phrases Steven pulls out of context to make his points were probably in the vocabularly of just about every Jew and Christian of the time. So, again, it is no big surprise to find certain phrases repeated just as they probably did in their everyday language, just as many of us atheists wind up using phrases straight from the Bible sometimes and probably don't even realize it.

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".

Is he trying to make something out of nothing? Me thinks yes.

Quote:

Steven Carr

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.

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

Molehill...

Quote:

Steven Carr
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.

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!

Molehill...

Quote:

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.

'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...

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...

Another relatively common phrase that anyone could have said. Has Steven made another mountain out of a molehill, by no means, Lord!!!!

Quote:

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].

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? Maybe he was just saying something that came natural to most Jews of the time, ya think? I do.
Finally, a Christian pointed this out a while back, so I checked up on it. In the following website, Steven makes a dubious claim:

<a href="http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli1.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli1.htm</a>

Quote:

Steven Carr one last time
It [P52] does not have two complete consecutive words written on it.

As with the other parts of his website, Steven gives no credit to any of the authors whose stuff he rips off.

Here's where he got the quote that he didn't complete:

Quote:

Encountering New Testament Manuscripts: A Working Introduction to Textual Criticism by Jack Finegan

It [p52] may now be observed that the fragment has preserved intact a number of small connectives, prepositions, articles, and negatives, but that otherwise [b]there are no two complete consecutive words on the entire piece.

As you can see, the completion of the quote is important because the "otherwise" shows that there are some complete words to be found on the manuscript. To be more specific, the two consecutive words "oudena" and "ina" and the other set on the verso "legei" and "auto" (although, Finegan doesn't recognize the lambda on the beginning of the word legei, the man who originally published the manuscript did, thus yielding two sets of two complete consecutive words).

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. There are many parallels between the context of his post and Finegan's book - they're both about the early Greek manuscripts after all. Also, you can see all the similar words Steven used - compare the quotes for yourself:

Quote:

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!

Plagiarist!

On a more serious note, I do think that if Steven wants to be taken seriously, he will need to give credit to his sources. It is very doubtful that he came up with all that stuff without looking at somebody's book. He doesn't even give the versions of the Greek New Testment or Septuagint that he is using.

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!!

Molehills, molehills...

Vorkosigan · 07-19-2002, 07:34 PM

Molehills, molehills...

A comment that applies to both target and initiator of thread. If you are serious about correcting Carr, just send him an email. That is usually what I do when I find what I believe to be errors on another's website. I don't put them up here.

You profess to be an atheist, but you spend a lot of time mocking and insulting your fellow atheists. One can hardly help wondering what your real motives and allegiances are. I've never seen another atheist like yourself, who confined himself to attacking only other atheists, and made no comments about Christianity or believers, or Fundie sites, or creationism, or the RCC, etc. There's a lot of targets about there, and you seem rather confused about where you should be pointing your big guns.

Vorkosigan

King Arthur · 07-19-2002, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:

Molehills, molehills...

A comment that applies to both target and initiator of thread. If you are serious about correcting Carr, just send him an email. That is usually what I do when I find what I believe to be errors on another's website. I don't put them up here.

I would, except that he and I debated here, he presented his website here, other people have quoted his website here, and I want to put this here.

Quote:

You profess to be an atheist, but you spend a lot of time mocking and insulting your fellow atheists. One can hardly help wondering what your real motives and allegiances are.

I'm supposed to care? This is exactly the same treatment the Christians gave HelenSL, you know. Now she's a full-fledged atheist, right? Don't push me over the edge, man! Ha!

Quote:

I've never seen another atheist like yourself, who confined himself to attacking only other atheists, and made no comments about Christianity or believers, or Fundie sites, or creationism, or the RCC, etc. There's a lot of targets about there, and you seem rather confused about where you should be pointing your big guns.

Have you really read my other posts? Yeah, I'm different, but I want to be. Are you saying that I can't be like this and be an atheist too? I don't like it when people bend the truth on either side, and I'll let 'em know it. BTW, yeah, creationism is boneheaded. I just don't get as much opportunity to say it.

[ July 19, 2002: Message edited by: King Arthur ]

Toto · 07-19-2002, 08:08 PM

Sorry, you're no Helen. God is not working through you. God is not using you to witness to the atheists here.

King Arthur · 07-19-2002, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
Sorry, you're no Helen. God is not working through you. God is not using you to witness to the atheists here.

What the? Ok, maybe I haven't read all her posts. Whatever. I like to criticise those who think they are above criticism. I like to play devil's advocate. It's good for everyone to look inward and question their own thoughts, unless they're scared of giving ground and fight with half-truths to preserve their own belief system. This goes for ignorant fundies no matter what side of the fence you're on, or whether you feel like you're teetering on top of the friggin fence like me.

Vorkosigan · 07-19-2002, 08:55 PM

I like to criticise those who think they are above criticism

Whatever gave you the idea that anyone here thought they were above criticism?

I like to play devil's advocate.

Maybe you need more practice. You're not very good at it.

It's good for everyone to look inward and question their own thoughts, unless they're scared of giving ground and fight with half-truths to preserve their own belief system.

If you want to people to listen, why do you insult them? People like Peter Kirby and Richard Carrier are widely respected, but somehow can get people to question their positions without flinging insults.

Have you really read my other posts?

Yes, but I get tired of their repetitive, in-your-face, self-indulgent, content-free point-of-view.

Yeah, I'm different, but I want to be. Are you saying that I can't be like this and be an atheist too?

Nope. Only that the act is wearing thin.

I don't like it when people bend the truth on either side, and I'll let 'em know it.

Yes, but so far I haven't seen you correcting anyone but atheists.

Vorkosigan

Kosh · 07-20-2002, 05:50 AM

How old are you, King Arthur?

Marduk · 07-20-2002, 05:57 AM

"How old are you, King Arthur? "

hmmmmmm let's see, 800 CE or so, I'd peg him to be around 1200 years old.

King Arthur · 07-20-2002, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kosh:
How old are you, King Arthur?

I'm 13.

Jayhawker Soule · 07-20-2002, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kosh:
How old are you, King Arthur?

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

07-19-2002, 07:34 PM	#2
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Molehills, molehills... A comment that applies to both target and initiator of thread. If you are serious about correcting Carr, just send him an email. That is usually what I do when I find what I believe to be errors on another's website. I don't put them up here. You profess to be an atheist, but you spend a lot of time mocking and insulting your fellow atheists. One can hardly help wondering what your real motives and allegiances are. I've never seen another atheist like yourself, who confined himself to attacking only other atheists, and made no comments about Christianity or believers, or Fundie sites, or creationism, or the RCC, etc. There's a lot of targets about there, and you seem rather confused about where you should be pointing your big guns. Vorkosigan

07-19-2002, 08:08 PM	#4
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Sorry, you're no Helen. God is not working through you. God is not using you to witness to the atheists here.

07-19-2002, 08:55 PM	#6
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	I like to criticise those who think they are above criticism Whatever gave you the idea that anyone here thought they were above criticism? I like to play devil's advocate. Maybe you need more practice. You're not very good at it. It's good for everyone to look inward and question their own thoughts, unless they're scared of giving ground and fight with half-truths to preserve their own belief system. If you want to people to listen, why do you insult them? People like Peter Kirby and Richard Carrier are widely respected, but somehow can get people to question their positions without flinging insults. Have you really read my other posts? Yes, but I get tired of their repetitive, in-your-face, self-indulgent, content-free point-of-view. Yeah, I'm different, but I want to be. Are you saying that I can't be like this and be an atheist too? Nope. Only that the act is wearing thin. I don't like it when people bend the truth on either side, and I'll let 'em know it. Yes, but so far I haven't seen you correcting anyone but atheists. Vorkosigan

07-20-2002, 05:50 AM	#7
Kosh Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Orions Belt Posts: 3,911	How old are you, King Arthur?

07-20-2002, 05:57 AM	#8
Marduk Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: the 10th planet Posts: 5,065	"How old are you, King Arthur? " hmmmmmm let's see, 800 CE or so, I'd peg him to be around 1200 years old.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.