Do John and Mark disagree on the time of the Crucifiixtion (Alward/Holding) comments [Archive]

raymond

April 30th 2003, 12:37 PM

At what hour was Jesus crucified?

Mark 15:25 says it was in the third hour when they crucified him. John 19:14-15 says that in the sixth hour Pilate turned Jesus over to be crucified. Clearly both of these stories cannot be correct. This is not a trivial contradiction of time as if we were talking about what time of day it was when the disciples met somewhere. The time of Jesus’ crucifixion must have been well known and very important to those who followed him if it really happened..

Bible harmonizers claim that there is a difference between Hebrew time and Roman time. With Hebrew time the first hour of day started at sunrise and the sixth hour was noon. They claim Roman time was like our modern convention where the first hour of day began at midnight and the sixth hour was our 6 AM. We are then supposed to believe that while the synoptics used Hebrew time, John used Roman time. If there were any truth to the idea of Roman time and we believed that for some reason John used it, this would make the contradiction less blatant because this would at least have John turning Jesus over to his crucifiers before he was crucified. We would also have to believe (mostly from Luke) that the following things occurred that morning:

(1) The Sanhedren met "when day came" and judged him.
(2) Pilate was up and at work "when day came" and ready to judge anyone the Jews brought him.
(3) Pilate determined after his first examination that Jesus seemed innocent.
(4) Pilate then somehow contacted Herod at the crack of dawn and sent Jesus over to see him.
(5) Herod "questioned him at some length" and then decided to let his guards mock him and send him back to Pilate.
(6) Jesus was then turned over to Herod’s soldiers who mocked him and put a robe on him and then returned him to Pilate.
(7) Pilate then called together "the chief priests, the leaders and the people" again and had a drawn out debate with them.
(8) Pilate’s soldiers then flog him and re-attire Jesus in a robe before turning Jesus over to be crucified.

W are now told to believe all these things happened before 7 AM (our time)! This is unbelievable of course. If all these things had happened even Mark’s crucifixion time of the 3rd hour (our ( AM) isn’t believable.

The real problem with this harmonization of Mark and John is that never was any difference between Roman time and Hebrew time. I will prove that Romans kept the time of day exactly the same way the Hebrews did and the first hour of day began at sunrise for both of them. Any attempt to harmonize the time of crucifixion contradiction between Mark and John using a Roman time different from Hebrew time is totally fallacious.

In "History of the Hour", which is a scholarly study of the history of how people kept time, Gerhard Dorn-van Rossum (University of Chicago Press) after discussing the invention of the sun dial, says about the Greeks and Romans (page 19):

"… This deliberate division of the day, a social convention in Greek and Roman civilization, was a Babylonian legacy. Babylonians had separated the day into daytime and nighttime, dividing each period - daylight from sunrise to sunset and nighttime - into 12 segments (hours) of equal length. The duration and temporal location of these hours varied with the length of daylight, with the ‘6th hour’ always designating the midday point. Only twice a year, at the equinoxes, were the hours of the day and night equal".

Please note he is speaking of Rome here and most clearly states that the 6th hour is ALWAYS noon. Also note that they divided the day and the night each into 12 equal sized hours which of course were not equal to each other except at the equinoxes. I have never seen any apologist question that (John still says the 6th hour) and it will be seen that this usage is absolutely incompatible with starting the daily clock at midnight.

In a book called "Sundials History, Theory, and Practice" by Rohr (University of Toronto Press 1970) the following table can be found (page 15). It is copied from the "Opus Agriculturae" by a 4th century Latin agriculturist named Palladius. It is a guide for use by farmers (who were still using the primitive gnomon) to tell the hour of the day. The gnomon is simply a vertical pole or obelisk that casts a shadow from the sun. The longest shadows occur at sunrise and sunset and the shortest at noon. The length of the shadow between these times can be calibrated to give the time of day. The values in the table change with latitude and time of year, meaning one must have a number of them for any accuracy. This particular table is for a particular height Gnomon and is for use in Sicily in January. The first column is the hour and the second is the length of the shadow in (I believe) feet. The table is in the original Latin.

Hora I et XI ----- Pedes XXIX
Hora II et X ----- Pedes XIX
Hora III et IX ---- Pedes XV
Hora IV et VIII -- Pedes XII
Hora V et VII ---- Pedes X
Hora VI ----------- Pedes IX

This table clearly shows that the 1st hour of the day (when the sun is very low and the shadow very long) is called the first hour (Hora I ) and must be for the end of the hour as at the instant of sunrise the length would be essentially infifnite. Noon (when the shadow is the shortest) is called the 6th hour (Hora VI). As can be seen the hours of the afternoon are also included as the sun casts the same length shadow as it descends that it does when it ascends. The length at the 11th hour is for the end of the hour as at the end of the 12 th hour it would again be essentially infinitely long. Again, this table clearly shows that Romans considered the first hour to begin at sunrise and the 6th hour to be noon, as did the Hebrews.

The book "Daily Life in Ancient Rome" by Jerome Carcopino (Yale University Press, 1940) is a history of what life was like in Rome of the 1st century. Carcopino deals with the question of how Romans of the first century kept the time of day in the following paragraph and table (page 149):

"For the twelve hours of the day were necessarily divided by the gnomon between the rising and the setting of the sun, while the hours of the night were conversely divided between sunset and sunrise; in proportion as the day hours were longer at one season, the night hours were, of course, shorter, and vice versa. ----". He then presents a table describing what the hours of the day in Rome at the winter solstice would be using our time. The following is a portion of that table:

Hora prima ------ from 7:33 to 8:17 AM
Hora secunda -- from 8:17 to 9:02 AM
----
Hora sexta ------- from 11:15 to noon

In this table he actually tells us exactly what our time (in Rome) would be. The sun doe not rise at 6AM in late December. I calculated the time of sunrise at Rome (lat about 42 deg) at the winter solstice and I got 7:30 AM, which is close enough to 7:33 AM. We can see clearly from this table therefore that the first hour of the day (Hora prima) starts at sunrise and the 6th hour ends at noon. Clearly this shows that Roman time was the same as Hebrew time.

There are a number of quotations from Romans describing their mode of living in the book and that happen to include references to time of day. The following quotes are from Carcopino:

"Romans typically got up early because the light at night was so poor. Persius says only roisters and drunkards from the night before slept late and even they had ‘made up their minds by about the 5th hour’ and were usually out by noon."

"Juvenal says that the public baths were open to the public regardless of sex ‘from the 5th hour of the morning’. At the ‘6th hour’ the central building was opened, but only to women after Hadrian’s decree. At the eighth or ninth hour, according to whether it was winter or summer, the bell sounded again and it was now time for men to have access, where they were allowed to stay ‘till the eleventh or twelfth hour’."

"Suetonius tells of the last hours of Domitian who was terrified by a prophesy that he would die on the 5th hour of Sept 18, 96 AD. Suetonius says that he stayed in bed that day the whole morning because of this fear. He the got the (false) news that the 6th hour had begun and he got up. He is said to have been assassinated then and it was the 5th hour".

The details of this last story might be questionable, but it is clear that Suetonius considered the 5th hour was just before noon and not just before sunrise. The first two stories make absolutely no sense if the 6th hour was our 6 AM and the twelfth hour noon. From these stories as well as the scholars statements it is clear that Romans of the first century kept time exactly as did the Hebrews.

Where did apologists get the idea the Romans had a different "clock" than the Hebrews? They claim that Pliny tells us the Roman clock was different in his famous "Natural History". The quote in that multi-volumed work that is quoted as proving this is in Vol 1 Book II lXXV. 185-LXXIX and it says:

"The actual period of a day has been differently kept by different people: the Babylonians count the period between two sunrises, the Athenians that between two sunsets, the Umbrians from midday to midday, the common people everywhere from dawn to dark, the Roman priests and the authorities who fixed the official day , and also the Egyptians and Hipparchus, the period from midnight to midnight."

Because "Roman priests and authorities who fixed the official day" are referred to they assume the Roman clock is different and like ours. But does this mean that? Does it mean the Umbrians would call the first hour after noon the first hour of the day? Of course it does not. The quote actually says nothing about how the hours of the day are kept. It only refers to how an "official" or civil day was defined. This means which periods of the day and night were coupled to make a full 24 hour day. Look at the statement "common people from everywhere from dawn to dark". This means they didn’t bother defining what portion of the night went with what portion of the day to make a "full day". Most common folk just considered the period of daylight as a full day. Days just happened to be separated by a time of darkness. They made no attempt to connect the dark time before day or the dark time after with it. It was just days separated by darkness. I guess common folk didn’t bother with these niceties.

Philosophers, astronomers, priests and officials might be more concerned with these questions however. "The period of the day" means which portion of the daytime to link with which portion of the nighttime to make a full (24 hour) day. For example, in a midday to midday definition, the afternoon of day 1 is linked with the whole night following it and the morning of the next day. With a midnight to midnight definition, which we use and at least some (maybe all) Romans used in the 1st century, the second half of the night prior to day is linked with the entire following daytime and the first half of the following night. In a sunrise to sunrise definition, all of the day is linked with all of the following night. In a sunset to sunset definition (as the Hebrews defined it for religious purposes), the first night is linked with the entire following daytime. The important thing is when peoples only reliable and practical means of measuring the depended on the sun they lived by the sun and the first hour of the day was obviously the first hour of daylight.

It is interesting to look closer at Pliny’s Natural History to see if Pliny (who was a first century Roman) used the same clock other Romans and the Hebrews did. Of course he did, and if the apologist who first came across this quote actually had read something else in the work he would have realized he misunderstood the quote. Or maybe he didn’t care about that if he could use it for a harmonization. I suspect the first apologist who found it threw it into the mix as a possibility, knowing that it was actually false. Others later turned this into a real possibility so that after a while nobody read Pliny at all but just quoted someone else. I actually went to the library and read much of the ten volumes. It is very interesting reading, particularly Vol 1, Books I and II. There are numerous examples; here is one:

Regarding an eclipse of the moon, Pliny says (Book II LXXI. 178 - LXXII):

"The Victory of Alexander the Great is said to have caused an eclipse of the moon at Arbela at 8 PM (this is the author’s translation of noctis secunda hora), while the same eclipse was seen in Sicily when the moon was just rising". The book shows the Latin on one page and the English translation on the facing page which is how you know 8 PM is the authors translation of noctis secunda hora (the 2nd hour of the night) into our time. Again, we see that this scholar has no question about Roman time. The first hour of night begins at sunset and would be at the end of the twelfth hour. The first hour of night therefore would be the equivalent to 7 PM and the second hour of night would be 8 PM. The quotes of this passage I have seen are verbatim the same as I copied from the translation at the San Diego Library. The translator is H. Rackham of Christ’s College Cambridge published by Harvard University Press and I believe a standard. If so, our apologist could at least have seen that this scholar used the same "clock" as the Hebrews and should have been clued that he misunderstood the passage about dividing the "official day" and it had nothing to do with keeping the time of day. Regardless of the translation though it is clear that Pliny used the same clock as we have seen all others use. If the moon was just rising (and eclipsing) in Sicily, which is about 2 hours earlier than Iraq, the time in Arbela (which is in what is today Iraq) was indeed about the second hour of the night because the moon must be full for it to eclipse and therefore rises at sunset. Therefore Pliny himself used the common sun referenced clock with the first hour beginning at sunrise and the 6th hour being noon. I think it is interesting that you can disprove the claim that Romans kept time differently from the very reference used to justify it.

Ray Briggs

This example shows how ridiculous it is to try to understand the expression hour of the day or hour of the night as being based on a midnight to midnight clock. Unless one uses AM and PM as we do, there is no reasonable way to solve the problem of what is meant. There is no trouble with "of the day" when it begins at sunrise but it is nonsense trying to make it fit with midnight. The first hour of night would then be in the middle of the day! It was not possible to start the clock at midnight until good clocks became common. The first practical and reasonably accurate mechanical clocks were not made until the 17th century and they were very large. I do not know when starting the clock at midnight became common but I doubt if it could have been before the 19th century.

stevencarrwork

May 1st 2003, 02:38 AM

Holding writes 'Now really, did they spend enough time to determine he was the Messiah, in just the time from 4 PM to 6 PM?'

How long did the woman in John 4 talk to Jesus before she started talking about the Messiah, and Jesus answered her?

Where did this 2 hour limit come from?

How does Holding know that it takes more than 2 hours and less than 8 hours to find out if somebody is the messiah? Has he done experiments, surveys?

Or is he simply making something up?

stevencarrwork

May 1st 2003, 03:09 AM

Holding writes 'If Jesus was crucified at midday then that runs contrary to what we know about Roman administration procedure. Roman officials to begin their workday before dawn and ended it around noon.'

Isn't noon midday?

Can you imagine what Holding would say if a sceptic claimed that something did not happen at midday, because the workday ended at noon? I imagine that he would resort to sarcasm.

Holding writes 'Doc says John 4:5-7 must be noon......
....So John 4:5-7 is equivocal at best.'

Holding disputes Alward's claim that the sixth hour in John 4 is noon.

Amazing! The hypocrisy of a Holding knows no bounds.

Let us see what happens when Holding wants to argue that the time in John 4 really was noon.

http://www.tektonics.org/markmen_CC1-2.html 'As we suggested, we can posit many reasons why the woman at the well in John 4 was there at noon'

http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_D03_20LB.html 'This story is full of background templates that John does not explain, but that make the story meaningful: For example, the time of the meeting (noon) shows that the woman is an outcast, for it is not the time when water is normally gathered and when socialization occurs among the village women, but John sees no need to explain that the time is unusual for he assumes his readers will know that it is.'

http://www.tektonics.org/markmen_CC1.html Here Holding repeats his noon claim.

http://www.tektonics.org/abby2.html and here as well.

So Holding has many, many articles on his web site claiming that the time in John 4 was noon.

But when it suits him, he forgets his own 'data' and starts to say that it is 'equivocal at best'.

stevencarrwork

May 1st 2003, 03:56 AM

Holding claims about John 19:14 '6 AM makes much more sense in this light than noon and doesn’t draw Pilate’s duties beyond the normal time.'

Before this, the crowd have been shouting for Barabbas to be released.

Crowds seem to get up pretty early in Jerusalem.

As do the roosters.

Before all this happened, Peter denied Jesus and then a rooster crowed.

Normally, roosters crow at the break of dawn.

But this one crowed in the darkness.

stevencarrwork

May 1st 2003, 08:02 AM

In John 19, Pilate passes sentence at the sixth hour, the same hour as in John 4, which Mr. Alward claims is noon.

Malina and Rohrbaugh in 'Social Science commentary on John' agree with Alward that the sixth hour in John 4 is noon. They disagree with Holding.

Now sceptics might wonder about the scholarship of Malina and Rohrbaugh, people who think they have a photograph of Lazarus's tomb, and who think the beloved disciple in John was Lazarus. (Isn't the beloved disciple meant to be the author of John?)

But normally, Holding laps up everything M and R say, except of course, when it does not suit him

In http://www.tektonics.org/abby-b.html

'.....so naturally when confronted with Malina and Rohrbaugh -- both respected authors who have written multiple volumes and great numbers of articles on this subject, and are members of what is called the Context Group, a collection of scholars specializing in this narrow field of interest -- he is reduced to: "Oh, my G__, did Malina and Rohrbaugh say this? Then it must be right." Yes it is, and Skeptic X hasn't got the wherewithal to say anything in opposition. "Did anyone else besides me notice that Malina and Rohrbaugh offered no kind of argumentation at all to support their claim--at least not in the part [Holding] quoted--so it is nothing but a bald assertion." You want support? Malina and Rohrbaugh, and their fellow members of the Context Group, have reams of study behind their assertions, tons of documentation in their works, and years of know-how.'

So Holding villifies Till for not accepting every word of what comes out of Malina and Rohrbaugh, while keeping from his readers that these reams of study and years of know-how come from people who Holding claims can't even tell you the time of day correctly.

stevencarrwork

May 1st 2003, 09:15 AM

You have to love Holding's ability to not think before he writes.

http://www.tektonics.org/ptet.html

Holding writes

'I would add that vague imprecision in time would indeed be expected in an era prior to portable watches; "about the sixth hour" (John's estimate) could mean anything from what we would call the fourth to the eighth hour.'

Holding is trying to claim that the 6th hour was 6 AM , and that ancient peoples were so imprecise about time they would often confuse 6 AM (in Spring time!), with 4 AM or 8 AM.

Well, I'm just a city boy, but even I can tell if it is day or night.

Does Holding think that ancient peoples could not tell the difference between 4 AM (when it was dark), 6 AM (starting to dawn), and 8 AM (fully light)?

And how many examples of Roman time does Holding want?

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/suetonius-julius.html

'For at the first of the games which his heir Augustus gave in honor of his apotheosis, a comet shone for seven successive days, rising about the eleventh hour [about an hour before sunset] and was believed to be the soul of Caesar, who had been taken to heaven; and this is why a star is set upon the crown of his head in his statue.'

So the eleventh hour was just before sunset, yet Holding claims the 10th hour was before noon.

Sher

May 4th 2003, 04:38 AM

05-01-2003 @ 08:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84016#post84016)
stevencarrwork:

In http://www.tektonics.org/abby-b.html

'.....so naturally when confronted with Malina and Rohrbaugh -- both respected authors who have written multiple volumes and great numbers of articles on this subject, and are members of what is called the Context Group, a collection of scholars specializing in this narrow field of interest -- {emphasis added}

Context, SCW ... quoting a supporting specialist in one subject that they are qualified in, doesn't mean that you will agree with them in every subject.

You are once again proving you are in it for the embarrassment ... your own.

stevencarrwork

May 4th 2003, 07:55 AM

Today @ 09:38 AM
SherBear:

Context, SCW ... quoting a supporting specialist in one subject that they are qualified in, doesn't mean that you will agree with them in every subject.

Sherbear thinks that Malina and Rohrbaugh are great specialists in the subject of the social background of the Gospels - a subject which sadly does not include being able to tell you the time of day. Here , Sherbear thinks Malina and Rohrbaugh are out of their depth.

This is not a view that Holding shares. He thinks M and R know what the time is.

http://www.tektonics.org/markmen_CC1-2.html

Watch Holding scold Till for not realising the woman in John 4 was an outcast because she got water at noon.....

HOLDING
'We now get to where I set the example of John 4 as using social context data in interpretation.'

And Holding uses the 'social conext data' to say that the woman was there at noon.

From this he deduces that she was an outcast.

Not sure how. It seems that only outcasts were ever delayed in doing household chores....... The woman was still talking to her fellow-villagers, who were ready to believe her testimony, but she was an outcast because she got to the well at noon.

Boy, you run a little behind with the chores and suddenly Holding thinks you are an outcast.

Holding writes in another article 'For example, the time of the meeting (noon) shows that the woman is an outcast, for it is not the time when water is normally gathered and when socialization occurs among the village women, but John sees no need to explain why the time is unusual for he assumes his readers will know that it is just by that he says it is noon.'

Perhaps John should have explained it a little better, for the benefit of the slower readers. Sherbear cannot grasp that it is noon in John 4.

GakuseiDon

May 4th 2003, 08:46 AM

This link shows that the Roman practice of timing the day from midnight came about with the development of the waterclock: www.beaglesoft.com/timehistoryroman.htm]www.beaglesoft.com/timehistoryroman.htm

Finally each day of the seven was divided into twenty-four hours which were reckoned to begin, not as with the Babylonians, at sunrise, nor, as among the Greeks, at sunset, but as but as is still the case with us, at midnight...

... The horologia ex aqua was built to reset itself, that is, to empty itself afresh for night and day. Hence a first discrepancy between the civil day, whose twenty-four hours reckoned from midnight to midnight, and the twenty-four hours of the natural day which was officially divided into two groups of twelve hours each, twelve of the day and twelve of the night!
The link doesn't say when the timing was adopted, but waterclocks were in use from 1st century BCE, and John's Gospel was the latest written - and 20 years after Rome had reasserted its authority in Judea, so presumably at its most influential.

Not really enough proof, of course, but interesting.

Does anyone know when the 'midnight to midnight' timing system started?

ValiantForTruth

May 4th 2003, 10:42 AM

ALWARD begins by stating...
"John's account of the time of Jesus' crucifixion apparently contradicts Mark's account."

I suggest that HOLDING emphasize the word apparently. ALWARD continues...

"...John thinks that Jesus wasn't crucified until after about 12:00 PM noon, while Mark thinks that Jesus was already crucified three hours earlier, at about 9:00 AM."

HOLDING, there is only a contradiction when one assumes that this is referring to "the same day". Check out this link...

http://new.carmforums.org/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=106&topic_id=1235&mesg_id=1235&page=17

It is a different approach that you may find interesting.

Agape,
Don

stevencarrwork

May 4th 2003, 11:51 AM

Today @ 01:46 PM
GakuseiDon:

This link shows that the Roman practice of timing the day from midnight came about with the development of the waterclock: www.beaglesoft.com/timehistoryroman.htm]www.beaglesoft.com/timehistoryroman.htm

Does anyone know when the 'midnight to midnight' timing system started?

An interesting page. 'The hours were originally calculated for daytime; and even when the water-clock made it possible to calculate the night hours by a simple reversal of the data which the sun-dial had furnished, it did not succeed in unifying them.'

And it gives the sixth hour as the hour coming up to noon.

As for when the midnight to midnight system started, I don't know, so probably much later. The page quoted seems to imply only after the Romans introduced weeks. 'Finally each day of the seven was divided into twenty-four hours which were reckoned to begin, not as with the Babylonians, at sunrise, nor, as among the Greeks, at sunset, but as but as is still the case with us, at midnight.'

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PRAYER/DIOFFICE.TXT

This seems to indicate that early Christians still prayed at the Roman hours of 3 6 and 9 (dawn, midday and about 3 pm), so Roman time must have hung on for much longer.

Of course, the civil day started at midnight, but this had nothing to do with numbering the hours.

stevencarrwork

May 5th 2003, 08:19 PM

In Holding's latest post, he seems to have forgotten all his articles where he wrote that the woman in John 4 was an outcast, because the time (the sixth hour) was noon. Should we remind him again?

Now he is reduced to giving possibilities even he himself discounts. (John never wrote 6 in John 19, he write third)

HOLDING
'One idea has been that John's 'sixth hour' before Pilate should actually read 'third' and that a textual corruption has occurred. The difference between the two readings would amount to a small, horizontal stroke the size of the middle 'leg' of a capital E.'

Is Holding really claiming that the difference between 'tritos' (third) and 'ektos' (sixth) is a small horizontal stroke?

I know virtually no Greek, but even I can look at a page of Grek characters and tell there is a bigger difference between 'ek' and 'tri' than Holding's small horizontal stroke.

Not sure about the grammatical ending of 'ektos' and 'tritos' to make them match up with 'hora' (hour). Are there any Greek experts here prepared to confirm Holding's claim that the difference between 'tritos' (third) and 'ektos' (sixth) is a small horizontal stroke?

If not http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Mar/Mar015.html and click on concordance for verse 25 'the third hour'

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jhn/Jhn019.html and click on concordance for verse 14 'the sixth hour'. If Holding is right, the differences for third and sixth should be very small.....

Sher

May 5th 2003, 09:10 PM

Yesterday @ 07:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=87156#post87156)
stevencarrwork:

Sherbear cannot grasp that it is noon in John 4.

/me said nothing of the sort ... either way ... ya ninny. :wink:

Yesterday @ 08:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88450#post88450)
stevencarrwork:

Is Holding really claiming that the difference between 'tritos' (third) and 'ektos' (sixth) is a small horizontal stroke?

uH ... no ... :huh:

Let's see what JP actually said:
The difference between the two readings would amount to a small, horizontal stroke the size of the middle “leg” of a capital E. There is no attestation for such a corruption in John, though it would hardly be the first unattested scribal error to a number in any ancient text. I do not favor this answer because of the problems of John 1 above. But it does present an interesting alternative.Now let's see what Barnes says regarding this proposed "alternative":A mistake in “numbers” is easily made; and if it should he admitted that such an error had crept into the text here, it would be nothing more than has occurred in many ancient writings. It has been proved, moreover, that it was common not to write the “words” indicating numbers at “length,” but to use “letters.” The Greeks designated numbers by the letters of the alphabet, and this mode of computation is found in ancient manuscripts. For example, the Cambridge manuscript of the New Testament has in this very place in Mark, not the word “third” written at length, but the Greek letter gamma, the usual notation for third. Now it is well known that it would be easy to mistake this for the Greek letter sigma, the mark denoting “six.” An error of this kind in an early manuscript might be extensively propagated, and might have led to the present reading of the text. Such an error is actually known to exist in the “Chronicon” of Paschal, where Otho is said to have reigned "sigma", (six) months, whereas it is known that he reigned but three, and in this place, therefore, the "gamma", three, was mistaken for "sigma", six.Since JP didn't specify that the actual numbers he was refering to were actually spelled out, your rant is unsupported. He would be correct that this is a theory of some scholars, as shown by the excerpt from the aforementioned one. I don't agree with this reasoning, but that doesn't negate that you should have done some actual research into the issue before you condemned JP out of hand ... hurting your credibility by looking for things to criticize, without support.

stevencarrwork

May 6th 2003, 08:11 AM

I've managed to work out where Holding dredged up his huge blunder about the difference between 'third' and 'sixth' being a small horizontal stroke.

He is talking about the difference between gamma and digamma.

http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Greek_numbers.html

shows you these numbers.

Does even Holding think John wrote 'the 3 hour' and this was changed to 'the 6 hour'? No, Holding , there is no such thing as 'the 3 hour'.

That would be grammatical nonsense. We count things as the first , second, third, fourth. So we would say 'That is the first Holding goof.' 'That is the second Holding goof', 'That is the third Holding goof' etc.

We never say 'That is the 1 Holding goof.' 'That is the 2 Holding goof', 'That is the 3 Holding goof'.

stevencarrwork

May 6th 2003, 08:32 AM

Today @ 02:10 AM
SherBear:

Such an error is actually known to exist in the 'Chronicon' of Paschal, where Otho is said to have reigned 'sigma', (six) months, whereas it is known that he reigned but three, and in this place, therefore, the 'gamma', three, was mistaken for 'six'

Let me see. We do say 'reigned six months' and 'reigned three months'. We do not say 'reigned sixth months' and 'reigned third months'. So her chosen example is utterly irrelevant (which is why she chose it , naturally). It is so out of context that it is laughable to compare the six in 'reigned six months' , with the sixth in 'the sixth hour' is absurd. One is a number and the other is an adjective.

Sherbear is doing her normal tactic of talking about different words - words not to be found in the text of John 19:14. Why not change the subject? She is getting hammered on the words actually in the text. So she makes up a new text, and talks about that instead.

Sherbear, there is not '6' or '3' or 'six' or 'three' in John 19:14. There is the word 'sixth'.

Is she really claiming that 'gamma' - the symbol for '3' - is the usual word for 'third' - 'tritos'? Even her claim that there is ONE manuscript which has that, destroys her case that that was the normal thing to do?

What is the Cambridge manuscript of the New Testament? I went to Cambridge, but didn't realise they had an early copy of the NT there. I though it was normally dated about AD 850.

Even by her standards, taking a manuscript of AD 850 and claiming that this represents early scribal practice takes some doing.

Is she claiming that because one of the 24,000 manuscript copies supports her case, then that is evidence?

Why, the Codex L supports the Jehovah's Witness view that John 1 talks about the word being 'a god' instead of 'God'.

Sher

May 6th 2003, 11:37 PM

Today @ 08:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88829#post88829)
stevencarrwork:

Sherbear is doing her normal tactic of talking about different words

You poor, poor dear ... you really do have a reading comprehension problem, don't you? Sherbear (the royal third person being imitated here) told you what Barnes said on the issue ... see how his quote is separated from the rest of the post by indention? If you have a problem with what Barnes said ... take it up with him :lol: ... I already said I didn't think that was the "solution".

Sorry to hear that you had to get :whack: by both the Christians ... and the skeptics ... need a bandaid?

Here child, this (http://www.hop.com) might help your problem. :angel:

stevencarrwork

May 7th 2003, 01:49 AM

Today @ 04:37 AM
SherBear:

Sherbear (the royal third person being imitated here) told you what Barnes said on the issue ... see how his quote is separated from the rest of the post by indention? If you have a problem with what Barnes said ... take it up with him :lol: ... I already said I didn't think that was the "solution".

It appears Shebear has two styles of posts.

One where she engages in insults and one where she engages in irrelevancies.

When you quoted somebody , in a vain attempt to make 3 = 6, I rather assumed you though that what he said was relevant , and not mistaken.

Still, at least you have cut the ground from under Holding if he tries to play the scribal error card.

It was a bit desperate to begin with, even without his blunder of saying that 'third' and 'sixth' are very similar.

It means the author of John would have had to write 'The 3 hour'.

A scribe would have had to change that to 'The 6 hour'.

And then another scribe would have had to change that to 'The sixth hour'.

BTW, how are you getting on with Holding's articles saying the time in John 4 (the sixth hour) is noon? I thought I ought to remind you.........

Sher

May 7th 2003, 02:24 AM

Today @ 01:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89655#post89655)
stevencarrwork:

When you quoted somebody , in a vain attempt to make 3 = 6, I rather assumed you though that what he said was relevant , and not mistaken.Which proves you don't read very well ... I clearly said:"I don't agree with this reasoning, but that doesn't negate that you should have done some actual research into the issue before you condemned JP out of hand ... hurting your credibility by looking for things to criticize, without support." Making it obvious that the quote was not to support anything that I personally believed ... but rather was to show where the scholars support the ideas and how they were explained in opposition to what you tried to make them out to be. These ideas that even JP said "I do not favor this answer because of the problems of John 1 above. But it does present an interesting alternative" were presented correctly, even if not personally supported.

My post was to point out to you that your rant was ignorant in that it assumed that the point made covered the full words ... not the numbers. No matter what you personally thought of the validity of the point .... your representation of what was said showed poor scholarship ... or a building of straw men for you to burn ... either way, a poor way to present yourself if you want to avoid ridicule.
BTW, how are you getting on with Holding's articles saying the time in John 4 (the sixth hour) is noon? I thought I ought to remind you......... Remind me what? That you now seek to change the subject to cover your gaff? :doh: That you are embarrassed at once again being beaten by a girl :angel:

Regarding the actual debate: I have already told you that you are under the mistaken impression that I agree with everything that JP writes/believes. I have repeatedly corrected this erroneous mindset ... but you conveniently ignore that when you find your back against the wall of shame of your own making.

I am not interested in debating this issue ... that's up to JP and Joe. But if you continue to make unfounded allegations, and erroneous assertions, I will continue to point out when your rantings are based in error... making it appear that you are either not very intelligent ... that you do not take the time to research the point before you go off about it being "wrong" ... or that JP was correct in nicknaming you "PWS" ...

You may want to consider thinking about your next post. This continuous ranting of yours is beginning to lose coherence ... the more embarrassed you become, the less sense it makes.

stevencarrwork

May 7th 2003, 02:52 AM

Today @ 07:24 AM
SherBear:

My post was to point out to you that your rant was ignorant in that it assumed that the point made covered the full words ... not the numbers. No matter what you personally thought of the validity of the point .... your representation of what was said showed poor scholarship ... or a building of straw men for you to burn ... either way, a poor way to present yourself if you want to avoid ridicule.

Is it possible to get Sherbear to read Holding's postings before she comments?

What is this nonsense she is writing about Holding not 'covering the full words'?

Holding wrote
'One idea has been that John's 'sixth hour' before Pilate should actually read 'third' and that a textual corruption has occurred. The difference between the two readings would amount to a small, horizontal stroke the size of the middle 'leg' of a capital E.'

Holding says one word should read 'third', and it now reads 'sixth', and the 'difference between the two readings' is small.

So Holding was talking about 'sixth' and 'third', not the symbols for '3' and '6'. Honest. Have a look. Holding said the readings were 'sixth' and 'third', which are the full words.

How Sherbear thinks I am creating a strawman by talking about the actual words Holding used in his post, rather than the words Holding did not use in this post......?

Holding's post said the two readings are 'sixth' and 'third', so Sherbear is , once again, reduced to distorting my postings to try to find something to attack.

Or perhaps she never saw 'sixth' and 'third' when she read Holding's original posting?

Sher

May 7th 2003, 09:27 AM

And I repeat, SCW, with emphasis on the points that are relevant to this part of this discussion ... because you obviously missed it:
[...] Barnes says regarding this proposed "alternative":A mistake in “numbers” is easily made; and if it should be admitted that such an error had crept into the text here [...] The Greeks designated numbers by the letters of the alphabet [...] not the word “third” written at length, but the Greek letter gamma, the usual notation for third. Now it is well known that it would be easy to mistake this for the Greek letter sigma, the mark denoting “six.”[...] As you can see, it was, according to the scholar, a practice to substitute the alphabetic symbol for ... in place of … an ordinal number ... substituting 3 for third or 6 for sixth ... the very thing that you, SCW, argued wasn't done. So when you asked …
Are there any Greek experts here prepared to confirm Holding's claim that the difference between 'tritos' (third) and 'ektos' (sixth) is a small horizontal stroke? … the quote from such an expert ... while not "here" ... refutes your dispute ... mainly because you didn't take the time to properly understand the point in the first place ... that it wasn't the full word in question but rather the number that could have been used in place of that full word … and blows you out of the water in which you were dog paddling. JP using the words in quotes was to denote what section of the English translation of scripture he was talking about ... hence the use of quotation marks with English words in them … not the Greek words ‘tritos’ and ‘ektos’ you sarcastically questioned. But we already know that you have a problem with JP using an English dictionary to look up English words … so maybe this “problem” carried over here and messed you up once again.

For those that need clarification on the understanding of using cardinal numbers for ordinal numbers, an example that would be clearer would be to understand that instead of saying "the third hour", the text might read "hour 3" ... which is clearly the same thing … with the understanding of an implied ordinal number ... just as we would do today. The third person in a line is person 3 ... the sixth book in a series of books is book 6 ... etc. Actually, a series of books is a perfect example. One rarely sees "sixth" on the side of a book jacket when the sixth book in a numbered series comes out ... rather it is written either "six" or "6" on the book ... yet no one fails to understand that it is the sixth book in the series ... book 6.

So ... according to scholars like Barnes, the verses (copied from Joe's first post) could read:About the sixth hour …they shouted, "Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!" (John 19:14-15 NIV)

And it was the third hour when they crucified Him. (Mark 15:25)Or they could read:About hour six … they shouted, "Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!" (John 19:14-15 NIV)

And it was hour three when they crucified Him. (Mark 15:25)In the second set, the reader of that time would be able to look at "hour six" & "hour three" and understand … just as we would today … that the author referred to the sixth hour and third hour respectively ... and according to the scholars like Barnes, there could possibly have been an error in the writing that caused the problem. Just because you, SCW, cannot comprehend that there are different ways of expressing the same thought, does not negate that others have that ability.

Again ... to be clear ... I do not personally think that this is the reasonable solution ... but that has nothing to do with the fact that some scholars believe/d it is a possibility ... and that the facts should be expressed correctly here so that those scholars are properly represented.

And BTW, just for the record ... just to be perfectly clear about what I said earlier ... when JP said:"One idea has been that John’s “sixth hour” before Pilate should actually read “third” and that a textual corruption has occurred. The difference between the two readings would amount to a small, horizontal stroke the size of the middle “leg” of a capital E. "One should note the usage of quotation marks which indicate that English translation usage so the reader understands what JP is talking about. He then outlines that it could be a textual corruption ... anyone who actually does the research could find the information that I posted here regarding what the scholars think the textual corruption could have been ... what Barnes calls "an error had crept into the text" ... they would have understood the next remark about the small horizontal stroke refers to the alpha representation of a number ... not the spelling out of the word. Note the uppercase versions of 6 and 9 on this chart ... from the very link that SCW provided ... that shows the "small horizontal stroke" that could be the difference between 3 and 6 (note the stroke on the bottom of the "capital" 6)

...............................http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Diagrams/greek_numbers_8.gif

So … with enough egg on your red face to make an omelet, if you further feel need to try to try to add your own meaning to JP's words in order to try to salvage your pride ... understand that you only succeed in publicly humiliating yourself once again. Furthermore, you should note that Joe says … Scribal Error? JP indicates that perhaps scribal error caused John's "the sixth hour" to be falsely transcribed from "the third hour." This argument assumes the existence of a lost, error-free original. But, that seems to be begging the question. With an imagined flawless original, any allegation of Bible error effortlessly can be refuted by claiming scribal error. … indicating, by his lack of comment regarding ordinal/cardinal numbers and full words/alphanumeric symbols, that he (Joe) obviously either understood JP’s point exactly … or does research before he answers a point … either way, confirming that the point exists with some scholars.

Only you, SCW, who has an axe to grind, would go to the "barn of absurdity" for more straw. Go ahead … prove me right once again :teeth:

Rdr. Arsenios

May 7th 2003, 10:22 AM

stevencarrwork:

> An interesting page. 'The hours were originally calculated for daytime; ...

This is the original and Biblical and Christian way of accounting time.

> And it gives the sixth hour as the hour coming up to noon.

Half-way through the day - That hour... The idea of the measuring of the hours against the atomic clock had not yet corrupted the straightness of the roads of their Christian lives... Nobody was standing with a gong and a measuting stick to determine the precise instant that the sun was exactly at its highest point overhead so that everyone would know that the 6th hour had come [or gone]... It was simply understood, as it is now when we are on vacation and have our clocks and phones hidden, as the noon hour, and its counterpart is still understood as the midnight hour.

> This seems to indicate that early Christians still prayed at the Roman hours of 3 6 and 9 (dawn, midday and about 3 pm),

Yes, we still do. Except dawn is not the 3rd hour, but before the first - The zero hour, if you need to put a number on it, except that in those times, the number zero did not yet exist, if I have it right... So we pray the Orthros, the prayers of first light - In my Church, during a normal week-day, they are prayed at 5AM every day. The office of the first hour is prayed normally an hour after sunrise, then the third hour is prayed around 9, and the 6th around noon, and the ninth hour is prayed around 3 in the afternoon. At the end of the day, at sunset, Vespers is prayed, and after the work of the early evening, we pray the service of the Compline each evening around 9PM, and rise from our beds to pray the midnight hour, if we are not standing vigil...

Prayer is important to Christians...
We pray...
Prayer is not optional...

Yet normally as well, due to the ekonomia of working for a living, and living in the world, we end up shortening and or combining prayers - Doing our morning prayers, our noon hour prayers, and our evening prayers, and only if we awaken do we do the midnight office... And as well, the hours are often combined with the sunrise prayers [Orthros]...

> so Roman time must have hung on for much longer.

I don't know that I would call it "Roman" time - It was certainly Biblical time, and it most certainly is now Christian time - The Romans went off on their own - even re-inventing the calendar - And even the Orthodox followed in part in this in the last hundred years or so, with great division to the Church...

geo

stevencarrwork

May 7th 2003, 11:07 AM

Today @ 02:27 PM
SherBear:

And I repeat, SCW, with emphasis on the points that are relevant to this part of this discussion ... because you obviously missed it:As you can see, it was, according to the scholar, a practice to substitute the alphabetic symbol for ... in place of Â… an ordinal number ... substituting 3 for third or 6 for sixth ... the very thing that you, SCW, argued wasn't done.

And it hardly ever is done. You yourself came up with ONE manuscript out of 24,000 where it happened. There might be one or two more, but it is hardly ever done. As far as I know, the only symbols for numbers are in Revelation - 666. All the other numbers are spelled out, as far as I know. I'm sure Sherbear will rant and rave if that is wrong :-) (I'm sure she will rant and rave if that is right, but that is another story, of interest to psychologists perhaps, but not to people who want to know what is in the Bible)

Today @ 02:27 PM

So ... according to scholars like Barnes, the verses (copied from Joe's first post) [i]could read:About the sixth hour Â…they shouted, "Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!" (John 19:14-15 NIV)

And it was the third hour when they crucified Him. (Mark 15:25)Or they could read:About hour six Â… they shouted, "Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!" (John 19:14-15 NIV)

And it was hour three when they crucified Him. (Mark 15:25)

What is Sherbear on about? The Greek in Mark 15:25 says 'the third hour' , not 'the hour three'.The Greek in John 19:14 says 'the sixth hour' , not 'the hour six'. How can she say that the Greek could read differently? It doesn't!

Holding was utterly correct to say that 'sixth' and 'third' were the two readings. He blundered by saying that the difference between the two readings in Greek was very small.

Note the uppercase versions of 6 and 9 on this chart ... from the very link that SCW provided ... that shows the "small horizontal stroke" that could be the difference between 3 and 6 (note the stroke on the bottom of the "capital" 6)

I take it from the violence of the ranting that Sherbear is conceding that Holding talked about 'sixth' and 'third' and not '3' and '6'. '3' and '6' are not in the Greek text of Mark 15 and John 19 - 'sixth' and 'third' are. 'sixth' and 'third' are very different in Greek.

Does Sherbear not realise that '6' and '3' are not in the Greek?

The Greek words are for 'sixth' and 'third' , and these words are very different, no matter how many non-existent 'possible reading' she produces, and how alike two things which are NOT IN THE TEXT are?

Holding said 'sixth' and 'third' were very similar. They are not. He goofed.

HOLDING
'One idea has been that John's 'sixth hour' before Pilate should actually read 'third' and that a textual corruption has occurred. The difference between the two readings would amount to a small, horizontal stroke the size of the middle 'leg' of a capital E.'

Notice Sherbear's attempt to save face by claiming '
JP using the words in quotes was to denote what section of the English translation of scripture he was talking about ...'

So Holding says 'sixth hour' should read 'third' and Sherbear flat-out denies that Holding is saying that 'sixth' should read 'third'. And there were no American tanks in Baghdad either, weren't there Sherbear.

Sherbear says that is why Holding never used the words 'hektos' and 'tritos'.

No, Sherbear, it is because if Holding has used the words which appear in the text, even his most rabid followers would have asked themselves how 'hektos' and 'tritos' could be so similar, according to him.

Sher

May 7th 2003, 02:05 PM

Today @ 11:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=90003#post90003)
stevencarrwork:

And it hardly ever is done. You yourself came up with ONE manuscript out of 24,000 where it happened. There might be one or two more, but it is hardly ever done. As far as I know, the only symbols for numbers are in Revelation - 666. All the other numbers are spelled out, as far as I know.

I provided scholarly backing to my point ... you only rely on your assertion that "it is hardy ever done" ... where is your proof?

Furthermore, on the balance of your incoherentcy (thanks for proving me correct :thumb:) re-read what I actually wrote, SCW ... not what you add to it ... then try to destroy ...

http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/strawman.jpg (thanks WinAce!)

You are confusing here what you read from the Internet and Bible software … with what a scholar is telling you a transcriber would have written in Greek.

Sher

May 7th 2003, 03:35 PM

I can't "edit" again, so please excuse this second post ... sigh...

Addition of supporting links for information off the web:

Here are some proofs regarding how the Greeks wrote numbers ... both ordinal and cardinal ... with the same letter symbol:

Here is a site that speaks about the Greeks using letter symbols for their numbers ... and provides a list: http://www.vic.australis.com.au/hazz/GreekIntroduction.html

Here is a math site that shows how early Greek numbers were expressed by symbols: http://www.math.tamu.edu/~dallen/history/gr_count/gr_count.html

Also see: http://alphaom.tripod.com/misc/numeri.htm which shows the symbols and says:Greek numeral for 6 is sigma-tau ligature which resembles by shape an obsolete letter vau or digamma; it can also be written as two separate letters sigma and tau This is further clarified by another site I list below that states that the digamma was used for 6 even in later times because there weren't enough Greek letters to cover the base numbers.

This site:http://www.fargonasphere.com/piso/numcode.html which gives graphics of the symbols and further confirms my point saying:The alphabetic system was used for ordinal as well as cardinal numerals, for dates (day of month; length of time), for money, for distances, and as numeral adjectives (first, second, etc.). To mark off the numbers 1-999, modern print uses a stroke above and to the right of the letters, for 1000 and higher a stroke below and to the left.{emphasis mine}

More about Greek Iconic numbers ... http://www.stormloader.com/ajy/ionic.html

And yet more about the "obsolete" digamma used for 6 even in later Greek times ... letters used for numbers (not numbers spelled out in words):The later Greek number system used the letters of the Greek alphabet for numerical notation in the same way as the Hebrew system did. Since they had only 24 letters in their classical alphabet, and for a more satisfactory system of numerals they needed 27 letters, they retained the ancient letters digamma (as 6), koppa (as 90), and sampi (as 900).

And for "a final nail in the coffin" for this post, regarding dates, this site says:Unlike English, Greek uses the cardinal number rather than the ordinal number. That is, rather than “the sixth of March” they say “six of March” http://www.langintro.com/greek/misc/dates.htm

and as Emeril would say, "BAM"

So from everything that I have been reading on the subject, it appears that single letters were used in place of numbers ... both cardinal and ordinal ... and later translated to English ... and other Bible programs and the 'net translated to their respective places the ordinal name when the translation was appropriate for greater clarification on the point ... none of which have any bearing on the earlier texts where the common practice was to write the symbol instead of the name.

Perhaps, SCW, you would actually like to provide some proof that this was NOT the common practice ... but one, as you claim, "not hardly done" in light of all these sites that support otherwise ... most not even of Christian origin.

:angel:

stevencarrwork

May 7th 2003, 04:58 PM

Sherbear quotes Barnes (a scholar, she calls him) but appears not to want to give her readers the following extract by Barnes on the subject :-

'The 'third' hour, mentioned by Mark, would therefore correspond with our nine o'clock; the 'sixth' hour, mentioned by John, would correspond with our twelve, or noon.

Now why did Sherbear not want people to read what her chosen scholar said.

stevencarrwork

May 7th 2003, 05:16 PM

Today @ 08:35 PM
SherBear:

I can't "edit" again, so please excuse this second post ... sigh...

Here are some proofs regarding how the Greeks wrote numbers ... both ordinal and cardinal ... with the same letter symbol:

It appears Sherbear cannot find any examples of the New Testament using symbols for numbers apart from the one I gave in Revelation (the famous '666'). It appears that they were always spelled out in full (apart from '666')

So why is she blathering on about how Greeks used letters for numbers? They often did, but the NT writers did not.

For example in Acts 3:1, we read not '9' ,as Sherbear would have us believe , with people using symbols for numbers, or even 'the ninth hour', but just 'the ninth', with the word spelled out in full.

And as Sherbear says gamma and digamma were used for 'third' and 'sixth', how does she account for the fact that the texts of Mark 15 and John 19 have 'hektos' and 'tritos', and not the gamma and digamma letters?

No matter what Sherbear says, anybody who looks at the Greek text of the NT, can see that the numbers are spelled out in full.

I like Sherbear's complaint that sceptics are looking at the Bible rather than just accepting what she tells them her 'scholars' say.

'You are confusing here what you read from the Internet and Bible software with what a scholar is telling you a transcriber would have written in Greek.'

So folks, don't look at the Bible to see what was written. Look at what Sherbear's scholars tell you.

If you look at the Bible, you will see 'hektos', 'tritos', 'pente' etc, etc - the words spelled out in full. Ignore what you see. Accept what Sherbear is saying, rather than what you can see in the Bible.

Just as Comical Ali told people not to look at the TV pictures of captured Iraqi soldiers. Just accept what he said about Iraq winning.

Sher

May 7th 2003, 05:34 PM

Today @ 04:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=90367#post90367)
stevencarrwork:

Sherbear quotes Barnes (a scholar, she calls him) but appears not to want to give her readers the following extract by Barnes on the subject :-

'The 'third' hour, mentioned by Mark, would therefore correspond with our nine o'clock; the 'sixth' hour, mentioned by John, would correspond with our twelve, or noon.

Now why did Sherbear not want people to read what her chosen scholar said.

SCW ... ya gonna whistle in the dark now?

You ... and anyone reading this thread ... can see that I was addressing not the issue of the "times" ... which I specifically said I was not going to debate on ... leaving it to Joe and JP ... but rather to correct your uneducated ravings ... saying that JP was goofed ... and your blowhard attempts to say ... Does Sherbear not realise that '6' and '3' are not in the Greek? The Greek words are for 'sixth' and 'third' , and these words are very different, no matter how many non-existent 'possible reading' she produces, and how alike two things which are NOT IN THE TEXT are?How my proof opposing his erroneous self-assertions was answered:it is hardly ever done And let's not forget 24,000 to 1 :lol: only once out of 24,000 And this marvy comment that is now coming back to bite him in the rear:Does even Holding think John wrote 'the 3 hour' and this was changed to 'the 6 hour'? No, Holding , there is no such thing as 'the 3 hour'. That would be grammatical nonsense. We count things as the first , second, third, fourth. So we would say 'That is the first Holding goof.' 'That is the second Holding goof', 'That is the third Holding goof' etc.Coupled with this classic gaff:The Greek in Mark 15:25 says 'the third hour' , not 'the hour three'.The Greek in John 19:14 says 'the sixth hour' , not 'the hour six'. How can she say that the Greek could read differently? It doesn't!Until I showed you that this is precisely how the Greeks of that time wrote their numbers ... and even the non-Christian scholars ... mathematicians ... agree. :rofl:

psst ... try not arguing from English Grammar next time ... you'll save yourself some embarrassment)

Remember those comments of yours, SCW? Does that foot tastes good? Need some salt?

(... but it was a really nice try there to whistle another tune ... to try to pull attention away from the fact that you were wrong ... again ... a really nice attempt ...)

Sher

May 7th 2003, 05:47 PM

Today @ 05:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=90380#post90380)
stevencarrwork:

It appears Sherbear cannot find any examples of the New Testament using symbols for numbers apart from the one I gave in Revelation (the famous '666'). It appears that they were always spelled out in full (apart from '666') Uh ... :dufus:? That's because they were ALL in symbol format ... read the links ... that was the common practice of all the Greeks in that time period. Later translators would copy it to the full words ... evidenced on the Internet and in Bible software ... for clarity. Your nonissue is blasted away to bits, SCW ... you are only feeling the phantom pains.
So why is she blathering on about how Greeks used letters for numbers? They often did, but the NT writers did not. For example in Acts 3:1, we read not '9' ,as Sherbear would have us believe , with people using symbols for numbers, or even 'the ninth hour', but just 'the ninth', with the word spelled out in full. And as Sherbear says gamma and digamma were used for 'third' and 'sixth', how does she account for the fact that the texts of Mark 15 and John 19 have 'hektos' and 'tritos', and not the gamma and digamma letters? No matter what Sherbear says, anybody who looks at the Greek text of the NT, can see that the numbers are spelled out in full. Psst ... get your face out of the Internet and read a bit why don't ya ... I provided you with the information ... this is just getting a bit sad now ... I almost feel sorry for you ... almost.
I like Sherbear's complaint that sceptics are looking at the Bible rather than just accepting what she tells them her 'scholars' say. 'You are confusing here what you read from the Internet and Bible software with what a scholar is telling you a transcriber would have written in Greek.' So folks, don't look at the Bible to see what was written. Look at what Sherbear's scholars tell you. If you look at the Bible, you will see 'hektos', 'tritos', 'pente' etc, etc - the words spelled out in full. Ignore what you see. Accept what Sherbear is saying, rather than what you can see in the Bible.Nope ... look in the Bible ... with the understanding that the Greek that was written in that period had the symbols for numbers ... and now in modern times, someone has put the full words there to futher the clarification.

My Bible has a copyright date in the front ... wanna argue that was in the original text too? I thought not. :bunny:

Steve, seriously, you are arguing from your ignorance, based on looking at modern Greek translations on the Internet, ignoring the historical background of how the Greeks wrote in that time ... which would be fine ... we are all ignorant about something(s). However, your self-superior attitude is what got you in this mess to begin with ... looking for something to rant about because of a bias toward JP has made you look at the issue with blinders ... missing that there are reputable scholars ... Christian and secular ... who support that the Greeks wrote in this manner. Sorry you missed it ... but now you are just saving face ... and hurting yourself more with each post.
Just as Comical Ali told people not to look at the TV pictures of captured Iraqi soldiers. Just accept what he said about Iraq winning. :rofl: ... Yeah ... was that a sun dog piddling in the room? I do believe it was ...

Sher

May 8th 2003, 12:48 AM

Nancy from Errancy ...

I don't know if you lurk here, but I wanted to offer my thanks to you for presenting the truth to SCW ... as I did here ... regarding the Greeks and how they expressed ordinal/cardinal numbers.

http://www.errantyears.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?visit=errancy&id=210852199

(Tue, 06 May 2003 18:56:31 posted by Nancy Todd ... Thread titled "Holding's Greek Blunder")

stevencarrwork

May 8th 2003, 03:28 AM

Today @ 05:48 AM
SherBear:

Nancy from Errancy ...

I don't know if you lurk here, but I wanted to offer my thanks to you for presenting the truth to SCW ... as I did here ... regarding the Greeks and how they expressed ordinal/cardinal numbers.

http://www.errantyears.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?visit=errancy&id=210852199

(Tue, 06 May 2003 18:56:31 posted by Nancy Todd ... Thread titled "Holding's Greek Blunder")

Sherbear is still unable to give ANY example from the New Testament of the writers not spelling numbers out in full , apart from the 666 in Revelation, which I gave.

And she is back to selective quoting....

Here is part of another posting on the thread which Nancy posted on.

By Kenneth Bonnell, who did what Sherbear does not want people to do, and looked at the Bible.

'I have three NT interlinears, all of which have the ordinal numbers for the times written out. My one that shows variants has none. There are probably no manuscripts that have other than words at those locations. If Holding can produce any, it is his responsibility to do so. He might make that old, tired claim that absence of evidence is not evidence of absense.
Mark 15:25: "It was now the third [*tritE*] hour . . . "
Mark 15:33: "When it became the sixth [*hektEs] hour . . . "
John 19:14: "it was about the sixth [*hektE*] hour . . . "'

Mr. Bonnell is slightly wrong. Sherbear gave ONE manuscript from about AD 850 which has a symbol. Doubtless Sherbear will claim that one manuscript from AD 850 is a better example of what the authors of the New Testament would write than every other manuscript.

Sherbear writes 'Nope ... look in the Bible ... with the understanding that the Greek that was written in that period had the symbols for numbers ... and now in modern times, someone has put the full words there to futher the clarification.'

Is she seriously claiming that early Greek manuscripts of the NT do not have the numbers written out in full, and that the editors of the Nestle-Aland Greek Text have changed the text of the NT to remove the symbols and add in the words for the numbers instead?

Does she have ONE manuscript from before 500 AD which does not have the numbers spelled out in full (apart from 666 in Revelation, which seems to have survived Sherbear's speculation that somebody tippexed out all the symbols and replaced them with words)?

Sherbear is reduced to claiming that the Greek text published in Bibles today has been systematically changed , virtually in every chapter, and that no manuscript from before AD 500 reflects what the NT writers wrote.

She really is a Bible-denier, isn't she? Who is this 'someone' she talks about , who altered the Greek text? Is this the same person who produced the fake Iraqi soldiers, seen on TV surrendering to the Americans, and who produced doctored reports of American tanks in Baghdad?

I see Holding is disputing Alward's claim that Jesus got to the well in John 4 by about noon.

Why does Holding not quote his own articles? For some bizarre reason, he has forgotten how to cut and paste. Let me help him out.

http://www.tektonics.org/markmen_CC1.html

'As an example, note the story of the woman at the well in John 4. This story is full of background templates that John does not explain, but that make the story meaningful: For example, the time of the meeting (noon) shows that the woman is an outcast, for it is not the time when water is normally gathered and when socialization occurs among the village women, but John sees no need to explain why the time is unusual for he assumes his readers will know that it is just by that he says it is noon.'

I imagine even Sherbear can see why Holding did not quote his own words about John 4 in his debate with Alward.

Sher

May 8th 2003, 08:20 AM

Hey Steve, Jim Java left you a note on errancy also (yesterday: "Steve, have you read Nancy's post about the representation of cardinal and ordinal numbers in Greek?")

... referring to the post where she said on May 6: "According to my Greek lexicon, the letter-numerals were used to represent both cardinal and ordinal numbers. So a digamma could be used to express 6th as well as 6." and in reply to your statement: That would be grammatical nonsense. We count things as the first , second, third, fourth. So we would say 'That is the first Holding goof.' 'That is the second Holding goof', 'That is the third Holding goof' etc. We never say 'That is the 1 Holding goof.' 'That is the 2 Holding goof', 'That is the 3 Holding goof'. She replied, "We might not, but, apparently, the Greeks sometimes did."

I would only suggest removal of her qualifier "sometimes" because the scholars state it was a common practice, but even your errancy friends are telling you that you are wrong.

Sher

May 8th 2003, 08:24 AM

PS. the irony, SCW, is the one example that you provided ... is the one set of numbers that scholars often question as having ever been written in numerals in the ancient Greek (opposed to all the rest of them having been written in that manner) ... something about the words written out in full form related to prophecy ... and how just putting the numbers there changes the meaning ...

I have the article someplace ... I would have to find it again. :shrug:

Sher

May 10th 2003, 03:15 AM

05-08-2003 @ 08:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=90904#post90904)
SherBear:

I have the article someplace ... I would have to find it again. :shrug:

I couldn't find the article ... but did find a reference to this in Vincent's Word Studies Six hundred threescore and six (c. x. v). Each letter represents a component of the whole number: c = 600; x = 60; v = 6. In the earlier MSS: it is written in full, eJxakosioi eJxhkonta ejx. {emphasis mine} http://www.godrules.net/library/vincent/vincentrev13.htm for internet readers (It is also found in the VWS component of the free program e-sword ... which has the Greek words as shown spelled out in actual Greek letters).

The reason for the qualifier, regarding the numbers being written out in full words, is obvious ... especially in light of this point made in the debate, and the supporting documentation I provided here ... it is was an unusual practice to write the numbers out in words in that time period ...

stevencarrwork

May 10th 2003, 03:40 AM

Today @ 08:15 AM
SherBear:

The reason for the qualifier, regarding the numbers being written out in full words, is obvious ... especially in light of this point made in the debate, and the supporting documentation I provided here ... it is was an unusual practice to write the numbers out in words in that time period ...

What is Sherbear on about?

It was an unusual practice to write '666' out in full.

It is written as '666' in the vast majority of manuscripts, so the fact that one manuscript writes it as 'six-hundred and sixty-six' is worthy of documenting. Some have it as 616, which is also noteworthy.

I pointed out that 666 is the one place where the numbers are not written out in full.

It appears Sherbear still cannot find Greek manuscripts of the New Testament where the numbers are not written out in full, apart from one case in Revelation, and one manuscript frokm AD 850. There might be a couple more, but the overwhelming majority of all manuscripts have virtually every number written in full.

So what does she mean by 'supporting documentation'? She has given absolutely none to support her claim that the earliest manuscripts have numbers as symbols.

Even her new documentation claims that even six-hundred and sixty-six was written out in full to start with, and then later changed to read '666', the exact opposite of what she claimed happened.

Steven Avery

May 10th 2003, 05:23 AM

Hello TW folkies, and thanks to DeeDee for the invite over..

On the discussion of the timing of the resurrection, and the supposed contradiction between Mark15: 25 and John 19:14-15 may I first suggest simply deep-sixing the ideas of "two measures of time" or "scribal errors".

Please note that this discussion below (quoting John Lightfoot) is referencing the King James Bible, (which is the only English version that I, and many others, will defend as inerrant), while the claim of error by Joe was based on quoting a 'modern version' (NIV). http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Scribal_Error_in_John_19.htm

I will leave it up to the Greek scholars to check if there is any any differences in the underlying Byzantine vs Alexandrian Greek, and to debate the prepositional difference. Suffice to say that time and again only the KJB can be truly defended as inerrant.

Please note the small, yet substantive, difference between the KJB and NIV translations of the Mark passage. (Note also that Joe, not surprisingly, did not offer the KJB translation on his web page, and, more surprisingly, none of our believer friends have pointed out the difference, afaik).

Mark 15:25 (KJB)
And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.

Mark15:25 (NIV)
And it was the third hour when they crucified Him.

This difference is used to create a "contradiction" with the John passage, where they simply is not any problem in the historic Scriptures.

========
John 19:14-15 (KJB)
And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him
========

John Lightfoot, quite knowledgeable on the various issues of Hebraic timing and thinking, as well as the Sannhedrin modus operandi, offered a very insightful commentary on this over 300 years ago. Lightfoot did not have the "modern versions" available to create confusion, and had great respect for the Word of God, so it was easier for him to write with clarity and insight. I will bring over his most germane points here.

http://www.studylight.org/com/jlc/view.cgi?book=mr&chapter=15#Mr15_25

Mark15: 25. And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.

John Lightfoot explains how the Sannhedrin met at the third hour

"Maimonides; "The great Sanhedrim sat from the morning daily sacrifice, until the afternoon daily sacrifice." But now when the morning daily sacrifice was at the third hour, the Sanhedrim sat not before that hour.

And Lightfoot agrees with our skeptics on one basic point.

"For Pilate could not deliver Christ to be crucified about the third hour, when the Sanhedrim sat not before the third hour, and Christ was not yet delivered to Pilate."

The meeting of the Sannhedrin in the AM relates to the phrasing 'It was the third hour'
===
Lightfoot-
You may observe that he saith not,
"it was the third hour when" ;
but
"it was the third hour, and they crucified him."

That is, when the third hour now was, and was passed, yet they omitted not to prosecute his crucifixion,

======
Prax notes.
Above Lightfoot can be viewed as presient in pointing out the exact prepositional usage in the verse, as opposed to a corruption that did not even exist at his time! , as represented today in the NIV quoted by Joe :-)

And Lightfoot astutely continues to explain the Sannhedrin's customs and methods.

===================================
JOHN LIGHTFOOT LONGISH SECTION

....a custom usual in the Sanhedrim, but from which they now swerved. They are treating concerning a guilty person condemned to hanging, with whom they deal in this process:

'they tarry until sunset approach, and then they finish his judgment and put him to death.'

Note that:
'They finish not his judgment until sunset draw near.'

If you ask the reason, a more general one may be given which respected all persons condemned to die, and a more special one which respected him which was to be hanged.

I. There was that which is called by the Talmudists the affliction of judgment: by which phrase they understand not judgment that is not just, but when he that is condemned, after judgment passed, is not presently put to death.

"If you finish his judgment on the sabbath [mark that], and put him to death on the first day of the week, you afflict his judgment."

Where the Gloss is,
"As long as his judgment is not finished, it is not the affliction of judgment, because he expects every hour to be absolved: but when judgment is ended, he expects death,"

. Therefore they delayed but little between the finishing of judgment and execution.

II. As to those that were to be hanged,

"**they delayed the finishing his judgment, and they hanged him not in the morning**, lest they might grow slack about his burial, and might fall into forgetfulness,"

and might sin against the law, Deuteronomy 21:23; "but near sunset, that they might presently bury him." So the Gloss. They put him to death not sooner, for this reason; they finished not his judgment sooner for the reason above said.

And now let us resume the words of Mark, "And it was the third hour, and they crucified him." The Sanhedrim used not to finish the judgment of hanging until they were now ready to rise up and depart from the council and bench after the Mincha, the day now inclining towards sunset: but these men finished the judgment of Jesus, and hastened him to the cross, when they first came into the court at the third hour, at the time of the daily sacrifice, which was very unusual, and different from the custom.

===========================================

Very simple, very nice, matches the wording of Mark in the King James Bible, and matches the customs of the Sannhedrin.

As often happens, a supposed contradiction, when researched,
offers us greater understanding of the Scriptures :-) One of the wonderful aspects of apologetics.

And please, my friends in apologetics, an appeal ..
Men like John Lightfoot and John Gill and David Baron and Alfred Edersheim (and today, Risto Santala) have offered their time and experience and understanding and research to us, often delving deeply in the Hebraic writings and commentaries. We would do well to seek out and read the results of their studies before we fall for liberal modernistic ideas of "harmonizations" including the usually tacky 'scribal error'.

And thanks especially to John Lightfoot for his excellent exposition (which is, btw, also mentioned by John Gill :-).

Shabbat Shalom,
Praxeus -- on Paltalk
(aka Schmuel in email forums :-)

Sher

May 10th 2003, 06:14 AM

Again, SCW, you misread ... the 666 was the exception to my point regarding letters used for numbers. You erroneously asserted that the 666 was written in numbers instead of words ... I showed you that this was actually the opposite AND a noteworthy exception via a scholar who wrote about it. (as Dee Dee would say, "sigh")

Really, with all your clamoring, you have shown that even if I took the time to further research, and even if it were possible for me to provide you with dozens of surviving MSS that have numbers on them, translated so you could understand what you were looking at since you said you don't read Greek, you have proven yourself judgmental in advance to say that you won't accept it ... no number of documentation that I could produce would be sufficient ... evidenced by your comment "There might be a couple more, but the overwhelming majority of all manuscripts have virtually every number written in full" ... showing that no matter what I provided you, you would simple say that it was part of the "couple" and still assert that there was an overwhelming majority ... yet you provide NO proof of this bold assertion. I am beginning to see why you have trouble in these areas, Steve ... you are always pushing others to do your leg work for you ... you assert, we defend, you assert again, we show proof, you assert once more, we sigh and give up ... even though we are correct ... it is a circle from which you think you are the winner ... when in reality you have just exhausted your opponent with illogical arguments, erroneous assertions, and ad nauseam repetitions.

Furthermore, you clamor for me to provide evidence ... over and over ... even in the face of all that I have provided so far ... and attempt to add qualifiers of "from before 500 AD" ... which shows me that you know good and well that there are not many in existence to begin with, even less of those that do exist are not easily found on the Internet ... translated and photographed ... and fewer still that have numbers in them at all ... as a matter of fact, related to John 19 ... I could find only one off-hand ... the P60 ... of which I could find no pictures AND it is dated around the 7th century. So Steve, you attempt to skew the question with impossible qualifiers ... so that it is impossible to provide the answer ... so you can claim victory ... and then sit back from your position of providing NO proof.

In fact, ever since you made the first assertion by contradicting JP ... you have provided no supporting proof AT ALL. As far as I am concerned, the burden now falls on you to prove yourself, to prove these scholars, both Christian and secular, incorrect. Where is your support, Steve? You rely only on your own assertions ... no proof in sight save the fact that your modern day copies have the numbers spelled out ... which is no proof toward the way the early Greeks first wrote it. So I admit defeat of being able to readily find MSS on the internet that support the proofs I have already provided ... I figured out that I would have to find out where numbers are in the NT, match them to pages on the Internet like this one (http://faculty.bbc.edu/RDecker/links.htm#MSS_Photos), and find translation elsewhere being that I do not read ancient Greek. So I will stand on the proof that I have provided so far ... AND I challenge you to prove your point now ... surely in "the overwhelming majority of all manuscripts have virtually every number written in full" you can find some ancient MSS that have the numbers written in full ... not modern lexicons ... but ancient Greek MSS ... just as you asked me to provide in opposition ... you have the greater chance of proving me wrong ... based on your assertion that there is an overwhelming majority.

I stand on the scholars and say that it is not outside of the realm of understanding via scholarship that, as time went by, translators updated the words from "10 of May" to "tenth of May" (for example) because they understood that the Greeks used the abbreviated numerals for ordinal numbers ... as I have shown it was common practice ... but they then updated them for their contemporary audience ... Just like the modern translations "The Message" and the Contemporary English version have transitions from the early writings to words that are contemporary to our times ... just like the "new" version of the King James (NKJV) has transitions from the "thee" and "thou" of the older versions to the "you" of modern times ... translators and copyists made clarification updates as times went by ... it is evidenced in other areas and supported by scholars.

So dig up that overwhelming proof, Steve ... or admit defeat in the face of no evidence on your side ... vs. all the evidence I have provided so far. Any ranting about my verbosity and further clamoring for me to provide proof will be taken for the admission that you cannot support your assertions ... and that all this has been a bag of hot air aimed at discrediting JP ... and saving face when you were told you were wrong ... even by your friends.

Sher

May 10th 2003, 06:42 AM

Jim, on Errancy asks
For SherBear: Steve was clearly wrong in asserting necessarily different representations of cardinal and ordinal numbers in Greek (has he admitted the mistake on TWeb?). Hello Jim ... sorry for not getting back to you quickly but this was just forwarded to me ... you should have posted here :smile: for a quicker reply. No, Steve has not admitted his mistake ... but rather covered it up with more blustering about how *I* am wrong (see above posts).
However, since you seem rather frustrated with him in general, you may have stopped answering him directly, Naw ... not yet ... I will probably wait it out until the debate wears down ... and to see if Steve can actually back up his assertions.
and he has brought up a good question: What about the MSS themselves, which have the ordinals written out in full?I actually covered this in the above post ... but will repeat that the ordinals that are written out are in modern translations of the Greek. The actual Greek customs of writing numbers in that period ... to the best that I have seen ... support the scholars.
Do you have any manuscript attestations of possible scribal error? that is, do any MSS present single-letter ordinals in Mark 15:25 or John 19:14? I do not personally believe there has been scribal error ... that is the irony of this whole conversation ... it was an attempt to get SCW to stop blustering without proof ... and to show that the "interesting alternative" that JP provided had the support of scholars. As to the MSS (ancient), I couldn't find the P60 which should have the verses from John ... and couldn't locate where the Mark verse would be on any of the ancient MSS that were listed on the various sites. I looked for over 3 hours tonight for ancient MSS that have the answers either way ... and as I outlined above, I have the handicap of not reading ancient Greek ... nor the fortitude to continue to search under the qualifiers that Steve gave. If you can find a picture of the P60 ... and can read Greek ... perhaps you can find out for yourself. All the pages that listed it in the list of "available" MSS ... didn't have a link to a picture. I am standing now on my position on the proof I have provided so far. I would be interested if you do find something either way. I would also say that you should read the whole topic here ... instead of whatever Steve has selectively quoted on Errancy ... so you can see that this next part you said makes no sense:
Until you show this in answer to Steve's question, the matter of gamma vs digamma seems like a red herring.I disagree:Description of Red Herring: A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form: Topic A is under discussion. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A). Topic A is abandoned. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

A red herring is a topic that is not relevant to the topic being discussed. Since there ARE scholars who support that the ordinal/cardinal letter usage exists, since there are scholars that say this caused a scribal error, and since this was brought up in the debate ... it can't be classified as a red herring. Furthermore, even if it could be classified as such ... the stipulation that "Until you show this in answer to Steve's question" is void since I am neither the one who brought it up ... nor the one who jumped up and down screaming that it was in error. I am merely trying to straighten this out ... showing SCW that he has a bias against JP that causes him to speak before he reviews a point ... and it causes him to look foolish.

Now my comments about his foot in his mouth and his need for Hooked on Phonics? ... those were red herrings :teeth:

Sher

May 13th 2003, 09:37 AM

05-10-2003 @ 05:23 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92665#post92665)
praxeus:

Suffice to say that time and again only the KJB can be truly defended as inerrant.

Praxeus ... you bring some interesting points to the discussion, but I wanted to ask one question of you ... Are you serious on the point I quoted above? :eek:

You do realize that not even the authors of the KJV believed this, right?

------------------------------------------------------------
Steve? Still can't find any proof for your point in the "overwhelming majority of all manuscripts"?

stevencarrwork

May 13th 2003, 10:54 AM

Today @ 02:37 PM
SherBear:

------------------------------------------------------------
Steve? Still can't find any proof for your point in the "overwhelming majority of all manuscripts"?

Err, you yourself gave only ONE manuscript from AD 850 which had a symbol in that place in scripture, instead of the word written out in full.

Are you claiming that I cannot find any proof that you were quite right to say that there was only one manuscript which has a symbol there?

Sher

May 13th 2003, 11:12 AM

Today @ 10:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95239#post95239)
stevencarrwork:

Err, you yourself gave only ONE manuscript from AD 850 which had a symbol in that place in scripture, instead of the word written out in full.

Are you claiming that I cannot find any proof that you were quite right to say that there was only one manuscript which has a symbol there?

Yup ... I'm saying put your money where your mouth is ... produce ancient MSS that have the ordinal numbers spelled out ...

stevencarrwork

May 13th 2003, 11:31 AM

Today @ 04:12 PM SherBear:

Yup ... I'm saying put your money where your mouth is ... produce ancient MSS that have the ordinal numbers spelled out ...

Sherbear demand proof that she was right when she gave just one manuscript (from AD 850) which had the number symbol instead of the word there.

Look at Nestle-Aland 27 and tell me if they give any variants for 'third' or 'sixth' in Mark 15 or John 19.

To be honest, I do not have the expertise to recheck the work of the people who produced the Greek text in Nestle-Aland or the UBS - the texts translators start from when producing translations.

I just have to accept that they know what they are talking about when they fail to give variants, and indicate that 'hektos' and 'tritos' are always used. Sorry if this is unsatisfactory for you.....

Guess you will just have to believe what you see in Bibles today, rather than what one member of the Errancy list (Nancy) said.

Sher

May 13th 2003, 12:00 PM

Today @ 11:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95279#post95279)
stevencarrwork:

Sherbear demand proof that she was right when she gave just one manuscript (from AD 850) which had the number symbol instead of the word there.
Nope ... re-read what I actually said, Steve, instead of what you wanted it to say. I asked you to put your money where your mouth was and back up YOUR claims that the ordinal numbers were written out in the ancient MSS.. You still are blustering ... surely with all the overwhelming evidence, you can produce proof of your claims? Proof that contradicts the scholars?

Look at Nestle-Aland 27 and tell me if they give any variants for 'third' or 'sixth' in Mark 15 or John 19.
So Steve, according to you ... my "just one manuscript (from AD 850)" is insufficient ...

... but your rebuttal is "just one manuscript (from AD 1950)" {when Aland first joined Nestle}?

:rofl: That's a good one! ...

... Oh? You weren't joking? :eek:

To be honest, I do not have the expertise to recheck the work of the people who produced the Greek text in Nestle-Aland or the UBS - the texts translators start from when producing translations.
Yet you claim that everyone else in error ... speaking from your lack of expertise ... and lack of proof to support your claims ... you dispute the scholars? Again ... that's funny ... you really should do stand-up.

I just have to accept that they know what they are talking about when they fail to give variants, and indicate that 'hektos' and 'tritos' are always used. Sorry if this is unsatisfactory for you.....
But Steve? ... you were the one who said there was overwhelming evidence? Yet ... you can only produce ONE ? ... from c.1950? Where is all the rest that is supposed to overwhelm me?
Guess you will just have to believe what you see in Bibles today, rather than what one member of the Errancy list (Nancy) said.
And the Biblical scholars ... and the secular scholars ... and the mathematicians ... and ....

Guess you really didn't have anything overwhelming ... no evidence ... no proof ... no case ...

But that's what we have come to expect of you, Steve ... all bluster ... no actual substance ...

John Powell

May 13th 2003, 04:01 PM

POWELL:
In an effort to help resolve the disagreement about whether ancient N.T. copyists might have used single letters to represent numbers, I checked ONE of the most ancient manuscripts, the codex Sinaiticus.

The following is a webpage of various representations of the Greek N.T. You have to unzip them to use them. I assume they are from the MAJORITY text that didn't have access to Sinaiticus and other ancient manuscripts.

http://users.mstar2.net/broman/editions.html

I checked three of these sites and found them to agree with each other on the Greek text that "TRITH" and "WSEI EKTH" or something like that was used. That is, that the number was spelled out. Can Sherbear clarify?

Here are the three references from the BROMAN site I used. I used the line-per-verse formats.

BROMAN:
1) Stephanus (Robert Etienne's) 1550 edition, printout from OLB or Unix line-per-verse format or the same with numbered words for collation, being an early and well-known Textus Receptus. The bracketed phrases therein are traditional subscriptions to some of the books.

02k-mark-15-25 HN DE WRA TRITH KAI ESTAURWSAN AUTON

04j-john-19-14 HN DE PARASKEUH TOU PASXA WRA DE WSEI EKTH KAI LEGEI TOIS IOUDAIOIS IDE O BASILEUS UMWN

2) Scrivener's 1894 edition, printout from OLB or Unix line-per-verse format, an attempt to reconstruct the Greek Vorlage for the KJV NT, insofar as this can be found in Greek MSS, without retranslating Vulgate readings back into unattested Greek.

02k-mark-15-25 HN DE WRA TRITH KAI ESTAURWSAN AUTON

04j-john-19-14 HN DE PARASKEUH TOU PASXA WRA DE WSEI EKTH KAI LEGEI TOIS IOUDAIOIS IDE O BASILEUS UMWN

3) The Robinson-Pierpont Majority Text: printout from OLB, Unix format, or parsed and lemmatized form. This is the edition by Pierpont and Robinson of a Majority, or Byzantine, text of the NT. It is similar to an earlier production of Hodges and Farstad in being based on von Soden's apparatus, but without their stemmatic reconstruction of the Apocalypse and the Pericope Adulterae.

02k-mark-15-25 HN DE WRA TRITH KAI ESTAURWSAN AUTON

04j-john-19-14 HN DE PARASKEUH TOU PASXA WRA DE WSEI EKTH KAI LEGEI TOIS IOUDAIOIS IDE O BASILEUS UMWN

POWELL:
Now, let's check one of the earliest extant texts of the N.T., the codex Sinaiticus.

At the following site are images of the codex Sinaiticus:

http://209.19.227.169:8083/cgi-bin/Ebind2html/BibleMSS/TischendorfSinv4

In the following "pi" has been converted to "P" and "C" to "S".

Bibliorum codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus at

http://209.19.227.169:8083/cgi-bin/Ebind2html/BibleMSS/TischendorfSinv4?seq=60

For the page that includes Mark 15:25

TischendorfSinv4:

HNDEWPATRITH IS
ESTAYPWSANAY
TON

The relevant part, I assume, is the "TRITH"

Bibliorum codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus at

http://209.19.227.169:8083/cgi-bin/Ebind2html/BibleMSS/TischendorfSinv4?seq=123

For the page that includes John 19:14 has

TischendorfSinv4:

HNDEPARASKEYH
TOY PASXA WRAH
WSEKTHKAILEG e I
TOISI(..)OYDAIOISI(..)
DEOBASILEYSY(small mu) (small w)
OIDEELEGONAPON
APONSTAYRWCO

POWELL:
The (..) means two dots above the previous character (the "I"). There were other horizontal lines in the image that I didn't record.

The relevant part, I think, is the "WSEKTH" which I guess is close enough to "WSEI EKTH"

Conclusion:

Apparently codex Sinaiticus spells out the numbers / ordinals for Mark 15:25 and John 19:14.

Unfortunately, Sherbear suggested that P60 is one that uses single Greek letters for numbers, but that's one I haven't checked. I don't know if copies are even available on the Internet.

John Powell

John Powell

May 13th 2003, 07:26 PM

POWELL:
I think there are some problems that should be pointed out about things like the 1st, 6th, and 11th hours of the day.

STEVENCARRWORK:
An interesting page . 'The hours were originally calculated for daytime; ...

GEORGE BLAISDELL:
This is the original and Biblical and Christian way of accounting time.

STEVENCARRWORK:
And it gives the sixth hour as the hour coming up to noon.

GEORGE BLAISDELL:
Half-way through the day - That hour... The idea of the measuring of the hours against the atomic clock had not yet corrupted the straightness of the roads of their Christian lives... Nobody was standing with a gong and a measuting stick to determine the precise instant that the sun was exactly at its highest point overhead so that everyone would know that the 6th hour had come [[b]or gone]... It was simply understood, as it is now when we are on vacation and have our clocks and phones hidden, as the noon hour, and its counterpart is still understood as the midnight hour.

POWELL:
Evidently, ancient people didn't understand that the beginning of the sixth hour is not half way through the day. That would be the ending of the sixth hour (as George seems to realize). If you're going to do something immediately after the noon moment then that would be during the seventh hour of the day.

Perhaps defining the sixth hour to be "the first hour after the noon moment" derives from knowing there are 12 hours in the day and that 12/2 = 6, so they erroneously concluded that the middle of the day begins with the 6th hour.

STEVEN CARRWORK:
This seems to indicate that early Christians still prayed at the Roman hours of 3 6 and 9 (dawn, midday and about 3 pm),

GEORGE BLAISDELL:
Yes, we still do. Except dawn is not the 3rd hour, but before the first - The zero hour, if you need to put a number on it, except that in those times, the number zero did not yet exist, if I have it right... So we pray the Orthros, the prayers of first light - In my Church, during a normal week-day, they are prayed at 5AM every day. The office of the first hour is prayed normally an hour after sunrise, then the third hour is prayed around 9, and the 6th around noon, and the ninth hour is prayed around 3 in the afternoon. At the end of the day, at sunset, Vespers is prayed, and after the work of the early evening, we pray the service of the Compline each evening around 9PM, and rise from our beds to pray the midnight hour, if we are not standing vigil...

POWELL:
The first hour after sunrise is the first hour, not the zeroth hour. That would be like calling the first day of the year Jan 0. Perhaps we should, but we don't do that.

The "office of the first hour," evidently, is begun at the end of the first hour and the beginning of the second hour of the day. The prayer of "the third hour" is prayed at about the end of the third hour and beginning of the fourth hour. The prayer of "the ninth hour" is prayed at the end of the ninth hour and the beginning of the tenth hour.

A different point, many people seem to think that the 11th hour is the last hour of the day. The day ends at the end of the 12th hour.

Of course, partly because we don't depend on sundials any more, we no longer divide daylight time into 12 parts or hours. Days during the fall and winter have less than what we define to be 12 hours and days during the spring and summer have more.

A question for GEORGE BLAISDELL: Would the members of your church call the sunset, or Vespers, prayer the same as the prayer of the "11th hour" or the "12th hour" or the "1st hour of sunset"?

John Powell

stevencarrwork

May 13th 2003, 07:34 PM

Yesterday @ 09:01 PM
John Powell:

POWELL:
In an effort to help resolve the disagreement about whether ancient N.T. copyists might have used single letters to represent numbers, I checked ONE of the most ancient manuscripts, the codex Sinaiticus.

Apparently codex Sinaiticus spells out the numbers / ordinals for Mark 15:25 and John 19:14.

Mr. Powell, Sherbear is not going to like you for giving evidence which contradicts her beliefs.

Apaprently, she can say that John 19:14 sometimes had the number for 3 instead of hektos without giving any manuscript which has that, but people who tell her the truth go on her hate list.

So prepare for a Sherbear rant.......

She cannot give any manuscript which has anything other than 'hektos', which is why she rants and raves and attacks and insults.

She thinks volume and quality of argument are interchangeable.

But she is a Christian, what can one expect?

Rdr. Arsenios

May 14th 2003, 12:45 AM

John -

Morning prayers are Matins, and are pre-sunrise
First hour prayers are the first hour after sunrise.
Third hour prayers are the 3rd hour after sunrise
Sixth hour...
ninth hour...
Vespers - the prayers of sunset
Compline - the prayers of bedtime
Midnight hours - The wake up, pee, pray, and dive back under the covers prayers...

We greet the first light of day, upon awakening, with prayers that begin with "O God, Thou art my God. Early will I seek Thee..."

geo:
Except dawn is not the 3rd hour, but before the first - The zero hour, if you need to put a number on it...

POWELL:
The first hour after sunrise is the first hour, not the zeroth hour.

While what you say is true, it is not-responsive, for the "zero hour" to which I referred, tongue in cheek, is dawn, and not the first hour after sunrise. Dawn precedes sunrise, which preceeds the first hour... Film at 11!! ':teeth:'

POWELL
The "office of the first hour," evidently, is begun at the end of the first hour and the beginning of the second hour of the day.

Actually, it is prayed the first hour after sunrise... I know you like to get to the precise meaning of these times, when exactly one hour ends and when one begins, and exactly when the prayers begin and all that - Yet that is not what prayer is about...

Compline is the time of the lighting of the candles, at the fall of darkness, you see... It is by candlelight, and incense, and many of the prayers are sung... Whether in Church, or at home with one's family... Or alone...

POWELL to geo:
Would the members of your church call the sunset, or Vespers, prayer the same as the prayer of the "11th hour" or the "12th hour" or the "1st hour of sunset"?

No - It's just Vespers, the prayers that mark the end of our daily toil, when we come home to be with our families, and eat with them, and prepare for the evening... They are normally done as soon as the oxen are fedded and bedded! ':lol:'

A sundial sure makes for instant hours in the day adjustments though, yes? Long summer days have longer hours, and short winter ones shorter hours, all registering on the same clock face with no batteries and built-in daylight savings time!

geo

Rdr. Arsenios

May 14th 2003, 01:00 AM

stevencarrwork:

Mr. Powell, Sherbear is not going to like you for giving evidence which contradicts her beliefs.

Apaprently, she can say that John 19:14 sometimes had the number for 3 instead of hektos without giving any manuscript which has that, but people who tell her the truth go on her hate list.

So prepare for a Sherbear rant.......

She cannot give any manuscript which has anything other than 'hektos', which is why she rants and raves and attacks and insults.

She thinks volume and quality of argument are interchangeable.

But she is a Christian, what can one expect? [/QUOTE]

Oh blog pooper-slime! Get a grip, Cowboy up to the bar, and get over yourself, s.c. - This is puerile juvenile adolescessence run amok - Dig yourself a big hole and bury this schlock up to its eyebrows so the ants can dissect it...

I mean, I tend to agree with your assessment on the numbers matter, but with this kind of weener-dog yap-facing, I wouldn't waste 10 seconds desecrating your smelly pile...

Now THAT was a good RANT!!

I feel MUCH better... [said to Howard the Duck]

geo

Joseph Alward

May 14th 2003, 01:22 AM

JOE ALWARD
I discuss the sunrise and sunset method of reckoning time used by the Greek, Romans, and Hebrews in the article, "Reckoning Time in Ancient Rome," at http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Ancient_Rome.htm

I also describe the scribal error problem in the article, "Scribal Error in John 19:14?" at http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Scribal_Error_in_John_19.htm

As far as I can tell, the first hour of the day ends one hour after sunrise, so if sunrise is at 6:00 AM, then the first hour begins at 6:00 AM and ends at 7:00 AM. The eleventh hour of the day is from 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM.

Unless someone can come up with an example of at least one Greek writer in the first several centuries CE using the alphabet-number gamma for "third", or digamma for "sixth," any notion that a scribe inattentively transcribed John's gamma ("3") into a digamma ("6") is pure speculation. If such were an allowed apologetic method, then any Bible difficulty could be made to go away.

Sher

May 14th 2003, 02:02 AM

Hello John ... Thank you for your reply. I am laid up with back pain these last few days ... and feeding my web addiction (:teeth:) ... I am lying almost vertical trying to surf the forum ... forgive me if I do not fully reply at this time ... I haven't had opportunity to review all the information on that website (some I cannot view because I cannot find the appropriate program to open the files that are unzipped).

I will start with the Robinson-Pierpont one first ... the easiest to find info on, IMO ... evidently this is not true to the original ancient MSS ... one site had the following to say:All in all, the Robinson/Pierpont position on textual theory seems built on shaky foundations. Why should "the most appropriate goal" for their edition be to print a text "quite acceptable to any Greek-speaking scribe throughout the Byzantine era" (p. Iv)? Why is not the most appropriate goal to print as far as possible the original text, whether acceptable to Byzantine scribes or not? Are we looking here merely for the post-Constantine text? If so, let us call it "Byzantine" as these editors do. To us, at least, the "Majority Text" means the form of text found in the autographs themselves and which has always been found in the majority of documents throughout the history of NT transmission. Ref: http://www.faithalone.org/journal/bookreviews/robinson.htm

The editors themselves ... confirmed from several sources ... call their work Byzantine Text ... not Majority as it is often referred to. While I could not find reference to numbers specifically ... it is truly possible that in the efforts to write to the methods of later scribes ... they very well could have adopted the number methods of that later period ... to spell them out instead of in the capital letter symbols ... especially since the Byzantine Empire, the time to which the authors were copying ... was c. 5th century A.D. ... quite awhile after the time of the ancient scribes. You might be interested in the post I made several pages back that speaks to the history of the numbers used by the ancients ... there are several resources there ... and more can be found on the Internet ... In fact, Encarta has this to say:The ancient Greeks had two parallel systems of numerals. The earlier of these was based on the initial letters of the names of numbers: The number 5 was indicated by the letter pi; 10 by the letter delta; 100 by the antique form of the letter H; 1000 by the letter chi; and 10,000 by the letter mu. The later system, which was first introduced about the 3rd century bc, employed all the letters of the Greek alphabet plus three letters borrowed from the Phoenician alphabet as number symbols. So you can see, this practice ... which I found out was called Milesian numerals ... began in the 3rd century B.C. ... and evidently continued up to the Byzantine period ... which made some minor alterations ... to be discarded when Roman numerals became popular ... Milesian numerals (the alpha representations) were used for dates and times. (if you look here: http://132.236.125.30/numcode.html you will see under #2 how it speaks of the "modern" print ... from the Byzantine period) ... So in summary, using something that refers back to the Byzantine period will not reflect the way the ancients wrote, only how the later scribes of that period wrote.

John ... when I have time, I will review the rest of the info you provided. As I said, my back has been giving me fits ... and I am not up for scholarly pursuits :smile: Please bear with me and I will get back to you.

Sher

May 14th 2003, 02:06 AM

Yesterday @ 07:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95607#post95607)
stevencarrwork:

Apaprently, she can say that John 19:14 sometimes had the number for 3 instead of hektos without giving any manuscript which has that, but people who tell her the truth go on her hate list.

So prepare for a Sherbear rant.......

I'm ranting? You still produce no evidence, Steve. "Apaprently" [sic] you have none ... so you still try to obfuscate the points and claim injury.

John has addressed me politely ... and I will reply in kind ...

Anyone can see that my ridicule towards you was warranted ... you are the one who became hateful ... both from your original posts in tone ... and in your posts toward me in reply. Perhaps if you drop the royal thirdperson ... and actually speak to a person instead of past one ...

Sher

May 14th 2003, 02:08 AM

Now THAT was a good RANT!!

:cheers: That was a rather good rant, George :thumb:

:angel:

Sher

May 14th 2003, 02:22 AM

Today @ 01:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95814#post95814)
Joseph Alward:

Unless someone can come up with an example of at least one Greek writer in the first several centuries CE using the alphabet-number gamma for "third", or digamma for "sixth," any notion that a scribe inattentively transcribed John's gamma ("3") into a digamma ("6") is pure speculation. I would refer you to this site, Joe, which states:III. Greek Alphabetic Numbers at the Time of the New Testament

Since the Book of Revelation, like the other twenty six books of the New Testament, was written in Koine Greek in the first or early second century AD, we must study how numbers were represented at that time in Greek. One early Greek numeral system, known as Attic numerals, started at Athens and used symbols for the key numbers 1, 5, 10, 50, 100, etc. The individual symbols of each type were repeated as often as needed (up to four times) to make up a number's representation. This can be called a REPETITIVE 1-5 system. This system was similar to the latter (but more familiar to us) system of Roman numerals except that it was always additive (repetitive) unlike the Roman numeral system which has also subtractive forms. Another system also existed (not surprisingly considering the independence and non-cooperation of Greek city states). This system, known as the Ionian or Milesian (from Miletus in Asia Minor), may have started in the 6th century BC. The Attic system was fading out of use, disappearing almost entirely in the time of the Roman Empire. The Milesian alphabetic numeral system was officially adopted in Athens in the first century BC. By the time of the New Testament we need only consider the Greek alphabetic numeral system. Although the Greeks had ways of representing numbers in the thousands and also those above ten thousand (myriads), we will only consider how they represented numbers up to nine hundred ninety nine. These Greeks, like us, used a decimal system but, unlike us, they did not use a zero number. Thus, although it was a decimal system, it was not a place-value system. Therefore more symbols were needed than just the nine (plus zero) which we use. To represent the numbers up to our 999, they needed 27 different symbols: nine for the units 1, 2, ..., 9; nine for the tens 10, 20, ..., 90; and still another nine for the hundreds 100, 200, ..., 900. For symbols they used the letters of the Greek alphabet. However, an immediate problem arose since the Greek alphabet contained only 24 letters. To fill in the missing three, they used old obsolete letters from previous alphabets and, somewhat confusingly, these were interspersed with the regular letters.http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Geyser/5356/beast.htm

This is referrring, once again, to the belief of the one example that was written out ... the 666 ... because it was related not to numbers ... but to a numerical name ... a Biblical code. This site cites several resources to check for support to this idea.
If such were an allowed apologetic method, then any Bible difficulty could be made to go away. This is actually one of my reasons for not relying on this as a "solution" ... a very valid point, I think.

The main point of my arguing this is not because I personally support it ... but rather that it is a valid consideration ... It is historically accurate ... and it is quoted by Biblical scholars who had access to the ancient MSS ... I defend not the argument itself for my purposes ... but the validity of the presentation of it in historical context.

Patroclus

May 14th 2003, 03:08 AM

So, I am curious, what relevancy does any of this discussion have?

So what if John and Mark don't agree. Isn't God still God?

Joseph Alward

May 14th 2003, 03:28 AM

PATROCLUS
So, I am curious, what relevancy does any of this discussion have?

So what if John and Mark don't agree. Isn't God still God?

JOE ALWARD
If the gospel writers can be shown to be wrong about events surrounding the crucifixion, then perhaps they were wrong about a man called "Jesus" being the resurrected son of God, and maybe the Bible is also wrong about there being a god named Yahweh who created the world in six days. So, yes, Patroclus, if John and Mark disagree, then maybe there is no God.

St. Augustine understood very well the problems Christians would face if it were shown that any part of the Bible was in error:

"The most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred books....If you [even] once admit into such a high sanctuary of authority one false statement, there will not be left a single sentence of those books, which, if appearing to anyone difficult in practice or hard to believe, may not by the same fatal rule be explained away as a statement, in which intentionally, the author declared what was not true." --St. Augustine in Epistula, p. 28.

rogerthomas

May 14th 2003, 04:00 AM

Today @ 08:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95862#post95862)
Patroclus:

So, I am curious, what relevancy does any of this discussion have?

So what if John and Mark don't agree. Isn't God still God?

Exactly.:thumb:

stevencarrwork

May 14th 2003, 06:58 AM

Today @ 06:22 AM
Joseph Alward:

JOE ALWARD

I also describe the scribal error problem in the article, "Scribal Error in John 19:14?" at http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Scribal_Error_in_John_19.htm

Unless someone can come up with an example of at least one Greek writer in the first several centuries CE using the alphabet-number gamma for "third", or digamma for "sixth," any notion that a scribe inattentively transcribed John's gamma ("3") into a digamma ("6") is pure speculation. If such were an allowed apologetic method, then any Bible difficulty could be made to go away.

Sherbear came up with ONE manuscript from about AD 850 which has the symbol instead of 'tritos'. Since when she has been accusing me of bluster, because I have not produced proof for HER statement that there is only one manuscript.

Baffling! One wonders about the IQ of these people. Sherbear makes statements and then berates me for not proving that what she says is true.

Here is what Sherbear wrote , quoting Barnes 'For example, the Cambridge manuscript of the New Testament has in this very place in Mark, not the word 'third' written at length, but the Greek letter gamma, the usual notation for third.'

So there is ONE manuscript which has a symbol in the critical place. If Barnes had found others, you could rest assured that Sherbear would be screaming them from the rooftops. Instead, she claims that 'gamma' is the usual way of writing 'tritos', when even her own source cannot come up with more than one New Testament manuscript which does so.

Now she is reduced to claiming that the compilers of the Gree Text used for almost all New Testament translations has been systematically altered in almost every chapter, and that what we see in Interlinears is not what the early manuscripts have.

Gosh. I never thought Christians would be reduced to denying the very words printed in the Bible.

I turn to an interlinear and tell Sherbear that the text has 'tritos' and 'hektos', and that scholars of the likes of the Alands and Bruce Metzger have studied the manuscripts to determine the text, and she flatly denies the evidence of her own eyes.

Christians have nothing to learn from the ex-Iraqi Information Minister.

Alward is quite right that any supposed scribal error is pure speculation, until Sherbear produces one early manuscript which has a '6' or a '3' for 'hektos' in John 19:14.

Steven Avery

May 14th 2003, 02:04 PM

praxeus:
Suffice to say that time and again only the KJB can be truly defended as inerrant. ”

Sherbear
Praxeus ... you bring some interesting points to the discussion, but I wanted to ask one question of you ... Are you serious on the point I quoted above?

You do realize that not even the authors of the KJV believed this, right?

------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Sherbear,

Greetings in the Name of Messiah Yeshua ! :-)

Well actually the KJB translators did not discuss inerrancy much in their Preface :-) Anyway the issue is not the perfection, or the perfect understanding, of the translators, simply whether the KJB translation itself is the Scriptures, and are they inerrant.

Perhaps some day we could have a thread that goes "10+ Significant Contradictions and Problems that are not in the KJB, but are in MV's" (modern versions). The more involved with apologetiics I am, the more this comes up, from Jeremiah 8:8 "lying scribes" to "begotten God" to various Messianic prophecy issues.

Plus we could discuss the general paradigimic and general issues like Preservation, 'Scribal Error' and Inerrancy, the 'difficult passages' (mostly from the Tanach), and the Scriptural understanding of the relationship of Translation to Underlying Texts to the Autographs.
=========================
3rd and 6th HOUR

btw, a couple of footnotes to the KJB/Lightfoot view of 3 hrs and 6hrs.

I really did not mean to clump the "measures of time" view with "scribal error". The "2 measures of time" view is a legitimate harmonization attempt, although so far I do not embrace it at all, similarly with the two other views I have seen-- 3/6/9/12th hour or two separate days. Scribal error I have no interest in, when there is some minor manuscript support (e.g. LXX or Pe[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]ta or Vulgate) I would sorta rate it as weak 1 on a scale of 10, when none, I give it a 0.

SIDENOTE
Ironically, there are a few verses where I do believe there is scribal error, eg. in the majority of extant Masoretic Texts (Psalm 22:16 being the classic case), and in one verse, all extant Masoretic Texts.

BACK TO 3rd and 6th HOUR
The Lightfoot view was attacked by Joe and Farrell in a hilarious Alphonse and Gaston routine on one email forum --
"you show how ridciulously easy it is to refute, Joe" .. "no, you take it Farrell, it is too simple, too preposterous". This has gone on for days, and about 10 posts between Farrell and Joe :-)

The sense is that they (Joe and Farrell) feel that because it is in a linear sense 'out-of-place' chronologically, or because the 'they' is not overtly applied to the Sannhedrin in verse 25, that disqualifies the harmony, although for a week nobody has made a clear statement. However Lightfoot and Gill go into the significance of the 3rd hour, and the Sannhedrin, in some depth, and when you look at the verse in those Hebraic eyes, and see the writer taking a pause right at the phrase where the actual crucifixion scene has just come to pass, Lightfoot's view makes a ton of sense. The verse becomes quite a chilling indictment of the Sanhedrin, with an secial insightful touch. However you have to really see the Scriptures as a unit :-)

Shalom,
Praxeus
-- also Praxeus on Paltalk !
Schmuel on various email forums
Schmuel@bigfoot.com
Messianic_Apologetic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Sher

May 14th 2003, 02:35 PM

Today @ 06:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95950#post95950)
stevencarrwork:

Sherbear came up with ONE manuscript from about AD 850 which has the symbol instead of 'tritos'.And you have provided nothing that is not modern to support your assertion that there is "overwhelming" evidence in your favor.
Since when she has been accusing me of bluster, because I have not produced proof for HER statement that there is only one manuscript.This statement is incoherent based on the rest of the conversation ... You assert OVERWHELMING evidence in your favor, yet provide NO proof that is not modern of YOUR statement that it is overwhelming ... you should be accused of bluster.
Baffling! One wonders about the IQ of these people. Sherbear makes statements and then berates me for not proving that what she says is true.My reply:
05-06-2003 @ 08:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88829#post88829)
stevencarrwork:

Is she claiming that because one of the 24,000 manuscript copies supports her case, then that is evidence?
05-07-2003 @ 11:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=90003#post90003)
stevencarrwork:

And it hardly ever is done. You yourself came up with ONE manuscript out of 24,000 where it happened. There might be one or two more, but it is hardly ever done.

Does Sherbear not realise that '6' and '3' are not in the Greek?

The Greek words are for 'sixth' and 'third' , and these words are very different, no matter how many non-existent 'possible reading' she produces, and how alike two things which are NOT IN THE TEXT are?
05-07-2003 @ 05:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=90380#post90380)
stevencarrwork:

So why is she blathering on about how Greeks used letters for numbers? They often did, but the NT writers did not.

No matter what Sherbear says, anybody who looks at the Greek text of the NT, can see that the numbers are spelled out in full.
05-10-2003 @ 03:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92639#post92639)
stevencarrwork:

It appears Sherbear still cannot find Greek manuscripts of the New Testament where the numbers are not written out in full, apart from one case in Revelation, and one manuscript frokm AD 850. There might be a couple more, but the overwhelming majority of all manuscripts have virtually every number written in full.
{emphasis mine} This is what I am calling you on ... to prove what you say is true ... Questioning my IQ, when you can't even get the discussion right in your mind ... is laughable.

Put up ... provide proof of these quoted assertions ... from the overwhelming majority of evidence ... or shut up ... retract your assertions as speaking from ignorance. Your drivel is annoying.

-----------------

John ... I am still looking over the info you provided and researching the history of it. :angel:

Joseph Alward

May 14th 2003, 04:41 PM

SCHMUEL/PRAXEUS
The Lightfoot view was attacked by Joe and Farrell in a hilarious Alphonse and Gaston routine on one email forum --
"you show how ridciulously easy it is to refute, Joe" .. "no, you take it Farrell, it is too simple, too preposterous". This has gone on for days, and about 10 posts between Farrell and Joe :-)

JOE ALWARD

http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/AlphonseGaston.jpg
.
.

Sher

May 14th 2003, 05:06 PM

John Powell:

Scrivener's 1894 edition, printout from OLB or Unix line-per-verse format, an attempt to reconstruct the Greek Vorlage for the KJV NT, insofar as this can be found in Greek MSS, without retranslating Vulgate readings back into unattested Greek.

Hi again John,

In reviewing this ... I almost completely missed the description you gave for this ... until I noticed it again on another site:

[...] insofar as this can be found in Greek MSS, without retranslating Vulgate readings back into unattested Greek

I might be missing something here ... and you can blame it on the pain pills ... but doesn't this phrase in the description mean that they [Scrivener's] are not retranslating the Vugate ... the commonly accepted .... readings back to the original Greek as it was written by the ancients? Wouldn't that negate any value of it to this particular discussion ... regarding ancient Greek methods of writing, I mean?

Sher

May 14th 2003, 05:07 PM

Today @ 04:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=96547#post96547)
Joseph Alward:

[witty cartoon]

That is rather funny, Joe!

stevencarrwork

May 14th 2003, 05:12 PM

Today @ 07:35 PM

SherBear:

Put up ... provide proof of these quoted assertions ... from the overwhelming majority of evidence ... or shut up ... retract your assertions as speaking from ignorance. Your drivel is annoying.

Sherbear appears to have forgotten that it was HER SOURCE that could come up with only one manuscript where the numbers in Mark 15 were given as 'gamma' '3' , rather than 'tritos' (third).

Sherbear appears convinced to the point of mania that unknown people systematically altered what the NT writers wrote, although she can come up with no manuscripts where symbols were used instead of the words for 'third' , 'sixth' etc (apart from one manuscript from AD 850)

I appeal to her to once again look at the Greek text prepared by the world's leading scholars, such as the Alands and Bruce Metzger and they give no variants in John 19:14.

Why can she not bring herself to believe her own sources (who came up with no examples) and the world's leading experts on the Greek text of the New Testament and drop this claim that the New Testament text was systematically changed just a hundred years or so from the time of first writing?

I find it amazing that somebody who simply repeats what the Alands and Bruce Metzger have published in their Greek texts is talking 'drivel'.

Not only does Sherbear deny the very words printed in Greek Interlinears - she dismisses people who tell her what the printed words are as 'ignorant' and talking 'drivel'.

No doubt the Iraqi Information Minister called people who pointed out that they could see American tanks in Baghdad as 'ignorant' and talking 'drivel'.

Joseph Alward

May 14th 2003, 05:50 PM

STEVEN CARR
Sherbear came up with ONE manuscript from about AD 850 which has the symbol instead of 'tritos'.

Here is what Sherbear wrote, quoting Barnes 'For example, the Cambridge manuscript of the New Testament has in this very place in Mark, not the word 'third' written at length, but the Greek letter gamma, the usual notation for third.'

JOE ALWARD
Which Barnes reference is this, Sherbear? I would like to confirm that gamma was used for "third." If this indeed was done in an 850 AD manuscript, I think this would be significant, for if a scribe in 850 AD believed it was acceptable to convert the trite in the manuscript he was copying into a gamma, then could not John have used the alphabet-numbers to represent ordinal numbers, too? This would mean that perhaps the Johannine "autograph" contained a trite, but then John's scribe transcribed it as digamma by mistake. The autograph was then put away and lost forever, and all we have are copies of the miscopied autograph.

I will need to see with my own eyes a copy the 850 AD Mark's gospel showing the gamma, however, before I would consider the scribal-error scenario viable.

stevencarrwork

May 14th 2003, 06:03 PM

For the benefit of Sherbear I have dug up a little more

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html

This has a commentary on John which says for John 19:14, the most common reading is 'hektos' , ('sixth'), but that some , a minority, of early manuscripts have 'tritos' (third), and that this was probably a scribe altering the text to make it agree with Mark.

The commentary states that it was possible that the readings originally occurred out of mistaking a 'gamma' for a 'digamma' (and not 'third' for 'sixth' as Holding said)

Of course, it is possible. All is possible....

But it never claims that any manuscript has a 'gamma' or 'digamma' for 'third' or 'sixth'. It says the readings are 'hektos' or 'tritos'.

If any did have gamma or digamma, it would not talk about the readings 'originally' arising out of a confusion that would still have been happening in the manuscripts.

stevencarrwork

May 14th 2003, 06:08 PM

Today @ 10:50 PM

Joseph Alward:

JOE ALWARD
Which Barnes reference is this, Sherbear?

Albert Barnes lived 1798-1870 (And Christians on this forum attack sceptics for using old sources(!))

You can read his commentary at

http://www.e-sword.net/commentaries.html

Sher

May 14th 2003, 06:31 PM

Today @ 05:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=96647#post96647)
Joseph Alward:

JOE ALWARD
Which Barnes reference is this, Sherbear? Hi Joe,

Barnes is Albert Barnes (1798-1870) ... Commentator/Scholar .... Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible. I gave the actual quote on an earlier page ... http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=88512#post88512

As to whether you could see the Cambridge MSS with your own eyes ... :huh: ... That is not for me to say ... Assumedly you would have to find a copy online ... or go to Cambridge. I was merely quoting what Barnes ... respected scholar who is often included with Bible programs ... said. I can't go to Cambridge to see the evidence for myself ... and instead rely on the scholar who doesn't appear to have been contradicted anywhere that I could find ... there aren't any resources I saw that said Barnes is wrong, IOW.

The main point is that during the Byzantine Empire, Constantine I adopted the Christian faith ... and there was renewed interest in preservation ... scribes took the old MSS and recopied them for distribution and preservation ... and it is very easy to see that with the change in the way writing was done in the Byzantine time ... from the ancient time ... that the Ancient Greek method was changed in the new writings to reflect that scribes methods.

So when said scribe read "volume 2" and wrote "second volume" or "2nd volume" in whatever language they were copying to ... no meaning was lost ... but the case might be made for the existance of scribal error(s). To purport that the Vulgates or the Byzantine writings are the yardstick ... when they were used later in history ... simply does not address that the writings of the ancient times were commonly used and that the unicals included not written words ... but Milesian numerals (now that I am aware what they are actually called ... I can stop referring to them as symbols :xmm:)

To further appeal to printed works ... for how the written MSS were scribed ... is folly. To look at a modern English translation ... or a modern Greek translation ... and assume that it is how the ancient was scribed is foolish ... words and thoughts were preserved ... but the ancient scribal techniques were not.

Joseph Alward

May 14th 2003, 07:10 PM

JOE ALWARD
Thanks for the comments, Sherbear, and Steven. I've concluded that if scribal error occurred with the John 19 text, the simplest way it could have happened is for John's scribe to have taken John's "autograph" and inattentively saw "trite," but thought and wrote "hekte." Then the autograph was hidden away for safekeeping, and has been lost ever since. All or most of the copies we have now were based on the single mistranscribed copy.

The alternative, and less likely, scenario, is that John wrote "trite" as gamma, but his scribe scratched out an extra horizontal bar as he drew the gamma, thus converting the gamma to the digamma, then the original was put away for safekeeping and lost forever. Later scribes changed the digamma to a hekte, and all of the copies showing the digamma were lost, and only the hekte manuscripts survived.

It is obvious that the first scenario passes the Occam's Razor test rather easily, but not the second one.
.
.

stevencarrwork

May 14th 2003, 08:16 PM

Yesterday @ 11:31 PM
SherBear:

To further appeal to printed works ... for how the written MSS were scribed ... is folly. To look at a modern English translation ... or a modern Greek translation ... and assume that it is how the ancient was scribed is foolish ... words and thoughts were preserved ... but the ancient scribal techniques were not.

Sherbear thinks the New Testament has been translated into Greek??

And her claim that 'words and thoughts have been preserved', when she is claiming that words have been added and symbols removed is very strange. She is the one claiming that the words have been altered, and now she says the words have been preserved.

Sherbear thinks we should not look at a Greek Bible to see what was written, because the words have been changed.

Certainly scribal practices have changed. For example, miniscule writing was adopted instead of uncial writing. This is very different from claiming that words were altered.

But for her to claim that vast numbers of words have been changed, with no manuscript evidence for her to back that up, and that she will not accept Greek texts or ancient manuscripts as evidence of what John 19:14 says, well, words fail me.

How can you discuss something with somebody who denies the very words on the page?

Sher

May 15th 2003, 04:15 PM

Translation ... The state of being translated

Translate(d) ... To change from one form, function, or state to another; convert or transform

The change from written papyrus to modern printed book format is a translation ... not from one language to another but from one medium to another ... and since the original was scribed ... the printed version is different than the original version ... ergo, a translation ... sigh.

Yesterday @ 08:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=96759#post96759)
stevencarrwork:

Certainly scribal practices have changed. For example, miniscule writing was adopted instead of uncial writing. This is very different from claiming that words were altered.

Ergo ... translation ... I am saying that the scholars say that the text has been changed ... not the meaning as you try to twist my words to say.

[...] well, words fail me.

Evidently ... so does lack of proof ... but this is to be expected of you, Steve ... you blather on and on about how the other person is ranting and raving ... and post outdated jokes ... repeated ad nauseam ... instead of actually proving your case.

You said: "(05-06-2003 @ 08:32 AM) Is she claiming that because one of the 24,000 manuscript copies supports her case, then that is evidence?"
Surely in 23,999 ancient MSS copies you can find support for your assertions.

You said: "(05-07-2003 @ 11:07 AM) And it hardly ever is done. You yourself came up with ONE manuscript out of 24,000 where it happened. There might be one or two more, but it is hardly ever done."
Surely in 23,999, or 23,998, or even 23,997 (24,000 minus either the one I "came up with" ... or even the "one or two more") ancient MSS copies you can find support for your assertions.

You said: "(05-07-2003 @ 05:16 PM) So why is she blathering on about how Greeks used letters for numbers? They often did, but the NT writers did not."
Surely if the "NT writers did not" ... you can find all these ancient MSS copies to support your assertions.

You said: (05-10-2003 @ 03:40 AM) It appears Sherbear still cannot find Greek manuscripts of the New Testament where the numbers are not written out in full, apart from one case in Revelation, and one manuscript frokm AD 850. There might be a couple more, but the overwhelming majority of all manuscripts have virtually every number written in full."
Surely in this "overwhelming majority of all manuscripts have virtually every number written in full" you can find all these ancient MSS copies to support your assertions.

How can you discuss something with somebody who denies the very words on the page?

How can you discuss something with somebody who fails to provide the very words on the ancient MSS that they claim is in overwhelming majority ... that number at least 23,997.

But go ahead, Steve, blather on about how I am ranting and raving ... instead of actually offering proof for your erroneous assertions ...

... post that same tired joke for everyone ... in case they missed it the first 4 times you used it ... instead of actually addressing your mistake

... or you can simply put me in your "kill file" again ... of course you can't actually "ignore" me ... but you can always "skip" over the requests for proof ... like you did in the thread where you accused JP looking up an English word in the English dictionary (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3034) ... instead of admitting you were wrong ...

... We are still laughing about that one ... if nothing else, your posts are fab for comic relief :teeth:

Sher

May 16th 2003, 09:49 AM

From Adam Clarke Commentary (Adam Clarke c.1762 - 1832):

On John 19:14:Verse 14. The sixth hour Mark says, Mark xv. 25, that it was the third hour.

trith, the third, is the reading of DL, four others, the Chron. Alex., Seuerus Antiochen., Ammonius, with others mentioned by Theophylact.

Nonnus, who wrote in the fifth century, reads trith, the third. As in ancient times all the numbers were written in the manuscripts not at large but in numeral letters, it was easy for g three, to be mistaken for v six. The Codex Bezae has generally numeral letters instead of words. Bengel observes that he has found the letter g gamma, THREE, exceedingly like the v episemon, SIX, in some MSS. Episemon = greek 'st' combined, similar appearance to final form sigma with a nearly flat top. Similar appearance to upper case gamma. The major part of the best critics think that trith, the third, is the genuine reading. See the note on Mark xv. 25.
On Mark 15:25:Verse 25. The third hour It has been before observed, that the Jews divided their night into four watches, of three hours each. They also divided the day into four general parts. The first began at sunrise. The second three hours after. The third at mid-day. The fourth three hours after, and continued till sunset. Christ having been nailed to the cross a little after mid-day, John xix. 14-16, 17, and having expired about three o'clock, ver. 33, the whole business of the crucifixion was finished within the space of this third division of the day, which Mark calls here the third hour. Commentators and critics have found it very difficult to reconcile this third hour of Mark, with the sixth hour of John, John xix. 14.

It is supposed that the true reading, in John xix. 14, should be trith, the third, instead of ekth the sixth; a mistake which might have readily taken place in ancient times, when the character g gamma, which was put for trith, three, might have been mistaken for Greek episema, or sigma tau, which signifies six. And trith, the third, instead of ekth, the sixth, is the reading of some very eminent MSS. in the place in question, John xix. 14. See Bengel, Newcome, Macknight, Lightfoot, Rosenmuller, &c., on this perplexing point. {emphasis mine}

The Codex Bezae is dated from the fifth or sixth century and is the oldest known bilingual manuscript of the N.T. (written in Greek and Latin). It has been housed at Cambridge University Library since 1581.

Pic found here (http://www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/tc_codexb.html)

Someone with knowledge in ancient Greek and access would need to verify this fact about this MSS, but here is another scholar who confirms that it was common practice to use the numerals.

stevencarrwork

May 16th 2003, 12:56 PM

Today @ 02:49 PM
SherBear:

From Adam Clarke Commentary (Adam Clarke c.1762 - 1832):

On John 19:14:[list]Verse 14. The sixth hour Mark says, Mark xv. 25, that it was the third hour.

trith, the third, is the reading of DL, four others, the Chron. Alex., Seuerus Antiochen., Ammonius, with others mentioned by Theophylact.

Nonnus, who wrote in the fifth century, reads trith, the third. As in ancient times all the numbers were written in the manuscripts not at large but in numeral letters, it was easy for g three, to be mistaken for v six. The Codex Bezae has generally numeral letters instead of words.

And trith, the third, instead of ekth, the sixth, is the reading of some very eminent MSS. in the place in question, John xix. 14. See Bengel, Newcome, Macknight, Lightfoot, Rosenmuller, &c., on this perplexing point.

Having exhausted 19th century scholarship, Sherbear is now going back to the 18th century to get her experts.

Does Sherbear read her own posts?

The manuscripts she cites have 'trith' (third) while the main manuscripts have 'ekth' (sixth).

And she berates me for saying that the manuscripts have words instead of numbers here! And then posts a rebuttal where she claims that giving manuscripts with words instead of numbers proves that I am wrong to say that the manuscripts we have, have words instead of numbers. Amazing!

BTW, I myself gave a commentary which showed that there were the manuscripts where the scribes had changed 'hektos' to 'tritos' in order to make John harmonise with Mark. Sherbear then repeats what I claimed. (that some manuscripts have trith here), as a rebuttal!

BTW, Nonnus was apaprently quite unreliable, judging by the fantasies he wrote when he wrote his paraphrase of John.

I plead with Shebear to once again read her own postings which tell her that some manuscripts have 'trith' and some have 'ekth' and drop this idee fixe she has that there are ancient manuscripts with 'gamma' and 'digamma' in John 19:14 and Mark 15.

Please, Sherbear, please, have a look at what you posted and stop pestering me to produce the evidence that you have already posted.

stevencarrwork

May 16th 2003, 01:03 PM

Yesterday @ 09:15 PM
SherBear:

... or you can simply put me in your "kill file" again ... of course you can't actually "ignore" me ... but you can always "skip" over the requests for proof ... like you did in the thread where you accused JP looking up an English word in the English dictionary (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3034) ... instead of admitting you were wrong ...

Sherbear continues her campaign of misrepresentation, distortion and innuendo.

Holding claimed that the word 'vision' was not in the description of the Transfiguration.

When told that the word 'horama' (vision) WAS in the text, he then looked up 'vision' in an English dictionary to try to find a meaning of 'horama' (a greek word) that he could spin, and then claimed that one English particular meaning of 'vision' was what the ancient Greeks meant by 'horama'.

So he was trying to find a meaning of 'horama' (a Greek word) in an English dictionary.

But as Sherbear will deny even the very words in the Bible, she will find it no problem to deny that.

Sher

May 16th 2003, 05:18 PM

Today @ 12:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98726#post98726)
stevencarrwork:

Having exhausted 19th century scholarship, Sherbear is now going back to the 18th century to get her experts.

:shrug: An expert is an expert is an expert ... no matter the century ... and BTW, the date of the commentary was never the issue here ... the validity of it ... that it hasn't been disputed is ... as well as the fact that it proves my point ... not yours.

Does Sherbear read her own posts? The manuscripts she cites have 'trith' (third) while the main manuscripts have 'ekth' (sixth). Steve, the commentary says: As in ancient times all the numbers were written in the manuscripts not at large but in numeral letters ... who isn't reading well here?

And she berates me for saying that the manuscripts have words instead of numbers here! And then posts a rebuttal where she claims that giving manuscripts with words instead of numbers proves that I am wrong to say that the manuscripts we have, have words instead of numbers. Amazing!

Um... read it again ... I posted it because it says that they all relied on: As in ancient times all the numbers were written in the manuscripts not at large but in numeral letters ... do you not understand that "at large" means the words were not spelled out? Did you overlook where Clarke says all the numbers in ancient times were written as numeral letters? I didn't think so ...

As I have been maintaining, the theory is that because the ancients wrote in numerals, the scribes that followed could have repeated an error ... which is what Clarke is saying when he says:"As in ancient times all the numbers were written in the manuscripts not at large but in numeral letters, it was easy for g three, to be mistaken for v six. The Codex Bezae has generally numeral letters instead of words. And trith, the third, instead of ekth, the sixth, is the reading of some very eminent MSS. in the place in question" Note that Clarke stresses that the ancients wrote in numerals ... and [later] thrith is the reading in eminent MSS [that followed the ancients] ... the words in brackets are implied by the way that Clarke has written for both verses and supported in the other commentary that I noticed that you skipped:It is supposed that the true reading, in John xix. 14, should be trith, the third, instead of ekth the sixth; a mistake which might have readily taken place in ancient times, when the character g gamma, which was put for trith, three, might have been mistaken for Greek episema, or sigma tau, which signifies six. Supporting what I have been saying all along ... by skipping this one which supports the understanding of the other ... you prove that you are simply trying to twist the commentary to your own point ... but it refutes you, Steve ... no two ways about it.

<snip repeated blather from one who needs lessons in reading comprehension>

BTW, Nonnus was apaprently quite unreliable, judging by the fantasies he wrote when he wrote his paraphrase of John.

So Steve, you say that Nonnus ... who you claim is unreliable ... supports your point? :rofl:

I plead with Shebear to once again read her own postings which tell her that some manuscripts have 'trith' and some have 'ekth' and drop this idee fixe she has that there are ancient manuscripts with 'gamma' and 'digamma' in John 19:14 and Mark 15. Perhaps you should stop pleading ... and actually read where Clark says the very thing you are ignoring he says ... that the ancients wrote in numerals.

Please, Sherbear, please, have a look at what you posted and stop pestering me to produce the evidence that you have already posted.

My evidence doesn't support you ... and YOU were the one who claimed that you have at least 23,997 ancient MSS that back your point up ... you surely couldn't have been meaning modern versions ... that makes no sense in this discussion ...

If you can't back up your assertions ... :shrug: we expected no less from you ...

jpholding

May 16th 2003, 08:05 PM

OK, now to get back to some of this raw sewage pumped out by Stevie...

Robyn Banks aka Fred Dagg, sound biting as usual...

Stevie Weevie tries to use the rabbinic quote against me...sorry, Stevie, out of place again. I already answered you on that: you need a use for such measuring. Prophetic, or ritual. That's not involved here.

Does Holding think Pilate would not have crucified Jesus at noon, because it was too hot? Would Jesus have been allowed to have a siesta before being killed?

Duh yeah, prisoners get what they want. :doh: Heat was one reason for the break, but it simply was a regular schedule even when heat was not around. Siestas do not get abandoned in winter.

Does Holding think that ancient peoples could not tell the difference between 4 AM (when it was dark), 6 AM (starting to dawn), and 8 AM (fully light)?

False dichotomy, Stevie. It's that they had issues telling the EXACT difference between 4 and 6 on one hand, and 6 and 8 on the other.

Been there and done that on Malina and Rohrbaugh...of course Stevie thinks they are stupid when it comes to the social sciences, so you got to wonder why he believes them here. Et tu, brute. Poor guy also got creamed on the scribal issue, from here AND Errancy, and is running his mouth to cover his butt. In the end he admits it is "possible" which is the closest Stevie ever gets to admitting he is wrong outright. When he is wrong he usually shuts up and hides.

Time to slam harder. :lol:

stevencarrwork

May 17th 2003, 05:00 AM

Stevie Weevie tries to use the rabbinic quote against me...sorry, Stevie, out of place again. I already answered you on that: you need a use for such measuring. Prophetic, or ritual. That's not involved here.

Holding still thinks that a rule he has only ever seen used by prudish rabbis scared of touching a menstruating woman, was a general rule, although he cannot and will not ever find this rule applied anywhere else. It was made up to solve the problem of Pharisees considering themselves unclean by touching a menstrutaing woman, and Holding takes this legalistic, Pharasaic ruling and puts it in the minds of the Gospel writers.

Does Holding think Pilate would not have crucified Jesus at noon, because it was too hot? Would Jesus have been allowed to have a siesta before being killed?

Duh yeah, prisoners get what they want. :doh: Heat was one reason for the break, but it simply was a regular schedule even when heat was not around. Siestas do not get abandoned in winter.

I think Holding is saying that the soldiers took a siesta.

Does Holding think that ancient peoples could not tell the difference between 4 AM (when it was dark), 6 AM (starting to dawn), and 8 AM (fully light)?

False dichotomy, Stevie. It's that they had issues telling the EXACT difference between 4 and 6 on one hand, and 6 and 8 on the other.

Amazing! Holding thinks rural fishermen struggle to tell the difference (in April) between 4 (dark) and 6 (dawn) and between 6 (dawn) and 8 fully light.

I imagine his decades of study of the social background of the Gospels were a total waste of time.

Been there and done that on Malina and Rohrbaugh...of course Stevie thinks they are stupid when it comes to the social sciences, so you got to wonder why he believes them here. Et tu, brute. Poor guy also got creamed on the scribal issue, from here AND Errancy, and is running his mouth to cover his butt. In the end he admits it is "possible" which is the closest Stevie ever gets to admitting he is wrong outright. When he is wrong he usually shuts up and hides.

Of course it is possible. Anything is possible. But you have no evidence for it. Sherbear just keeps on posting the names of manuscripts with 'tritos' and 'hektos' in them, rubbing in further the claim that the manuscripts do not have 'gamma' and 'digamma' in John 19:14.

Is it a creaming when Sherbear keeps on and on posting manuscripts supporting my claim that 'tritos' and 'hektos' were used by the scribes for 'third' and 'sixth'? Not her fault.She is simply too racked with pain at the moment to think straight, poor girl.

As for your claim that YOUR chosen experts spend decades studying the social background and still cannot tell what time it is.....

And, of course, Holding wrote 'As the product of a "high context" society, it already is, by nature, a high context document, and a low context reader like Skeptic X would never detect the implications without homework, like the homework needed to determine that the woman at the well was an outcast because she came to the well, alone, at noon.'

Now he turns around and denies he ever claimed it was noon in John 4.

Does Holding think his deceit fools anybody?

Obviously he is quite right to think his deceit will fool his followers. Why should he change when his followers will swallow any denial he cares to think of?

jpholding

May 17th 2003, 08:57 AM

Holding still thinks that a rule he has only ever seen used by prudish rabbis scared of touching a menstruating woman, was a general rule

Stevie still thinks that the rule was uniquely tied to the issue of menstruation, in spite of the fact that mensturation is nowhere mentioned in the answer. :rofl:

"How do we know when we can set off fireworks?"

"We can tell when the sun is just so far over the horizon."

Conclusion by Stevie Logic: Measuring time is only a function of deciding when to set off fireworks. :rofl:

I think Holding is saying that the soldiers took a siesta.

And, what's the problem with this?

Amazing! Holding thinks rural fishermen struggle to tell the difference (in April) between 4 (dark) and 6 (dawn) and between 6 (dawn) and 8 fully light.

Amazing! Stevie thinks that in the era before watches, people had ways of telling what exact time it was between 4 and 6, and between 6 and 8. And to boot, ways to cope with variations in darkness and light due to the seasons.

I imagine his decades of study of the social background of the Gospels were a total waste of time.

Stevie says this as one who thinks he can flip open an NIV and find the word "conscience" and use that to refute the whole social-sci paradigm Malina and Rohrbaugh explain. :rofl:

Of course it is possible. Anything is possible. But you have no evidence for it.

Stevie thinks we have "evidence" of every scribal error proposed. :rofl: Stevie thinks such evidence is needed to propose such a thing as a reasonable solution. My won't all those textual critics (Biblical and secular) be surprised by Stevie's wisdom.

Does Holding think his deceit fools anybody?

I think Stevie's confusion and belief that you need to agree with a writer 100% to quote and use them to make a point is a great example of comic relief. :lol: Not surprisingly, "my followers" are all intelligent enough to realize this.

Sher

May 17th 2003, 04:15 PM

Poor, poor Steve and his reading comprehension problem ...

He just can't see where the commentary says: As in ancient times all the numbers were written in the manuscripts not at large but in numeral letters

He just can't recognize that not at large but in numeral letters ... means the words were not spelled out

He totally just can't absorb that when Clarke says As in ancient times all the numbers, he means that it was common practice of the ancients that the numbers were written that way

He still can't find support in of his claim of overwhelming evidence ... nor can he find any assistance in his claims of at least 23,997 ancient MSS

He still thinks that because the modern scribes and printers spelled out the words, they were always spelled out, contrary to what the scholars who saw the ancient MSS have told us

And he *still* thinks there is something wrong about looking up English words in an English dictionary

/me pats poor Steve on the head and sends him back out to play with the other children ... tsking about how she is even more coherent than Steve ... even on painkillers.

raymond

May 18th 2003, 12:36 PM

I am not sure how the rules regarding these debates are applied, but it seems that Holding is well beyond the 5 days he had to respond to Alward last post regarding the contradiction in the times of the crucifixion in Mark and John. Does this mean Holding gives up or simply resigns? His original position that John and Mark used different clocks is clearly false so can he now introduce scribal error as a "harmonization"? Alward could effectly show that as an unjustified stretch of credibility but he the debate is supposedly over.

Sher

May 18th 2003, 01:16 PM

Today @ 12:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100463#post100463)
raymond:

I am not sure how the rules regarding these debates are applied, but it seems that Holding is well beyond the 5 days he had to respond to Alward last post regarding the contradiction in the times of the crucifixion in Mark and John. Does this mean Holding gives up or simply resigns? His original position that John and Mark used different clocks is clearly false so can he now introduce scribal error as a "harmonization"? Alward could effectly show that as an unjustified stretch of credibility but he the debate is supposedly over.

What?? How do you figure that JP either gave up or resigned, raymond? As you acknowledge yourself, the debate is over ... and has been for nearly a week now ... and all rounds were within the rules with both of them finishing up in the 5th and final round as agreed.

See the "schedule" below when each of them posted ...

Round 1

joe 4/26
jp 4/29

Round 2

joe 5/1
jp 5/5

Round 3

joe 5/6
jp 5/7

Round 4

joe 5/8
jp 5/9

Round 5 (final round)

joe 5/9
jp 5/12

jpholding

May 19th 2003, 12:26 PM

Looks like we have another reader on our hands. :ahem:

stevencarrwork

May 19th 2003, 01:31 PM

05-17-2003 @ 09:15 PM
SherBear:

Poor, poor Steve and his reading comprehension problem ...

He just can't see where the commentary says: As in ancient times all the numbers were written in the manuscripts not at large but in numeral letters

He still can't find support in of his claim of overwhelming evidence ... nor can he find any assistance in his claims of at least 23,997 ancient MSS

He still thinks that because the modern scribes and printers spelled out the words, they were always spelled out, contrary to what the scholars who saw the ancient MSS have told us

Your commentary does say that, but you keep posting the names of ancient manuscripts where they have 'hektos' and 'trith' in John 19:14. Why should I trust your 18th and 19th century commentaries when you cannot find any manuscripts to back them up?

Of course, you then have to start claiming that these fourth and fifth century manuscripts are by 'modern scribes', but what is a little distortion to Sherbear? She can do much worse. Heck , I imagine she doesn't even consider distortion on that scale to be worth bothering about. Somebody who thinks the Greek we read today is a 'translation' from Greek really does need to use an English dictionary to look up English words.

And the Alands and Bruce Metzger are 'printers' to Sherbear rather than the worlds leading experts on reconstructing the Greek text as the NT writers might have written it.

And it appears to be 'High Noon' for Holding, who cannot expalin why he plastered the idea of the sixth hour in John 4 being noon all over his web site replies to Farrell Till, when he now claims never to have believed what he was writing.

Sher

May 19th 2003, 01:45 PM

Today @ 12:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101229#post101229)
jpholding:

Looks like we have another reader on our hands. :ahem:

:rofl:

stevencarrwork

May 19th 2003, 01:46 PM

05-17-2003 @ 01:57 PM
jpholding:

Holding still thinks that a rule he has only ever seen used by prudish rabbis scared of touching a menstruating woman, was a general rule

Stevie still thinks that the rule was uniquely tied to the issue of menstruation, in spite of the fact that mensturation is nowhere mentioned in the answer.

http://www.tektonics.org/bucknerj01.html

'R. Akiba fixed a day for an Onah, and a night for an Onah: but the tradition is, that R. Eliezar Ben Azariah said, A day and a night make an Onah, and a part of an Onah is as a whole." And a little after, R. Ismael computeth a part of the Onah for the whole. (p. 210, vol. 2, Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica)
A strawman set up against this argues that because the reason for the discussion is a menstrual cycle, then this designation applies ONLY for menstrual cycles! That is not the case. While the menstrual cycle was the "problem" causing the discussion, the resolution is completely independent of the problem and is not uniquely associated with it. Do not let this strawman burn in your neck of the woods.'

Holding brazenly denies that menstruation was mentioned in his answer. Truly the man is a total liar, who tells lies as easily as he breathes.

He also brazenly claims that this legalistic , Pharasaic rule is not unique to the issue of menstruation, although he cannot come up with any other application or mention of the rule.

jpholding

May 19th 2003, 07:49 PM

Stevie (Big Fat Liar) PWS Carr continues his intellectual version of imitating Osama bin Laden:

Holding brazenly denies that menstruation was mentioned in his answer

No, Penfold, I don't deny any such thing. It was not mentioned in my answer until I found a need to correct your abuse of the material.

He also brazenly claims that this legalistic , Pharasaic rule is not unique to the issue of menstruation, although he cannot come up with any other application or mention of the rule.

It's easy to be "brazen" when the rule is NOT in the LEAST tied uniqiuely to menstraution. As in the "fireworks" example this is nothing more than under-the-influence Stevie "logic" of the same sort that thinks finding one bad example of oral tradition invalidates all oral tradition, everywhere, in every time period.

Stevie is always good for a cheap laugh. :rofl:

Sher

May 20th 2003, 12:52 AM

Yesterday @ 01:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101259#post101259)
stevencarrwork:

Your commentary does say that

Thank you! ... finally you read what was written ...

but you keep posting the names of ancient manuscripts where they have 'hektos' and 'trith' in John 19:14. Why should I trust your 18th and 19th century commentaries when you cannot find any manuscripts to back them up?

Funny ... you have, as of yet, produced not one of your 23,997 (minimum) ancient MSS that prove this point wrong ... yet you keep clammoring for more proof in the face of the scholars who know far better than you ... who cares if you trust them or not? They were respected scholars ... and they rebut your claims of no proof ... as do the secular mathematicians and historians. Your lack of trust isn't the issue ... your lack of proof is ...

Of course, you then have to start claiming that these fourth and fifth century manuscripts are by 'modern scribes', but what is a little distortion to Sherbear? She can do much worse. Heck , I imagine she doesn't even consider distortion on that scale to be worth bothering about. Somebody who thinks the Greek we read today is a 'translation' from Greek really does need to use an English dictionary to look up English words.

Steve, later century's manuscripts are more modern than the original autographs ... when they would have used the ancient methods of writing numbers ... no matter how much you equivicate on the word "modern" ... scribes would have rewritten the MSS several times over by that time ... each putting their own handwritting and common style of lettering for the period they lived in ... so if they wrote it out in full words, it was because it was common to THAT time ... not common to the time when it was originally written in abbreviated format.

... and I notice that you didn't deride Solly when he rightly said in a different topic ... also correcting you on this type of mistake:

Yesterday @ 06:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101032#post101032)
Solly:

Modern Hebrew is not Biblical Hebrew, any more than 21st cent English is Chaucer's English, that is why a modern Hebrew translation of the bible is being produced by Christians in Israel.

Note the use of the word "translation" there ... coupled with Hebrew? Note how he presents basically the same point I have been making here ... that the ancient is different ... that the Hebrew you read now in any lexicon or modern translation is not written in the same way as the Hebrew you would see on the ancient MSS ... but 5 and five still mean the same thing ... and volume 5 is still the fifth volume... no matter which way it is written.

As for "translation" ... You are using the fallacy of equivication ... As I already explained, translate has several different definitions ... and I gave the reasoning behind the one that I meant (and Solly meant in that post) ... your equivication of implying I mean: "To express in another language, while retaining the original sense" is erroneous ... no one said it was a different language ... It is the same language ... but in a different format.

Like "Hebrew translation" ... "Greek translation" means that someone took a document in ancient Greek and translated it into a more modern Greek format ... just as Solly outlines about the Hebrew. You are the only one that I see who has difficulty understanding this ... and it appears to be on purpose ... perhaps because you know you have no support for your point ...

And the Alands and Bruce Metzger are 'printers' to Sherbear rather than the worlds leading experts on reconstructing the Greek text as the NT writers might have written it.

Re-read what I wrote ... and stop twisting, Chubby C. ... I said scribes and printers ... and never mentioned anybody by name ... so your mockery only turns back and serves as ridicule on you ... as we laugh at your asinine conclusions and diversions.

And it is too funny that you now think it appropriate to look up English words in an English dictionary ... such a 180 from your previous assertions :rofl: ... when you are trying to scoff.

Now ... to repeat ... He still can't find support in of his claim of overwhelming evidence ... nor can he find any assistance in his claims of at least 23,997 ancient MSSWhere's your proof, Steve? You made some really wild assertions ... and have yet to back them up with anything more than posturing about my proofs.

But go ahead ... complain that I am ranting and raving ... and avoid all the other points because you have no proof ... we are used to it.

Sher

May 20th 2003, 09:20 AM

P.S. Addendum for above post:

http://www.canterburytales.org/canterbury_tales.html is a great example of "21st cent English vs. Chaucer's English"

It shows the English translations ... both modern and middle ... Note that even this website refers to the modern English as a translation

Just as I have been speaking about ancient MSS ... and the more modern Greek translations that Steve is reading from ...

stevencarrwork

May 20th 2003, 11:14 AM

Today @ 02:20 PM
SherBear:

http://www.canterburytales.org/canterbury_tales.html is a great example of "21st cent English vs. Chaucer's English"

It shows the English translations ... both modern and middle ... Note that even this website refers to the modern English as a translation

Just as I have been speaking about ancient MSS ... and the more modern Greek translations that Steve is reading from ...

What a very stupid analogy to compare the Greek published by the United Bible Society with 21st century English vs Chaucer's English? Is Sherbear claiming that the Greek in the NT published today is 21st-century Greek? Surely even she is not so stupid.

Is even Sherbear going to seriously maintain that the Greek published by the Alands and Metgzer is 'modern' Greek, rather than koine Greek?

She stupidly said that the Greek is a translation from the Greek and is resorting to further stupidities to try to justify herself.

Sherbear, as the famous British politician , Denis Healy once said, when you are in a hole, stop digging.

But she can try a direct question (just for the fun of seeing her dodge and dodge - the way she dodged producing any manuscripts which have gamma or digamma in John 19:14) , is the Greek published in Nestle-Aland 27 koine Greek?

And Sherbear please try to stop your repeated sickening lies that I have not told you which manuscripts have hektos in John 19:14. I gave a link to a commentary which listed which early manuscripts have trith and which have hektos. The commentary did not list one manuscript which had gamma or digamma.

But I'm sure Sherbear will continue her campaign of lies that I did not give a link to a PDF article where the manuscripts are listed.

Christians are addicted to lies, how can she stop?

Sher

May 20th 2003, 06:40 PM

Today @ 11:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102201#post102201)
stevencarrwork:

What a very stupid analogy to compare the Greek published by the United Bible Society with 21st century English vs Chaucer's English? Is Sherbear claiming that the Greek in the NT published today is 21st-century Greek? Surely even she is not so stupid.

Is even Sherbear going to seriously maintain that the Greek published by the Alands and Metgzer is 'modern' Greek, rather than koine Greek?

She stupidly said that the Greek is a translation from the Greek and is resorting to further stupidities to try to justify herself.

In answer, I say again:

Today @ 12:52 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101845#post101845)
SherBear:

Steve, later century's manuscripts are more modern than the original autographs ... when they would have used the ancient methods of writing numbers ... no matter how much you equivicate on the word "modern" ... scribes would have rewritten the MSS several times over by that time ... each putting their own handwritting and common style of lettering for the period they lived in ... so if they wrote it out in full words, it was because it was common to THAT time ... not common to the time when it was originally written in abbreviated format.

... and I notice that you didn't deride Solly when he rightly said in a different topic ... also correcting you on this type of mistake

Since nothing has changed ... you still aren't reading well ... I was so encouraged by that one burst of insight ... where you realized the commentary I provided did say what I said it did ... SIGH!! (~ as Dee Dee would say...)

But she can try a direct question (just for the fun of seeing her dodge and dodge - the way she dodged producing any manuscripts which have gamma or digamma in John 19:14)

And Steve, you once again attempt to move the goalposts when you discover that you cannot give examples of your overwhelming proof ... your minimum of 23,997 ancient MSS with the words spelled out ... and tries to shift responsiblity.

No one is buying it, Steve... where is your overwhelming proof that there are an overwhelming number (at least 23,997) ancient MSS with the words spelled out?

is the Greek published in Nestle-Aland 27 koine Greek?

First, I never referred to the NA27 by name or inference -- nice try to add some extra words in there -- but to your usage of more modern Greek lexicons to make determinations ... and you are still missing the second point:

Second, the direct answer to your question ... of course it is ... but only you were the one trying to make it out as if I said it were different languages ... I said that it was a different translation = format ... see 5/15/03 where I said:Translation ... The state of being translated

Translate(d) ... To change from one form, function, or state to another; convert or transform

The change from written papyrus to modern printed book format is a translation ... not from one language to another but from one medium to another ... and since the original was scribed ... the printed version is different than the original version ... ergo, a translation ... even in this case, the changes from the ancient autographs to the NA27 published in AD 1950 ... are also a translation ... it is a modern printed book format translated from the MSS ... as I pointed out previously ... I refer to translation by the differences in format ... ONLY you misunderstood translation to a singular-dimentional meaning of changes in language ... or are attempting equivication as I pointed out previously. We have been speaking about format all along when we have been discussing the Greek to Greek ... numerals to fully written out words ... not differences in languages ...

... and you tried to obfuscate what I said because you didn't have proof to back up ... and it is far easier for you to ridicule than to put up or shut up ... and it is amazing how you take a few words and insert many of your own ... and try to pass it off as what the other person said or meant ... no wonder they keep calling you the Mental Pretzel!

And Sherbear please try to stop your repeated sickening lies that I have not told you which manuscripts have hektos in John 19:14. I gave a link to a commentary which listed which early manuscripts have trith and which have hektos. The commentary did not list one manuscript which had gamma or digamma. But I'm sure Sherbear will continue her campaign of lies that I did not give a link to a PDF article where the manuscripts are listed. Christians are addicted to lies, how can she stop?

:eek: ... EGAD!! You were serious when you posted that link ... I thought it was simply a desperate attempt at humor because you couldn't support your case ... I mean even the author gives the following disclaimer in a sublink:Disclaimer: I am not a professional textcritic and this commentary is only a first draft. It is possible and even probable that there are some things plain wrong in here.{emphasis mine}
Furthermore he states: For the external evidence I relied completely on printed matter (e.g. NA, Swanson, IGNTP, Lake/Geerlings, editio princeps transcriptions etc.), only for Vaticanus B/03 I had a facsimile at hand.
Ref: http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/Introduction-1a.pdf

Having NO access to the ancient documents ... save one ... and that one is in Alexandrian Text, Steve ... (http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Mss/vatican.html).

So to answer your accusations of "lying" ... I was simply giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were joking about that one link ... instead of ridiculing you for not researching the author of the material in your link before you posted it here. Now this is the second time you have either alluded to, or directly accused me of lying/being a liar.

If you do not retract this accusation and/or persist on calling me a liar (someone who presents false information with the intention of deceiving) with no proof to back it up, I will call for outside moderation against your character assassination. It is against the rules of this forum to move from rhetoric and satire to assaults against one's character. You have not proved that the information I provided, derived from several Biblical and secular scholars, is false ... nor have you provided any proof that I deceived ... or especially in keeping with the definition intended to deceive ... anyone. I'll expect your apology in your next post ... if you do, I'll let that matter drop as a show of Christian benevolence.

(forgive any spelling/grammatical errors ... I need to go make supper ... and don't have time to proofread this further)

RevSteve45

May 21st 2003, 01:14 PM

I just noticed this:

A number of Greek manuscripts of John in fact have "third" hour instead of "sixth" hour!

The manuscripts with "third" hour:

Addition in Sinaiticus (4th Century)
Bezae Cantabrigiensis (6th Century)
019L (8th Century)
033X (10th Century)
037 (9th Century)
044 (8th-9th Century)

However, my commentary says the following:

"The crucifixion occurred at the third hour, 9 a.m.; Mark used Jewish computation of time. There is no contradiction in John 19:13, 14. When John wrote "about the sixth hour," he was giving a ecap of the time when Pilate first sat down in the judgment seat for trial, according to Roman time. By Eoman reckoning, Pilate started the trial at 6 a.m.; the intervening 3 hours were occupied by the trial and other events leading to the crucifixion. Other instances of John's use of Roman time are John 1:39; 4:6; 4:52. (The Complete Biblical Library: Vol. 3: Study Bible, Mark, by Opal L.S. Reddin, D.Min., Mark 15:25, pg. 435).

In His Service,
Steve

stevencarrwork

May 21st 2003, 04:26 PM

A doctoral student at Birmingham University on the Textual Criticism mailing list has looked at teh early manuscript Codex Sinaiticus with the following results.

1) The number one is never abbreviated.
2) Numerals are not abbreviated in John, and rarely in Luke.
3) Larger numbers (hundreds and thousands) are not abbreviated.
4) The number of numbers in full far outweighs the number abbreviated.

'Numbers are not abbreviated in John'

Can Sherbear find more than one manuscript , from about AD840, which supports her 'arguments'?

Joseph Alward

May 21st 2003, 04:32 PM

STEVE
By Roman reckoning, Pilate started the trial at 6 a.m.; the intervening 3 hours were occupied by the trial and other events leading to the crucifixion. Other instances of John's use of Roman time are John 1:39; 4:6; 4:52. (The Complete Biblical Library: Vol. 3: Study Bible, Mark, by Opal L.S. Reddin, D.Min., Mark 15:25, pg. 435).

JOE ALWARD
Reddin is contradicted by every single unequivocal example of time reckoning by the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Hebrews. The Roman system was one in which nighttime hours were measured relative to sundown, with 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM, for example, being the first hour of the night. Similarly, daylight hours were reckoned relative to sunrise, with 6:00 AM to 7:00 AM, for example, being the first hour of the day. Hundreds of examples of this method of measuring time are found in the ancient literature. You may find a few dozen of them in the article, "Time Reckoning in Ancient Rome," at http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Ancient_Rome.htm

You won’t find in the ancient literature a single clear example of anyone ever measuring the daylight hours relative to midnight. The reason for this seems obvious, at least to me. Sunrise and sunset were readily observable events, so the water clocks would be refilled at these moments to begin the day or night cycle. Such would not have been possible at midnight. How would one "observe" midnight? The answer is, one could not, and that is why the evidence that anyone ever reset the clocks at midnight to begin the count for the hours from midnight until noon is totally absent from the historical record.

Dee Dee Warren

May 21st 2003, 06:40 PM

Steven, you will stop your slander and character assisination of Sherbear or provide a post with detailed backup of your slurs.

stevencarrwork

May 22nd 2003, 12:15 AM

Yesterday @ 11:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103626#post103626)
Dee Dee Warren:

Dee Dee is her usual even-handed self - personal abuse by Christians is invisible to her, while she rushes to accuse sceptics.

Sherbear claimed the Greek published in New Testaments today is a translation into modern Greek (she compared the difference to the difference between 21st-century English and Chaucer's English)

I quote Sherbear 'Steve, seriously, you are arguing from your ignorance, based on looking at modern Greek translations on the Internet, ignoring the historical background of how the Greeks wrote in that time....'

I asked Sherbear a direct question - Is the Greek published in the New Testaments today koine Greek? - and , guess what! the moderator removed the question so that Sherbear could not demonstrate to the world how silly her claim was that the Alands and Bruce Metzger translated the koine Greek of the NT into modern Greek.

How convenient when the moderators can remove embarrasing questions from your opponents posts for you! I shall tell the Errancy list what they can expect from Dee Dee. If Christians claim the Greek published in New Testaments is a translation into modern Greek, then Dee Dee will remove and edit posts which say that this is daft, while allowing Christians to say that my posts are 'asinine' (when I paraphrased Holding's statement that Christians refrained from sex during a famine, I was accused of being asinine, until Christians realised it was a paraphrase of what Holding said in http://www.tektonics.org/1cor7.html )

Sherbear has repeatedly claimed that I never gave manuscripts which have the numbers for third and sixth written out in full , rather than having 'the 3 hour' or 'the 6 hour', as she claims the manuscripts have (without ever giving evidence that there is a manuscriot of John where that is done).

I posted the following which has a link to a 1 Megabyte PDF article listing the manuscripts. (Is Dee Dee suggesting I post a 1 megabyte PDF article on the forum????)

Start post :-

'For the benefit of Sherbear I have dug up a little more

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html

This has a commentary on John which says for John 19:14, the most common reading is 'hektos' , ('sixth'), but that some , a minority, of early manuscripts have 'tritos' (third), and that this was probably a scribe altering the text to make it agree with Mark.

The commentary states that it was possible that the readings originally occurred out of mistaking a 'gamma' for a 'digamma' (and not 'third' for 'sixth' as Holding said)

Of course, it is possible. All is possible....

But it never claims that any manuscript has a 'gamma' or 'digamma' for 'third' or 'sixth'. It says the readings are 'hektos' or 'tritos'.

If any did have gamma or digamma, it would not talk about the readings 'originally' arising out of a confusion that would still have been happening in the manuscripts.'

End post.

So I gave a link to a highly detailed table of manuscripts , from a very respected scholar at the University of Bremen, and Sherbear continued to rant and rave that I had never given early manuscripts which have trith and hektos in John 19:14, instead of gamma and digamma as she claims there is (but cannot give any evidence for). She then started slandering Herr Wilker of the University of Bremen (claiming his table was a joke)

Somebody who thinks the United Bible Societies translated the Greek of the New Testament into Greek might struggle with basic logic, and be unable to do more than attack scholars like Wilker, or the Alands or Bruce Metzger, accusing them of systematically altering the Bible text.

Her daft claim that because Nestle-Aland was published in 1950 it is a modern Greek translation is the height of desperation, and an indication of what she will resort to.

I repeat - Sherbear OWN SOURCES gave just ONE manuscript from AD 850 which backed her up, out of the about 24,000 manuscripts which exist, since when she has started her campaign of attack , attack , attack because she could not produce anything to back up her claims that the New Testament was systematically altered by the early scribes.

stevencarrwork

May 22nd 2003, 12:42 AM

Yesterday @ 09:26 PM
stevencarrwork:

A doctoral student at Birmingham University on the Textual Criticism mailing list has looked at teh early manuscript Codex Sinaiticus with the following results.

1) The number one is never abbreviated.
2) Numerals are not abbreviated in John, and rarely in Luke.
3) Larger numbers (hundreds and thousands) are not abbreviated.
4) The number of numbers in full far outweighs the number abbreviated.

'Numbers are not abbreviated in John'

Can Sherbear find more than one manuscript , from about AD840, which supports her 'arguments'?

Gosh, I wonder if Sherbear will claim that this is also a joke because the author claimed to be human and fallible and might make mistakes.

And the author relied on the work of the best scholars to answer my post rather than travelling the world's libraries and museums asking to get these restricted access manuscripts, so Sherbear will claim that that the Ph.D candidate is just a joke......

Sherbear , of course, cites 18th century commentaries to make points about early manuscripts (like Sinaiticus presumably) which had not even been discovered when her sources were writing! (and then attacks people like Herr Wilker of the University of Bremen)

Compare the detailed scholarship on Mr. Willker's page on Vaticanus -
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/index.html with Sherbear's preferred source (which quotes ONE reference from 1939) -
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Mss/vatican.html

Interesting that Dee Dee (our even handed moderator) has no objection to Holding calling my posts 'raw sewage' on this thread ........

Mind you, I did like Sherbear's scouring of the dictionary to find a meaning of translation which would not make her claim look so silly that the NT of today is a modern Greek translation. (Just as Irving scours German dictionaries to find meanings of 'ausrotten' which suit him)

Mathematicans say that something has been 'translated' if it is moved from its original co-ordinates. Perhaps Sherbear merely means that the Codex Sinaiticus has been 'translated' from the monastery in the Middle East to the British Museum, when she said that there are modern translations of these manuscripts.

Sher

May 22nd 2003, 01:59 AM

Today @ 12:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103847#post103847)
stevencarrwork:

Dee Dee is her usual even-handed self - personal abuse by Christians is invisible to her, while she rushes to accuse sceptics.

Steve, you called me a liar by saying I was lying ... I asked you to retract the comments (the second ones in this topic) and apologize for attacking my character in your next post, or I would call for moderation. You neither removed it, nor apologized ... so I asked for assistance. I will not stand idly by and allow you to slander my integrity. Dee Dee is responding to my request.

Sherbear claimed the Greek published in New Testaments today is a translation into modern Greek (she compared the difference to the difference between 21st-century English and Chaucer's English)

Writing to Joe, I closed by saying (emphasis now added):

05-14-2003 @ 06:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=96682#post96682)
SherBear:

To further appeal to printed works ... for how the written MSS were scribed ... is folly. To look at a modern English translation ... or a modern Greek translation ... and assume that it is how the ancient was scribed is foolish ... words and thoughts were preserved ... but the ancient scribal techniques were not.

Which Steve twisted to say:

05-14-2003 @ 08:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=96759#post96759)
stevencarrwork:

Sherbear thinks the New Testament has been translated into Greek??

And her claim that 'words and thoughts have been preserved', when she is claiming that words have been added and symbols removed is very strange. She is the one claiming that the words have been altered, and now she says the words have been preserved.

Sherbear thinks we should not look at a Greek Bible to see what was written, because the words have been changed.

Certainly scribal practices have changed. For example, miniscule writing was adopted instead of uncial writing. This is very different from claiming that words were altered.

But for her to claim that vast numbers of words have been changed, with no manuscript evidence for her to back that up, and that she will not accept Greek texts or ancient manuscripts as evidence of what John 19:14 says, well, words fail me.

How can you discuss something with somebody who denies the very words on the page?

To which I then had to reply to correct Steve's erroneous conclusions:

05-15-2003 @ 04:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=97658#post97658)
SherBear:

Translation ... The state of being translated

Translate(d) ... To change from one form, function, or state to another; convert or transform

The change from written papyrus to modern printed book format is a translation ... not from one language to another but from one medium to another ... and since the original was scribed ... the printed version is different than the original version ... ergo, a translation ... sigh.

Ergo ... translation ... I am saying that the scholars say that the text has been changed ... not the meaning as you try to twist my words to say.

And then followed up with Solly's quote regarding Chaucer and modern English ... and provided a link that showed, if Steve had actually looked at it, how the thoughts of Chaucer were preserved to the modern English ... but how the writing techniques and spellings were changed for the more modern reader. This was to show that the more modern than the ANCIENT Greek writings were transcribed differently than the ancient Greeks would have written ... something I have exhaustively proven with links to both Biblical and secular scholars.

But Steve answered by referring to where I said what Steve now quotes (note how he leaves the dates off to try to confuse chronology:
I quote Sherbear 'Steve, seriously, you are arguing from your ignorance, based on looking at modern Greek translations on the Internet, ignoring the historical background of how the Greeks wrote in that time....'

That is taken from this post:
05-07-2003 @ 05:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=90394#post90394)
SherBear:

Uh ... :dufus:? That's because they were ALL in symbol format ... read the links ... that was the common practice of all the Greeks in that time period. Later translators would copy it to the full words ... evidenced on the Internet and in Bible software ... for clarity.

[...]

Steve, seriously, you are arguing from your ignorance, based on looking at modern Greek translations on the Internet, ignoring the historical background of how the Greeks wrote in that time ...

Note here how I am speaking about Internet and Bible software ... about the modern Greek translations on the Internet ... yet Steve then attempts to put words in my mouth ...

I asked Sherbear a direct question - Is the Greek published in the New Testaments today koine Greek? - and , guess what! the moderator removed the question so that Sherbear could not demonstrate to the world how silly her claim was that the Alands and Bruce Metzger translated the koine Greek of the NT into modern Greek.

Um, Steve? What are you going on about "that Sherbear could not demonstrate to the world how silly her claim was [...]"? The question was answered in the very next post ... Here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=102559#post102559) :huh:

How convenient when the moderators can remove embarrasing questions from your opponents posts for you! I shall tell the Errancy list what they can expect from Dee Dee.

Yes, please be sure to tell them how you complained about Dee Dee removing and editing posts ... that were edited because you broke forum rules ... and how your claims that this was done because the question was embarrasing and so that I could not answer it ... are DISPROVEN in black and white in the VERY NEXT post that follows the moderated one WHERE I ANSWERED THE QUESTION! Please do be sure to point that out to them, Steve. Then you can apologize to Dee Dee for misrepresenting her intentions ... as well as apologize to me for calling me a liar.

If Christians claim the Greek published in New Testaments is a translation into modern Greek, then Dee Dee will remove and edit posts which say that this is daft,

Dee Dee edited your post because you assassinated my character by saying for the second time that I am lying ... and a liar.

while allowing Christians to say that my posts are 'asinine' (when I paraphrased Holding's statement that Christians refrained from sex during a famine, I was accused of being asinine, until Christians realised it was a paraphrase of what Holding said in http://www.tektonics.org/1cor7.html )

No bearing on the issue of you calling me a liar

Sherbear has repeatedly claimed that I never gave manuscripts which have the numbers for third and sixth written out in full, rather than having 'the 3 hour' or 'the 6 hour', as she claims the manuscripts have (without ever giving evidence that there is a manuscriot of John where that is done).

You said you have overwhelming evidence ... yet you fail to provide the overwhelming evidence. You claim there are at least 23,997 ancient MSS that support your claims ... yet do not provide them. You provide one link to a site with PDFs that I took to be a jest as I explained in my last post ... because even the author states he isn't a professional and his errors are probable ... and that he didn't have any ancient MSS to base his conclusions on. So I stand by my comments that did not back up your claims of overwhelming evidence, nor your claims of nearly 24,000 (minus one or two) ... and I addressed your shifting of goal posts to now claim you were looking for ancient MSS focusing only on John ... as opposed to the general requests in the beginning. If this is what you originally intended to be speaking about ... it wasn't clear ... and is even more absurd when taken in consideration for YOUR claims of overwhelming/nearly 24,000 (give or take) ... because you would have to prove then that many were available for JOHN ... not ancient MSS in general. See how you are digging further and futher by moving goal posts?

I posted the following which has a link to a 1 Megabyte PDF article listing the manuscripts. (Is Dee Dee suggesting I post a 1 megabyte PDF article on the forum????)

Reference to this answer above <start/stop post snipped for brevity>

So I gave a link to a highly detailed table of manuscripts , from a very respected scholar at the University of Bremen, and Sherbear continued to rant and rave that I had never given early manuscripts which have trith and hektos in John 19:14, instead of gamma and digamma as she claims there is (but cannot give any evidence for). She then started slandering Herr Wieland of the University of Bremen (claiming his table was a joke)

I said not that the table was a joke, but that I thought your posting of it was a joke ... based on the fact that the author himself states that he is not a professional ... and that he probably has errors ... and backed this up with proof from the very same site that you quoted, Steve.

And so you call me a liar ... when you are the one exhibiting the remarkable ability to put words in my mouth ... only to refute what you put there erroneously ... "burning the strawman" that you created.

Furthermore, I gave ample evidence of what was common to ancient times ... from Biblical scholars and secular scholars alike ... I admitted already to not being able to find the ancient MSS that support those scholars ... BUT I don't believe that I ever claimed that there were overwhelming numbers ... nearly 24,000 ... that supported it ... like you did, Steve ... that you haven't been able to prove. You say I give no evidence ... I say that the evidence I gave was the scholars ... you agree I gave it ... but ask why you should trust them ...and I replied that your trust wasn't the issue ... your lack of proving your assertions was ... you have NOT shown your overwhelming, nearly 24,000 ancient MSS.

Somebody who thinks the United Bible Societies translated the Greek of the New Testament into Greek might struggle with basic logic, and be unable to do more than attack scholars like Wieland, or the Alands or Bruce Metzger, accusing them of systematically altering the Bible text.

Equivication, as previously shown. Translation can mean change of language ... but it also can mean that the scribal techinques (format) was changed ... and I have sufficently shown that I meant the latter, not the former. In fact, my original post showed exactly what I meant ... only you, Steve, tried to change this in reply. To repeat, I said:"To further appeal to printed works ... for how the written MSS were scribed ... is folly. To look at a modern English translation ... or a modern Greek translation ... and assume that it is how the ancient was scribed is foolish ...words and thoughts were preserved ... but the ancient scribal techniques were not."{emphasis added} ... and note that this (as shown in the thread) was in a post speaking to Joe ... not to Steve ... yet Steve tried to pretend that it was an address to any scholar he wants to pretend it addresses. I was specific in saying how ancient scribal techniques were not preserved in the modern Greek translations. Any noncontemporaneous translation (change in format) is considered more modern than the ancient one ... only Steve read that modern to mean in this time period he now exists in. The whole point was that the ancients wrote one way, and the scribes that followed wrote in a different way. Note how Joe didn't contradict what I said. Perhaps Joe understood me to mean more modern than ancient times. Perhaps any other reader would understand that the link to Chaucer was to show difference in format ... opposed to difference in language as Steve tried to make out I was saying.

Her daft claim that because Nestle-Aland was published in 1950 it is a modern Greek translation is the height of desperation, and an indication of what she will resort to.

You said that my source (actually Barnes source, as I have corrected repeatedly) was from AD 850 ... You complained about my 18th and 19th century scholars ... then you said that you had NA, which I showed was only originated in AD 1950 when NA merged. It is a valid point based on your complaints ... if Barnes source is too new to be considered for this point ... if the 18th and 19th century scholars are too new to be considered for this point ... it is valid to point out that the source you were looking at was from the 20th century ... even newer than the ones I showed in this topic.

I repeat - Sherbear OWN SOURCES gave just ONE manuscript from AD 850 which backed her up, out of the about 24,000 manuscripts which exist, since when she has started her campaign of attack , attack , attack because she could not produce anything to back up her claims that the New Testament was systematically altered by the early scribes.

And I repeat ... that I said that Barnes gave the MSS from Cambridge ... I acknowledged that I couldn't find online anywhere to see if it were any others (and that the ones provided by the others were more modern than the ancient ones ... scribed in a different time period when the numerals went out of fashion ... therefore, they aren't valid proofs for this discussion) ... I did provide Biblical and secular scholars who all said that the ancients commonly wrote in that manner ... and that the ancient MSS reflect that common writing. I never, to the best of my knowledge in retrospect, say that I had overwhelming proof. I maintained that I do not speak Greek ... I was careful to show that the scholars were the ones who saw the proof in which they wrote about ... and I provided all sorts of hyperlinks and other ways (eSword) to check the sources I used.

I made a claim that scholars think that it could have happened. I said that I personally didn't agree, but that there was evidence that these scholars believe such errors could occur. I provided the sources to check out the scholars, who are more learned than me, and even secular information from mathematicians ... so Steve couldn't claim Christian bias. In fact, I went over and above what I intended to do with this topic to show that Steve was wrong in saying that it didn't happen that way on the ancient MSS.

However, Steve, STILL claim that there are about 24,000 ancient MSS ... you still claim there is overwhelming evidence ... and then you whine about me attacking you when I have to keep asking you to prove this assertion. It is not attacking you ... it is telling you to prove your assertions.

In summary ... a link to this post and this summary is being sent to Dee Dee ...

You, Steve, have the nerve to assassinate my character by calling me a liar ... and wouldn't retract the slander and apologize. I made assertions that I backed up. You made assertions that you did not. I gave all sorts of proof about the scholars ... and even went beyond my assertions to research secular scholars, showing how they agree about scribal techniques in that time period.

Lying is "To present false information with the intention of deceiving" ... I have not presented false information ... I did not intend to deceive ... I did not deceive. Therefore, your accusations of my lying is slander ... and I stand by my right to have this moderated per forum rules. Your slander when beyond satire or joking. You broke the anti-flaming rule here which states:If a strong and potentially inflammatory characterization is used, it must be backed up as to the truth of the matter. You were very wrong to say I was lying/a liar. And you have failed to prove any intent on my part to present false information (lying). Retract this and apologize, Steve.

stevencarrwork

May 22nd 2003, 02:29 AM

I put Sherbear's equivocations in its own thread at

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4895

I especially liked Sherbear's posts where she quoted Solly ho wrote 'Modern Hebrew is not Biblical Hebrew, any more than 21st cent English is Chaucer's English, that is why a modern Hebrew translation of the bible is being produced by Christians in Israel.'

and then Sherbear claimed

'As I already explained, translate has several different definitions ... and I gave the reasoning behind the one that I meant (and Solly meant in that post) ... your equivication of implying I mean: "To express in another language, while retaining the original sense" is erroneous ... no one said it was a different language ... It is the same language ... but in a different format.'

Sherbear had written '
http://www.canterburytales.org/canterbury_tales.html is a great example of "21st cent English vs. Chaucer's English"

It shows the English translations ... both modern and middle ... Note that even this website refers to the modern English as a translation

JUST AS I HAVE BEEN SPEAKING ABOUT ANCIENT MSS ... and the more modern Greek translations that Steve is reading from ...'

Does even Sherbear claim that the difference between 21st-century English and Chaucer's English is just a change in FORMAT?

And is she really claiming that Solly meant that the difference between modern Hebrew (which has words for 'car', 'radio', 'television', etc) and Biblical Hebrew is just a change in format?

Sherbear claimed the Greek in Bibles is a modern Greek translation, as different as the difference between Chaucer's English and 21st-century English,and she has been ever since desperately trying to turn her statements into something sensible by backtracking.

stevencarrwork

May 22nd 2003, 02:38 AM

SHERBEAR
And then followed up with Solly's quote regarding Chaucer and modern English ... and provided a link that showed, if Steve had actually looked at it, how the thoughts of Chaucer were preserved to the modern English ... but how the writing techniques and spellings were changed for the more modern reader.

CARR
Of course I looked at the link.

Sherbear pretends it is just writing techniques and spellings that have changed.

Here is Chaucer's English...

Here bygynneth the Book of the tales of Caunterbury.
1 Whan that Aprille, with hise shoures soote,
2 The droghte of March hath perced to the roote
3 And bathed every veyne in swich licour,
4 Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
5 Whan Zephirus eek with his swete breeth

6 Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
7 The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
8 Hath in the Ram his halfe cours yronne,
9 And smale foweles maken melodye,
10 That slepen al the nyght with open eye-

11 So priketh hem Nature in hir corages-
12 Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages
13 And palmeres for to seken straunge strondes
14 To ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes;
15 And specially, from every shires ende

Sherbear claims not to be lying when she says the difference between that and modern English is the writing technique and spelling.

Sherbear, what is the modern spelling of 'ferne halwes'?

Dee Dee Warren

May 22nd 2003, 06:24 AM

Please respect any comments/warnings by the Moderators. Any grievances with their action should be addressed to the Forum Administrators in Private Message, Email or in the Dean’s Office. If you feel you must repetitively complain, whine, or otherwise bellyache, please take it to the Janitor's Closet ][bor if you are Stevencarr feel free to whine to the Errancy List.[/b]

Sher has defended herself well. As long as you continue to deal with the issues and do not degenerate into the assinine raw sewage (oops! now I said it) that was your edited post, continue. Oh my goodness, Jim Eisle has been saying almost the exact assinine raw sewage as you but it has remained on the board. Note to self: better stop protecting Jim Eisle, the sceptics are on to me.

Sher

May 22nd 2003, 08:56 AM

Today @ 02:29 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103925#post103925)
stevencarrwork:

I put Sherbear's equivocations in its own thread at

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4895

You are cross-posting it in both areas ... which is against forum rules, Steve. I will restrict my answers to this original thread ... to avoid following you into breaking the rules ... and ... To show you how cross-posting this to a different area isn't going to get you out of dutch here, Steve.

You made claims you aren't backing up. Where is your overwhelming proof, nearly 24,000 ancient MSS?

You call me a liar ... and then, YOU falsely accused Dee Dee of moderating out a question in your post "so that SherBear could not demonstrate to the world how silly her claim was [...]"

Where is your proof on that either, Steve?

Of course THAT actually does belong in the Janitor's Closet per forum rules ... any quibbling with an Admin or Mod who is moderating you does belong there ... IF you can't follow the rules and address it in PM or email.

But to make sure that it is perfectly clear that what you are accusing Dee Dee of is shown to be false ...

... you ignore in your false accusation that you posted the SAME QUESTION TWICE ... paraphrasing it the second time from a third-person general question:"Is even Sherbear going to seriously maintain that the Greek published by the Alands and Metgzer is 'modern' Greek, rather than koine Greek?" that covered the points in your paraphrase asked next in the same post ... a first-person specific question:[...] is the Greek published in Nestle-Aland 27 koine Greek? {portion edited out by [...] is the "lying" accusations this second question as in the midst of ... see the quotes of Steve's words in my reply in the very next post for proof of this}

The PROOF of your false accusations are in the VERY NEXT post! See where I quote you and answer you ... BEFORE I called for moderation.

Dee Dee cannot, by reasons of logic, prevent me from answering something that I already answered.

Perhaps you would now like to hide from all your Errancy friends, the ones you complained to, that your false accusations hold no water.

You really don't want them to see where Dee Dee left your entire post intact in MY replying post ... the next one ... Allowing my defense to remain in context.

I'm sure you will be embarrassed for them to read how your question was answered in that next post ...

... or maybe not ... maybe you like public ridicule :shrug:

... I rather think you must ... based on past experiences with you.

The point is ... One cannot logically prevent a past action from happening. The question was asked twice, it was answered, and Dee Dee later moderated your post ... at my request.

She did NOT remove your words to assist me in failing to answer you ... you were already answered ...

She removed the paraphrase of the same question BECAUSE it was in the midst of a whole paragraph where you accused me of lying ... assassinating my character with no proof that I intended to intentional deceive anyone ... or that any of my proofs were false ... both criteria for lying.

I am still waiting for a retraction and apology, Steve. Then I will address your erroneous, twisted conclusions to out-of-context quotes.

(I hope one of the nicer skeptics on Errancy that also post/lurk here would be kind enough to point out this reply on Errancy ... public accusations deserve public ridicule ... when the proof is obvious that the accuser is smearing someone erroneously ... as Steve has done to both me ... AND Dee Dee now)

Dee Dee Warren

May 22nd 2003, 09:14 AM

Well I am going to go and tell my mommy that Stevie was mean to me. :bawl:

Sher you have done a great job of defending yourself. I am proud of you Sis.

Sher

May 22nd 2003, 09:20 AM

Today @ 09:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=104176#post104176)
Dee Dee Warren:

Well I am going to go and tell my mommy that Stevie was mean to me.

:rofl:

Sher you have done a great job of defending yourself. I am proud of you Sis.

:thumb: Thanks, Dee Dee.

I really do hate this having to carry on and on ... it seems so petty to the observer, I am sure ... but the point to addressing this is that I value my integrity.

I am not a liar ... and abhor being called one by someone falsely accusing me of lying.

Steven Avery

May 22nd 2003, 03:47 PM

Hi,

I agree that Steven Carr has one of the most unethical debating techniques I have ever seen. Constantly extract and change your opponents words, and then accuse them of lying when they don't match up to your own rewrite. DeeDee and SherBear have been patient to the max.

He posted on an errancy forum his whine about a number of things, and I just answered him. I hope it is appropriate to post the dialog, as it now stands, here. Schmuel is me.
============================================

Hi ii_errancy,

>SCHMUEL
>>However.. isn't it true, Steven, that that question you are claiming was moderated out
>>is in fact on the thread.

>CARR
>The moderator has removed the question, but it is in Sherbear's reply (where she ducked her claim that the Greek of the NT is a modern English translation)

Schmuel
Then why don't you simply let us see the whole post that was removed, uncut.

Then we could tell whether the reason for removal was the actual question about koine Greek, as you claimed, or the tone of the post, such as more "liar" type stuff, or sewage, as DeeDee claimed.

I note SherBear is trying to make you accountable on that type of stuff, and you simply duck it.

Trying to call people a liar, or idea censors, on your own rewrites of their words, seems to be your writing expertise, Steven. It is rather tacky, and I am glad that DeeDee and SherBear see right through your shenanigans.

>CARR
>No, the moderator removed the question, in her normal heavy-handed way, and then said my posts were 'raw sewage'.......

Schmuel
Pleaese Steven, don't deceive.

DeeDee said that specifically about the edited post, not "your posts" in general, so you could post the removed one here and let us judge, rather than try to say that the reason it was edited was the koine Greek issues. Seems very dubious, since, as you acknowledge, SherBear had no problem addressing your question.

So far, your accusations seem to be at least overdone.

<I am <snipping> a discussion of my own posts, not relevant here>

Carr
>Sherbear claimed that the Greek printed in Interlinear New Testaments today is a modern Greek translation of what was originally written.
>But Sherbear struggles with basic English words like 'modern', 'Greek' and 'translation'. http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sh...=&threadid=3640

Schmuel
Your URL was messed up. The "modern" issue is mildly interesting, but overdone. If the link was there, I might look at it, since you have a lot of '...' . Since SherBear referred to the Byzantine period as including Constantine, that part of the dialog was clearly meant to be early.

>SHERBEAR
>'Steve, seriously, you are arguing from your ignorance, based on looking at modern Greek translations on the Internet, ignoring the historical background of how the Greeks wrote in that time.... Sherbear claimed that the Greek in Interlinears is a 'modern Greek translation'. She even came up with an analogy to show how big the difference between modern Greek and ancient Greek was.

Schmuel
That was where she was talking about the script changes ?, which are in fact a major change. Around the 8th century. Uncial to cursive. Maurice Robinson talks about this some, as an important marker, one major point of change, in manuscript copying. Quite an interesting topic in textual criticism circles, often missed.

Carr
>What did Sherbear mean by 'translation' from Greek to 'modern Greek'? Let her explain what she means by 'translation'.

Schmuel
It seems like she did. Such as the uncial to cursive change above.
She even gave a dictionary definition of translation, to correct your view that translation would necessarily have to be to another language.

>SHERBEAR
>'P.S. Addendum for above post:
>http://www.canterburytales.org/canterbury_tales.html is a great example of "21st cent English vs. Chaucer's English" It shows the English translations ... both modern and middle ... Note that even this website refers to the modern English as a translation Just as I have been speaking about ancient MSS ... and the more modern Greek translations that Steve is reading from ...'
>End of quote from Sherbear...

CARR
>So 'the modern Greek translations' found in New Testament today is as far from the original koine Greek as 21-st century English is from Chaucer's English, claimed Sherbear in her analogy.

Schmuel
However she did not say that, you are putting words in her mouth. She was showing you that translation can occur within a language, and followed the Chaucer example that another had posted to give an example within a language.

CARR
>When I pointed out that the United Bible Soceity still has koine Greek, not a modern Greek translation, Sherbear suddenly did an about-face, as she knew that we still see ancient Greek in New Testaments today , not modern Greek.

SCHMUEL
>Sherbear 'Second, the direct answer to your question ... of course it is ... but only you were the one trying to make it out as if I said it were different languages ... I said that it was a different translation = format ... '

SCHMUEL
Steven, please you set up a straw man above
"as far from the original koine Greek as 21-st century English is from Chaucer's English, claimed Sherbear in her analogy."
and now you attack her for not supporting your straw man.

CARR
>So 'translation' becomes just a change of format and the change from Chaucer's English to modern English vanishes into thin air.

Schmuel
The simple fact of the matter is that the change from uncial to cursive can be considered translation. We may not be a fan of the usage (I'm not), but it is acceptable. Much ado about nothing.

Carr
>Sherbear later claimed 'The change from written papyrus to modern printed book format is a translation ... not from one language to another but from one medium to another '
>So the language never changed at all.

Schmuel
Again, she didn't say that. She was giving you another example.
Clearly scripture texts have changed some in terms of punctuation, script, spelling and other features, and have both medium and language differences. One distinction does not preclude the other. (insert fallacy name here).

CARR
> By 'modern Greek translation', Sherbear had only ever claimed that we now read books instead of papyrus....

SCHMUEL
Nope.. wrong.
Sherbear even specifically said that the uncial-->cursive change qualifies as translation. Steven, why do you constantly misrepresent her words ?

CARR
>Sherbear wrote 'We have been speaking about format all along when we have been discussing the Greek to Greek.' Gosh, and I was sure she claimed the best analogy was the change from Middle English to 21st-century English (I can't say modern English, because Sherbear claims 'modern' means 400 AD)
>She wrote 'Note that even this website refers to the modern English as a translation. Just as I have been speaking about ancient MSS.'....... and it turns out that all along she had just been talking about format. Who would have though that!

SCHMUEL
Actually she was talking about a number of things that qualify as translation. That seems to be too simple and obvious for you to accept.

CARR
>Sherbear is an amazing person to argue with,

SCHMUEL
Perhaps.. your constant misrepresentations though are hard for anyone to deal with.

CARR
> as she simply denies what she said.

SCHMUEL
Actually, what we see is that you constantly put words in her mouth, and then attack her for not matching your words.

CARR
>In one post she will say that differences are as big as the gap between us and Shakespeare and a day later, she claims that she said the language was the same.

SCHMUEL
I have seen you reword her so many times, and misrepresent what she says, that it is wearisome to go back more.

<snip Chaucer>

CARR
>Is she telling the truth when she says that Chaucer's 'ferne' is a mere spelling change from the modern English 'distant', and not something that is more closely related to a very different language from modern English?
>Perhaps Schmuel can tell us if she is telling the truth when she claimed that Chaucer's English differs from modern English in spelling, and that all modern translations do is modernise the spelling?

SCHMUEL
As usual you change her words around right and left.. Solly brought up Chaucer, this is what SherBear said in three passages, none of which match your claims above... the main topic is the definition of the word "translation" ... not the spelling of "ferne"
=======================
SherBear three quotes
<http://www.canterburytales.org/canterbury_tales.html>http://www.canterburytales.org/canterbury_tales.html
is a great example of "21st cent English vs. Chaucer's English" It shows the English translations ... both modern and middle ... Note that even this website refers to the modern English as a translation Just as I have been speaking about ancient MSS ... and the more modern Greek translations that Steve is reading from ...

And then followed up with Solly's quote regarding Chaucer and modern English ... and provided a link that showed, if Steve had actually looked at it, how the thoughts of Chaucer were preserved to the modern English ... but how the writing techniques and spellings were changed for the more modern reader. This was to show that the more modern than the ANCIENT Greek writings were transcribed differently than the ancient Greeks would have written ... something I have exhaustively proven with links to both Biblical and secular scholars.

Perhaps any other reader would understand that the link to Chaucer was to show difference in format ... opposed to difference in language as Steve tried to make out I was saying.
====================================================================

SherBear is telling the truth in what she says (even if the whole issue is silly.. such as the definition of the word translation) .

As usual you are unable to have a dialog without trying to accuse people of lying, even when everything they say, like SherBear here, is on the up and up.

Steven, please, even when you have a good point (I actually tend to agree that the argument of language change here is dubious) you deep-six your arguments with your debating style, that really reflects very poorly re: your dialog integrity.

Stop trying to make people out to be a liar by twisting their words, and try to be substantive and responsive on the issues.
You will do much better, imho.

Shalom,
Schmuel

Sher

May 22nd 2003, 05:45 PM

Thank you Schmuel ... I appreciate you sticking up for me on Errancy ...

... and you represented my points very well

... I've sent you some pearls :thumb:

~Sher :angel:

stevencarrwork

May 22nd 2003, 07:46 PM

Schmuel has started a campaign of misrepresentation on the Errancy mailing list, so I have posted the following to the list.

SCHMUEL
That was where she was talking about the script changes ?, which are in fact a major change.

Around the 8th century. Uncial to cursive. Maurice Robinson talks about this some, as an important marker, one major point of change, in manuscript copying. Quite an interesting topic in textual criticism circles, often missed.

CARR
Liar. Sherbear never talked about the change from uncial to cursive.

Schmuel
It seems like she did. Such as the uncial to cursive change above.

CARR
More nonsense. She never talked about such a change.

SCHMUEL
She even gave a dictionary definition of translation, to correct your view that translation would necessarily have to be to another language.

CARR
So your considered opinion is that the koine Greek we read in New Testaments today is a translation from koine Greek?

Mathematicans use a definition of 'translation' to mean 'moved from its original place'. So if we just move a manuscript , we have translated it. What do obscure dictionary definitions mean? Is there a dictionary meaning of 'ausrotten', which does not mean 'annihilate'? Perhaps the Nazi revisionists are right when they give dictionary definitions to 'put things in their proper context'?

SHERBEAR
'P.S. Addendum for above post:
http://www.canterburytales.org/canterbury_tales.html is a great example of "21st cent English vs. Chaucer's English" It shows the English translations ... both modern and middle ... Note that even this website refers to the modern English as a translation Just as I have been speaking about ancient MSS ... and the more modern Greek translations that Steve is reading from ...'

CARR
So 'the modern Greek translations' found in New Testament today is as far from the original koine Greek as 21-st century English is from Chaucer's English, claimed Sherbear in her analogy.

Schmuel
However she did not say that, you are putting words in her mouth.

CARR
I was quoting her very words!

SCHMUEL
She was showing you that translation can occur within a language, and followed the Chaucer
example that another had posted to give an example within a language.

CARR
Are you claiming that the translation from Middle English to Modern English has any analogy with the differences between the Bible text produced by the United Bible Societies commitee?

It was SHERBEAR's analogy.

SHERBEAR

'The change from written papyrus to modern printed book format is a translation ... not from one language to another but from one medium to another '

CARR
So the language never changed at all.

Schmuel
Again, she didn't say that.

CARR
Sherbear said 'Not from one language to another', which means the language never changed, and Schmuel simply denies that 'not from one language to anothe' means it is the same language!

SCHMUEL
She was giving you another example .
Clearly scripture texts have changed some in terms of punctuation, script, spelling and other features, and have both medium and language differences. One distinction
does not preclude the other. (insert fallacy name here).

CARR
It was Sherbear who came up with the analogy of a translation from the Anglo-Saxon English of Chaucer to modern English, now you claim that the differences are only handwriting and punctuation!

What spelling differences are there between the Greek in Interlinears and ancient Greek?

SCHMUEL
Nope.. wrong.
Sherbear even specifically said that the uncial-->cursive change qualifies as translation. Steven, why do you constantly misrepresent her words ?

CARR
Sherbear never specifically said that the uncial - cursive change qualifies as a translation. The words do not appear in her posts.

Schmuel, why do you lie so much?

It was *I* who first wrote 'Certainly scribal practices have changed. For example, miniscule writing was adopted instead of uncial writing. This is very different from claiming that words were altered.'

Amazing that Schmuel can claim that a change of handwriting justifies calling it 'a modern Greek translation'.

It was Sherbear who misrepresented me. When I said that different handwriting was used , she claimed 'Ergo ... translation ... I am saying that the scholars say that the text has been changed ... '

So Sherbear misrepresented my saying that the handwriting has changed as an admission from me that the text had been changed, so she wanted to call that a 'modern Greek translation'.

SCHMUEL
Actually, what we see is that you constantly put words in her mouth, and then attack her for not matching your words.

CARR
I quote her very words, and Schmuel says I am putting words in her mouth!

CARR
Is she telling the truth when she says that Chaucer's 'ferne' is a mere spelling change from the modern English 'distant', and not something that is more closely related to a very different language from modern English?
Perhaps Schmuel can tell us if she is telling the truth when she claimed that Chaucer's English differs from modern English in spelling, and that all modern translations do is modernise the spelling?

SCHMUEL
As usual you change her words around right and left.. Solly brought up Chaucer, this is what SherBear said in three passages, none of which match your claims above

CARR

LIAR

Sherbear wrote '..... but how the writing techniques and spellings were changed for the more modern reader.'

She claims that merely the writing techniques and spellings were changed for the more modern reader in the translation from Middle English to Modern English.

And I said 'Is she telling the truth when she says that Chaucer's 'ferne' is a mere spelling change from the modern English 'distant', and not something that is more closely related to a very different language from modern English?'

This is an exact construal of her very words! And Schmuel is now accusing me of misrepresentation.

Why do Christians just lie and lie and lie?

Solly wrote in an early post :-
'Modern Hebrew is not Biblical Hebrew, any more than 21st cent English is Chaucer's English, that is why a modern Hebrew translation of the bible is being produced by Christians in Israel. â€?

And Sherbear distorted his words to say 'Like "Hebrew translation" ... "Greek translation" means that someone took a document in ancient Greek and translated it into a more modern Greek format ... just as Solly outlines about the Hebrew.'

Solly never said that Modern Hebrew is just Biblical Hebrew in a different format. This was a Sherbear lie. Solly said Modern Hebrew was as different from Biblical Hebrew as Chaucer's English is as different from modern English. And I gave the example of Chaucer's 'ferne' which is closer to German than modern English.....

Unless Schmuel wants to claim that Modern Hebrew is just Biblical Hebrew in a different format...... Or perhaps Modern English is just Middle English in a different format.

Dee Dee Warren

May 22nd 2003, 07:51 PM

More assinine raw sewage from the local spill.

Sher

May 22nd 2003, 08:00 PM

:lol: Dee Dee ...

/ot Happy (un-)Birthday :teeth:

Steven Avery

May 22nd 2003, 08:47 PM

Hi Theology Web,

I am only going to deal with the first part of Steven Carr's reply (haven't looked at the rest) because it gets right to the heart of his dishonesty and false accusation problem.

Let's see if Carr can get right on this first, before continuing. One wonders if the moderators have actually been too lenient, since integrity is the central issue of real dialog and debate.

SherBear saw the problem again and again, and it is like pus oozing from Steven's pen, a type of viciousness combined with tacky verbal manipulation. I am modifying my errancy post a bit for here.

==========================
SCHMUEL
That was where she was talking about the script changes ?, which are in fact a major change.

Around the 8th century. Uncial to cursive. Maurice Robinson talks about this some, as an important marker, one major point of change, in manuscript copying. Quite an interesting topic in textual criticism circles, often missed.

CARR
Liar. Sherbear never talked about the change from uncial to cursive.
===========================
SCHMUEL
Typical of Carr.. the baloney, false "lying" claim.... twist and accuse... yet again.

SherBear responded directly to the cursive issue, and noted that the
uncial-->miniscule change is a translation.

If Carr thinks it matters that she was responding to his comment,
rather than raising the issue first, then Carr is clearly a dishonest debater.

==========================================================
CARR
"Certainly scribal practices have changed. For example, miniscule writing was adopted instead of uncial writing. This is very different from claiming that words were altered."

SHERBEAR
Ergo ... translation ... I am saying that the scholars say that the text has been changed ... not the meaning as you try to twist my words to say.
===============================================================
Carr, you have again amply demonstrated why you are a completely dishonest debater.
Instead of substance you twist people's words to accuse them.

DeeDee and SherBear saw right through you, I do too. You have an accusing tongue, and you will use any sophistry or manipulation to attempt to justify your "lying" claims. Here you claim that SherBear never "talked about" the cursive issue, when she responded EXACTLY to that point.
And you have the CHUTZPAH to then accuse me of "lying", when her conversation was EXACTLY on that issue ???

I am <snipping> the rest of your post without bothering, after this horrendous beginning. Get straight about your false lying accusations first.

Integrity first, Steven. Integrity first.

Shalom,
Praxeus

stevencarrwork

May 22nd 2003, 09:52 PM

Here is Solly's post that Sherbear quoted.

'Modern Hebrew is not Biblical Herbrew, any more than 21st cent English is Chaucer's English, that is why a modern Hebrew translation of the bible is being produced by Christians in Israel.'

And Sherbear simply distorted what he meant by it when she wrote 'As I already explained, translate has several different definitions ... and I gave the reasoning behind the one that I meant (and Solly meant in that post) ... your equivication of implying I mean: "To express in another language, while retaining the original sense" is erroneous ... no one said it was a different language ... It is the same language ... but in a different format.

Like "Hebrew translation" ... "Greek translation" means that someone took a document in ancient Greek and translated it into a more modern Greek format ... just as Solly outlines about the Hebrew. '

Note that Solly said nothing whatever about 'format', and he claimed that the languages were different (Modern Hebrew is not Biblical Hebrew), yet Sherbear distorted his words to say 'It is the same language'.

Is she really claiming that the only difference between Chaucher's English and modern English, and between Biblical Hebrew and Modern Hebrew is a change of FORMAT?

I pointed out that Chaucer used 'ferne' for 'distant' and this is not a change of format.

This is why I am complaining about Sherbear's equivocation and misrepresentation.

Praexus writes 'Constantly extract and change your opponents words, and then accuse them of lying when they don't match up to your own rewrite.'

So when Solly writes 'Biblical Hebrew is not Modern Hebrew' and Sherbear then quotes Solly's post and quotes Solly as support for her statement 'It is the same language', I am changing her words???

No, Praexus , Sherbear is changing Solly's words. She is extracing them, rewriting them, and distorting them, and then complaining bitterly to the moderators when she is called on it.

As for Schmuel's statement that the Biblical text was 'translated' when the scribes used a different handwriting, then this is truly Clintonesque distortion of the language.

Dee Dee Warren

May 22nd 2003, 09:57 PM

Steven you are continuing your character assination. I am giving you until the weekend to lay out for me TWO LIES that SherBear has committed, and will let her respond and anyone else that wishes to. If you do not make your case for LIES all references to LIES will be edited out of your posts and further posts MAY be deleted entirely. This is not like you typically are, you should take a step back and evaluated your behaviour. I have not followed this argument from the inception and I am not going to go through pages and pages of posts. LIES should be fairly easy to document.

stevencarrwork

May 22nd 2003, 10:08 PM

Today @ 01:47 AM
praxeus:

I am modifying my errancy post a bit for here.

==========================
SCHMUEL
That was where she was talking about the script changes ?, which are in fact a major change.

Around the 8th century. Uncial to cursive. Maurice Robinson talks about this some, as an important marker, one major point of change, in manuscript copying. Quite an interesting topic in textual criticism circles, often missed.

CARR
Liar. Sherbear never talked about the change from uncial to cursive.
===========================
SCHMUEL
Typical of Carr.. the baloney, false "lying" claim.... twist and accuse... yet again.

SherBear responded directly to the cursive issue, and noted that the
uncial-->miniscule change is a translation.

If Carr thinks it matters that she was responding to his comment,
rather than raising the issue first, then Carr is clearly a dishonest debater.

Schmuel said Sherbear specifically talked about it, when it was ME and not Sherbear who had raised the issue..... Schmuel tried to give the impression I had ducked it, when I had raised it in the first place! This is dishonest, Schmuel.

Sherbear then distorted my words as follows When I said that different handwriting was used , she claimed 'Ergo ... translation ... I am saying that the scholars say that the text has been changed ... '

So Sherbear misrepresented my saying that the handwriting has changed as an admission from me that the text had been changed, so she wanted to call that a 'modern Greek translation'.

Astonishing that she thinks the text changed because the handwriting changed.

Mind you I like what Praexus or Schmuel or whatever you call yourself wrote in your posting,

You posted

-------------------
CARR
"Certainly scribal practices have changed. For example, miniscule writing was adopted instead of uncial writing. This is very different from claiming that words were altered."

SHERBEAR
Ergo ... translation ... I am saying that the scholars say that the text has been changed ... not the meaning as you try to twist my words to say.
===============================================================
Carr, you have again amply demonstrated why you are a completely dishonest debater.
Instead of substance you twist people's words to accuse them.
----------------------------

So Schmuel accuses me of twisting Sherbear's words, and there is NO comment by me in his posting on Sherbear's words between Sherbear's words and his. So even if I say nothing , Schmuel starts up with the parrot-cry 'Carr is distorting Sherbear!, Carr is distorting Sherbear.'

Schmuel doesn't even give any comment by me on Sherbear's words and still accuses me of twisting them! Totally amazing!

And , anybody can see, that Sherbear was distorting me. I never claimed that the text changed when the handwriting changed.

stevencarrwork

May 22nd 2003, 10:37 PM

Today @ 02:57 AM
Dee Dee Warren:

1) Sherbear said the website she quoted had changed the writing techniques and spelling when translating from Chaucer's English to Middle English.

No writing techniques were shown in the web site.

Far more than spellings had to be changed to get a translation. For example, Chaucer's 'ferne' is more closely related to German than to the Modern English 'distant'. This is why the website called it a translation, because the words are often very different, not Sherbear's claim that they call it translation because the format is different.

2) Sherbear said I never gave manuscripts with words instead of numbers in John 19:14. I did. (Sinaiticus) and also a link to a big PDF file, which listed the manuscripts.

Sherbear's only response to the PDF file was not to retract her claim about no manuscripts given, but to question the accuracy of the manuscripts given (apparently because the author confessed to being human and fallible)

3) Sherbear claimed I equivocated on 'modern', but never even bothered to give a quote where I had done so.

4) Solly said Biblical Hebrew was not modern Hebrew, and Sherbear responded by claiming him as support for her statement 'It is the same language.'

If I say language A is not language B, then this hardly supports a claim that A and B are the same language.

5) Sherbear wrote 'This was to show that the more modern than the ANCIENT Greek writings were transcribed differently than the ancient Greeks would have written ... something I have exhaustively proven with links to both Biblical and secular scholars.', but she has yet to present a single Biblical manuscript with a number in John 19:14, other than just one in AD 850, which is not an ancient manuscript.

Her 'exhaustive proof' is a fantasy.

Does Dee Dee want more?

I have posted this to the errancy list, so we can document what Dee Dee does......

Steven Avery

May 22nd 2003, 11:09 PM

SCHMUEL
Since Carr simply compounds his tacky accusations one upon another, I will not go into any new ground, I was hoping he would simply have the integrity to retract his "liar" whine on the issue of discussing uncial to minuscle as considered a translation.

<snip Solly, Chaucer thing>

CARR
Praexus writes 'Constantly extract and change your opponents words, and then accuse them of lying when they don't match up to your own rewrite.'

SCHMUEL
Yep, you had the false accusation in the very first word in response to my post, and then twisted more later, just like you had done with Sherbear

CARR
As for Schmuel's statement that the Biblical text was 'translated' when the scribes used a different handwriting, then this is truly Clintonesque distortion of the language.

SCHMUEL
Actually I said I was not a fan of the terminology, but Sherbear already proved it was technically reasonable, and it definitely makes some sense... see the Maruice Robinson quote below.

==========================
CARR
Schmuel said Sherbear specifically talked about it, when it was ME and not Sherbear who had raised the issue..... Schmuel tried to give the impression I had ducked it, when I had raised it in the first place! This is dishonest, Schmuel.

SCHMUEL
That is simply untrue, Carr. No claim that you had ducked anything. My original point went like this..

"That was where she was talking about the script changes ?, which are in fact a major change. Around the 8th century. Uncial to cursive. "

Nothing about you ducking, but you went haywire and said I was a liar. Your 'technique' is so, so tacky.
=
CARR
Sherbear then distorted my words as follows When I said that different handwriting was used , she claimed 'Ergo ... translation ... I am saying that the scholars say that the text has been changed ... '

SCHMUEL
No distortion. Sherbear simply pointed out that by the dictionary definition that can be considered translation....

CARR
So Sherbear misrepresented my saying that the handwriting has changed as an admission from me that the text had been changed, so she wanted to call that a 'modern Greek translation'.

SCHMUEL
She didn't claim an admission of anything, she simply pointed out that it qualifies technically as 'translation'. Note her careful use of.. "I am sayin..."

CARR
Astonishing that she thinks the text changed because the handwriting changed.

SCHMUEL
Well, you seem to think the "handwriting change" is not very significant. Here is Professor Maurice Robinson, top textual scholar, speaking about the "handwriting change' and the medium change.

"On the other hand, I have argued for two massive disruptions in the
transmissional process which reflect known processes that resulted in the
destruction or discarding of previous exemplars: the conversion from
papyrus to vellum after Constantine, and the conversion from uncial to
minuscule script beginning in the 9th century (the same process is also
recognized to exist in regard to classical authors, in which the best
approximations to the classical originals are generally recognized to be
MSS of the minuscule era).?"

Two big conversions issues, both mentioned in the discussion.
Medium - (Papyrus to Vellum)
Script - (Uncial to Minuscule)

Kapiche ?

Please, Steven.. start to smell the coffee, drink the roses, chill out, be a mentsch, retract the liar stuff, and try to make yourself a worthy debator.
==========================
CARR
Mind you I like what Praexus or Schmuel or whatever you call yourself wrote in your posting,

You posted
-------------------
CARR
"Certainly scribal practices have changed. For example, miniscule writing was adopted instead of uncial writing. This is very different from claiming that words were altered."

SHERBEAR
Ergo ... translation ... I am saying that the scholars say that the text has been changed ... not the meaning as you try to twist my words to say.
===============================================================
Carr, you have again amply demonstrated why you are a completely dishonest debater.
Instead of substance you twist people's words to accuse them.
----------------------------

So Schmuel accuses me of twisting Sherbear's words, and there is NO comment by me in his posting on

SCHMUEL
You are incredible, Carr. The point, as you should well know, was not that you twisted Sherbear's words (there) but that you called me a liar for saying Sherbear talked about the uncial-->minuscle change. Which she did, right in that section. Carr, are you dense, blinded, or in rage that you can't understand the obvious.

<snip repetitive whining, as Carr still did not even understand the issue of his false accusation of "liar".>

No point with bothering with other issues. This one was so simple, and so clear, and Carr is still tangled up in false accusation. Anyway, it gave us all a clear opportunity to see what is up with this fella.

Btw, just to repeat one thing, I don't really like the scribal error idea for 3rd and 6th hour, I even consider the word "translation' to be only moderately acceptable within a language, but most of all....

I don't lack deceptive debators with no integrity who simply like to whine "'liar" after they twist and turn the other's arguments.

Shalom,
Praxeus

Sher

May 22nd 2003, 11:23 PM

Dee Dee, I have seen this and I am working on my reply ... pulling the evidence together and commenting on how each point flowed through the topic.

Thank you :angel:

stevencarrwork

May 22nd 2003, 11:31 PM

Just to document more Sherbear 'innacuracies'......

I had written about Revelation 'It is written as '666' in the vast majority of manuscripts, so the fact that one manuscript writes it as 'six-hundred and sixty-six' is worthy of documenting.'

Sherbear quoted this web site at me,

http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Geyser/5356/beast.htm

which says 'Because, as listed above, the majority of the manuscripts (mostly late Byzantine miniscule manuscripts) include the representation of the number six hundred
sixty-six by the three letters (chi)(xi)(stigma), the text presented in another modern (but non-standard) edition called not surprisingly THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ACCORDING TO THE MAJORITY TEXT, does so also.'

and her source also said 'These are the manuscripts which, INSTEAD OF WRITING OUT THE WORDS FOR THE NUMBER, use the Greek alphabetic notation, i.e. the three Greek letters (chi)(xi)(stigma). The manuscripts so listed are P47 (a papyrus manuscript, hence the P in the name, from the third century, known as Chester Beatty III), a tenth century manuscript known as 051, and the "Majority-text" symbol (which indicates many late Byzantine manuscripts). P47 is from the third century and is the oldest manuscript of the Book of Revelation.

Sherbear then claimed, using that very source 'You erroneously asserted that the 666 was written in numbers instead of words.I showed you that this was actually the opposite AND a noteworthy exception via a scholar who wrote about it. '

So the earliest manuscript P47, has numbers INSTEAD OF WRITING OUT THE WORDS FOR THE NUMBER,according to Sherbear's OWN source, and she claims she has proved me wrong when I said most manuscripts have numbers instead of writing out the words for the number 666.

Curiosly, Sherbear, Schmuel and everybody else who has criticised me have never been able to name ONE manuscript which has a gamma or digamma in John 19:14......... Not one.

Yet they are adamant that the Greek was written with a digamma for 6 , and not 'hektos' which is the Greek word for 'six'.

stevencarrwork

May 22nd 2003, 11:57 PM

Please, Sherbear, I beg you, give just one manuscript. Pretty please..... I promise to retract every claim I made about you distorting what people wrote.

Please name a manuscript which has a gamma or digamma in John 19:14, please, please, please, please, please...........

Oh well, it was worth a try. I guess you will be too busy rewriting the history of the thread to produce a manuscript which backs up your claim about John 19:14 using symbols for the numbers of the hours.

But if you could find a spare five minutes to name a manuscript which supports your claim, just think how your friends will cheer you. It would be worth it for you for that alone.

Don't forget that I named Sinaiticus (numbers are never abbreivated in John). Sinaiticus was transcribed by people who were just as Greek as a Jew like John.

Steven Avery

May 23rd 2003, 12:07 AM

Today @ 04:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105220#post105220)
stevencarrwork:

Curiosly, Sherbear, Schmuel and everybody else who has criticised me have never been able to name ONE manuscript which has a gamma or digamma in John 19:14......... Not one.

Yet they are adamant that the Greek was written with a digamma for 6 , and not 'hektos' which is the Greek word for 'six'.

SCHMUEL
LOL... Carr, you are incredible. I have said time and again that I do not go with the scribal error (tis not my thing) view of 3rd hour and 6th hour.

(We are waiting for Farrell Alphonse to return from Colorado to give his ridiculously easy refutation of the kewl Lightfoot view that the 3rd hour was a reference/aside to the Sannhedrin's judgement ... unless Alphonse decides to re-defer to Joe Gaston "after you, my dear friend, really, I want you to have the honor, let me give it over to you for your debating pleasure")

So I am not really concerned what manuscript has a digamma or a gamma-ray, or a gamma ramma ding dong (who put the bomp).

I am concerned, however, about confronting cheap, tacky, bullying debating tricks .. fabricating accusations of lying, rather than talk straight.

Grow up, Steven, be a mentsch on these threads.

Sher

May 23rd 2003, 12:39 AM

Yesterday @ 11:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105224#post105224)
stevencarrwork:

Please, Sherbear, I beg you, give just one manuscript. Pretty please..... I promise to retract every claim I made about you distorting what people wrote.

Please name a manuscript which has a gamma or digamma in John 19:14, please, please, please, please, please...........

Oh well, it was worth a try. I guess you will be too busy rewriting the history of the thread to produce a manuscript which backs up your claim about John 19:14 using symbols for the numbers of the hours.

But if you could find a spare five minutes to name a manuscript which supports your claim, just think how your friends will cheer you. It would be worth it for you for that alone.

Don't forget that I named Sinaiticus (numbers are never abbreivated in John). Sinaiticus was transcribed by people who were just as Greek as a Jew like John.

(p)reserved for later reply

stevencarrwork

May 23rd 2003, 01:53 AM

Today @ 05:07 AM
praxeus:

SCHMUEL
LOL... Carr, you are incredible. I have said time and again that I do not go with the scribal error (tis not my thing) view of 3rd hour and 6th hour.

So I am not really concerned what manuscript has a digamma or a gamma-ray, or a gamma ramma ding dong (who put the bomp).

I am concerned, however, about confronting cheap, tacky, bullying debating tricks .. fabricating accusations of lying, rather than talk straight.

Schmuel boasts that he is not going to discuss anything substantive such as Sherbear's claim that there are manuscripts which back up her statement about John 19:14.

That is typical of Schmuel. There is nothing substantive from a person who thinks the KJV is inerrant, and claims Ron Wyatt is the greatest archaeologist of the 20th century.

Sherbear wrote 'As in ancient times ALL the numbers were written in the manuscripts not at large but in numeral letters....' , quoting her sources, and she also wrote in the thread 'Perhaps you should stop pleading ... and actually read where Clark says the very thing you are ignoring he says ... that the ancients wrote in numerals.'

I got somebody to look at an ancient manuscript, and she told me :-

'1) The number one is never abbreviated.
2) Numerals are not abbreviated in John, and rarely in Luke.
3) Larger numbers (hundreds and thousands) are not abbreviated.
4) The number of numbers in full far outweighs the number abbreviated.'

Sherbear did no research before parroting her source, who was utterly wrong. (To be fair to Clarke, he lived before many manuscripts were discovered, and would probably be surprised to be quoted in the 21st-century by Sherbear as an expert on manuscripts which he had no idea existed)

Sherbear's only defence was to claim that Sinaiticus came from a 'modern' scribe, not an ancient scribe.

'Steve, later century's manuscripts are more modern than the original autographs ... when they would have used the ancient methods of writing numbers....'

So Sherbear claims manuscripts like the 4th century Sinaiticus are not 'ancient' and are more modern than the ancient methods.

She is really abusing the meaning of 'modern' and 'ancient', just as her claim that changing the handwriting of a manuscript is a 'translation', is another abuse of English.

Dee Dee might like more examples of Sherbear distorting my statements.

Sherbear quoted Nonnus.

My sole comment on Nonnus was

'BTW, Nonnus was apaprently quite unreliable, judging by the fantasies he wrote when he wrote his paraphrase of John. ”

and Sherbear quoted that and wrote 'So Steve, you say that Nonnus ... who you claim is unreliable ... supports your point?'

Nowhere in that sentence is there any claim by me that I said NONNUS supported my point, rather than the other manuscripts Sherbear had mentioned which have words instead of numbers.

Sherbear simply distorted and misrepresented my post....

I had pointed out that Nonnus had written a paraphrase of John , implying that he had changed much, and was unreliable, and not even Sherbear can dare to suggest that that was a statement that Nonnus supported me.

Sher

May 23rd 2003, 02:02 AM

1) This is not an example of a lie.

From the beginning I have been speaking about the fact that scholars think there could be a scribal error related to the topic in question … the 3rd and the 6th that was being debated. This originate when Steve criticized JP’s off-handed “BTW” addition to his points by asking if JP was serious when he said that … and Steve twisting “horizontal line” to having something to do with full words.

See post number 19 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=88450#post88450) where Steve writes:HOLDING
'One idea has been that John's 'sixth hour' before Pilate should actually read 'third' and that a textual corruption has occurred. The difference between the two readings would amount to a small, horizontal stroke the size of the middle 'leg' of a capital E.'

Is Holding really claiming that the difference between 'tritos' (third) and 'ektos' (sixth) is a small horizontal stroke?
Notice there is nothing in JP’s text that says *tritos* nor *ektos*.

In post # 20 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=88512#post88512), I told him that was not what JP said (repeating JP’s text) … and gave Barnes’ commentary quote as proof of what JP was referring to … the difference between how the numerals … not the full words … were written in ancient times.

This went back and forth where I provided Biblical and secular resources that supported my point (notice in subsequent posts how Steve keeps claiming I gave only 1 MSS … ignoring that I also gave many other proofs).

In post # 21 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=88824#post88824), Steve “figures out” that I was in fact correct in what I said in post # 20 … and shows a link supporting my point… that it referred to the numerals. However, he doesn’t apologize for misrepresenting JP … for adding words into JP’s “mouth” … but changes his accusation to “Does even Holding think John wrote 'the 3 hour' and this was changed to 'the 6 hour'? No, Holding , there is no such thing as 'the 3 hour’” and begins what will be a pattern of changing the argument and moving goal posts when confronted with his errors. He continues on this argument through post # 22, 24, …29, etc. … until Nancy at Errancy confirms over there what I had been saying in rebuttal over here to each of these posts. Again, Steve makes no apology … but changes the argument and moves the goal posts.

Now … why all this “history”? Because is lays the foundation as to why I said the following ... in part in reply to Joe (post # 73: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=96682#post96682):

05-14-2003 @ 06:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=96682#post96682)
SherBear:

The main point is that during the Byzantine Empire, Constantine I adopted the Christian faith ... and there was renewed interest in preservation ... scribes took the old MSS and recopied them for distribution and preservation ... and it is very easy to see that with the change in the way writing was done in the Byzantine time ... from the ancient time ... that the Ancient Greek method was changed in the new writings to reflect that scribes methods.

So when said scribe read "volume 2" and wrote "second volume" or "2nd volume" in whatever language they were copying to ... no meaning was lost ... but the case might be made for the existance of scribal error(s). To purport that the Vulgates or the Byzantine writings are the yardstick ... when they were used later in history ... simply does not address that the writings of the ancient times were commonly used and that the unicals included not written words ... but Milesian numerals (now that I am aware what they are actually called ... I can stop referring to them as symbols :xmm:)

To further appeal to printed works ... for how the written MSS were scribed ... is folly. To look at a modern English translation ... or a modern Greek translation ... and assume that it is how the ancient was scribed is foolish ... words and thoughts were preserved ... but the ancient scribal techniques were not.

Note please where I said “uncials” and “Milesian numerals” … also note please that I address the Vulgates and the Byzantine writings as invalid for the discussion … that “simply does not address that the writings of the ancient times were commonly used” … and finally note where I talk about “translation” here … the point that Steve focuses in on (virtually ignoring the rest of the post). This comment about translation that I made, which in context here is easy to understand, is removed for Steve’s enjoyment of twisting manipulation … where he tries to equivocate the meaning to “language” … instead of “format”. Notice that I said in this post “ancient scribal techniques” and speak of how the ancients scribed in the previous sentence? In keeping with the rest of the post, I am talking about the formatting techniques of symbols/numerals vs. spelled out words. (equivocation accusation defended with point number 2 to follow)

After going back and forth with Steve to clarify that he does not understand that I meant “translation” in the sense of format not change of language, I posted an example, hoping beyond hope that he would “get it” … (note that the second quote posted here is listed as an addendum to the first … this is when we were having problems with the forum and I couldn’t edit my post to add the material … something documented in another area, if proof is really needed): {also, since I am quoting myself, and a quote within a quote doesn’t format very well, I have to change the format of Solly’s quote to a list format … I trust this will be just as easily read with different formatting … a “translation” :hamster:}:

05-20-2003 @ 12:52 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101845#post101845)
SherBear:

Steve, later century's manuscripts are more modern than the original autographs ... when they would have used the ancient methods of writing numbers ... no matter how much you equivicate on the word "modern" ... scribes would have rewritten the MSS several times over by that time ... each putting their own handwritting and common style of lettering for the period they lived in ... so if they wrote it out in full words, it was because it was common to THAT time ... not common to the time when it was originally written in abbreviated format.

... and I notice that you didn't deride Solly when he rightly said in a different topic ... also correcting you on this type of mistake: Yesterday @ 06:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101032#post101032)
Solly:

Modern Hebrew is not Biblical Hebrew, any more than 21st cent English is Chaucer's English, that is why a modern Hebrew translation of the bible is being produced by Christians in Israel.

Note the use of the word "translation" there ... coupled with Hebrew? Note how he presents basically the same point I have been making here ... that the ancient is different ... that the Hebrew you read now in any lexicon or modern translation is not written in the same way as the Hebrew you would see on the ancient MSS ... but 5 and five still mean the same thing ... and volume 5 is still the fifth volume... no matter which way it is written.

As for "translation" ... You are using the fallacy of equivication ... As I already explained, translate has several different definitions ... and I gave the reasoning behind the one that I meant (and Solly meant in that post) ... your equivication of implying I mean: "To express in another language, while retaining the original sense" is erroneous ... no one said it was a different language ... It is the same language ... but in a different format.

Like "Hebrew translation" ... "Greek translation" means that someone took a document in ancient Greek and translated it into a more modern Greek format ... just as Solly outlines about the Hebrew. You are the only one that I see who has difficulty understanding this ... and it appears to be on purpose ... perhaps because you know you have no support for your point ...

05-20-2003 @ 09:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102070#post102070)
SherBear:

P.S. Addendum for above post:

http://www.canterburytales.org/canterbury_tales.html is a great example of "21st cent English vs. Chaucer's English"

It shows the English translations ... both modern and middle ... Note that even this website refers to the modern English as a translation

Just as I have been speaking about ancient MSS ... and the more modern Greek translations that Steve is reading from ...

The link in the addendum was to show that the site uses the word *translation* for both English versions … showing not a change in language … but a change in the way it is written … format. Steve takes this link … an example for my point of English/English “translation”… and uses it as the argument itself… and accuses me of lying because of his inability to understand that an analogy is an example … not an actual, exact duplicate of a point.

I never said anything about “21st century Greek” … those are Steve’s twisting and attempted ridicule as shown here:
05-20-2003 @ 11:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102201#post102201)
stevencarrwork:

What a very stupid analogy to compare the Greek published by the United Bible Society with 21st century English vs Chaucer's English? Is Sherbear claiming that the Greek in the NT published today is 21st-century Greek? Surely even she is not so stupid.

I also never said that we should analyze every word on the Chaucer site to see if it is the same as the original … but that the format of how something was written in that time changed … from a version of English … to a version of English … yet is still called a translation. The whole point of posting this … something you can see even Steve refers to as an analogy was to show the same language (English) being called a translation. Analogies are not meant to be EXACTLY the same … but illustrations of a point for clarification.

In my next post, 5/20/03 6:40 p.m., I again repeat myself in answer to Steve’s accusations and twisted conclusions by saying:
Second, the direct answer to your question ... of course it is ... but only you were the one trying to make it out as if I said it were different languages ... I said that it was a different translation = format ... see 5/15/03 where I said:

Translation ... The state of being translated

Translate(d) ... To change from one form, function, or state to another; convert or transform

The change from written papyrus to modern printed book format is a translation ... not from one language to another but from one medium to another ... and since the original was scribed ... the printed version is different than the original version ... ergo, a translation

... even in this case, the changes from the ancient autographs to the NA27 published in AD 1950 ... are also a translation ... it is a modern printed book format translated from the MSS ... as I pointed out previously ... I refer to translation by the differences in format ... ONLY you misunderstood translation to a singular-dimentional meaning of changes in language ... or are attempting equivication as I pointed out previously. We have been speaking about format all along when we have been discussing the Greek to Greek ... numerals to fully written out words ... not differences in languages ...

So in summary, there is absolutely no proof of a lie here.

Steve twists words … and says things like “did so-and-so really mean that” … and in doing so, he can later attempt to disengage himself from those “questions” by saying that he didn’t REALLY say that someone actually said something … that it was just a “question”. This is an underhanded debate tool used by those who aren’t sure of how to answer a point directly … so they can leave an immature loophole they can later crawl through if/when they are proven wrong.

=================
2) Again, no proof of lying here. Steve posted a link in post number 71 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=96660#post96660) with the following text:
05-14-2003 @ 06:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=96660#post96660)
stevencarrwork:

For the benefit of Sherbear I have dug up a little more

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html

This has a commentary on John which says for John 19:14, the most common reading is 'hektos' , ('sixth'), but that some , a minority, of early manuscripts have 'tritos' (third), and that this was probably a scribe altering the text to make it agree with Mark.

The commentary states that it was possible that the readings originally occurred out of mistaking a 'gamma' for a 'digamma' (and not 'third' for 'sixth' as Holding said)

Of course, it is possible. All is possible....

But it never claims that any manuscript has a 'gamma' or 'digamma' for 'third' or 'sixth'. It says the readings are 'hektos' or 'tritos'.

If any did have gamma or digamma, it would not talk about the readings 'originally' arising out of a confusion that would still have been happening in the manuscripts.

First, notice that I didn’t reply to this post. I honestly thought it was a joke. Steve posts a link … comments that “the commentary states that was possible that the readings originally occurred out of mistaking a 'gamma' for a 'digamma'”. Remember this is MY point he is making here … his only partial refute is saying “Of course, it is possible. All is possible” … and why is he refuting his own source? The source I later pointed out the author states he is not a professional, that he also states his work has probable errors, and that he is (basically) riding on the tailcoats of other authors and only had access to one MSS … one that wouldn’t even pertain to this conversation because it would be in a different format …scribed more modern than the originals. I maintain I was right in thinking that Steve was not seriously considering this as proof of his point … just like he didn’t seriously consider the previous link he post that explained/proved what JP mentioned in the debate, and I corrected Steve on previously (see #1 above … referring to the whole “horizontal line” thing) … with this standard he has set, using links to prove the oppositions points, who can blame me?

Now … on to where Steve says that he provided Sinaiticus
Sherbear said I never gave manuscripts with words instead of numbers in John 19:14. I did. (Sinaiticus) and also a link to a big PDF file, which listed the manuscripts. Sherbear's only response to the PDF file was not to retract her claim about no manuscripts given, but to question the accuracy of the manuscripts given (apparently because the author confessed to being human and fallible)
Note the “I did (Sinaiticus)”? Now turn to post # 50 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=95476#post95476), where JOHN POWELL provides a post entitled “Sinaiticus on the use of letters for numbers”. This is the first mention of Sinaiticus (by name … is it called something else that perhaps Steve provided before John’s post? I searched all the pages with a “Find” command that were prior to this posting, and this is the first occurrence of the word “Sinaiticus” … if not, this is Steve taking credit for something that John provided, isn’t it? Yet he accuses me of dishonesty.)
Now look at post number 51, Steve’s follow up to John Powell’s post (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=95607#post95607) which says:
05-13-2003 @ 07:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95607#post95607)
stevencarrwork:
Mr. Powell, Sherbear is not going to like you for giving evidence which contradicts her beliefs.
Apaprently, she can say that John 19:14 sometimes had the number for 3 instead of hektos without giving any manuscript which has that, but people who tell her the truth go on her hate list.
So prepare for a Sherbear rant.......
She cannot give any manuscript which has anything other than 'hektos', which is why she rants and raves and attacks and insults.
She thinks volume and quality of argument are interchangeable.
But she is a Christian, what can one expect?
Is this the post where Steve is saying that he provided Sinaiticus? (Remember the “I did (Sinaiticus)?) I see no mention of Sinaiticus in Steve’s words … in the quote that he makes of John’s words … but that isn’t Steve providing Sinaiticus as proof … not in my book anyway.

So … scanning on through post number 64, the last on that same page … still no provision by Steve of Sinaiticus … page 5, nothing … page 6, Sinaiticus is on the page once: posted by RevSteve45

… until ... lo and behold .. we come to page 7, post # 97 ... 47 posts after it was talked about by John Powell AND by RevSteve45 … unless Steve is claiming to be one of them :dufus:)

… Post # 97 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=103467#post103467) where Steve finally does mention Sinaiticus.

But note, Gentle Reader (:lol:), that this “provision” ... this providing of evidence is only AFTER I said (in part) in post # 95 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=102559#post102559)
05-20-2003 @ 06:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102559#post102559)
SherBear:
So to answer your accusations of "lying" ... I was simply giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were joking about that one link ... instead of ridiculing you for not researching the author of the material in your link before you posted it here. Now this is the second time you have either alluded to, or directly accused me of lying/being a liar.
If you do not retract this accusation and/or persist on calling me a liar (someone who presents false information with the intention of deceiving) with no proof to back it up, I will call for outside moderation against your character assassination. It is against the rules of this forum to move from rhetoric and satire to assaults against one's character. You have not proved that the information I provided, derived from several Biblical and secular scholars, is false ... nor have you provided any proof that I deceived ... or especially in keeping with the definition intended to deceive ... anyone. I'll expect your apology in your next post ... if you do, I'll let that matter drop as a show of Christian benevolence.

Notice my reference to Steve saying I was lying?

... Notice I say I am going to call for outside moderation?

So AFTER I repeatedly ask Steve to back up his numerous assertions that he has “overwhelming evidence” … and back up his assertions that writing in numerals was “not hardly done” … and back up his assertions that “nearly 24,000” (save one or two) proved his point ...

… and AFTER I was accused of lying for saying he failed to provide the "overwhelming, nearly 24,000 ancient MSS" (which to date he still has not supported) ... and remember that the one link HE did provide was so questionable as to be ignored as laughable because it proved MY point)

… he posts again

.. TWO posts AFTER my call for moderation

… TWO posts AFTER I complained about being called a liar

… Steve provides ONE proof ... to support his assertions of "overwhelming evidence" and "nearly 24,000" ancient MSS that support him

… AFTER the fact.

... AFTER saying I was lying for saying he didn't provide the proof

But he accuses me of dishonesty?

So ... still no proof of any lies on my part.

But be sure that you don't miss post # 122 where Steve makes sure to point out
Yesterday @ 11:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105224#post105224)
stevencarrwork:

Don't forget that I named Sinaiticus (numbers are never abbreivated in John).

Okay, Steve ... I didn't forget ...

... didn't forget to point out that this was posted AFTER the fact ... AFTER you had already accused me of lying.

=================
And so … here is the addressing of the first two accusations … remember that Dee Dee only asked for two … but we have come to expect poor reading skills from Steve now … as he posts not two but FIVE … and asks if Dee Dee wants more … :no:

When Dee Dee reviews these, if requested, I would be willing to provide more exhaustive proof that Steve’s accusations are without substance … and I still await his retraction and apology … one offered without begging me to do something else for him first.

And I am sure the reading public still awaits … as do I … the “overwhelming” proof that was claimed by Steve … the “nearly 24,000” ancient MSS that prove him correct … or perhaps they are as sick as I am becoming of the avoidances and false accusations to really care anymore.

(please be aware that this was composed in MS Word .. I've attempted to review it for any formatting changes that Word may have added ... please forgive if I missed any)

stevencarrwork

May 23rd 2003, 02:19 AM

Today @ 07:02 AM
SherBear:

1) This is not an example of a lie.

The link in the addendum was to show that the site uses the word *translation* for both English versions … showing not a change in language … but a change in the way it is written … format.

http://www.canterburytales.org/canterbury_tales.html is the link.

Sherbea continues to claim that the translation is NOT a change in language, but a change in the way it is written.

The first page has 'ferne halwes' , which means 'distant shrines'.

How can this be 'not a change in language'? Ferne is closer to German (Die Ferne, die Entfernung) than modern English, yet Sherbear continues to claim that to get from 'ferne' to 'distant', you just have a change in the way it is written.

Phrases like 'Stynt thy clappe' mean 'shut your trap', yet Sherbear continues to say this is 'not a change in language'.

This is an abuse of language by Sherbear.

Sherbear said about my link 'saying he failed to provide the "overwhelming, nearly 24,000 ancient MSS" (which to date he still has not supported) ... and remember that the one link HE did provide was so questionable as to be ignored as laughable because it proved MY point)'

Sherbear attacks respected people like Herr Willker, who , poor soul, claimed to be human and fallible, so Sherbear thinks he is laughable. (Sherbear never makes mistakes and would never write that there might be errors in what she writes)

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/ is Herr Willker's site, which Sherbear slanders as 'laughable' and 'questionable'. Dee Dee might like to see if Sherbear is right that such a site is 'questionable' and 'laughable'.

I don't mind her slandering me, but now Sherbear is attacking highly respected members of the Textual Criticism community.

Steven Avery

May 23rd 2003, 02:34 AM

Sherbear
And I am sure the reading public still awaits … as do I … the “overwhelming” proof that was claimed by Steve … the “nearly 24,000” ancient MSS that prove him correct … or perhaps they are as sick as I am becoming of the avoidances and false accusations to really care anymore.

Schmuel
Yes, sick of the false accusastions, the continuing Carr-Wreck. The other argumentation pales in insignificance to his utter and complete lack of integrity in twisting words, and distorting threads, to falsely accuse.

=======================

Today @ 06:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105283#post105283)
stevencarrwork:

Schmuel boasts that he is not going to discuss anything substantive such as Sherbear's claim that there are manuscripts which back up her statement about John 19:14.

That is typical of Schmuel. There is nothing substantive from a person who thinks the KJV is inerrant, and claims Ron Wyatt is the greatest archaeologist of the 20th century.

SCHMUEL
Yes, when it became clear that your whole trick is to twist words to accuse honest dialogers of lying, or being a liar, all other issues fell to insignificance. Your 24,000 manuscripts or Sherbear's statements really mean nothing, when you show no integrity in dialog.

Doctrinally, I don't support the scribal error view, so it doesn't effect me who is more right or more wrong on the gamma lamma slamma-dunka.
.
And I happily defend the King James Bible as the Scriptures (mosey over to the Last Verses of Mark Thread), and Mount Sinai in Arabia was the greatest Biblical archaelogical (re)discovery in the 20th century, Ron Wyatt was easily the man most instrumental in transforming today's view of Mount Sinai and the Exodus crossing.

Shalom,
Praxeus

Solly

May 23rd 2003, 04:23 AM

Today @ 02:52 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105161#post105161)
stevencarrwork:

Here is Solly's post that Sherbear quoted.

'Modern Hebrew is not Biblical Herbrew, any more than 21st cent English is Chaucer's English, that is why a modern Hebrew translation of the bible is being produced by Christians in Israel.'

And Sherbear simply distorted what he meant by it when she wrote 'As I already explained, translate has several different definitions ... and I gave the reasoning behind the one that I meant (and Solly meant in that post) ... your equivication of implying I mean: "To express in another language, while retaining the original sense" is erroneous ... no one said it was a different language ... It is the same language ... but in a different format.

Like "Hebrew translation" ... "Greek translation" means that someone took a document in ancient Greek and translated it into a more modern Greek format ... just as Solly outlines about the Hebrew. '

Note that Solly said nothing whatever about 'format', and he claimed that the languages were different (Modern Hebrew is not Biblical Hebrew), yet Sherbear distorted his words to say 'It is the same language'.

Is she really claiming that the only difference between Chaucher's English and modern English, and between Biblical Hebrew and Modern Hebrew is a change of FORMAT?

I pointed out that Chaucer used 'ferne' for 'distant' and this is not a change of format.

This is why I am complaining about Sherbear's equivocation and misrepresentation.

Praexus writes 'Constantly extract and change your opponents words, and then accuse them of lying when they don't match up to your own rewrite.'

So when Solly writes 'Biblical Hebrew is not Modern Hebrew' and Sherbear then quotes Solly's post and quotes Solly as support for her statement 'It is the same language', I am changing her words???

No, Praexus , Sherbear is changing Solly's words. She is extracing them, rewriting them, and distorting them, and then complaining bitterly to the moderators when she is called on it.

As for Schmuel's statement that the Biblical text was 'translated' when the scribes used a different handwriting, then this is truly Clintonesque distortion of the language.

Since my name has been brought into this, let me say:

Modern Hebrew derives from Biblical Hebrew via Rabbinic Hebrew - it is the same language, which has grown and modified over the years: it looks different because an old text is frozen at that point in time, it effectively cuts out the development in between; as with all languages, the structure changes, it drops elements, spawns new ones. In English we no longer use æ ð þ or the long s (which I don't have a character for and which is particularly confusing cos it looks like an f); neither do we use the suffixes as found in the KJV, or even the variable sentance structure - except in poetry.
In the last century (egad, that looks weird!!) Neville Coghill - a sort of Inkling - produced a modern English rendition/translation of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales; it was Chaucer through and through, won awards and critical acclaim I believe, but it was in modern English and syntax. The modern Hebrew Bible that is being produced is the old Hebrew bible rendered in modern spelling and syntax; a recasting if you like, from an archaic form to a modern form of Hebrew, as with the Chaucer mentioned. The same has been done several times for Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. So yes, I am using "translation" to cover internal modification within an existing language structure, rather than external transformation into another unconnected language.

One might also point out that it seems likely that the original Hebrew texts were written using Phoenician characters, but post-exile were transcribed into aramaic ones. This too is translation, but still within a language structure, rather than from one to another.

An exact opposite example, to my understanding (I am willing to stand corrected), is official Chinese, which uses the same characters, but is spoken differently in the different areas of China, making almost distinct languages, which would require translation from/to, rather than within a structure.

The Canterbury Tales
Translated by Neville Coghill
Published by Penguin
Price: £3.99

Rendered here with consummate skill and sensitivity into modern English verse by Nevill Coghill, The Canterbury Tales (which Geoffrey Chaucer began in 1386 and never completed) retain all their vigour, their humour and indeed their poetry.

It is possible that some of you may want to supplement your reading with "translated" or modernized versions of Chaucer's text. While I would encourage you not to do so, since it will inevitably take longer for you to get the hang of Middle English that way, I should say that if you ARE going to look at translations anyway, be sure to use a relatively new one: David Wright (Oxford) or Neville Coghill (Penguin) are the best of the lot. Other translations are mainly terrible.
http://www.northern.edu/ruudj/chaucer.html

Shakespeare's 400 year old plays have finally been translated into TODAY'S ENGLISH so that modern man (and woman) can understand them--and students can face their final exams with confidence!

Walter's great aim is to make all people, young and old, share his enjoyment and love of Shakespeare. What impedes this enjoyment is the difficulty most people have in understanding Shakespeare's old fashioned language. Year after year new texts come out with explanatory notes and other aids to understanding, which go part of the way towards solving the problem but only part. Walter has found a solution that really works in the classroom and on the stage. Keeping as far as possible to the spirit and the poetry of the originals, he has rewritten the plays in the English people speak today.

"For those Third World plebs like myself who groped and plodded through Shakespeare by candlelight and still remained mystified by the Bard's archaic language, this modernised series will come as a boon."
-Joe Khumalo, PACE Magazine, Johannesburg.

http://www.shakespeare2000.com/index.html

Obviously these aren't academically critical excerpts, but they show the way "translation" is used in similar contexts.

Dee Dee Warren

May 23rd 2003, 05:14 AM

Does Dee Dee want more?

I have posted this to the errancy list, so we can document what Dee Dee does......

Yes I want more for you did not fulfill my request. You simply made assertions. I need for you to DOCUMENT for me two lies. That means you QUOTE ALL THE EVIDENCE I NEED. I am going to make my decision based upon the evidence you give me in the requested post and the rebuttals given. All you did in that one post is make assertions without any support whatsover. You would be censored if that is all I had to make a decision on. I am awaiting YOUR COMPREHENSIVE CASE ON TWO DOCUMENTS LIES. That is what I asked for and have not received. You simply said Sher said so and so. Well then quote EXACTLY what Sher said with a link to the post and quote EXACTLY what you have to to prove a LIE I am not going to run around looking for YOUR evidence. It is incumbent upon YOU TO PROVE YOUR CASE. And do not give me FIVE cases, give me TWO. I will not examine FIVE cases so give me your BEST TWO.

Steven Avery

May 23rd 2003, 09:15 AM

PRAXEUS

A furthrer comment.

All of the "translations" debate is rather absurd and nonsubstantive.

(1) From one language to another is translation.
(2)Within a changing language can easily be considered translation (Chaucer and Hebrew examples).
(3) And signficicant changes of form (medium, script) over time within a language can also be considered translation.
The third is more technical, and arguable, but it is simply a waste of time to quibble over 'translation' versus 'conversion', especially as the third fits some dictionary definitions.

The fact that the first or second type of translation is discussed, does not negate the third... and this has been Carr's logic problem all throughout the thread.

The only reason this poor horse is being beat to death on this forum, is that Steven want to be able to call SherBear (or myself) a liar, and he never has the integrity to simply say...
"okay, reasonable definition, sorry for the false verbal abuse, let us go on"

Integrity first.

Shalom,
Praxeus

GrayPilgrim

May 23rd 2003, 10:59 AM

DDW asked me to step in to this fray. Here is my take on the situation. Sherber pointed out something, and SCW instead of saying you are wrong or something to that effect has beenc alling her a liar without proof. Now he is doing that to Praxeus. Okay Solly steps back in and points out the problems with SCW's take on his earlier post (BTW Solly I love that stuff, but then again how many other people at this site know Modern Hebrew, Rabbinic Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew? And there are major differences, but Modern attempts to archaize in some places so less change is there between Modern Hebrew and Late Biblical Hebrew than Koine Greek and Modern greek which was a living language thee whole time, ahh but I digress).

So here is my decision. SCW you have 72 hours from when this is posted to prove that both Sherber and praxeus, knowing made false statements witht he intent to deceive. Notice you must prove aforethought and intent, not just that they made mistakes, or your posts will be edited, better yet you will be forced to edit them

GrayPilgrim

May 23rd 2003, 11:46 AM

In talking to Jaltus he pointed out that as τριτη would have been adjectival it would probably have been written out. In revelation 666 as has been said is written out and in the condensed form. Jaltus also mentioned that the "holy numbers" (3, 7, 12) were generally always written out.

So SCW the problem here has been your inflamatory style. Your arguments have only been weakened by your style. So I suggest that you lower the rheotic and you might make more headway.

GP (Notice this is not in red so this is me as a poster and not as a moderator)

Jaltus

May 23rd 2003, 11:58 AM

Some info supporting SCM:

From DA Carson's The Gospel According to John, Pillar NTC, 605.

Barrett (p. 545) thinks it possible that there was an early transcriptional error introduced into the manuscript tradition by the confusion of the Greek numerals gamma G (3) and digamma F (6). Again, this is possible, but no manuscript evidence supports it.

Barrett's case is based on the understanding that the earliest manuscripts generally used letters for numbers (many of the papyri show this) in order to save space. However, no early manuscripts of John (and by early I mean second century) have this passage, so his point is in fact moot (P 90 comes very close, but breaks off at 19:7, or rather is broken at 19:7).

Since Barrett is such a big name in NT studies (probably the most well-known for John other than Schnackenburg and Bultmann), one can see how people would tend to follow him.

jpholding

May 23rd 2003, 02:23 PM

Interested parties should note the latest Carr Crash elsewhere here on TWeb in which Stevie attributed a position about Haley's Roots and oral tradition to ME when it was actually offered by someone who was commenting in the Arena about my debate with Alward (I).

We all make mistakes now and then, but Stevie has been putting the wrong sock on the wrong foot for a lifetime now.

Sher

May 23rd 2003, 03:03 PM

Today @ 11:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105549#post105549)
Jaltus:

Some info supporting SCM:

From DA Carson's The Gospel According to John, Pillar NTC, 605.

Barrett (p. 545) thinks it possible that there was an early transcriptional error introduced into the manuscript tradition by the confusion of the Greek numerals gamma G (3) and digamma F(6). Again, this is possible, but no manuscript evidence supports it.

Barrett's case is based on the understanding that the earliest manuscripts generally used letters for numbers (many of the papyri show this) in order to save space. However, no early manuscripts of John (and by early I mean second century) have this passage, so his point is in fact moot (P 90 comes very close, but breaks off at 19:7, or rather is broken at 19:7).

Since Barrett is such a big name in NT studies (probably the most well-known for John other than Schnackenburg and Bultmann), one can see how people would tend to follow him.

Hi Jaltus,

So "the earliest manuscripts generally used letters for numbers" and "many of the papyri show this" is what you said, right?

I'd like to focus for a moment back on post 25 () where I said:
Which proves you don't read very well ... I clearly said:
"I don't agree with this reasoning, but that doesn't negate that you should have done some actual research into the issue before you condemned JP out of hand ... hurting your credibility by looking for things to criticize, without support."

Making it obvious that the quote was not to support anything that I personally believed ... but rather was to show where the scholars support the ideas and how they were explained in opposition to what you tried to make them out to be. These ideas that even JP said "I do not favor this answer because of the problems of John 1 above. But it does present an interesting alternative" were presented correctly, even if not personally supported.

My post was to point out to you that your rant was ignorant in that it assumed that the point made covered the full words ... not the numbers. No matter what you personally thought of the validity of the point .... your representation of what was said showed poor scholarship ... or a building of straw men for you to burn ... either way, a poor way to present yourself if you want to avoid ridicule.

So by my supplying the Barnes, and now you supplying the Barrett quote, would your opinion be that I lied ... that I falsely presented information with the intention of deceit ... on this point? Barnes and Barrett, both respected scholars, said that the error was possible for that reason. Without access to the ancient MSS, and without being able to read Greek, shouldn't one defer to the scholars on point, even Carson said it was 'possible', right? Even if it is found to be unsupported by the MSS we have available now.

Second question, Jaltus, since you show here that there are NO ancient MSS that support the point I have been making, does that mean that there is overwhelming evidence (almost 24,000) ancient MSS that deny the point, as Steve has been asserting? Or does it mean simply that there is no available evidence one way or the other, so we can only rely on conjecture based on the scholars?

I am reading you saying the latter, but please correct me if I am wrong.

And if I am right, I would refer back to my post #43 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=92674#post92674) where I said (in part ... but that whole post is valid here):
[...] no number of documentation that I could produce would be sufficient ... evidenced by your comment "There might be a couple more, but the overwhelming majority of all manuscripts have virtually every number written in full" ... showing that no matter what I provided you, you would simple say that it was part of the "couple" and still assert that there was an overwhelming majority ... yet you provide NO proof of this bold assertion. [...] Furthermore, you clamor for me to provide evidence ... over and over ... even in the face of all that I have provided so far ... and attempt to add qualifiers of "from before 500 AD" ... which shows me that you know good and well that there are not many in existence to begin with, even less of those that do exist are not easily found on the Internet ... translated and photographed ... and fewer still that have numbers in them at all ... as a matter of fact, related to John 19 ... I could find only one off-hand ... the P60 ... of which I could find no pictures AND it is dated around the 7th century. So Steve, you attempt to skew the question with impossible qualifiers ... so that it is impossible to provide the answer ... so you can claim victory ... and then sit back from your position of providing NO proof. [...] So I admit defeat of being able to readily find MSS on the internet that support the proofs I have already provided ... I figured out that I would have to find out where numbers are in the NT, match them to pages on the Internet like this one, and find translation elsewhere being that I do not read ancient Greek. So I will stand on the proof that I have provided so far ... AND I challenge you to prove your point now ... surely in "the overwhelming majority of all manuscripts have virtually every number written in full" you can find some ancient MSS that have the numbers written in full ... not modern lexicons ... but ancient Greek MSS ... just as you asked me to provide in opposition ... you have the greater chance of proving me wrong ... based on your assertion that there is an overwhelming majority.

My proofs on the point I made ... that scholars believe there could be an error ... was to quote the scholars themselves. Makes sense, right? But Steve tried to change the issue to me having to supply support to those scholars ... to provide proof, IOW, that the scholars were right. But the original point was that there were scholars that say it could have happened (JP's quote) ... and I supported JP's point:

Here's what JP wrote originally in the debate (quoting doesn't work from there since the debate is closed, so I am placing "artificial quotes" with the words intact):

On 05-05-2003 at 02:28 PM, JP wrote:

I’ll also post for the interest of others an alternate solution I found which I would appreciate Doc’s comments on and will present for the information of others interested. One idea has been that John’s “sixth hour” before Pilate should actually read “third” and that a textual corruption has occurred. The difference between the two readings would amount to a small, horizontal stroke the size of the middle “leg” of a capital E. There is no attestation for such a corruption in John, though it would hardly be the first unattested scribal error to a number in any ancient text. I do not favor this answer because of the problems of John 1 above. But it does present an interesting alternative.

Notice that JP says that it is "one idea" (and as I showed later, there are scholars who have that idea, and other scholars who support how it could have happened) ... he also says that "the difference was ... small, horizontal stroke" as I emphasised in bold above (and showed what JP meant by that with a table) ... and finally JP says "there is no attestation for such a corruption in John" (attestion = To supply or be evidence of)

Then Steve ridiculed:

05-05-2003 @ 08:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88450#post88450)
stevencarrwork:

Is Holding really claiming that the difference between 'tritos' (third) and 'ektos' (sixth) is a small horizontal stroke?

I know virtually no Greek, but even I can look at a page of Grek characters and tell there is a bigger difference between 'ek' and 'tri' than Holding's small horizontal stroke.

Not sure about the grammatical ending of 'ektos' and 'tritos' to make them match up with 'hora' (hour). Are there any Greek experts here prepared to confirm Holding's claim that the difference between 'tritos' (third) and 'ektos' (sixth) is a small horizontal stroke?

To which I replied:

05-05-2003 @ 09:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88512#post88512)
SherBear:

uH ... no ... :huh:

Since JP didn't specify that the actual numbers he was refering to were actually spelled out, your rant is unsupported. He would be correct that this is a theory of some scholars, as shown by the excerpt from the aforementioned one. I don't agree with this reasoning, but that doesn't negate that you should have done some actual research into the issue before you condemned JP out of hand ... hurting your credibility by looking for things to criticize, without support. (emphasis added to all three quotes)

So note that, in keeping with what JP said, I showed how the scholars, both Biblical and secular, refer to the common practice of writing at that time ... and how some Biblical scholars think it could have happened.

Steve made the assertions of overwhelming evidence in his favor in the ancient MSS (nearly 24,000) that supported him saying it couldn't have happened. I called him on those assertions, and he kept clamoring for me to prove that it did happen that way. And when he was shown that scholars do believe it could have happened that way ... my point ... he changed it to argument over diachrony and nitpicking over my words ... even though the dictionary itself shows that the word I used has that definition ... even though it has been shown that others use that word in that manner ... but this is accused as an example of a lie ... :no:

Thanks GP and Jaltus for the information you provided in the midst of this overbeaten topic. As I said before, I do not even think the scribal error is a viable solution ... I only set out to show that Steve's ridicule of JP was falsely based because there were scholars who felt it was possible based on how the ancient Greeks wrote at that time ... mainly because the "Does Holding really think ..." coupled with twisted conclusions, and Steve's added words, was getting on my nerves.

~ Sherry :angel:

Jaltus

May 23rd 2003, 03:38 PM

So by my supplying the Barnes, and now you supplying the Barrett quote, would your opinion be that I lied ... that I falsely presented information with the intention of deceit ... on this point? Barnes and Barrett, both respected scholars, said that the error was possible for that reason. Without access to the ancient MSS, and without being able to read Greek, shouldn't one defer to the scholars on point, even Carson said it was 'possible', right? Even if it is found to be unsupported by the MSS we have available now.

I do not think you lied. I think you were mislead by scholars overstating their case when they had conjecture (solid conjecture, mind you) but no evidence. As for Carson, I think he is shooting down Barrett but being nice about it.

Second question, Jaltus, since you show here that there are NO ancient MSS that support the point I have been making, does that mean that there is overwhelming evidence (almost 24,000) ancient MSS that deny the point, as Steve has been asserting? Or does it mean simply that there is no available evidence one way or the other, so we can only rely on conjecture based on the scholars?

No, there would be only about some 500 manuscripts, since we are talking Greek only and a portion of John, only. More likely the number is closer to 300, but I do not plan on going through and counting all the various manuscripts which have this portion of John. There are only about 5,200 extent Greek manuscripts. SCM is assuming Latin, Coptic, Armenian, et al in his count.

I hope this helps.

Sher

May 23rd 2003, 03:52 PM

While Steve formulates his post of my two supposed lies, I will go on to deal with his accusations in the list:

I left off after number 2, where Steve wrote:

==========================

Yesterday @ 10:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105188#post105188)
stevencarrwork:

3) Sherbear claimed I equivocated on 'modern', but never even bothered to give a quote where I had done so.

This has to be one of the more asinine accusations ... even IF I hadn't provided a quote or a link to a quote ... this is hardly proof of a lie ... an intention to deceive ... but can be shown as a mere oversight.

But just to make sure it is clear to anyone reading that this is yet another of Steve's false accusations:

Steve said
Somebody who thinks the United Bible Societies translated the Greek of the New Testament into Greek might struggle with basic logic, and be unable to do more than attack scholars like Wieland, or the Alands or Bruce Metzger, accusing them of systematically altering the Bible text.

To which I replied
Equivication, as previously shown.

Before this reply, I quoted Steve's text as shown above (in this post: number 102: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=103906#post103906) ... prefaced at the very beginning of the post by:
Today @ 12:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103847#post103847)
stevencarrwork:

Note the link? "post located here"? Notice where I not only link to it but also quote it before my reply?

The previous one that I mentioned "as previously shown" was also supported by a link at the top of, or in the midst of, each answer ... "post located here" is an automatic thing inserted when you quote someone [I'll come back to this one as I have to get off the computer for a bit]

... therefore, I have the links to Steve's quotes when I answered Steve ... and here I provide the quote itself.

Unlike Steve ... who in many posts provides NO links to the conversations ... and NO direct quotes ... that he is alluding to when he ridicules ... including post number 103 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=103925#post103925) where the only two links that Steve provided was the one where he tried to crosspost to a different area of the board ... and the link to the Chaucer site ... with NO direct quotes ... no support AT ALL for "SherBear said this" and SherBear said that.

Yet, Steve accuses ME, providing this to Dee Dee as an example of LYING ... saying I don't provide quotes ... not providing links NOR direct quotes often seems to be Steve's modus operandi as shown in this very topic (other proof can be provided at request) ... yet, I am lying when I do exactly the opposite of what Steve illustrates in example of someone lying.

EDIT #1 : Okay ... I was interrupted when my son needed the computer: back to where I was in talking about point number 3 (where I said I would come back to it):

In post number 92 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=101845#post101845), I answered Steve regarding his equivication about "modern"
Steve, later century's manuscripts are more modern than the original autographs ... when they would have used the ancient methods of writing numbers ... no matter how much you equivicate on the word "modern"
This answer, again, is following a QUOTE from Steve ... and the attrib to that quote (the LINK) was ... again ... located at the top of post 92 as "post located here". Just because Steve seems to not have "post located here" in most of his postings (more than likely from copy/pasting instead of using the "quote" function, but that is just my conjecture based on how the quotes are formatted) ... and anyone who reads what Steve writes on this board will see that he often paraphrases people (and inserts his own words to twist the meaning of what the person said, as I have shown over and over in this topic ... examples available on request) ... instead of QUOTING those people.

So ... I provided a LINK to Steve's quote ... and the QUOTE itself ... again in direct opposition to what Steve qualifies as LYING ...

... but let's look at a "Steve example" that follows this qualification and see if Steve considers *himself* lying by not posting a quote nor a link to a quote in *this* post

... and yet again, more examples of Steve doing this could be available on request

Let's look at post # 63 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=95950#post95950) where Steve is answering Joe ... but complaining about me. Steve says, in part, that: Sherbear came up with ONE manuscript from about AD 850 which has the symbol instead of 'tritos'. Since when she has been accusing me of bluster, because I have not produced proof for HER statement that there is only one manuscript. Sherbear makes statements and then berates me for not proving that what she says is true. Here is what Sherbear wrote , quoting Barnes 'For example, the Cambridge manuscript of the New Testament has in this very place in Mark, not the word 'third' written at length, but the Greek letter gamma, the usual notation for third.' Instead, she claims that 'gamma' is the usual way of writing 'tritos', when even her own source cannot come up with more than one New Testament manuscript which does so. and she flatly denies the evidence of her own eyes. Christians have nothing to learn from the ex-Iraqi Information Minister.
And other accusations in that post. Yet note ... there is NOT ONE link to anything I have said .... NOT ONE direct quote to support any of those accusations.

Now, I personally think that even if someone continues a conversation in the same thread, and says something like "earlier so and so said" ... the reader should be able to follow the train of thought long enough to see where a direct quote MIGHT not be needed ... that what the poster is writing is a summary of previous points to be responded to ... not an erroneous paraphrase ... but a representation of the person's points already quoted.

But Steve ... in post 118(http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=105188#post105188) ... provided this as an example to Dee Dee's request for proof that I LIED:
Sherbear claimed I equivocated on 'modern', but never even bothered to give a quote where I had done so.

So, therefore, Steve considers this example he provided ... failure to provide a quote ... as an example of lying ... Hmmmm ....

... and the funniest, most ironic point of this particular accusation? Where is the quote showing that I claimed he equivocated on 'modern'? :teeth:

====================

4) Solly said Biblical Hebrew was not modern Hebrew, and Sherbear responded by claiming him as support for her statement 'It is the same language.'

If I say language A is not language B, then this hardly supports a claim that A and B are the same language.

Solly already answered this one at my behest ... Thanks Solly, you're a gem for taking the time to answer here!

=======================
EDIT #2: And finally to false accusation # 5 ... so I am not accused of ducking any of these:

Yesterday @ 10:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105188#post105188)
stevencarrwork:

5) Sherbear wrote 'This was to show that the more modern than the ANCIENT Greek writings were transcribed differently than the ancient Greeks would have written ... something I have exhaustively proven with links to both Biblical and secular scholars.', but she has yet to present a single Biblical manuscript with a number in John 19:14, other than just one in AD 850, which is not an ancient manuscript.

Her 'exhaustive proof' is a fantasy.

Steve quotes me here as saying I provided a certain type of proof, but then accuses me of LYING (evidenced that this was #5 on the list of proofs given to Dee Dee).

If one looks in the quote Steve provided ... the words are: "ancient Greek writings" followed by "exhaustively proven with links to both Biblical and secular scholars".

Steve says my "exhaustive proof is a fantasy".

Let's look up exhausitive -- Treating all parts or aspects without omission; thorough: an exhaustive study

Now, I maintain that I provided many links covering all aspects of the "ancient Greek writings" thoroughly. Steve can disagree of course, and provide an aspect of the "ancient Greek writings" that I missed ... showing I didn't adhere to the "without ommision" part ... and he may even disagree with the proof in the links I did provided.

However, to prove that I am LYING, he will need to prove that I intentionally overlooked any provisions he may come up with. His disagreement with those points does not prove I was lying.

Nor does his moving of goal posts to say, "but she has yet to present a single Biblical manuscript with a number in John 19:14, other than just one in AD 850, which is not an ancient manuscript" prove that a lie in the quote that Steve gave where I said "the ANCIENT Greek writings were transcribed differently than the ancient Greeks would have written ... something I have exhaustively proven with links to both Biblical and secular scholars"

So once again, we see this is another false accusation ... that I did not lie.

I have now refuted all 5 of the accusations of lying as false. I only did this so that no one can blame me of ducking any issues presented in that post. When/if Steve posts the reply to Dee Dee this weekend regarding TWO examples with PROOF that I lied, I will address them. Other than that, I am through with this topic. Any future ranting, beyond the clearing of my name, can be moved to the Janitor's Closet as far as I am concerned.

~ Sher

Sher

May 23rd 2003, 07:39 PM

Today @ 03:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105844#post105844)
Jaltus:

I hope this helps.

Yes, it does Jaltus. Thank you!

============
To the reader:

The point here is that I wouldn't have minded if Steve pointed out that I was wrong and provided proof showing I was wrong. I would have been fine admitting that I was wrong ... I've done so on this forum before.

It was that I was accused of lying ... and the accusations were not supported by any proof ... and at the time of this writing, still aren't.

My integrity is very important to me ... the whole reason for this particular issue carrying on in this way. I may be mistaken on a point ... or several points ... I am human and far from infallible ... VERY far.

But to be false accused of LYING ... that I intented to deceive ... goes beyond saying I made a mistake .... it questions my honesty and my intentions.

And I won't stand for that from anyone.

Joseph Alward

May 24th 2003, 04:33 AM

SHER BEAR
But to be false accused of LYING ... that I intented to deceive ... goes beyond saying I made a mistake .... it questions my honesty and my intentions.

JOE ALWARD
I never thought you were lying.

Sher

May 24th 2003, 04:44 AM

Today @ 04:33 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=106249#post106249)
Joseph Alward:

JOE ALWARD
I never thought you were lying.

Thanks Joe :smile:

I appreciate you saying so

~ Sherry

stevencarrwork

May 24th 2003, 05:18 AM

I love the Sherbear double-talk. This one is a keeper.

SHERBEAR
'Steve twists words ' and says things like 'did so-and-so really mean that' and in doing so, he can later attempt to disengage himself from those 'questions' by saying that he didn't REALLY say that someone actually said something ' that it was just a 'question'. This is an underhanded debate tool used by those who aren't sure of how to answer a point directly ' so they can leave an immature loophole they can later crawl through if/when they are proven wrong.

CARR
It appears Sherbear could find no example of where I said 'that was just a qestion', and then went back on it, she is just rewriting history by claimed I did that.

CARR
Curiously, Sherbear, in her effort to discredit me, gives a link in this thread to

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3034&perpage=16&pagenumber=2 , where she quotes Holding as follows :-

HOLDING
' is WK suggesting that Jesus created this "vision" of Moses and Elijah even though they were not really talking to them? This is tantamount to charging Jesus with deception! I certainly hope that WK is not headed in this direction.'

And Sherbear explains

'Of course that isn't what JP said or meant, Steven. JP makes it very clear what he is addressing by quoting of WK beforehand ... that he is questioning whether WK was asserting that the sight of Moses and Elijah was a CREATED vision by Jesus, opposed to being an actual event seen by the disciples.'

CARR
So Holding is merely asking a question about what WK meant, and Sherbear rushes to his defense in saying that he was
just asking a question, he never said there was real deception etc etc

So Sherbear accuses me of something she rushed to defend Holding against, while she produced no example of me doing something she thinks Holding was justified in doing (although she now calls it an 'immature and underhand' tactic)

But as Sherbear rewrites history, lies, misrepresents, accuses without examples, equivocates on words, and generally is as underhand as a skunk, she goes on my ignore list, as the most bizarre Christian I have met in 9 years on the Internet.

It was stiff compeition, but Sherbear has managed it, beating even her mentor JP (I am just quoting Malina and Rohrbaugh, I do not agree with them) Holding.

Holding wrote EIGHT articles saying the woman went to the well at John 4 at noon, and now claims he never believed it was noon.

He says he was just quoting, and is now going back on what he quoted. (What did Sherbear say about the immaturity of writing something, and then saying it was just a question? - a tactic that Holding perfected)

But Sherbear writes about Holding 'Context, SCW ... quoting a supporting specialist in one subject that they are qualified in, doesn't mean that you will agree with them in every subject.'

So Holding wote EIGHT articles lambasting sceptics , using Malina and Rohrbaugh as support.

He then claims that he was just quoting them. He never agreed with what he wrote when quoting them.

And Sherbear laps it up!

And then she writes states 'This is an underhanded debate tool used by those who aren't sure of how to answer a point directly ' so they can leave an immature loophole they can later crawl through if/when they are proven wrong.', when sceptics do that (although she gave no example of me doing that!)

The hypocrisy sickens my stomach. Christians like Sherbear and Holding are little better than the word-twisters and revisionists of Holocaust deniers.

-------------------------------------------

I asked Sherbear to name ONE manuscript which has a number in John 19:14

Yesterday @ 05:39 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105246#post105246)
SherBear:

(p)reserved for later reply

She never did reply, although she claims she has 'exhaustive proof' that manuscripts of John 19:14 used numbers instead of words.

How can she have 'exhaustive proof' and not one example! Not one!

------------------------------------

Sherbear's false accusations.

CARR
3) Sherbear claimed I equivocated on 'modern', but never even bothered to give a quote where I had done so.

SHERBEAR
This has to be one of the more asinine accusations ... even IF I hadn't provided a quote or a link to a quote ... this is hardly proof of a lie ... an intention to deceive ... but can be shown as a mere oversight.

But just to make sure it is clear to anyone reading that this is yet another of Steve's false accusations:

Steve said â€œ Somebody who thinks the United Bible Societies translated the Greek of the New Testament into Greek might struggle with basic logic, and be unable to do more than attack scholars like Wieland, or the Alands or Bruce Metzger, accusing them of systematically altering the Bible text.

CARR
So Sherbear says I equivocated on the word modern, and as proof triumphantly produces a quote where the word 'modern' never appears.

Her rewriting of history is not going very well, is it?

Perhaps Sherbear would like to provide another example to back up her false claim that equivocated on the word 'modern'. It is she who said that ancient Greek manuscripts (like Siniaticus) are more 'modern' than the original NT writings. This might be true, but it is an abuse of the word 'modern'.

----------------------------------------------------

CARR
Sherbear still cannot show that when Solly said Modern Hebrew was different from Biblical Hebrew, he was talking about 'format'.

And she cannot show that the reason the Chaucer' web site (HER CHOSEN WEB SITE) calls it a translation is because the language has changed, not just the spelling. She continues to claim that she is not abusing language when she calls a change of handwriting a 'translation'.

Oh well, David Irving claims to have the support of the dictionary when he equivocates on the 'Ausrottung' of the Jews. These sorts of tactics are not new......

stevencarrwork

May 24th 2003, 06:07 AM

Another Sherbear lie!

Sherbear :-
'Yet, Steve accuses ME, providing this to Dee Dee as an example of LYING ... saying I don't provide quotes ... not providing links NOR direct quotes often seems to be Steve's modus operandi as shown in this very topic (other proof can be provided at request) ... yet, I am lying when I do exactly the opposite of what Steve illustrates in example of someone lying.'

Sherbear still never provided a quote of me equivocating on the word 'modern'. Her claim that she DOES provide quotes, is rather pointless if her quotes are on other subjects.

I provide direct quotes and links. How dare she say that my modus operandus is not to provide direct quotes or links?

For example, my post about her hero JP (No Link) Holding, where I said .

CARR
--------------------------

Let us see what happens when Holding wants to argue that the time in John 4 really was noon.

http://www.tektonics.org/markmen_CC1-2.html 'As we suggested, we can posit many reasons why the woman at the well in John 4 was there at noon'

http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_D03_20LB.html 'This story is full of background templates that John does not explain, but that make the story meaningful: For example, the time of the meeting (noon) shows that the woman is an outcast, for it is not the time when water is normally gathered and when socialization occurs among the village women, but John sees no need to explain that the time is unusual for he assumes his readers will know that it is.'
-----------------------------

Lots of links and direct quotes.

Notice that Holding now claims he is only quoting Malina and Rohrbaugh, he does not agree that it was noon.

He wrote 'And we're still waiting for you to explain why I have to agree 100% with any item I quote.' in post number 37 in the thread 'Another Till Goof'

And Sherbear has the audacity to claim that saying something and then going back on what you said, by claiming it was just a question, is immature and underhand.

(Not that she produced an example of me doing that)

Quoting something as support and then denying you agree with what you quoted is a Holding speciality!

-------------------------

Another Sherbear lie!

CARR
Here is what Sherbear wrote , quoting Barnes 'For example, the Cambridge manuscript of the New Testament has in this very place in Mark, not the word 'third' written at length, but the Greek letter gamma, the usual notation for third.'
Instead, she claims that 'gamma' is the usual way of writing 'tritos', when even her own source cannot come up with more than one New Testament manuscript which does so.
and she flatly denies the evidence of her own eyes.
Christians have nothing to learn from the ex-Iraqi Information Minister.

Sherbear from 8:52 yesterday
And other accusations in that post. Yet note ... there is NOT ONE link to anything I have said .... NOT ONE direct quote to support any of those accusations.

CARR
Even what Sherbear wrote HAS A DIRECT QUOTE from one of her posts in it, and yet she says there is NOT ONE direct quote. Just a couple of sentences after I give a direct quote , she lies and says I provided no direct quote.

From her post on 05-16-2003 10:18 PM:
'It is supposed that the true reading, in John xix. 14, should be trith, the third, instead of ekth the sixth; a mistake which might have readily taken place in ancient times, when the character g gamma, which was put for trith, three, might have been mistaken for Greek episema, or sigma tau, which signifies six.'

Why is she whining that I did not provide a direct quote when accusing her of those things, as though the accusations were not true? She did say those things, or quoted people saying those things! I did not miss represent her!

---------------------------------------

Let me defend myself against another Sherbear misrepresentation.

SHERBEAR
This originate when Steve criticized JP’s off-handed “BTW” addition to his points by asking if JP was serious when he said that … and Steve twisting “horizontal line” to having something to do with full words.

HOLDING
'One idea has been that John's 'sixth hour' before Pilate should actually read 'third' and that a textual corruption has occurred. The difference between the two readings would amount to a small, horizontal stroke the size of the middle 'leg' of a capital E.'

CARR
Is Holding really claiming that the difference between 'tritos' (third) and 'ektos' (sixth) is a small horizontal stroke?

SHERBEAR
Notice there is nothing in JP’s text that says *tritos* nor *ektos*.

CARR
Indeed there is not. But as even Sherbear realises that Holding is talking about Greek, not English (what with the NT being written in Greek), it is reasonable to assume that Holding was talking about the Greek words for 'third' and 'sixth', when he was talking about the readings in the Bible.

And Sherbear has the sheer audacity to claim I am twisting Holding's words when I assume that Holding is talking about the Greek words found in the text, when he says the difference between the readings is a small horizontal stroke.

What else could he have been talking about other than the readings that we can read?

But Sherbear now claims Holding was talking about readings we cannot read, as she cannot produce a manuscript of John 19:14 with the readings of 'gamma' and 'digamma'.

-------------------------------

Sherbear still cannot produce an example where I said Nonnus supported me, yet she wrote :-

''So Steve, you say that Nonnus ... who you claim is unreliable ... supports your point?''

(Notice I give a direct quote of what she wrote, refuting another Sherbear lie)

My sole comment on Nonnus was ''BTW, Nonnus was apaprently quite unreliable, judging by the fantasies he wrote when he wrote his paraphrase of John. ”

So Sherbear accuses me of twisting Holding's words when I look at the Greek readings in the text, yet she says I claimed Nonnus supported my point, when I explicitly said he was unreliable.

Such sickening hypocrisy on her part.

-----------------------------------------

Is Solly really correct that Modern Hebrew has the same words as Biblical Hebrew, and that the difference between the two is just spelling and syntax?

Why then did he make the silly analogy with the change in English since Chaucer's time, which has far more than just spelling and syntax changes? The gap is far greater.

'Ferne halwes' - 'distant shrines.' - different language. This is not spelling and syntax changes.

------------------------------------------

Anyway I have wasted enough of my life on Sherbear's hypocritical lies, distortion and misrepresentation.

stevencarrwork

May 24th 2003, 07:14 AM

Yesterday @ 02:15 PM
praxeus:

(3) And signficicant changes of form (medium, script) over time within a language can also be considered translation.
The third is more technical, and arguable, but it is simply a waste of time to quibble over 'translation' versus 'conversion', especially as the third fits some dictionary definitions.

The only reason this poor horse is being beat to death on this forum, is that Steven want to be able to call SherBear (or myself) a liar, and he never has the integrity to simply say...
"okay, reasonable definition, sorry for the false verbal abuse, let us go on"

Integrity from a guy who champions Ron Wyatt!

It is not reasonable to say that a change of medium from papyrus to book is a translation.

It is not reasonable to say that changing from capital letters to small letters is a translation.

As I pointed out, one definition of 'a translation' is 'a movement'. The fact that the manuscripts have been moved since they have been written is not justification to say that they have been translated, so don't quote dictionary definitions, and say anything which fits them is reasonable.

---------------------------

Note to moderator

Sherbear wrote on 8:52 PM yesterday

'Let's look at post # 63 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sh...95950#post95950) where Steve is answering Joe ... but complaining about me. Steve says, in part, that:

Sherbear came up with ONE manuscript from about AD 850 which has the symbol instead of 'tritos'.
Since when she has been accusing me of bluster, because I have not produced proof for HER statement that there is only one manuscript.
Sherbear makes statements and then berates me for not proving that what she says is true.
Here is what Sherbear wrote , quoting Barnes 'For example, the Cambridge manuscript of the New Testament has in this very place in Mark, not the word 'third' written at length, but the Greek letter gamma, the usual notation for third.'
Instead, she claims that 'gamma' is the usual way of writing 'tritos', when even her own source cannot come up with more than one New Testament manuscript which does so.
and she flatly denies the evidence of her own eyes.
Christians have nothing to learn from the ex-Iraqi Information Minister.

And other accusations in that post. Yet note ... there is NOT ONE link to anything I have said .... NOT ONE direct quote to support any of those accusations.'

-----------------------------------

Even Sherbear's reproduction of my writing shows that I gave a direct quote from one of her posts, and then she lies directly afterwards and says there is 'NOT ONE direct quote to support any of those accusations'.....

I have made a copy of this thread, so I can tell the Errancy people what happened when you delete and edit my postings.

stevencarrwork

May 24th 2003, 07:47 AM

Yesterday @ 10:14 AM
Dee Dee Warren:

Yes I want more for you did not fulfill my request. You simply made assertions. I need for you to DOCUMENT for me two lies. That means you QUOTE ALL THE EVIDENCE I NEED. I am going to make my decision based upon the evidence you give me in the requested post and the rebuttals given. All you did in that one post is make assertions without any support whatsover. You would be censored if that is all I had to make a decision on. I am awaiting YOUR COMPREHENSIVE CASE ON TWO DOCUMENTS LIES. That is what I asked for and have not received. You simply said Sher said so and so. Well then quote EXACTLY what Sher said with a link to the post and quote EXACTLY what you have to to prove a LIE I am not going to run around looking for YOUR evidence. It is incumbent upon YOU TO PROVE YOUR CASE. And do not give me FIVE cases, give me TWO. I will not examine FIVE cases so give me your BEST TWO.

I shall provide as much evidence as 'satisfied' you when you approved of Holding calling me a liar, and a sick and twisted pervert.

After all, you don't have double-standards, do you?

On 03-09-2003 11:50 AM, Holding posted something that contained not one word, I wrote, had not one link to any posting.

Here is his posting.

'Since it seems some will focus intently on it for distractive purposes, allow me to elucidate my reference:

Acts 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

After observing Stevie for several years now -- responding to places where he has been refuted with silence, and never admitting error (even as here); after (for example) such acts as assuming himself expert enough to cancel out the findings of an eminent Biblical scholar with decades of experience in the social sciences, whose work is backed up by decades of even greater research -- merely by popping open an NIV and reading a word there in English! --

I find that mental perversion is a quite suitable description of his twisted thinking process, as illustrated above -- and that of a number of adherents of the Farrell Till school (not all on the Errancy list, to say).

I never knew the depths that this small crowd would descend to until -- beginning with FTill excusing away his ridiculous "90% of the website" reading, and his whining self-justifying comments for harrassing me at home, and now most lately Jim Eisele claiming victory and expressing direct wishes to deconvert people -- they showed up here and started plying their trade.

I'm glad they did. It's more damage than I could ever do.'

This is the sort of evidence that satisifies you when it comes from Holding, yet you demand links, direct quotes and all sorts of stuff from sceptics.

You wrote 'That is what I asked for and have not received. You simply said Sher said so and so. Well then quote EXACTLY what Sher said with a link to the post and quote EXACTLY what you have to to prove a LIE'.

Sherbear wrote 'This was to show that the more modern than the ANCIENT Greek writings were transcribed differently than the ancient Greeks would have written ... something I have exhaustively proven with links to both Biblical and secular scholars.',

This is a direct quote.

This is EXACTLY what Sherbear wrote to show that it was Sherbear who equivocated on 'modern', not I.

And I gave another example in another post.

I wrote 'Sherbear quoted Nonnus.

My sole comment on Nonnus was

'BTW, Nonnus was apaprently quite unreliable, judging by the fantasies he wrote when he wrote his paraphrase of John.

and Sherbear quoted that and wrote 'So Steve, you say that Nonnus ... who you claim is unreliable ... supports your point?'

This is EXACTLY what Sherbear wrote , despite your innuendo that I am distorting Sherbear.

There were direct quotes in my posting, but your double-standards reared their ugly head again. You can normally fight them down, Dee Dee. I was disappointed that you lost your battle against your prejudices on this occassion.

You wrote 'All you did in that one post is make assertions without any support whatsover.'

As I pointed out, I gave a direct quote.

Steven Avery

May 24th 2003, 08:17 AM

Hi Folks,

Shabbat Shalom, all.

No big debates right now, no need to attack or defend, but one thought and one comment.

Mark may well have been written in Latin, not Greek (or a Gratin or Leek mix... sort of like a dinner fondue). Read about this, there was a book that that Hoskier wrote, and, afaik, stands pretty untouched on a scholarship level . Interestingly, a friend of mine who is fluent in Latin, but not a pointyhead, comfirmed this.. "wow, I can backtranslate Mark right to a Latin origin, it has the same raw, simple feel and phrasing everywhere" (paraphrase). Personally, I like the idea that the three synoptics could have been written in 3 languages for 3 audiences (Matthew in Aramaic or Hebrew), same as the sign over the head of the Messiah at the cross.

Since I generally don't do "scribal error" in apologetics (one possible exception can be noted in the Masoretic Text, and there can be scribal error in "majority" vs. "minority" readings.) this doesn't effect my view of the 3rd hour and 6th hour, but it might be interesting here, as we could then discuss a whole new set of manuscripts in a whole new language !

And a thanks for Joe to speaking up, simply and clearly. On these types of integrity issues, in dialog between believers and skeptics/errantists, Joe has a good track record, in my experience, and is willing to take the flak by going on record.

Shalom,
Praxeus

Dee Dee Warren

May 24th 2003, 04:21 PM

On 03-09-2003 11:50 AM, Holding posted something that contained not one word, I wrote, had not one link to any posting.

Here is his posting.

'Since it seems some will focus intently on it for distractive purposes, allow me to elucidate my reference:

Acts 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

After observing Stevie for several years now -- responding to places where he has been refuted with silence, and never admitting error (even as here); after (for example) such acts as assuming himself expert enough to cancel out the findings of an eminent Biblical scholar with decades of experience in the social sciences, whose work is backed up by decades of even greater research -- merely by popping open an NIV and reading a word there in English! --

I find that mental perversion is a quite suitable description of his twisted thinking process, as illustrated above -- and that of a number of adherents of the Farrell Till school (not all on the Errancy list, to say).

I never knew the depths that this small crowd would descend to until -- beginning with FTill excusing away his ridiculous "90% of the website" reading, and his whining self-justifying comments for harrassing me at home, and now most lately Jim Eisele claiming victory and expressing direct wishes to deconvert people -- they showed up here and started plying their trade.

I'm glad they did. It's more damage than I could ever do.'

This is the sort of evidence that satisifies you when it comes from Holding, yet you demand links, direct quotes and all sorts of stuff from sceptics.

PLUUUUHHEEEEEAAAASSEEEEE!!!! Are you that desparate? What a transparent distractive move. :rofl:

And you forgot or omitted, that JP's words were challenged and HE DID provide the cite for why he was calling you a liar by ommission and I DID challenge him on his use of "perverse" which he clarified. You never complained, so your complaining now is pitifully manipulative transparent it is beyond pathetic.

here is what I said on the thread:

Dear Tizzi:

If you read JP's comments in context I believe they are self-explantory as being in reference to slanted and inaccurate comment made by Carr in the Errancy list.

However, I will affirm that "pervert" can be taken in an inappropriate way and ask that JP refrain from such characterizations as inappropriate in this discussion. As far as "sick" and "twisted" I will also agree that without further detail, those are overly strong terms for the comment of Carr's in question and JP would have to back up such a characterization with further detail.

The rest of his comments you referenced fall within the Rules parameters... and I quote for you the rest of the rule...

If a strong and potentially inflammatory characterization is used, it must be backed up as to the truth of the matter.

Steven left out a great deal of what actually went on in this debate, and thus JP has backed up his charge of "liar by omission."

If you have any further complaints, I request that you take them up in the Dean's Office so as not to hijack this thread.

Now if you have further issues with me, follow the rules and do not post them here. You have no standing to be complaining as a flagrant rule breaker in your last post. Grow up.

Sher

May 24th 2003, 04:41 PM

Dee Dee/GP,

So? Out of all those Steve posts, is any of that to be taken as the TWO examples with evidence requested by Admin?

If so, I would appreciate him being asked to indicated as 1 and 2, even in retrospect, so I can reply and leave this topic.

Thanks!

stevencarrwork

May 24th 2003, 07:22 PM

http://foundationstone.com.au/HtmlSupport/OnlineHebrewTutorial/Html/15_Lesson.html is an interesting lesson on the differences between Biblical and Modern Hebrew.

The site is quite interesting , and I learned something. I can recommend it. Very clearly written, and of interest to Christians who need to know something of Hebrew.

Anyway, the differences betwen the two versions of language are far greater than just spelling or handwriting, which is why it is justified to speak of a 'translation' between Modern and Biblical Hebrew. The grammar has changed extensively enough to justify the word 'translation'.

But I still do not consider it justifiabe to say that the koine Greek in Modern Bible software that I use for looking things up, is a translation of the ancient koine Greek.

Dee Dee Warren

May 24th 2003, 07:29 PM

SherBear, I have PMd GP and Jaltus to take a look at it. I have left this issue in thier hands. It seems that Steven has conceded that you are right about the Hebrew. I am sure his apology on that will be forthcoming.

Dee Dee Warren

May 26th 2003, 01:16 PM

I have had sufficient time and intestinal fortitude to read through this thread. Other moderators have reviewed it as well. Steve you have totally failed to support any accusation of lying. Cease and desist from this character assination of SherBear and Praexus. I am not making any kind of comment on which facts are right with regards to the resolution or lack of resolution to the textual issue. If SherBear is incorrect, it is not because of any deliberate deceit whatsoever. Ironically enough she was never defending a point of view that she held to to begin with, and your habit of twisting words and context (as demonstrated in spades by Praexus and SherBear) to fit your agenda, and constantly bringing in your personal jihad against Holding was transparent. Especially since this whole debacle was caused by your assinine charge that Holding thinks that "tritos" and "hektos" are just one character slash alike by reading his words in a pendantically wooden fashion with the sole goal of finding an error where there is none in a reasonable understanding of the sentence in the dynamics of communication. Please send the Errancy List my love and regards, and tell Nancy thank you for her appraisal that was quoted in the course of this discussion. You owe Sher and Praexus an apology as well as myself for your LIE that I edited out your post to prevent SherBear from having to answer one of your questions. However, we will not hold our breath.

**SherBear there is one thing I do need further clarification and that is the Nonnus item. Were you mistaken where you had said that Steve used that source as his expert? I do not believe if you were mistaken that you lied, and perhaps I am missing part of that point.

Sher

May 26th 2003, 03:52 PM

:no: ... May I borrow a heavy SIGH here, Dee Dee?

Let me show you what was said that is pertinent to the "Nonnus" point, and I'll comment afterward:

Here I was quoting a Clarke commentary:

05-16-2003 @ 09:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98559#post98559)
SherBear:

Nonnus, who wrote in the fifth century, reads trith, the third.

Here Steve is answering my post above, and speaks of commentary that he provided ... and how I repeat what he claimed in rebuttal:

05-16-2003 @ 12:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98726#post98726)
stevencarrwork:

BTW, I myself gave a commentary which showed that there were the manuscripts where the scribes had changed 'hektos' to 'tritos' in order to make John harmonise with Mark. Sherbear then repeats what I claimed. (that some manuscripts have trith here), as a rebuttal!

BTW, Nonnus was apaprently quite unreliable, judging by the fantasies he wrote when he wrote his paraphrase of John.

Here I rag Steve because he said I repeat what he claimed in rebuttal ... and in the next paragraph called Nonnus unreliable! (Notice the :rofl: at the end though? The one missing from Steve's post when he complains {see below}?)

05-16-2003 @ 05:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98950#post98950)
SherBear:

So Steve, you say that Nonnus ... who you claim is unreliable ... supports your point? :rofl:

Watch Steve get his knickers in a knot ... omit the :rofl: ... and take offense

05-24-2003 @ 06:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=106265#post106265)
stevencarrwork:

Sherbear still cannot produce an example where I said Nonnus supported me, yet she wrote :-

''So Steve, you say that Nonnus ... who you claim is unreliable ... supports your point?''

(Notice I give a direct quote of what she wrote, refuting another Sherbear lie)

My sole comment on Nonnus was ''BTW, Nonnus was apaprently quite unreliable, judging by the fantasies he wrote when he wrote his paraphrase of John. ”

So Sherbear accuses me of twisting Holding's words when I look at the Greek readings in the text, yet she says I claimed Nonnus supported my point, when I explicitly said he was unreliable.

Such sickening hypocrisy on her part.

Okay Dee Dee ... if you will notice, I never said that Steve used that source as his expert ... there is a :rofl: at the end of my comment, which really was to indicate that I was ragging Steve ... a :rofl: that Steve omits in his quote.

... but even so, notice that in the first paragraph I requoted, Steve says "Sherbear then repeats what I claimed. (that some manuscripts have trith here), as a rebuttal!"

Then notice what the only thing Clarke said about Nonnus was in that particular section was, "Nonnus, who wrote in the fifth century, reads trith, the third."

If I "repeated" what he "claimed" as rebuttal ... (that some manuscripts have trith here) ... which was in the portion of the Clarke commentary I quoted ... Isn't Steve basically saying that the supposed repeat of his claim "supported" his "point"?

As I said, the smilie should have been an indicator that I was ragging him ... but I feel that Steve's own wording refutes this complaint by itself ... that I was not "lying"

... the whole point of my ragging Steve was that he said I "repeated" his "claim" ... after I posted Clarke speaking about Nonnus (among other points) ... yet, in the next paragraph he says Nonnus is unreliable

... and it made me laugh :shrug:

==============
BTW, just to address another issue here that goes hand-in-hand with this ... Steve says (see above) "(Notice I give a direct quote of what she wrote, refuting another Sherbear lie)"

Read what I wrote about Steve not giving quotes ... in rebuttal to his false accusations about me ... where he complains that I was "lying" by not providing quotes:

05-23-2003 @ 03:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105854#post105854)
SherBear:

... therefore, I have the links to Steve's quotes when I answered Steve ... and here I provide the quote itself.

Unlike Steve ... who in many posts provides NO links to the conversations ... and NO direct quotes ... that he is alluding to when he ridicules ...

<snipped example I provided ~Sher>

Yet, Steve accuses ME, providing this to Dee Dee as an example of LYING ... saying I don't provide quotes ... not providing links NOR direct quotes often seems to be Steve's modus operandi as shown in this very topic (other proof can be provided at request) ... yet, I am lying when I do exactly the opposite of what Steve illustrates in example of someone lying.

<snipped example I provided ~Sher>

So ... I provided a LINK to Steve's quote ... and the QUOTE itself ... again in direct opposition to what Steve qualifies as LYING ...

... but let's look at a "Steve example" that follows this qualification and see if Steve considers *himself* lying by not posting a quote nor a link to a quote in *this* post

... and yet again, more examples of Steve doing this could be available on request

<snipped example I provided ~Sher>

Now, I personally think that even if someone continues a conversation in the same thread, and says something like "earlier so and so said" ... the reader should be able to follow the train of thought long enough to see where a direct quote MIGHT not be needed ... that what the poster is writing is a summary of previous points to be responded to ... not an erroneous paraphrase ... but a representation of the person's points already quoted.

Note here that I say "who in many posts provides NO links to the conversations ... and NO direct quotes"

("many posts", not all posts ... and I provided examples with an offer to provide more ... so counter-example does not negate my point)

Note here I also say "not providing links NOR direct quotes often seems to be Steve's modus operandi as shown in this very topic"

("often seems", not always ... and I pointed out where proof of this could be found... and again, counter-example does not negate my point)

Finally, note the last paragraph where I outline why I don't think this is an example of lying ... if it is "a representation of the person's points already quoted" ... "not an erroneous paraphrase" ... I was simply trying to show how false this accusations of me "lying" was ..

===========
Final point before I leave ... Steve made an issue of something that I wanted to address ... mainly because in his complaint, he provided a perfect example of MY point about how Steve twists things to ridicule:

Today @ 05:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=106256#post106256)
stevencarrwork:

I love the Sherbear double-talk. This one is a keeper.

SHERBEAR
'Steve twists words ' and says things like 'did so-and-so really mean that' and in doing so, he can later attempt to disengage himself from those 'questions' by saying that he didn't REALLY say that someone actually said something ' that it was just a 'question'. This is an underhanded debate tool used by those who aren't sure of how to answer a point directly ' so they can leave an immature loophole they can later crawl through if/when they are proven wrong.

CARR
It appears Sherbear could find no example of where I said 'that was just a qestion', and then went back on it, she is just rewriting history by claimed I did that. ”

Yesterday @ 02:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105287#post105287)
SherBear:

Steve twists words … and says things like “did so-and-so really mean that” … and in doing so, he can later attempt to disengage himself from those “questions” by saying that he didn’t REALLY say that someone actually said something … that it was just a “question”.

Notice here how Steve provides an example of my very point in this first quote! See how Steve reformats how he "quotes" me?

First of all, in his "quote" of me, Steve substitutes a ' (single quotation mark) wherever I have ... (three periods indicating a pause in thought)

Then he says, "It appears Sherbear could find no example of where I said 'that was just a qestion' [...]"

... Steve mangles my "quote" in readdress by requoting my words with misplaced quotation marks around a whole phrase ... instead of a single word!

Note that the actual words say ... that it was just a "question"

Highlighted in quotes is the word "question" which is a solitary word. Putting quotes around a solitary word is used to show that the word is debatable.

You know how someone who is talking puts quote marks in the air with their fingers (which can be rather annoying IRL)?

I was showing by "question" that I believe the "questions" to be actually more statement than question ... even when they end with a question mark. I was highlighting a single word with quotation marks (double, actually, but that is really nitpicking).

However, in his "quote", Steve puts single quotation marks around a whole phrase from my post: 'that was just a question'

... this reformat changes the entire meaning of the original by implying that I have quoted Steve directly ... that I am quoting him to say "that was just a question"

This is precisely my point in how Steve often misrepresents people ... perhaps he needs to be taught how to use the quote button ***(added note at the end)***

... or perhaps he does it intentionally so that he has something to complain about

... either way, I think it is wrong and stand by my original assessment of Steve twisting words (and punctuation too, evidently).

============
Thank you, Dee Dee. I hope this resolves the Nonnus issue.

I am done with this thread, except to check back to see if Steve will ever admit that he was wrong and apologize.

I know, Dee Dee, that you said that you do not hold your breath, but I would like to think that Steve would be a man here ... admitting that he was both overly critical of points that he misunderstood, or misrepresented ... and while assaulting my character, he hurt the feelings of a flesh and bones person on the other end.

Too often a poster looks at a monitor, not seeing the person on the other side ... the person who has feelings and emotions like the poster does ... that while satire and joking around are often humorous when served appropriately (like the Information Minister comment ... which made me laugh ... although even that wore out after several uses) ... character attacks are NEVER funny to me ... and it deeply hurt my feelings to be honest about it ... it's not that I really have such a thin skin ... it's that something happened in my personal life that made me overly sensitive to this particular assassination of character (long story). But I think it is ALWAYS wrong to call someone a liar, even by saying they are lying, when it cannot be shown that they intended to deceive anyone ... something that others, publically and privately, have acknowledged that Steve failed to prove here.

Steve, I don't know if this was intentional and you simply don't care how you affect others ... or if you simply didn't think first before you posted in such a vile manner ... but I would appreciate an apology ... no matter how simple ... even if you are too embarrassed to do it publically, you can PM me and we can keep it between us ... I would like to forgive you so we move on ... but forgiveness only comes on the other side of repentance ... even toward secular people ... for if one cannot repent, than one cannot truly be forgiven.

===============
*** After thought, Steve, before I go, if you are reading this. I was checking my formatting of this particular post, and thought about something that you might be doing that is leading to your misreading of some issues. As I pointed out, I noticed that your post had single quotation marks where I had dot-dot-dot (...). Is this because you copy/paste instead of pressing the quote button? Does your paste render the periods into single quotation marks? If so, you may be "seeing" direct quotes where none exist when you type your rebuttals. I'm sure that there is someone here who can teach you VBcode, so you can use the quoting feature to your advantage, perhaps keeping you from futher problems in this area. Just a thought.