Spirituality
22 Oct 11
22 Oct 11
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeesternot interested in what your reasons are, interested in the text, sorry, ask someone that
Please stick to the OP of the thread robbie. Why were they going to stone him?
is, well, interested in ignoring the text. That would not be me.
22 Oct 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThen stay out of the thread if you cannot comment on the question.
not interested in what your reasons are, interested in the text, sorry, ask someone that
is, well, interested in ignoring the text. That would not be me.
Tell you what; you are very welcome to dig into whatever historical translations and ancient Greek or Hebrew you wish to and apply it to the "I AM" piece.
Then please answer: why were they going to stone him?
22 Oct 11
Originally posted by bbarrNo, I'm saying that not having an in depth understanding of a what the text originally, actually said means there is no basis for arguing... robbie is just mud slinging and lording his(incomplete) knowledge over people to get out of debating.
Wait, so you're claiming that an in-depth understanding of a text and it's meaning does not require knowing what the text originally, actually said? Yikes!
Who do you think is right? Lingual scholars or robbie, with his limited understanding of Greek and English?
22 Oct 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt is evident in all of your posts that you don't completely understand English grammar and syntax. I'm not intending to offend you robbie but you need to come off your high horse and humble yourself.
So now you are telling me what i know and what i do not know? Look, I can read
Greek, I can read English, i understand Greek construct, i understand English
construct, do you? no? well no offence, but you dont know what you are talking
about. The rest of your text tells me that you dont know what you are talking about
because if you did, y ...[text shortened]... re you talking about? what words are out of context? what has context even
got to do with it?
You are not a lingual scholar.
22 Oct 11
Originally posted by tomtom232Well, I'm not sure how comprehensive RC's knowledge of Greek is. But I do know, from working with philosophical texts in Greek, that sometimes translators do a poor job. Sometimes there are theoretical commitments that drive translation, or aesthetic values, or desires for consistency, or whatever. Translation is hard. It's probably best, when dealing with an ancient text that has been multiply translated, to spend at least a bit of time figuring out whether the translation one is working from is accurate.
No, I'm saying that not having an in depth understanding of a what the text originally, actually said means there is no basis for arguing... robbie is just mud slinging and lording his(incomplete) knowledge over people to get out of debating.
Who do you think is right? Lingual scholars or robbie, with his limited understanding of Greek and English?
22 Oct 11
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrThen you refer to multiple translations for your arguments until such time that you can state that you can make a better translation than lingual scholars. You don't lord incomplete knowledge over people to avoid hard questions.
Well, I'm not sure how comprehensive RC's knowledge of Greek is. But I do know, from working with philosophical texts in Greek, that sometimes translators do a poor job. Sometimes there are theoretical commitments that drive translation, or aesthetic values, or desires for consistency, or whatever. Translation is hard. It's probably best, when dealing with ...[text shortened]... at least a bit of time figuring out whether the translation one is working from is accurate.
In other words, if you think you have found an error in translation then you try to find an accepted translation that backs you up... if you can't find one then you are likely in error and not the translation you thought was wrong.
22 Oct 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYour absolutely correct what?
Your absolutely correct, why bother, but then again, i only know what the text says, i dont
need to 'feel', the words, i can use my mind to reason, i dont need to take it upon trust
that the translation is accurate, i can just merrily go along in blissful ignorance, i dont
need to substantiate my arguments linguistically or textually, i have my ...[text shortened]... ake arguments based on inaccurate translation, for me. Your absolutely correct, why
bother.
22 Oct 11
9 edits
Originally posted by tomtom232It is clear that you have not the slightest idea what you are talking about, here are
It is evident in all of your posts that you don't completely understand English grammar and syntax. I'm not intending to offend you robbie but you need to come off your high horse and humble yourself.
You are not a lingual scholar.
your words AGAIN,
Conclusion: One or two words being different, out of context, is hardly a basis for an
argument.
what words are you talking about? you dont know, do you. what context are you
referring to, you dont know do you. In fact, its not even a conclusion, its an
unsubstantiated assumption, simply an ignoramus mouthing off about things he
knows nothing about, isn't it.
I was referring to the Phrase, 'before Abraham was, I AM', because certain
Christians place great emphasis on the term, I AM.
It is clear to me that this does not follow the English construct, we do not say, '
before Robbie called me out tomtom slaphead I am', do we?. Noooo we follow the
English construct, ' I am tomtom a slaphead'. Are you saying that i do not
understand the difference? When I have just pointed it out to you? Lets ask you
what does the Greek actually state, seeing that you know so much about it, at least
enough to tell others what they know and do not know.
22 Oct 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhy did they want to stone him?
it is clear that you have not the slightest idea what you are talking about, here are
your words AGAIN,
Conclusion: One or two words being different, out of context, is hardly a basis for an
argument.
what words are you talking about? you dont know, do you. what context are you
referring to, you dont know do you. In fact, its not even ...[text shortened]... u know so
much about it, at least enough to tell others what they know and do not know.