The Neverending Story

Free Republic | 3/24/01 | The NES Crew

[SoothingDave]

Heather's Two Daddies become Two Mommies

File that one.

SD

[SoothingDave]

If you, ever in your life, said that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute I am satisfied that it was "Catholic Teaching". You have told me so yourself.

Have you proof that I ever told you an official position on MM?

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

Transliterated, perhaps.

Nuff said. This tells it all.

[SoothingDave]

Does the RCC teach that The Fatima story is authentic?

It is "worthy of belief" though not mandatory.

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

That makes it sould like "OT scholars" all insist this. That simply isn't the case.

It may sound that way to you but then you have your own peculiar way of seeing things.

I wrote it as I meant it and I meant what I said. Simple as that.

[malakhi]

How cold is it there now?

A veritable heat wave today -- we're currently up to 12°, which is the highest we've been since last Thursday. Wind chills the past five days have been well below zero, at times as low as -40°. Temperatures are supposed to rise overnight, but the rise is expected to be accompanied by 3-5" of snow.

[OLD REGGIE]

Have you proof that I ever told you an official position on MM?

None whatsoever nor did I claim so. That is why I used the word IF. Understand?

[IMRight]

Transliterated, perhaps. Nuff said. This tells it all.

Ummm... so you're argument now is that Jesus was NOT speaking Aramaic... but gave Peter a second Greek name which just coincidentally SOUNDS like the Aramaic for "rock"?

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

numbnuts.

Repent now!

BigMack

[IMRight]

That's a vulgarity?

Ok... I repent.

[malakhi]

Obviously SOMEBODY with a solid knowledge of the text (who had NO reason to support the Christian argument because there WERE no Christians) felt that "virgin" was appropriate.

You assume that the translator had a "solid knowledge of the text". When, in fact, this translation error, along with others, demonstrates otherwise.

[malakhi]

Heather's Two Daddies become Two Mommies

File that one.

Unbelievable. Definitely, without a shadow of a doubt, #901.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

I know NOTHING!

BigMack

[IMRight]

You assume that the translator had a "solid knowledge of the text". When, in fact, this translation error, along with others, demonstrates otherwise.

But see... it ISN'T a "translation error", because there IS NO translation of the Hebrew you THINK is there in the original that would allow "they pierced". The translator would have to be looking at a manuscript that did not conform to what you think was there. If this was simply a "dug" vs. "pierced" discussion that might fly... but it isn't. Either you are incorrect, or someone just accidentally manufactured an entirely different work with no theological reason for doing so.

But you presume you know what was in those earlier manuscripts - that they mirror the current Jewish text. The evidence does not support this. The earlier Jewish teachings on the verse don't support this notion... they were clearly looking at an different text than you now use..... why they changed it is open to debate... but it was changed.

[SoothingDave]

You assume that the translator had a "solid knowledge of the text". When, in fact, this translation error, along with others, demonstrates otherwise.

You assume a "translation error" and not, in fact, an accurate rendering of the then-Hebrew text which was later corrupted.

SD

[Invincibly Ignorant]

But you presume you know what was in those earlier manuscripts - that they mirror the current Jewish text. The evidence does not support this.

Evidence of the perpetual virginity of Mary cannot be produced either yet you trust your traditions (protevangel of James).

[Invincibly Ignorant]

But you presume you know what was in those earlier manuscripts - that they mirror the current Jewish text. The evidence does not support this.

Evidence of the perpetual virginity of Mary cannot be produced either yet you trust your traditions (protevangel of James).

[malakhi]

YOU: Obviously SOMEBODY with a solid knowledge of the text (who had NO reason to support the Christian argument because there WERE no Christians) felt that "virgin" was appropriate.

ME: You assume that the translator had a "solid knowledge of the text". When, in fact, this translation error, along with others, demonstrates otherwise.

YOU: But see... it ISN'T a "translation error"

You're confusing the two issues. If you look back at the thread of the discussion, you'll see my reply concerned the translation alma --> parthenos.

[IMRight]

Evidence of the perpetual virginity of Mary cannot be produced either yet you trust your traditions (protevangel of James).

Not really on the same order.

[malakhi]

But you presume you know what was in those earlier manuscripts - that they mirror the current Jewish text. The evidence does not support this. The earlier Jewish teachings on the verse don't support this notion... they were clearly looking at an different text than you now use.

You make an equally significant presumption, one which is contrary to the context of the psalm, and which additionally results from a clear error of translation. "Pierce" is wrong even if your preferred version of the Hebrew text is correct.

Basically, your assumption is that "Christianity is right, therefore my translation must be correct". You'll pardon me if I don't find this argument very convincing.