quote:The other option is that it really DOES have mathematical exactness and scientific precision: the problem is we're all unfit researchers so driven by our contempt for Wierwille that we can't see it.
Oh. So, if one were to [EDITED: euphemism for becoming sexually aroused] at the mere thought of this overdosed brawny-brainiac, then that, of course, would not bias our research in any way?
The fool hath said in his heart, "PFAL is the word of God..."
Excuse the ignorance but what is an avatar? This def doesn't fit the context:
avatar
n 1: ny new embodiment of a familiar idea; "the incarnation of evil"; "the very avatar of cunning" [syn: embodiment, incarnation] 2: the manifestation of a Hindu deity (especially Vishnu) in human or superhuman or animal form; "the Buddha is considered an avatar of the god Vishnu"
Thank you! I was too embarrassed to ask one of my teens. They'd probably think I was doing something that would some day make them roll their eyes at me...again! ;-)
quote:"Since we have no originals and the oldest manuscripts that we have date back to the fifth century A.D. ..." ( PFAL p 128)
I understand that Dead Sea Scrolls contain manuscripts of the entire Old Testament (except for the book of Esther) which date from 200BCE to 100CE -- far earlier than what VPW says in PFAL.
Wierwille *could* have been referring to New Testament manuscripts, but if so he did not state it as such.
Does anyone else see this as a possible error?
Goey
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
One can also comb through the citations of the writings of the Ante Nicene Fathers, and piece together reconstructions of NT texts in circulation at the time. Nestle-Aland's Novum Testamentum Graece also provides some notes on the variants drawn from the Church Fathers, which offer an excellent glimpse into an earlier state of the NT texts.
In the case of the Syriac versions, presently the only recourse one has for recovering the "Old Syriac" version of Paul's letters (thought to have preceded the P e s h i t t a) is in the commentary of St. Ephraem on his epistles, preserved in an Armenian mss., and thankfully translated into Latin during the 19th century.
This isn't an error, just a comment. When reading the PFAL book one can see areas where Wierwille's sloppiness was sometimes edited.
When did Wierwille ever verbally refer to "Aramaic in Estrangelo script"? He almost always called it "Estrangelo Aramaic", which is why a lot of us thought that it was a dialect of Aramaic, rather than a type of script.
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is
Basides, I don't think it matters too much anyway. The statement seems erroneous whether
it is in or out of context.
----------------------------------------
Yea Mike, I know .... Don't tell me
If VPW said it was 464 then the scholars must be in error of their dating if these "older" manuscripts. Or --- these tattered remnants that predate 464 can't properly be called manuscripts at all anyway. (I know your game)
Goey
[This message was edited by Goey on February 11, 2004 at 1:58.]
He very well might have fixed it himself, or maybe it was his daughter the editor, or Walter or somebody with an education :D-->
Despite Mike's focussing on the "written record", it was the spoken PFAL, audio, and especially video that made the impression on us.
I read the PFAL book cover to cover before ever attending a twig fellowship, but was not impressed; it was dry and somewhat boring. The class itself is what hooked me, and it's what's in that spoken presentation that we remember.
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is
This thread has gotten pretty long, and maybe we discussed this, but what about Wierwille's "definition" of an atheist of someone who doesn't believe?
Maybe it's not in the book, but remember how he goes on about an atheist can't be an atheist because he believes that he doesn't believe, therefore he believes?
It doesn't matter if we turn to dust...guess I'll see you dancin' in the ruins tonight
Oakspear
[This message was edited by Oakspear on March 01, 2004 at 0:34.]
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
208
62
95
53
Popular Days
Jan 3
56
Jan 28
53
Jan 17
52
Jan 27
46
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 208 posts
Jbarrax 62 posts
Zixar 95 posts
Mike 53 posts
Popular Days
Jan 3 2003
56 posts
Jan 28 2003
53 posts
Jan 17 2003
52 posts
Jan 27 2003
46 posts
Popular Posts
Raf
Clear as the difference between all with a distinction and all without distinction. See, to those unaware of the circumstances that brought about this thread, I look like I'm nitpicking to prove Wier
Raf
I'm not talking about errors that are subject to interpretation. Whether you believe the dead are alive now, for example, really depends on your worldview and your interpretation of scripture. Whether
Larry P2
And let's not forget the one about "All the women in the Kingdom belong to the King." Which proves that he was a lecherous piece of sh!t communicating his desire for a steady stream of young, gullibl
Zixar
The fool hath said in his heart, "PFAL is the word of God..."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
6er... I'm a little behind on my porn euphemisms... what are you trying to say?
... big hitter, the lama...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Tom: Just pick your favorite. Mine was a bit on the vulgar side, so I changed it.
The fool hath said in his heart, "PFAL is the word of God..."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
bump!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waterbuffalo
Raf, I couldn't pull up the revised list. Could you post it again?...or I'll just try again later...whatever.....
Thx,
WB
"[if] there were none who were discontented with what they have, the world would never reach for anything better." Florence Nightingale
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Raf: what's with the new avatar? I can't read it...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
Zix,
I couldn't read it either.
Excuse the ignorance but what is an avatar? This def doesn't fit the context:
avatar
n 1: ny new embodiment of a familiar idea; "the incarnation of evil"; "the very avatar of cunning" [syn: embodiment, incarnation] 2: the manifestation of a Hindu deity (especially Vishnu) in human or superhuman or animal form; "the Buddha is considered an avatar of the god Vishnu"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
jt...
On message boards an "avatar" is that little picture under your handle that you use as another way of identifying yourself.
From www.m-w.com for "avatar": 3 a variant phase or version of a continuing basic entity
I've always wondered why it was ever called an avatar, too, but now it makes a little more sense.
Sorry for the choo-choo...back to regularly scheduled programming...
?????????????
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
Zix,
BTW, thanks for bumping this up!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
CW,
Thank you! I was too embarrassed to ask one of my teens. They'd probably think I was doing something that would some day make them roll their eyes at me...again! ;-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
NP jt...I didn't know until I looked just now, either...and refused to ask my 17yo son, too. LOL!
OK...really, really I will stop the choo-choo...so so sorry...
?????????????
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Sorry for the confusion! I was referring to the little pic beneath Raf's handle, like my snap of Saturn.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
Zix,
Actually, I'm the one who was a little slow. Thank you.
Raf,
I still think some of your work would make a fine book.
JT
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
See if this works.
Zix, I have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't change my avatar.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Raf: For a couple of days, all I saw in your avatar block was some unreadable text.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
He was just feeling cryptic.:-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
A possible error in PFAL ?
From PFAL
I understand that Dead Sea Scrolls contain manuscripts of the entire Old Testament (except for the book of Esther) which date from 200BCE to 100CE -- far earlier than what VPW says in PFAL.Wierwille *could* have been referring to New Testament manuscripts, but if so he did not state it as such.
Does anyone else see this as a possible error?
Goey
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
You left out part of the context.
PFAL, page 127-128.
"As far as anybody knows, there are no original texts in
existence today. The oldest dated Biblical manuscript is
from 464 AD and written in Aramaic in Estrangelo script.
There are older Aramaic manuscripts written in the
Estrangelo script which predate 464 AD, but thay are not
Biblical texts. What students or scholars refer to as
"originals" really date from 464 AD and later.....
Since we have no originals and the oldest manuscripts that
we have date back to the 5th century AD......"
He gets VERY specific.
BTW, copyright on the orange book is 1971.
"Copyright" on the snowstorm is 1952, if I remember correctly.
Ok, VPW gives the cutoff at 464 AD, correct?
Well, the Dead Sea Scrolls date back to about 100 BC.
They were discovered in 1947. They were well-known in
Biblical circles by 1956.
However, the Dead Sea Scrolls aren't the only documents.
The Chester Beatty manuscript is from 180-225 AD.
The Bodmer manuscripts, the same, for II, XIV, XV.
The Rylands manuscript, 130 AD. (Gospel of John.)
The Codex Vaticanus and Codex Siniaticus are between
325-450 AD.
So, even if the Dead Sea Scrolls are at 200 AD,
that makes 7 manuscripts plus the ones from the Dead Sea
Scrolls, all predating 463 AD.
Oh, yes, the Septuagint is 200 BC. 8 manuscripts.
So, history says "8 plus the Dead Sea Scrolls", vpw says
"none." Yep, that's another error.
If Brady hadn't reminded us the difference between
accreditation and non-accreditation, this would be more of
a surprise. Still, he didn't learn this studying for his
Masters?
BTW, please check my numbers. I know they all predate 464AD,
but I may have swapped AD & BC in haste.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
One can also comb through the citations of the writings of the Ante Nicene Fathers, and piece together reconstructions of NT texts in circulation at the time. Nestle-Aland's Novum Testamentum Graece also provides some notes on the variants drawn from the Church Fathers, which offer an excellent glimpse into an earlier state of the NT texts.
In the case of the Syriac versions, presently the only recourse one has for recovering the "Old Syriac" version of Paul's letters (thought to have preceded the P e s h i t t a) is in the commentary of St. Ephraem on his epistles, preserved in an Armenian mss., and thankfully translated into Latin during the 19th century.
Danny
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
This isn't an error, just a comment. When reading the PFAL book one can see areas where Wierwille's sloppiness was sometimes edited.
When did Wierwille ever verbally refer to "Aramaic in Estrangelo script"? He almost always called it "Estrangelo Aramaic", which is why a lot of us thought that it was a dialect of Aramaic, rather than a type of script.
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Wordwolf,
I did that for brevity. It was intentional.
Basides, I don't think it matters too much anyway. The statement seems erroneous whether
it is in or out of context.
----------------------------------------
Yea Mike, I know .... Don't tell me
If VPW said it was 464 then the scholars must be in error of their dating if these "older" manuscripts. Or --- these tattered remnants that predate 464 can't properly be called manuscripts at all anyway. (I know your game)
Goey
[This message was edited by Goey on February 11, 2004 at 1:58.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Goey,
I thought leaving out the context made it sound like he
rattled that off once, in passing, in one sentence.
He went on for a few paragraphs. That, I thought, was
relevant.
Oakspear,
Interesting, and I agree.
He always said "Estrangelo Aramaic", not
"Aramaic from Estrangelo Text."
I wonder who fixed his sentence.
I recall hearing that some twi "scholars" sounded like
idiots when they ran into real linguists and Bible PhDs
who knew "Estrangelo Aramaic" wasn't a language.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
He very well might have fixed it himself, or maybe it was his daughter the editor, or Walter or somebody with an education
:D-->
Despite Mike's focussing on the "written record", it was the spoken PFAL, audio, and especially video that made the impression on us.
I read the PFAL book cover to cover before ever attending a twig fellowship, but was not impressed; it was dry and somewhat boring. The class itself is what hooked me, and it's what's in that spoken presentation that we remember.
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
This thread has gotten pretty long, and maybe we discussed this, but what about Wierwille's "definition" of an atheist of someone who doesn't believe?
Maybe it's not in the book, but remember how he goes on about an atheist can't be an atheist because he believes that he doesn't believe, therefore he believes?
It doesn't matter if we turn to dust...guess I'll see you dancin' in the ruins tonight
Oakspear
[This message was edited by Oakspear on March 01, 2004 at 0:34.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.