Israel's persecution of Christians

[rosends]

It's a great encyclopedia, I wish I still had my old printed copy but things move on. I think the caution about "not always accepted as totally reliable" is absolutely true as it is of every ancient historic source.

So the source you accept says his work is not always accepted as reliable but you keep quoting him as if his word (in translation!) is absolute and correct. Some day you will learn about the word "irony."

 

[rosends]

Not at all, I have no idea what led you to that view, I even cite the book of Romans above. You might like to pretend there are no tribes or that there's no distinction between them but the Bible does not.

What led to that view? Well, I cited the Bible and you have rejected what it says. And citing Romans isn't citing the Bible. Or history.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

So you admit you changed topics midstream. Great.

No that's not what happened, you must have presumed we'd agreed a topic and strict boundaries to our discussion, we didn't.

No, you have ignored it and not rebutted it. You have no basis for disagreeing so you don't account for it and maintain your erroneous position.

That's dogma, blind belief on your part, not reasoned discourse, simply a sequence of repeated blanket rejections.

Your sources are Josephus (in translation) and the Gospels (in translation). You are claiming that the translator (who was he?) used certain words, not that the texts do. That you can't see that is, frankly, sad.

You are encouraged to access the source documents in their original languages and give me your "proper" translation. The piece I quoted is short, so really shouldn't take you very long.

Unless you can demonstrate a problem in the translation why argue as if you know there is one? Ah I know, because your modus operandi is to assert things without evidence.

No, I cited biblical verses. You must have had your blinders on so you chose not to see it.

Did you translate them yourself I wonder...

You said the term excludes all the other tribes. And which two Jews? Josephus, whose reputation as a self-serving traitor whose history is suspect and the anonymous gospel writer? Both in translation. I wish you could appreciate how truly funny and pathetic that is.

This is the check-mate of our discussion - the only way to support your claim Josephus is what you describe him to be, is to compare his accounts with someone else's accounts, yes? This is preposterous, all you are doing now is more unsupported assertions "my sources are better than yours".

You keep wanting to hang your hat on a translation of Josephus. Why?

I'd have thought that was obvious; because it supports my argument about the meaning of "Jew", would you like me to quote Charles Dickens perhaps?

Actually I can and have shown that you are wrong and that you don't understand the language, or in fact how language works.

I do not claim to be a linguist, nor a scholar of Hebrew or ancient Greek, but that does not negate the arguments I've put forward. I'm not concerned about the efficacy of the translations, if you are then do as I suggested, translate them yourself and share with us your translation.

They are not historical terms. They are more recent coinages in English. You really aren't getting it.

Define for me please, what you understand by the phrase "historical term"?

I ask for some sources, supporting evidence to justify your assertions and you produce - more assertions - yes I am getting it, you have no supporting information for your beliefs, dogmatics have no need of them.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

What led to that view? Well, I cited the Bible and you have rejected what it says. And citing Romans isn't citing the Bible. Or history.

That you don't know what "Bible" or "History" means goes some way to explaining your obvious confusion.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

So the source you accept says his work is not always accepted as reliable but you keep quoting him as if his word (in translation!) is absolute and correct. Some day you will learn about the word "irony."

The phrase "not always accepted as reliable" does not mean "always accepted as unreliable", why must I give you English and logic lessons, but this is all your own fault, trying to peddle dogma might work with some, but not with Sherlock Holmes, I do this kind of detective work for a living.

 

[rosends]

No that's not what happened, you must have presumed we'd agreed a topic and strict boundaries to our discussion, we didn't.

Yes, I assumed that you would stay on topic and not arbitrarily change. You must be great at parties, randomly changing what you are talking about with no explanation.

That's dogma, blind belief on your part, not reasoned discourse, simply a sequence of repeated blanket rejections.

The fact that you admit you don't know the original material and that you haven't rebutted what I have posted is dogma?

You are encouraged to access the source documents in their original languages and give me your "proper" translation. The piece I quoted is short, so really shouldn't take you very long.

Another swing and a kiss for you. You are reading in translation and deciding that it is correct and telling me I should check the original. You should have checked it before you posted it (like for the video of the Jew in which the Hebrew and English don't match up). You are basically bragging that your ignorance is a defense.

Unless you can demonstrate a problem in the translation why argue there is one?

Because the translation includes words that have no equivalent in ancient Hebrew so I can sure that there is a problem.

Ah I know, because your modus operandi is to assert things without evidence.

You still haven't checked the evidence I cited I guess.

Did you translate them yourself I wonder...

In my head, as I read the Hebrew. And then I checked with other translations (into Aramaic and English) to confirm my understanding. What steps did you take?

This is the check-mate of our discussion - the only way to support your claim Josephus is what you describe him to be, is to compare his accounts with someone else's accounts, yes?

OK, sure. His statements contradict the biblical account. I'll take the Bible, thanks.

This is preposterous, all you are doing now is more unsupported assertions "my sources are better than yours".

Yes, the Bible is better than Josephus. If you disagree, that's on you.

I'd have thought that was obvious; because it supports my argument about the meaning of "Jew", would you like me to quote Charles Dickens perhaps?

So even though you accept that his writings are unreliable and you haven't even checked the source material you use it because it supports your argument. That's not an especially rigorous approach.

I do not claim to be a linguist, nor a scholar of Hebrew or ancient Greek, but that does not negate the arguments I've put forward.

Actually, it does. You are claiming that an ancient Hebrew or Greek text says something without being able to read the text.

I'm not concerned about the efficacy of the translations,

Clearly.

if you are then do as I suggested, translate them yourself and share with us your translation.

Wow, another miss. The entire fact that you read them in translation is the problem and you want me to do your homework for you?

Define for me please, what you understand by the phrase "historical term"?

A term that exists throughout a particular chronological frame. An English word cannot be an historical term in the Bible because there was no English for a long time after the bible.

I ask for some sources, supporting evidence to justify your assertions and you produce - more assertions - yes I am getting it, you have no supporting information for your beliefs, dogmatics have no need of them.

If you choose not to read them, then they don't exist? Fascinating.

 

[rosends]

The phrase "not always accepted as reliable" does not mean "always accepted as unreliable", why must I give you English and logic lessons, but this is all your own fault, trying to peddle dogma might work with some, but not with Sherlock Holmes, I do this kind of detective work for a living.

Nor does it mean "always accepted as reliable" but that's what you are doing. Are you really this dim? I pity anyone who hires you as a detective.

I study texts (in the original and translation) for a living. I study language for a living. I assess argument for a living. Clearly, one should not expect a detective to understand language, let along logic and rhetoric.

 

[rosends]

That you don't know what "Bible" or "History" means goes some way to explaining your obvious confusion.

lol. You really don't understand what's going on. If you think Romans is either Bible or history then you are in the wrong place. If you'd like, I can give you a link to the Bible and you can show me where Romans is.

מאגר ספרות הקודש

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Yes, I assumed that you would stay on topic and not arbitrarily change. You must be great at parties, randomly changing what you are talking about with no explanation.

That you get confused easily is not my concern.

The fact that you admit you don't know the original material and that you haven't rebutted what I have posted is dogma?

I'm assuming the translation of Josephus and Romans capture the original meaning, that's what I do with experts I am prepared to trust them until given a reason not to.

Another swing and a kiss for you. You are reading in translation and deciding that it is correct and telling me I should check the original. You should have checked it before you posted it (like for the video of the Jew in which the Hebrew and English don't match up). You are basically bragging that your ignorance is a defense.

I cannot "check it" myself, I assume it's trustworthy, relying on other competent specialists is accepted practice when we're dealing with unfamiliar problem domains. If you care to give me doubt about the translation's efficacy then I'm happy to consider it.

If you take your car to a dealership for a set of new tires, do you hand check the tightness of each wheel nut with a torque wrench before driving it away?

Because the translation includes words that have no equivalent in ancient Hebrew so I can sure that there is a problem.

Yes so you keep saying, don't "assure" me, show me, show us all what that problem is? (other than you hate what it says).

You still haven't checked the evidence I cited I guess.

In my head, as I read the Hebrew. And then I checked with other translations (into Aramaic and English) to confirm my understanding. What steps did you take?

I trust the translators to capture the original meaning.

OK, sure. His statements contradict the biblical account. I'll take the Bible, thanks.

Do his statements ever concur with the Biblical account?

Yes, the Bible is better than Josephus. If you disagree, that's on you.

It's not better when it comes to history that is not recorded in the Bible.

So even though you accept that his writings are unreliable and you haven't even checked the source material you use it because it supports your argument. That's not an especially rigorous approach.

You need to reread, I did not accept his writings are "unreliable" you TRANSLATED what I wrote and did an abysmal job.

Actually, it does. You are claiming that an ancient Hebrew or Greek text says something without being able to read the text.

I trust the translators, have they translated it incorrectly?

Wow, another miss. The entire fact that you read them in translation is the problem and you want me to do your homework for you?

No, I want you to prove there's translation flaw in the English translation of that Josephus text, you cannot else you'd do so.

A term that exists throughout a particular chronological frame. An English word cannot be an historical term in the Bible because there was no English for a long time after the bible.

I think your just confusing pronunciation with meaning.

If you choose not to read them, then they don't exist? Fascinating.

Why give me something I can't read? you are busy telling me that unless we read it in Hebrew then we can't understand it.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Nor does it mean "always accepted as reliable" but that's what you are doing. Are you really this dim? I pity anyone who hires you as a detective.

Indeed, it means sometimes accepted as reliable, now you're catching on.

I study texts (in the original and translation) for a living. I study language for a living. I assess argument for a living. Clearly, one should not expect a detective to understand language, let along logic and rhetoric.

That's interesting to know, I respect your expertise, I acknowledge it. My wife is a linguist, I am more than slightly familiar with the subject. But claiming the Josephus quote is not translated correctly and mis-conveys the meaning in the original text still requires some evidence. Given your acknowledged expertise what's the problem with translating it yourself? what's the problem with showing the errors in the translation I quoted?

Just click the image, your a scholar, assessing the efficacy of the translation is your expertise, this should be routine for you.



Here, here's the original Greek text for Chapter 11, section 7: again, just click the image:



Show me the problem you are alluding to please, with respect, how should that highlighted block [173] have been translated?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

lol. You really don't understand what's going on. If you think Romans is either Bible or history then you are in the wrong place. If you'd like, I can give you a link to the Bible and you can show me where Romans is.

מאגר ספרות הקודש

Thanks but I have ample resources already and in print. Romans is in my Bible and it contains historic accounts and references.

Wikipedia for example tells us this:

Note that last sentence:

The external evidence of authenticity could indeed hardly be stronger; and it is altogether borne out by the internal evidence, linguistic, stylistic, literary, historical and theological.

 

[rosends]

That you get confused easily is not my concern.

Nor is reality, apparently.

I'm assuming the translation of Josephus and Romans capture the original meaning, that's what I do with experts I am prepared to trust them until given a reason not to.

So you know who the translators are and their qualifications, right?

I cannot "check it" myself, I assume it's trustworthy, relying on other competent specialists is accepted practice when we're dealing with unfamiliar problem domains. If you care to give me doubt about the translation's efficacy then I'm happy to consider it.

So you can't check it and believe what a translator writes. And when the translator uses a term that has no equivalent in the original you can't know it. And how do I know it has no equivalent? Because I have studied the original.

If you take your car to a dealership for a set of new tires, do you hand check the tightness of each wheel nut with a torque wrench before driving it away?

No but I investigate the shop before going. Did you vet the translator?

Yes so you keep saying, don't "assure" me, show me, show us all what that problem is? (other than you hate what it says).

Besides that it uses words that don't appear in the original? Or that it makes claims that contradict the biblical accounts? How would you like me to show you that a word doesn't exist in the original if you don't understand the original?

I trust the translators to capture the original meaning.

Like the guy who translated that video and was completely wrong. Well, you can't know he was wrong and don't believe anyone who tells you it is wrong even if that person is fluent in the source language.

Do his statements ever concur with the Biblical account?

Does that matter? These don't and these are what is at issue. Or did you just suddenly change topics again?

It's not better when it comes to history that is not recorded in the Bible.

Except that this was recorded and is contradicted.

You need to reread, I did not accept his writings are "unreliable" you TRANSLATED what I wrote and did an abysmal job.

Actually, I inferred. We detectives know how to do that.

I trust the translators, have they translated it incorrectly?

Yes. The simple fact that they used a word which has no equivalent in the original is proof of that.

No, I want you to prove there's translation flaw in the English translation of that Josephus text, you cannot else you'd do so.

I have. The word Israelite doesn't exist as a distinct term. Go find the original and check. This is your claim. I'm just pointing out that it cannot be correct.

I think your just confusing pronunciation with meaning.

Then you don't know the meaning of the word "pronunciation." Maybe it would be easier if we stuck to something you do know. Is there anything you know?

Why give me something I can't read? you are busy telling me that unless we read it in Hebrew then we can't understand it.

That's my point. Thank you.

 

[rosends]

Indeed, it means sometimes accepted as reliable, now you're catching on.

And sometimes not. How do you decide that in this case which contradicts the Bible it is reliable?

That's interesting to know, I respect your expertise, I acknowledge it. My wife is a linguist, I am more than slightly familiar with the subject. But claiming the Josephus quote is not translated correctly and mis-conveys the meaning in the original text still requires some evidence. Given your acknowledged expertise what's the problem with translating it yourself? what's the problem with showing the errors in the translation I quoted?

I don't know Greek so I rely on an expert

Just click the image, your a scholar, assessing the efficacy of the translation is your expertise, this should be routine for you.

View attachment 978569

Here, here's the original Greek text for Chapter 11, section 7: again, just click the image:

View attachment 978576

Show me the problem you are alluding to please, with respect, how should that highlighted block [173] have been translated?

Do you really believe that there is a "tribe of Judas"?

G2448 - iouda - Strong's Greek Lexicon (kjv)

G2448 - Ἰουδά Ioudá, ee-oo-dah'; of Hebrew origin ( or perhaps ); Judah (i.e. Jehudah or Juttah), a part of (or place in) Palestine:—Judah.

www.blueletterbible.org

 

[rosends]

Thanks but I have ample resources already and in print. Romans is in my Bible and it contains historic accounts and references.

Wikipedia for example tells us this:

View attachment 978585
Note that last sentence:

So you like the Christian texts and consider them authoritative about history even though they are rife with errors. What translation of them do you use? Why that one? Or is it only Romans that you trust as a history book? I don't trust any of it so you aren't going to make much progress trying to make an argument on a translation of a text which has no authority to me.