Scripture vs. punctuation in translations.

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 02 2009,08:33)

Quote (thethinker @ July 01 2009,14:58)

Quote (Paladin @ July 02 2009,01:53)

Quote (thethinker @ July 01 2009,11:23)

Quote

set it up with t8

Consider yourself notified.

Great! Will you agree to providing the sources we each use for the biblical languages for the sake of those who want to verify what we say?

thinker

Hi Jack

Plagerism should also be a reason for disqualification!
IMO

WJ,
My concern is not about plagiarism as much as it is about Paladin's off the wall grammar. He said today that the Greek has no past tense and that the aorist speaks of continuous action. In a formal debate we both must be required to provide the link for people to verify such things.

I trust that neither of us will plagarize.

thinker

July 1, 2009 at 8:50 pm#135609

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ July 01 2009,16:43)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 02 2009,08:33)

Quote (thethinker @ July 01 2009,14:58)

Quote (Paladin @ July 02 2009,01:53)

Quote (thethinker @ July 01 2009,11:23)

Quote

set it up with t8

Consider yourself notified.

Great! Will you agree to providing the sources we each use for the biblical languages for the sake of those who want to verify what we say?

thinker

Hi Jack

Plagerism should also be a reason for disqualification!
IMO

I trust that neither of us will plagarize.

thinker

Hi Jack

I agree. I think that he also parades his proposed Hebrew and Greek scholarship in order to create smoke screens for the unlearned.

I agree he should provide his source for his quotes.

But he will say he will by the sources he just listed, yet many of those will not be verifiable unless you buy them. So we will not know for sure if what he says is true or not.

I think that to be fair that each one should be able to see the source or it can't be used.

Blessings WJ

July 1, 2009 at 8:50 pm#135610

Participant

Quote (Paladin @ July 02 2009,08:32)

Quote (thethinker @ July 02 2009,06:58)

Quote (Paladin @ July 02 2009,01:53)

Quote (thethinker @ July 01 2009,11:23)

Quote

set it up with t8

Consider yourself notified.

Great! Will you agree to providing the sources we each use for the biblical languages for the sake of those who want to verify what we say?

thinker

I utilize
FOR TRI-LINGUAL STUDIES

1) THE INTERLINEAR BIBLE; HEBREW, GREEK, ENGLISH; Hendrickson

2) THE NIV TRIGLOT OLD TESTAMENT; Kohlenberger

FOR GREEK OLD TESTAMENT

3) ANALYTICAL LEXICON TO THE SEPTUAGINT; Bernard a. Taylor

4) GRAMMAR OF SEPTUAGINT GREEK;Hendrickson

5) A GREEK – ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE SEPTUAGINT; J. LUST, E. EYNIKEL, K. HAUSPIE; Deutsche Bibelgeselischaft 1992

6) A GRAMMAR OF SEPTUAGINT GREEK; Conybeare & Stock

7) A HANDY CONCORDANCE OF THE SEPTUAGINT; Bagster

8) SEPTUAGINT GREEK AND ENGLISH OLD TESTAMENT; Bagster

FOR HEBREW OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES

9) ARCHEOLOGY AND BIBLE HISTORY; Free

10) THE LIFE AND WORKS OF JOSEPHUS; Translated by Whiston

11) THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT; Ernst Wurthwein; translated by Erroll F. Rhodes

12) ANALYTICAL HEBREW AND CHALDEE LEXICON; Bagster

13) ENGLISHMAN,S HEBREW AND CHALDEE CONCORDANCE; OLD TESTAMENT; Bagster

14) GESENIUS' HEBREW GRAMMAR; Edited & Enlarged by; E. Kautzsch

15) CHAPTER AND VERSE; Theophilus Book, First, Second, and Third Editions; Privately Published

16) CHRONOLOGICAL NEW TESTAMENT WITH NOTES; Theophilus Book; Privately Published

17) ENGLISHMAN'S GREEK CONCORDANCE; Zondervan

18) A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT; A.T. Robertson

19) ANALYTICAL GREEK LEXICON; Zondervan

20) ANALYTICAL GREEK NEW TESTAMENT; Baker

21) THE ZONDERMAN PARALLEL NEW TESTAMENT IN GREEK AND ENGLISH

22) THE RSV INTERLINEAR GREEK-ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT

23) THE INTERLINEAR KJV-NIV PARALLEL NEW TESTAMENT IN GREEK AND ENGLISH

24) ANALYTICAL LEXICON OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT; Friberg, Friberg, Miller

25) THE ENGLISHMAN'S GREEK CONCORDANCE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT; WIGRAM

26) STRONGEST STRONG'S EXHASTIVE CONCORDANCE OF THE BIBLE

27) THE NEW TESTAMENT OCTAPLA; Luther A. Weigle

28) NEW TESTAMENT SURVEY; Tenny

29) BASICS OF BIBLICAL GREEK GRAMMAR; Bill Mounce

30) A HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS FOR STUDENTS; The International Council of Religious Education

31) ANALYTICAL CONCORDANCE OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT; Baker Book House; Vol 1 – Lex. focus; vol 2 – gram. focus

32) AN EXPOSITORY DICTIONARY OF NEW TESTAMENT WORDS; W.E.Vine

33) ITS STILL GREEK TO ME; Black

34) LEARN NEW TESTAMENT GREEK; Dobson

35) NEW TESTAMENT GREEK; Hudson

36) THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT; (3RD Ed) UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES

37) NEW TESTAMENT GREEK PRIMER; Zondervan

38) THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ACCORDING TO THE MAJORITY TEXT; Hodges & Farstad

FOR STUDIES IN MEANING OF WORDS ACROSS LANGUAGES

39) EXTINCT LANGUAGES; Johannes Friedrich

40) HISTORY OF NEW TESTAMENT TIMES; Robert H. Pfeiffer

FOR STUDIES IN THE LATIN TESTAMENT

41) NOVUM TESTAMENTUM – Graece et Latine; Nestle – Aland

FOR STUDIES IN THE TEXT, LANGUAGE, AND HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

42) NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM; David Alan Black

43) LINGUISTICS FOR STUDENTS OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK; BLACK

44) PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION; Louis Berkhof

45) ANTE-NICENE FATHERS; 10 Volumes; American Edition; Hendrickson Publishers

FOR STUDIES OF THE ATHIESTIC PERSPECTIVE

46) ATHEISM, THE CASE AGAINST GOD; George H. Smith

47) ATHEIST UNIVERSE; The thinking person's answer to Christian Fundamentalism; David Mills

48) THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF GOD; Edited by Michael Martin & Ricki Monnier; anthology

FOR STUDIES IN THE MEANING OF WORDS IN ENGLISH

49) NEW UNIVERSAL UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY; Webster

50) ENGLISH GRAMMAR AND COMPOSITION; Warriner (Revised Edition)

FOR COMPARATIVE STUDIES INTO THE HEBREW MIND

51) THE HEBREW/ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT; The Society for Distributing Hebrew Scriptures

FOR STUDIES OF THE TRINITARIAN AUTHORS

52) IS GOD A TRINITY? David Kemball-Cook

53) THE TRINITY; Bickersteth

54) WHY YOU SHOULD BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY; Bowman

55) OUR TRIUNE GOD;Peter Toon

56) GOD IN THREE PERSONS; Millard J. Erickson

57) THE TIMELESS TRINITY, For The Ceaseless Centuries; Lanier

FOR UNDERSTANDING THE HOLY SPIRIT

58) THE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT; CAMP

Paladin,
I was talking about providing the link to verify an assertion pertaining to the bibical languages, definitions or grammar. For instance, today you said that the Greek has no past tense. You must provide the link so people can click right on it and see for themselves. I will be held to the same standard.
If you or I make an assertion about a grammatical rule people need to check that we are not taking a lexographer out of context.

thinker

July 1, 2009 at 10:42 pm#135624

At; https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….=175517

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ July 02 2009,08:50)

Quote (Paladin @ July 02 2009,08:32)

Quote (thethinker @ July 02 2009,06:58)

Quote (Paladin @ July 02 2009,01:53)

Quote (thethinker @ July 01 2009,11:23)

Quote

set it up with t8

Consider yourself notified.

Great! Will you agree to providing the sources we each use for the biblical languages for the sake of those who want to verify what we say?

thinker

I utilize
FOR TRI-LINGUAL STUDIES

1) THE INTERLINEAR BIBLE; HEBREW, GREEK, ENGLISH; Hendrickson

2) THE NIV TRIGLOT OLD TESTAMENT; Kohlenberger

FOR GREEK OLD TESTAMENT

3) ANALYTICAL LEXICON TO THE SEPTUAGINT; Bernard a. Taylor

4) GRAMMAR OF SEPTUAGINT GREEK;Hendrickson

5) A GREEK – ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE SEPTUAGINT; J. LUST, E. EYNIKEL, K. HAUSPIE; Deutsche Bibelgeselischaft 1992

6) A GRAMMAR OF SEPTUAGINT GREEK; Conybeare & Stock

7) A HANDY CONCORDANCE OF THE SEPTUAGINT; Bagster

8) SEPTUAGINT GREEK AND ENGLISH OLD TESTAMENT; Bagster

FOR HEBREW OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES

9) ARCHEOLOGY AND BIBLE HISTORY; Free

10) THE LIFE AND WORKS OF JOSEPHUS; Translated by Whiston

11) THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT; Ernst Wurthwein; translated by Erroll F. Rhodes

12) ANALYTICAL HEBREW AND CHALDEE LEXICON; Bagster

13) ENGLISHMAN,S HEBREW AND CHALDEE CONCORDANCE; OLD TESTAMENT; Bagster

14) GESENIUS' HEBREW GRAMMAR; Edited & Enlarged by; E. Kautzsch

15) CHAPTER AND VERSE; Theophilus Book, First, Second, and Third Editions; Privately Published

16) CHRONOLOGICAL NEW TESTAMENT WITH NOTES; Theophilus Book; Privately Published

17) ENGLISHMAN'S GREEK CONCORDANCE; Zondervan

18) A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT; A.T. Robertson

19) ANALYTICAL GREEK LEXICON; Zondervan

20) ANALYTICAL GREEK NEW TESTAMENT; Baker

21) THE ZONDERMAN PARALLEL NEW TESTAMENT IN GREEK AND ENGLISH

22) THE RSV INTERLINEAR GREEK-ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT

23) THE INTERLINEAR KJV-NIV PARALLEL NEW TESTAMENT IN GREEK AND ENGLISH

24) ANALYTICAL LEXICON OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT; Friberg, Friberg, Miller

25) THE ENGLISHMAN'S GREEK CONCORDANCE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT; WIGRAM

26) STRONGEST STRONG'S EXHASTIVE CONCORDANCE OF THE BIBLE

27) THE NEW TESTAMENT OCTAPLA; Luther A. Weigle

28) NEW TESTAMENT SURVEY; Tenny

29) BASICS OF BIBLICAL GREEK GRAMMAR; Bill Mounce

30) A HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS FOR STUDENTS; The International Council of Religious Education

31) ANALYTICAL CONCORDANCE OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT; Baker Book House; Vol 1 – Lex. focus; vol 2 – gram. focus

32) AN EXPOSITORY DICTIONARY OF NEW TESTAMENT WORDS; W.E.Vine

33) ITS STILL GREEK TO ME; Black

34) LEARN NEW TESTAMENT GREEK; Dobson

35) NEW TESTAMENT GREEK; Hudson

36) THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT; (3RD Ed) UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES

37) NEW TESTAMENT GREEK PRIMER; Zondervan

38) THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ACCORDING TO THE MAJORITY TEXT; Hodges & Farstad

FOR STUDIES IN MEANING OF WORDS ACROSS LANGUAGES

39) EXTINCT LANGUAGES; Johannes Friedrich

40) HISTORY OF NEW TESTAMENT TIMES; Robert H. Pfeiffer

FOR STUDIES IN THE LATIN TESTAMENT

41) NOVUM TESTAMENTUM – Graece et Latine; Nestle – Aland

FOR STUDIES IN THE TEXT, LANGUAGE, AND HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

42) NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM; David Alan Black

43) LINGUISTICS FOR STUDENTS OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK; BLACK

44) PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION; Louis Berkhof

45) ANTE-NICENE FATHERS; 10 Volumes; American Edition; Hendrickson Publishers

FOR STUDIES OF THE ATHIESTIC PERSPECTIVE

46) ATHEISM, THE CASE AGAINST GOD; George H. Smith

47) ATHEIST UNIVERSE; The thinking person's answer to Christian Fundamentalism; David Mills

48) THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF GOD; Edited by Michael Martin & Ricki Monnier; anthology

FOR STUDIES IN THE MEANING OF WORDS IN ENGLISH

49) NEW UNIVERSAL UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY; Webster

50) ENGLISH GRAMMAR AND COMPOSITION; Warriner (Revised Edition)

FOR COMPARATIVE STUDIES INTO THE HEBREW MIND

51) THE HEBREW/ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT; The Society for Distributing Hebrew Scriptures

FOR STUDIES OF THE TRINITARIAN AUTHORS

52) IS GOD A TRINITY? David Kemball-Cook

53) THE TRINITY; Bickersteth

54) WHY YOU SHOULD BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY; Bowman

55) OUR TRIUNE GOD;Peter Toon

56) GOD IN THREE PERSONS; Millard J. Erickson

57) THE TIMELESS TRINITY, For The Ceaseless Centuries; Lanier

FOR UNDERSTANDING THE HOLY SPIRIT

58) THE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT; CAMP

thinker

No!

If I choose to enlighten readers, it will be because I choose to enlighten readers as to my source, unlikely though at this moment.

You had your chance, in fact I asked you four times for input and was put down by your response.

Found at “Scripture vs. punctuation in translations.” thread; page 8; post 2

(P)

Quote

I have asked you four times if you agree with the rules I have proferred.

Why do you not respond? I would like to get it set up with admin. I will go ahead and set it up if I do not hear from you, unless you object.

(WJ) Hi PD
I think he has already answered you!

Quote (thethinker @ June 30 2009,10:49)

It was you who said that our debating ANYTHING is uncertain. I DON'T WANT OUT! Is this clear enough? I would like to go one on one without others interrupting and convoluding things with their tangents.

t
hinker

Blessings WJ[/quote]

(P)

Quote

Not quite.

I first suggested some rules, with which he agreed, but he suggested word count limitation, so I revisited the rules.

What I came up with is slightly different, and I do think he should look at it to see if it is changed too radically for his taste.

Just wanting to be FAIR.

I offer a new format with time limits and wordcount. If he wants a bigger or lesser word count, I want him to express what his desires are.

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

Then, at https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….=175532

“Scripture vs. punctuation in translations.” thread; page 8; post 4

(thinker)

Quote

About the debate you said this,

(P)Why do you not respond? I would like to get it set up with admin. I will go ahead and set it up if I do not hear from you, unless you object.

(thinker) WJ pointed out to you that I have replied to you. It is clear that you have comprehension and maybe even some memory problems. Please just set it up with t8 and stop talking about it! Either set it up with t8 and notify me or drop it!

thinker

(P) So, I set it up as per your instructions. The time for you to be making demands is past. Even suffestions are no longer welcome. I asked, I pleaded, I even humbled myself to get you to respond, only to be ignored by you till WJ responded because YOU would not. And even after THAT, I still asked you for input, at which time you said “either set it up or drop it.”

I did not drop it.

When it is set up, I will post my premises according to the format I last published. You will respond or yield. It really dosn't matter to me, but you WILL NOT change the rules at this late date. Nor will you receive more consideration from me than I have already tried to give, only to be ignored. I refuse to play your games.

July 2, 2009 at 4:16 am#135639

Participant

Hi PD

Quote (Paladin @ July 01 2009,18:42)

First of all why does he have to yield anything, when the debate hasnt even started?

Oh, so you make all the rules, and because he gives some suggestions you cop out and then claim if he doesnt agree he is yielding?

You didn't post your list until he asked you. He had a right to ask you about your sources because of the way you handled the Greek in a previous post.

Why should anybody agree to a debate with you if all you are going to do is post gathered data from sources that are unverifiable. I have already caught you myself with material that you claimed solely as your own, even though it was stuff that was written eons ago by a Unitarian group.

Heck, a person could make up all kinds of stuff.

Quote (Paladin @ July 01 2009,18:42)

No!

If I choose to enlighten readers, it will be because I choose to enlighten readers as to my source, unlikely though at this moment.

This has a certain smell about it and it isnt good.

Why do you have to hide you sources? Why are you so secret about your sources? You have been this way since you came to this sight and in fact have not given a single link to any source that I know of.

It seems to me that for you to quit just because he has a few suggestions for the debate, is a cop out.

So be it, if I were him I wouldn't walk into your trap either.

July 2, 2009 at 8:38 am#135680

Participant

Paladin said:

Quote

When it is set up, I will post my premises according to the format I last published. You will respond or yield. It really dosn't matter to me, but you WILL NOT change the rules at this late date. Nor will you receive more consideration from me than I have already tried to give, only to be ignored. I refuse to play your games.

Paladin,
What! The debate hasn't even started yet. It is after the debate starts that the rules cannot be altered. Until then we must work it all out. That could take some time. Would an honest man have a problem with posting links so observers may verify everything he says? What's going on with you?

If you are confident in your treatment of the biblical languages then you would gladly agree to these terms. Posting links for the benefit of others is most reasonable and you draw suspicion to yourself by your reply.

thinker

July 2, 2009 at 11:26 am#135692

Proclaimer

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 02 2009,08:33)

Great! Will you agree to providing the sources we each use for the biblical languages for the sake of those who want to verify what we say?

thinker[/quote]
Hi Jack

Plagerism should also be a reason for disqualification!
IMO

WJ, if you can´t win fair and square in a debate, please do not resort to attacking a persons character or trying to win on a technicality.

These debates are about the truth. They are not about winning at all costs despite the truth.

The truth in scripture is what is important. Forget about the persons themselves and debate on the merits of scripture.

July 2, 2009 at 1:42 pm#135694

GeneBalthrop

Participant

T8………..Amen to that. Who even cares about the sources , just present your take , we all have many sources we use in our thinking and we have learned things in the past and with God's spirit we should be able to sort out the truth from what not true, many sources have some truth to them and some falseness to them also, “brethren you have no need of a teacher for the Spirit it self will teach you all things” , and again “the spirit (BOTH) defends us and accuses us”, and again “howbeit when the spirit of truth comes it will take of what i have (his understanding of truth) and reveal it unto you”, Lets let the Spirit of truth (intellect of GOD) have it's perfect works. IMO

peace and love to you and yours……………………gene

July 2, 2009 at 1:57 pm#135697

GeneBalthrop

Participant

Thinker……..Plagiarizing has nothing to do with anything, we all have learned by other sources through out or lives, what we take in as truth becomes part of our thinking and that even goes with the bible. Using the term plagiarizing is only a cop out to divert attention from subject matter, who cares where truth comes from as long as it the truth. IMO

peace and love to you brother…………………….gene

July 2, 2009 at 5:06 pm#135711

bodhitharta

Participant

Quote (Gene @ July 03 2009,01:57)

peace and love to you brother…………………….gene

Amen to that!

I hope you mean that without qualification

July 2, 2009 at 5:17 pm#135713

Participant

Quote (Gene @ July 03 2009,01:57)

peace and love to you brother…………………….gene

Gene,
I said nothing about plagiarism. I even said that I am not concerned about it. Read what I said below:

Quote

My concern is not about plagiarism as much as it is about Paladin's off the wall grammar. He said today that the Greek has no past tense and that the aorist speaks of continuous action. In a formal debate we both must be required to provide the link for people to verify such things.

I trust that neither of us will plagarize.

I am concerned that both men give sources so those who read can verify what we say. I was clear in my statement about this.

thinker

July 2, 2009 at 5:19 pm#135714

Participant

Quote (t8 @ July 02 2009,23:26)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 02 2009,08:33)

Great! Will you agree to providing the sources we each use for the biblical languages for the sake of those who want to verify what we say?

thinker

Hi Jack

Plagerism should also be a reason for disqualification!
IMO

WJ
WJ, if you can´t win fair and square in a debate, please do not resort to attacking a persons character or trying to win on a technicality.

These debates are about the truth. They are not about winning at all costs despite the truth.

The truth in scripture is what is important. Forget about the persons themselves and debate on the merits of scripture.

t8,
Plagiarism is not one of my concerns. On the other hand I can't understand why you object to what WJ said seeing that the rules for posting prohibit plagiarism. What gives?

thinker

July 2, 2009 at 7:34 pm#135736

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ July 02 2009,20:38)

Paladin said:

Quote

thinker

(thinker)

Quote

Paladin,
What! The debate hasn't even started yet. It is after the debate starts that the rules cannot be altered. Until then we must work it all out.

(P) Not so. I specifically addressed that issue in my efforts to get you to offer input as to what rules you wanted to include, and you ignored my posts.

Then you issued a “set it up or quit talking about it” insulting post.

I set it up. So quit talking about it.

The time to agree on rules is prior to setting it up.

(thinker)

Quote

Would an honest man have a problem with posting links so observers may verify everything he says? What's going on with you?

No, an honest man would have no problem with an honest and timely request prior to setting up the debate. Instead of getting honest and timely requests, I am getting your responses from your attack dog. Call him off. He refused to debate, but just can't seem to keep his big mouth shut.

That is about as cowardly as it gets.

July 2, 2009 at 7:44 pm#135737

Participant

Paladin said:

Quote

I set it up. So quit talking about it.

The time to agree on rules is prior to setting it up.

Paladin,
I don't see a thread in the “Debates” forum for you and me. So it's not set up. But go ahead.

If you were a gracious man you would agree to the rule because it is reasonable and not deny it because you think it was suggested late. And you would want for people to verify what you say about the languages. So you must start out now looking like an ungracious man because you refuse. Go ahead and set it up with things as they are. Have it your way.

thinker

July 2, 2009 at 7:56 pm#135738

Participant

Paladin said:

Quote

That is about as cowardly as it gets.

Paladin,
WJ is not my “attack dog” to sick on you or call off. And he is NOT a coward. If WJ went one on one with you in a debate he would hang you up as wallpaper using your own paste. But he has better things to do. He is studying for his dissertation so he can graduate on time. He does not have the time and he has publically said so more than once.

You must have a lot of gonads to call WJ a coward. You refuse to agree to a reasonable request about posting links because you think it was suggested late. Yet you call WJ a coward. But a fair and reasonable man who has nothing to hide would have no problem at all with posting links. T8 just asked recently that we be civil for better reading and then you go and call someone a coward.

thinker

July 2, 2009 at 8:07 pm#135741

Participant

Quote (t8 @ July 02 2009,07:26)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 02 2009,08:33)

Great! Will you agree to providing the sources we each use for the biblical languages for the sake of those who want to verify what we say?

thinker

Hi Jack

Plagerism should also be a reason for disqualification!
IMO

WJ[/quote]
WJ, if you can´t win fair and square in a debate, please do not resort to attacking a persons character or trying to win on a technicality.

These debates are about the truth. They are not about winning at all costs despite the truth.

The truth in scripture is what is important. Forget about the persons themselves and debate on the merits of scripture.

Hi t8

Please show me where I am attacking the person!

July 2, 2009 at 8:14 pm#135746

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ July 03 2009,07:56)

Paladin said:

Quote

That is about as cowardly as it gets.

thinker

I call any man a coward who refuses to face me himself in honest debate, then falls back on inuendo and false accusations of plagiarism.

I do not care how many other boards he has read my position on, he has no business even suggesting plagiarism unless he has proof positive that it is the case. It is a coward's attack.

And I say he is YOUR attack dog because you are not making suggestions until it appears in his posts to you. You are jumping to his tune.

July 2, 2009 at 8:40 pm#135749

Participant

Paladin said:

Quote

And I say he is YOUR attack dog because you are not making suggestions until it appears in his posts to you. You are jumping to his tune.

Show me chronological proof where WJ suggested that I request you post links and I jumped to his tune and did that. Your memory is failing you. I requested you post sources FIRST. After that WJ brought up the plagiarism issue.

Any way, when I see a thread for us and that you have begun with your opening argument, then it is officially set up. If you don't want to post links then don't. But your having made such a big deal about my reasonable request speaks volumes about you.

thinker

July 2, 2009 at 11:05 pm#135769

Participant

Hi All

PD has called me an attack dog…

Quote (Paladin @ July 02 2009,15:34)

That is about as cowardly as it gets.

found here

First of all his statement seems to be the attack.

Secondly to say I refused to debate him is not true for I had already stated that I would debate him with certain rules and he didn’t respond…

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 27 2009,23:34)

I didn’t expect you to be surprised, I have explained my reasons. I tell you what though, I will agree to such a debate if you agree that we just use the versions of the Bible found on Biblegateway.com and Blueletterbible.org and just accept the written scriptures as they are, and just compare scripture to scripture.

Found here.

As far as plagiarism, you be the judge!

In response to PDs post “100 Arguments for Monotheism being the focus of scripture” found on this thread, entitled “Monotheism is scripture's theme., There is no room for a trinity”.

I posted this…

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 22 2009,19:21)

Hi PD

So is this your writings or is it the writings of another? It seems to like a quote from <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=i4YVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA178&lpg=PA178&dq=Because+there+is+no+evidence+to+prove+that+the+first+converts+to+Christianity+ever+incurre

d+the+imputation+of+idolatry+from+the+Jews,+as+they+must+have+done+had+they+believed+and+t

aught+that+the+Son,+as+well+as+the+Father,+is+Jehovah%3B+while+it+is+notorious+that+this+imputation+has+been+among+the+most+common+of+the+Jewish

+reproaches+against+Christians,+since+the+Trinity+became+a+doctrine+of+the+Church.&source=bl&ots=Kfmm8gYqWb&sig=eXtNTC87v-UUeCRU0e9t4JU8RQk&hl=en&ei=oAxAStSGF4eNtgfA4vm0Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1″ target=”_blank”>here…

If your material is borrowed and edited, then isn't it fair to show the source and give credit where credit is due?

Hopefully this is not the case.

BTW thanks for your concern for my wife. But I did thank everyone for the prayers and gave a report of her progress after the surgery in the prayer thread. She is doing fine, but just sore.

Blessings WJ

Of which he replied…

Quote (Paladin @ June 23 2009,08:05)

Don't go totally phony on me WJ.

I have been developing my own work for over sixty years. Why would you expect all Monotheists to post different position references when trinitarians all copy from the same source?

Which of your position posts is from original work? Which of the original manuscripts did you interpret and translate for your post? Where is your post where you determined originally for yourself, which books of the bible are authentic, and which are bogus?

Get real.

And no, I did not copy my work from anyone else. You really should quit with your wild accusations which have nothing to do with reality but are simply a blatant attempt to discredit me without having to respond to the post issues.

If you have any brains at all, you will begin with point one, and show from scripture why it can't be so. Otherwise, quit bellyaching. If you can't rebutt the issues, get off the thread.

I am tired of your constant attempt to discredit through slander. You have NO REASON for your constant discrediting attitude, other than your own inability to cope with the issues.

Then I clearly pointed out that I didn’t accuse him of anything but just had questions about the link that I provided which clearly shows word for word some of his writings, yet he does not clarify if the website stole from him or if what is there is his own.

So I said…

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 23 2009,11:34)

Hi PD

Here is the thing. There is nothing in my post that accuses you of anything.

Read it carefully and stop falsly accussing me.

We are not talking about commentaries or concordances or dictionarys here are we?

And besides most of the time I do post my source.

I find it interesting that your post is very similar to the link that I posted.

So my question was…

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 23 2009,11:21)

d+the+imputation+of+idolatry+from+the+Jews,+as+they+must+have+done+had+they+believed+and+t

aught+that+the+Son,+as+well+as+the+Father,+is+Jehovah%3B+while+it+is+notorious+that+this+imputation+has+been+among+the+most+common+of+the+Jewish

Now if it is a problem for me to ask a question about your post then OK, but how dare you to turn a question about your post around on me and accuse me falsely and insinuate that I am being phony.

Ask me any question about my sources you want, and I will promise I won't get all defensive and start accusing you falsely of being phony or disingenuous.

Let the reader’s judge for themselves. Check the sight out for your self. If you say that your post is your own, then fine.

But your accusation against me is false!

Further more if you keep making patronizing, and condescending statements like this…

Quote (Paladin @ June 23 2009,08:05)

“If you have any brains at all“, you will begin with point one, and show from scripture why it can't be so.

then I will
not continue to have dialogue with this sort of arrogance.

But then maybe that is what you want! But I will continue to expose what I believe to be error. It is possible for a man to be deceived for 60 years.

Then he says…

Quote (Paladin @ June 23 2009,14:47)

You win WJ

My post is plagiarized from Moses, David, and Isaiah.

Since they do not hold the copyright, according to copyright law, they are “public domain.”

Sorry I failed to explain that.

He doesn’t even touch on my previous post or the questions that I have and never says anything about the source that I mentioned.

So then I said…

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 23 2009,15:04)

Hi PD

I never said you were plagiarizing did I?

Those are your words. Let your own conscience be your judge.

You should know the difference in “quoting” works in your own words and copying whole paragraphs from a source without showing where it came from, or basically stealing an idea and changing it to claim it as your own works.

And as far as David, Moses and Isaiah, you do leave the book chapter and verse after your quotes unless they are obvious don't you?

Amazing! But, I forgive you for accusing me falsely anyway!

Blessings WJ

So then it seems he totally changes the subject and doesn’t address this post, his next post was…

Quote (Paladin @ June 23 2009,15:04)

What does WJ say about this? Does “Adonai” mean “soverign God?”

Do you offer a source?

Then I posted this…

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 23 2009,18:49)

HI All

A closer look at this sight shows that much of PDs original post is found in the Unitarian work called “The Christian Pioneer” that began in the early 1800s and was edited by a theologian by the name of George Harris.

Starting on page 31 you will find the title “100 scriptural arguments for the Unitarian faith:-recently published in Boston, by the American Unitarian Association”.

It starts with the 100 arguments then is broken up in parts later through this work.

PDs beginning post on this thread are word for word for a large part of the writings in the Christian Pioneer, yet he makes no mention in his post of this source.

My question to PD is “Is this your material?”, or is it an edited version of the original?

Then his response was…

Quote (Paladin @ June 26 2009,08:49)

I notice YOU did not give the POPE recognition or credit for every post you place on the board. Reason? Can't be because you are not a Catholic, because everything you post about trinitarianism is already taught before your time, and you give credits nowhere.

As you can see he is still not answering my question regarding the sight or the source.

Then I said…

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 26 2009,10:59)

But you didn't answer my questions.

You will never see whole paragraphs of someone else’s material in my post unless I give the source and credit for it.

So I suppose by your logic there is no such thing as Plagiarism.

Then he finally says…

Quote (Paladin @ June 26 2009,13:12)

I usually don't respond to questions that are benearth contempt.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 26 2009,10:59)

You will never see whole paragraphs of someone else’s material in my post unless I give the source and credit for it.

You do not see someone else's work in my posts at all.

And so now I say okay then check this sight out and see if maybe someone has stolen your work.

The following quotes are from a book called “The Christian Pioneer’ which is a Unitarian book Printed by James Hedderwick, 1827.

Click here to read the book in PDF format.

PD posted…

Quote (Paladin @ June 22 2009,18:24)

85. Because it is affirmed of Christ, that “when all things shall be subdued under him then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all,” 1 Cor. 15:28.

The Christian Pioneer on page 177 reads…

PD posted…

Quote (Paladin @ June 22 2009,18:24)

87. Because, in the prophecies of the Old Testament that relate to Christ, he is spoken of as a being distinct from and inferior to God,
87a. Deut. 18:15-18, “The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; 18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.”
87b. John 1:45. “Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”

The Christian Pioneer on page 177 reads…

86. Because, in the prophecies of the Old Testament that relate to Christ, he is spoken of as a being distinct from and inferior to God, ___Deut.xviii. 15. John i. 45.

PD posted…

Quote (Paladi
n @ June 22 2009,18:24)

88. Because the Jews never expected that any other than a being distinct from and inferior to God was to be their Messiah, and yet there is no evidence that our Saviour ever so much as hinted to them that this expectation was erroneous.

The Christian Pioneer on page 177 reads…

87. Because the Jews never expected that any other than a being distinct from and inferior to God was to be their Messiah, and yet there is no evidence that our Saviour ever so much as hinted to them that this expectation was erroneous.

PD posted…

Quote (Paladin @ June 22 2009,18:24)

89. Because it does not appear from the Scriptures, that the Jews except in two instances, ever opposed our Saviour on the ground that he pretended to be God or equal with God; whereas, had it been his custom to assume such identity or equality, in his conversation with a people so strongly attached to the doctrine of the divine unity, he would have found himself involved in a perpetual controversy with them on this point, some traces of which must have appeared in the New Testament.

The Christian Pioneer on page 177 reads…

88. Because it does not appear from the Scriptures, that the Jews except in two instances, ever opposed our Saviour on the ground that he pretended to be God or equal with God; whereas, had it been his custom to assume such identity or equality, in his conversation with a people so strongly attached to the doctrine of the divine unity, he would have found himself involved in a perpetual controversy with them on this point, some traces of which must have appeared in the New Testament

PD posted…

Quote (Paladin @ June 22 2009,18:24)

90. Because in these two instances, when charged, in the one case, with making himself God, and in the other, with making himself equal with God, he positively denies the charges. In reply to the charge of assuming to be equal with God, he says immediately, “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do”; and directly after, “I can of mine own self do nothing,” John 5:19, 30. In answer to the charge of making himself God, he appeals to the Jews in substance thus: Your own Scriptures call Moses a god, and your magistrates gods; I am surely not inferior to them, yet I did not call myself God, but only the Son of God, John 10:34-36.

The Christian Pioneer on page 178 reads…

89. Because in these two instances, when charged, in the one case, with making himself God, and in the other, with making himself equal with God, he positively denies the charges. In reply to the charge of assuming to be equal with God, he says immediately, “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do”; and directly after, “I can of mine own self do nothing,” John 5:19, 30. In answer to the charge of making himself God, he appeals to the Jews in substance thus: Your own Scriptures call Moses a god, and your magistrates gods; I am surely not inferior to them, yet I did not call myself God, but only the Son of God, John 10:34-36

This is only a few examples. This book was written in the early 1800s and it seems impossible that PD could have wrote it.

Yet I am being called an attack dog by PD and he has the nerve to call me a coward. This is one of the reasons that Jack has concern about his “integrity” in a debate.

PD clearly stated…

Quote (Paladin @ June 26 2009,13:12)

I usually don't respond to questions that are benearth contempt.

You do not see someone else's work in my posts at all.

So did “The Christian Pioneer” steal your work PD or did you write the book?

Call me names if you like I do not care, because I have been fair in my questions and in pointing out that you have been illusive about your sources and post.

You and Gene say Plagiarism is no big deal. I disagree, and think that it is disingenuous to quote whole pages or paragraphs of another’s work while putting on like it is your own and not giving a source.

For example, how could anyone trust that maybe you’re Hebrew or Greek wasn’t taken from Jehovah ’s Witness translators who were not Hebrew or Greek scholars at all?

As t8 says it should be about the “Truth” and not who wins an argument.

July 3, 2009 at 5:31 pm#135913