Popcorn time!
Yes you did.
Whatever.
The concordances I use don't translate ANYTHING. They just give me the location of things.
Right, so that's the
first assumed fact not in evidence. . .because my concordance also does
not give translations. . .so how could I get one from there?
But your translation is not your own. You said that it WAS your knowledge of Hebrew.
I wasn't picking a dog in your argument with angellous.
Not much. . .that's why you
reversed your validation of my translation. . .which is what this
whole phony argument is about.
But you lied to ME. I won't forget that. (I may eventually forgive it, but I won't forget.)
I told you that I gave you my own translation. You said you got your information "from the Hebrew," when it was clear that it wasn't from the Hebrew.
That's the
second assumed fact not in evidence.
You said you got your translation from your
knowledge of Hebrew. My translation likewise came from
knowledge of Hebrew,
it did not come from a concordance, as has been repeatedly and
falsely asserted, because my concordance does
not give translations.
Angellous_evangellous' seems to feel that he has some kind of
proprietary rights over translating Hebrew. . .and that his personal translations
are the
only ones with standing.
My translation came from
knowledge of Hebrew just as yours (and his) did. . .it doesn't have to be my
personal knowledge of Hebrew in order
to come from
knowledge of Hebrew.
And if
knowledge of Hebrew is so-o-o important, then
why does it matter
whose knowledge of Hebrew it is? . .why isn't the
correctness of the translation the
issue? . .
unless one thinks they have some kind of
proprietary right over translations of Hebrew. . .
or,
unless it's just a
red herring, in lieu of factual refutation of my argument.
This ridiculous notion, that because I can't read Hebrew means that any translation I offer of it is automtically without merit because it does not
come from
knowledge of Hebrew, is patently
absurd on its
face. . .
you know it, and I know it. . .drop the red herring and the self-righteousness. . .deal with the
issue--the translation
itself, and not its
source. . .
enough already!
And now you have the temerity to say that you didn't say what you did say.
I didn't have one until now.
Whether it was concordance, or some other book, it doesn't matter. You lied about where you got your information. You said you got it from the Hebrew. Whether you got it from a concordance, a translation, whatever...
I don't really care, and that isn't a matter of importance to me.
What I DO care about is that you said that "you got it from the Hebrew," when you did no such thing.
That was a lie.
That's the
third assumed fact not in evidence.
Shall I accuse
you of lying because that is
not what I said? . .I said I got it from
knowledge of Hebrew, just as you got yours. . .I did
not say
it was my
personal knowledge of Hebrew, but it is
still knowledge of Hebrew, nevertheless.
That was not a lie. . .that was refutation of the red herring that, just because I couldn't read Hebrew, any translation I offered was automatically without merit, because it didn't come from knowledge of Hebrew. . .now how dumb is that?
You have earned a place as perona non grata for a while. Don't expect to see answers from me for a while.{/quote]Shall I make you a persona non grata because you are "lying" about what I really said? . .you get to decide for both of us.
And that has nothing to do with the fact that I validated your translation of Genesis
Validation of "my" translation of Genesis is just what this
whole phony argument is about. . .
you spoke the truth of the matter before you realized
that angellous_evangellous had
hung himself out to dry on the issue. . .so you
then reversed yourself
to cover his ridiculous, bizarre and
unhinged false assertions here
--->http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2323578-post693.html.
You should pick your associates more carefully. . .he really is not a good influence on you, involving you in his falsehoods, over-inflated ego, prevarication and wrongly influencing you to take up his offenses (to be offended by what he is offended).
I have nothing more to say to you. You no longer amuse me.
Would that have anything to do with your
duplicity in this matter, and not being able to defend it?
Methinks the pot is calling the kettle black. . .think about it. . .you're a reasonable person.
