dan said:
OK, you assert that I invented my figures. Now the burden of proof lies with you; what makes you think I invented them?
Because you've said as much. You've admitted that there's no text which says what you assert the original says (post 89 for example), and that you've hypothesisezd the numbers.
Are you asserting that you did not invent them? OK. Where did you get them from?
How shall we test that prediction? Look at my original post. Test my math. It should all work out.
That's not what you said your prediction was. You said your prediction was:
that the two scriptures at one point matched. - post 94
Now you must actually test that they did match. You are simply appealing back to your prediction (they mach) to conclude your result (they match). It's circular.
The question is not whether A=A ("A" being your claimed syntax), but whether A was ever what was written down. How would you propose to establish the contents of the two passages in the "original texts"?
The scribes wished it did because it would have eliminated the guesswork from transcribing.
And your proof for this claim is what? Do you have written records of the scribes saying:
"I was transcribing the original torah today, darn this lack of vowels, I can't figure out if it says "thousand" or "soldier". Perhaps we should invent a more clear written language"
Seriously, where's your support?
I base the numbers from the original texts on the figures that follow. I didn't begin with the original numbers, I started with the problem of how to reconcile the two scriptures.
But you didn't reconcile the two scriptures. You made up two new texts which matched, and for which you could create a hypothetical situation where you could get the numbers that actually appear in the real scriptures.
You have the same problem you've had since post one. You've done nothing at all to support that any of the events you propose actually happened.
The original versions of the New Testament were oral, but in Old Testament times everything was written down.
Another unsupported assertation. The OT, according to Jewesh tradition, dates back at least to the time of Moses and the great wandering. It was oral at the time. In fact, the Jews actually have two parallel traditions, one written and one oral.
The NT, like the OT, has many authors and many histories. The most agreeable I've seen is that Matthew wrote a narritive of what Peter was saying, Mark copied Matthew's into a Hebrew version, Luke (a deciple of Paul) wrote a version of that more in-line with Paul's teachings, and John then wrote one with a different focus (claiming that the first three were not focused enough on Jessu). Paul, or his deciples, are credited with writing most of the other books, many of which existed in written form before ever being spoken (Paul's many letters to churches, such as Corinthians). (actually, I may have Matthew and Mark backwards, I do that)
Your new claim is also entirely contrary to established history and unsupported.
Lastly, if my hypothesis that the word for soldier was confused with the word for 1,000 then there would have been two numbers
Exactly, there beign four (two pairs) of numbers in the original text is a prerequsite of your claim for which there is no proof (except an appeal to your claim).
Is it the acme of foolishness for me to call that logic?
It's an act of foolishness to ignore the fact that it's all entirely speculative. There's no support for it.