Peshitta Forum
Word play in aramaic and syriac - Printable Version

+- Peshitta Forum (http://peshitta.org/for)
+-- Forum: New Testament (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: General (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Word play in aramaic and syriac (/showthread.php?tid=3006)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6


Re: Word play in aramaic and syriac - Paul Younan - 03-08-2013

SteveCaruso Wrote:In any case, /rabbouli/ is a perfectly fine Syriac word, which many historians and lexicographers have simply equated with /rabboni/. It just does not occur anywhere in any contemporary Aramaic to Jesus or Mary (in any dialect) which is what makes it problematic here.

Mar Ishodad of Merv agrees with your assessment. However, the corpi we have of the Dialect of Jesus or Mary is extremely limited. Could you at least acknowledge the possibility that it may have existed in their dialect, but is simply not attested to in any extant manuscript?

The fact that the Sinai Syriac palimpset has "Rabbuli" for Mark 10:51 is interesting. I haven't done a thorough search, but there may be other instances. In your viewpoint, the Peshitta is a revision of the Old Syriac. If so, then why did the Peshitta correct "Rabbuli" in the OS Mark 10:51, but not in this case?

In any case, I'm unconvinced either way. As I said, the root and the gloss is correct. That's the important part. It could, like Ishodad said, be the result of a "careless scribe." But then again, we have OS Mark 10:51. How many careless scribes were there ?


+Shamasha


Re: Word play in aramaic and syriac - SteveCaruso - 03-08-2013

Paul Younan Wrote:Mar Ishodad of Merv agrees with your assessment. However, the corpi we have of the Dialect of Jesus or Mary is extremely limited. Could you at least acknowledge the possibility that it may have existed in their dialect, but is simply not attested to in any extant manuscript?

Paul, you misunderstand. It's not just a matter of it not being attested in the dialect of Jesus. It's not attested in *any* other dialect other than Syriac (not even in dialects heavily influenced by Syriac like CPA). Even within Syriac it is a very rare word to begin with. It's a quintessential shibboleth (i.e. no doubt its a Syriac word and a Syriac word alone).

To be consistent, I must admit that there is indeed a *possibility*; however, I believe that possibility is so shrinkingly small that I would sooner expect to be struck by lightning on a sunny day (and would be just as surprised). :-)

Paul Younan Wrote:The fact that the Sinai Syriac palimpset has "Rabbuli" for Mark 10:51 is interesting. I haven't done a thorough search, but there may be other instances. In your viewpoint, the Peshitta is a revision of the Old Syriac. If so, then why did the Peshitta correct "Rabbuli" in the OS Mark 10:51, but not in this case?

First, under the current model the Peshitta was not just a straight revision (of course under the model towards more Byzantine readings) but also a consolidation. The two OS MSS we have in many places disagree with each other more than they do the Peshitta. (Remember that old "/xad/ idiom" debacle all those years back with James Trimm? Ugh..)

/Rbwly/ only occurs in Syr(s) in Mark 10:51 and John 20:16, and in doing so agrees with the Greek tradition, making the Peshitta's reading there another outlier. I only wish that we had that portion of Mark preserved in Syr© for comparison. It might have been able to shed some light.


Re: Word play in aramaic and syriac - Paul Younan - 03-08-2013

Akhi Steve,

I don't think it's a Syriac shibboleth at all. First, there would've been no need for a gloss if it were. Secondly, Mar Ishodad wouldn't have been so hard about it. He was an expert in Syriac. We certainly don't use it in modern Aramaic dialects.

Do you know of any other reference in "Syriac" literature that attests to the usage? And I don't mean "rab-buli", from Mesopotamian for "administrative head." That's an unrelated term in this context.

Ishodad's explanation makes most sense. I can see it being a confusion of the nun for a lamedh. I've said that all along.

The scribe responsible for syr(s) must have made the same error. I guess. Is there a better explanation?

+Shamasha


Re: Word play in aramaic and syriac - Burning one - 03-09-2013

Shlama akhay,


here's the textual evidence i suppose Murdock was referring to concerning alternate readings for RABBULI:

found this in the trusty ol' "Tetraeuangelium sanctum juxta simplicem Syrorum versionem ad fidem codicum, Massorae, editionum denuo recognitum." i held my breath while i wrote that and almost passed out....

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://ia600609.us.archive.org/3/items/tetraeuangeliums00puse/tetraeuangeliums00puse_bw.pdf">http://ia600609.us.archive.org/3/items/ ... use_bw.pdf</a><!-- m -->

take a gander at footnote 16 on page 597. i see RABONI, RABBONI, RABUNI... from different massoretic traditions for Yukhanan 20:16. the masorahs come from the referent JACOBITICUS.

soooo, scribal error is still the concensus, right?


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy


Re: Word play in aramaic and syriac - Paul Younan - 03-09-2013

Burning one Wrote:Shlama akhay,


here's the textual evidence i suppose Murdock was referring to concerning alternate readings for RABBULI:

found this in the trusty ol' "Tetraeuangelium sanctum juxta simplicem Syrorum versionem ad fidem codicum, Massorae, editionum denuo recognitum." i held my breath while i wrote that and almost passed out....

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://ia600609.us.archive.org/3/items/tetraeuangeliums00puse/tetraeuangeliums00puse_bw.pdf">http://ia600609.us.archive.org/3/items/ ... use_bw.pdf</a><!-- m -->

take a gander at footnote 16 on page 597. i see RABONI, RABBONI, RABUNI... from different massoretic traditions for Yukhanan 20:16. the masorahs come from the referent JACOBITICUS.

soooo, scribal error is still the concensus, right?


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy

I think the reference there is to "Jacobite", meaning likely one of the many revisions they were infamous for.

I'm fairly convinced it's a scribal error. This is not a "Syriac" word, otherwise there would've been no need for a gloss in the Peshitta. Nor would Mar Ishodad have slammed the copyist as "lazy." If anyone knew "Syriac", it was Mar Ishodad (who was a candidate for the Patriarchate in his time due to his extensive writing and exegesis.)

It's not a Greek-to-Aramaic mistake. It's an Aramaic-to-Aramaic mistake. The word Mary spoke is Aramaic. A simple copyist error based on two letters that are often confused for one another.

Nothing that changed the meaning, it just caused an unnecessary gloss and, truth be told, it should have been corrected in later copies (despite the general hesitancy to do such things).

Instead, unfortunately, it was propagated. Most likely because it didn't affect the meaning. If that's the worst of the Peshitta textual tradition, we are still leaps and bounds ahead when compared to the "other side."

Or, Steve might get struck by lightning on a sunny day (khasli) if an inscription is unearthed in a first-century Nazareth tomb that reads with a quirky dialect like "Here lieth Rabboulan Shimon, son of so-and-so." I bet Akhan Steve converts to Peshitta-primacist within the hour the article is published.

+Shamasha Paul


Re: Word play in aramaic and syriac - Burning one - 03-09-2013

Shlama akhay,


i still think the best bet is scribal error, and thus, no big deal.

but we do know that the sonants Lamadh and Nun can interchange between Hebrew and Aramaic. for example, look at the Hebrew NATHAN (give), and the Aramaic NETEL (give), like we see all over the Peshitta Gospels. the Hebrew Nun becomes the Aramaic Lamadh. this happens within Hebrew, as well. so while i think the likely choice is to go with scribal error, there remains at least a slim possibility that RABBULI could be preserving the specific pronunciation of Maryam's curious delivery of the word.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy


Re: Word play in aramaic and syriac - memradya - 03-09-2013

Burning one Wrote:Shlama akhay,


i still think the best bet is scribal error, and thus, no big deal.

but we do know that the sonants Lamadh and Nun can interchange between Hebrew and Aramaic. for example, look at the Hebrew NATHAN (give), and the Aramaic NETEL (give), like we see all over the Peshitta Gospels. the Hebrew Nun becomes the Aramaic Lamadh. this happens within Hebrew, as well. so while i think the likely choice is to go with scribal error, there remains at least a slim possibility that RABBULI could be preserving the specific pronunciation of Maryam's curious delivery of the word.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy

So I agree with the last supposition: R-B-L-Y ,it's the pronunciation, Maryam own word.


First, Rabbouly is attested (cf Paul's last post) with Rabboulan. And it appears in Curetonian, Sinay, so it can't be an impossible lectio.

Second, Rabbouly is read in the Raboula gospel in the late 6th century (so before the Ishdad's commentary)

Third, It 's not impossible that Rabbouli (rare) became Rabbouni (common) by the hands of the scribes. The opposite is quite difficult. A confusion between the nun and the lamad is unbelievable because a lamad is two times taller than a nun and is higher than the others letters. And we don't see why a such mistake from the greek.

Fourth, the greeks and the coptics lectio (I don't speak of the armenian text with Rabbi) don't agree about the value of the vowel (Rabbouni, Rabbwni etc.) It shows that there's a perpetuel research of the original pronunciation, with some changes in every new manuscripts to find it.


I affirm that Maryam said to Jesus: rabboli as the eastern lecto testimonies it.


Re: Word play in aramaic and syriac - DrawCloser - 03-11-2013

Paul Younan Wrote:We call it Aramaic, and that right belongs to us and us alone, not you. You are a foreigner and you can have the right to call your language by whatever name you choose. The Assyrians have been speaking Aramaic continuously for the last nearly three thousand years. It was called Aramaic during the empire, during Christ's time, today, and tomorrow. We don't call it "Syriac" and would appreciate it and take you more seriously if you don't, either.

For us, calling it "Syriac" is as offensive as calling us "Nestorians", "East Syrians", "Chaldeans", etc.....or calling you by a derogatory name for Italians. I hope you understand that I don't say this in a mean spirit, but one of instruction. You might not realize what a derogatory term "Syriac" is to Assyrians. You might as well call an African-American the N-word. If you never understood that, please understand it now. We are not "East Syriacs", we do not speak "Syriac", we are not "Chaldeans" nor "Arameans". We are Assyrians. And our language yesterday, today, and tomorrow is called Aramaic.

Hi Paul, not to be a smart-butt here, but could "Assyrian" be just as bad as "Syrian"? You know... they're both foreign in origin. Would it be better to refer to this group of people as "Ashurians" or "Ashuraye"?


Re: Word play in aramaic and syriac - Paul Younan - 03-11-2013

DrawCloser Wrote:
Paul Younan Wrote:We call it Aramaic, and that right belongs to us and us alone, not you. You are a foreigner and you can have the right to call your language by whatever name you choose. The Assyrians have been speaking Aramaic continuously for the last nearly three thousand years. It was called Aramaic during the empire, during Christ's time, today, and tomorrow. We don't call it "Syriac" and would appreciate it and take you more seriously if you don't, either.

For us, calling it "Syriac" is as offensive as calling us "Nestorians", "East Syrians", "Chaldeans", etc.....or calling you by a derogatory name for Italians. I hope you understand that I don't say this in a mean spirit, but one of instruction. You might not realize what a derogatory term "Syriac" is to Assyrians. You might as well call an African-American the N-word. If you never understood that, please understand it now. We are not "East Syriacs", we do not speak "Syriac", we are not "Chaldeans" nor "Arameans". We are Assyrians. And our language yesterday, today, and tomorrow is called Aramaic.

Hi Paul, not to be a smart-butt here, but could "Assyrian" be just as bad as "Syrian"? You know... they're both foreign in origin. Would it be better to refer to this group of people as "Ashurians" or "Ashuraye"?

No. "Syriac" isn't offensive to Assyrians because it's a foreign term, it's offensive to Assyrians because it attempts to deny their identity and rightful claim to historical Assyria (Northern Iraq.) "Syria" is a whole other country, far away from our homeland.

We are ethnically Assyrian (not "Chaldean", "Aramean" or "East Syriac"). We are linguistically Aramaic (not "Syriac", "East Syriac", etc.). And we are ecclesiastically the Church of the East (not "Nestorian", "East Syriac", "Syrian", "Chaldean", etc.).

Any other terms used for our ethnicity, language, or denomination (other than those we choose for ourselves) are offensive.

+Shamasha


Re: Word play in aramaic and syriac - Thirdwoe - 06-25-2014

Bumped...


Re: Word play in aramaic and syriac - The Texas RAT - 06-27-2014

I have read this entire thread and I must say "Kudos to Brother Burning One, ThirdWoe and Paul". <!-- s:bigups: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bigups.gif" alt=":bigups:" title="Big Ups" /><!-- s:bigups: -->

I notice that Steve seems to think that just because the Aposltes could easily be recognized by strangers as being from Nazareth that they had to be speaking another dialect other than the strangers, but I would like to ask him to consider when Japanese people are speaking United Staes English can it not be deduced that they are from Japan and not the US? Or even the Indian people that answer the phones in Engish (for customer service) are at times hard to understand becuse of their accent, not dialect! Even my father-in-law whom was a Cajun could speak both Creole and English fluently, and which ever he used you could spot on tell that he was from Louisiana (by the way they do not like being called Coon-*sses, yet many a people refered to them by that phrase throughout history). I also know of many other people from Louisiana that speak good US English but their ACCENT also give them away that they are not from Texas, as with my accent is a dead give away as a Texan. And yes I can understand British English with very little problems, as well as Australian English to boot. <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->

And I hope no one takes offense to this (especially since some have no problem calling Assyrians by the S word), but I am reminded of the term I believe I coined, some 40 years ago, to refer to my dad and his four siblings. And may I add that they themselves never got mad when I reffered to them by this term. But before I tell y'all what it is I'll first give a little back ground. My dad and his siblings all graduated college with Master's Degrees. Their dad, my grandpa, did not make it all the way too high school being his mother was a widow and had three sons, so they all ended up going to work instead of staying at home and going to school, as they did not want to be a burden upon their mother any longer than they had too. I personally made it through high school and took some trade school in automotives, so I too have had some formal education myself. But where I have noticed a difference from a young age, even to this date, is that College educated people had little next to no understanding as to the real world as opposed to the lesser educated people I knew. That is one of the main reasons I refused to let my parrents put me through college, being I liked having common sence and did not wish to be brain washed as it seemed my dad and his four siblings had become. It was amazing to me that my grandpa could be so wise and spawn 5 unwittingly chilren. Now I am not saying they have no inteletual abilities at all, but I will say that they, as well as many other college educated people I have met, seem to have lost good sense when it goes against what they were taught in college. Anyway before I made it to peberty I came to the consensus that college made people loose common sense, thus I asked my grandpa one day how it was that all five of his children could become such "educated idiots"?. This was after he and them all differed from him on a subject that he was trying to get them to see eye to eye on. I could see his point clearly yet not one in five of them had the sense to understand what their father, of whom had real world experience on the subject and they only had book learning from people that only had book learning taught to them by other people that only had book learning upon the subject at hand. Anyway this thread reminded me of my dad and his four siblings trying to tell their dad that he did not understand what was going on because their college profesors said other wise. I guess once they pay so much to listen to a proffessor they think they must re-epouse the same so that they would not have to admit that they wasted their time and money in some of the classes they took. By the way my grandpa laughed at my question, and while he could not give an answer he did agree with me in that they where blinded to the truth in that case as well as in others. <!-- s8) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cool.gif" alt="8)" title="Cool" /><!-- s8) -->

So it seems that many a western person endowded with a Seminary background in Scriptures seem to at all cost be blinded to seeing what is right in front of their noses. Especially the ones of whom teach it being if they did admit the truth (that is if they could be so objective to look for it) they would lose their high status amongst their constituents in one fell swoop. They would go from somebody to being a despote in their fellow christians eyes that it is simply unfathomable for their minds to truely be objective to the facts, as oppose to the western conjectured fabrications (one upon another piled upon the other until perhaps they can not see the truth for all the lies in which they've become ingulfed in). I used to be one so I know what it is like being totally engulfed in it, yet thank Eloah I lacked a Simanary degree in it, HallaluYah Awmayn[Strong's #543]. And so I will say, like smokers can not smell the stinch of an ash tray <!-- s:crazy: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/crazy.gif" alt=":crazy:" title="Crazy" /><!-- s:crazy: --> , it is not so easy to wake-up and smell the western christianity about one's self when they've been smothered in it for so long, yet still do able if one really tries hard enough. <!-- s:bomb: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bomb.gif" alt=":bomb:" title="The Bomb" /><!-- s:bomb: -->


Re: Word play in aramaic and syriac - SteveCaruso - 06-28-2014

So, by the very implication of your comment, I'm one of these "educated idiots." Somehow unlike you, I'm a "westerner"(!) with some sort of "Seminary background" taint that you've eschewed.

Pretty much anyone who reads what you wrote (which is some sort of combination of anecdotal ad hominem, no true scotsman, and poisoning of the well) would come away with that, so your intentions are pretty transparent.

However, I'm pretty sure that between you and me, only one of us can read an Aramaic language text without having to resort to a Strong's Concordance or pop over to Dukhrana for every other word. As such, if my (non-seminary) education and years of honest study and translational experience gives me insight without such external reliance, then I fear we never will be able to see eye to eye (or should I say "speak the same language"?) in a very fundamental way.

Have fun with that. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

Peace,
-Steve


Re: Word play in aramaic and syriac - Thirdwoe - 06-28-2014

Thanks for the Kudos, Tex....and as you are well aware, concerning these particular matters: "some people you just can't reach." And it's not a matter of "a failure to communicate" either. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->


Re: Word play in aramaic and syriac - The Texas RAT - 06-29-2014

Steve if you would actually read the poster you reffered to you would see that you are in violation of 81% of them. And as for the other 19% if you think to stand behind them and think it helps to make your point - then yeh you are as you said I say, awmayn. And I stand beside you on that without a doubt.

1) strawman
You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.


Steve you are definatly guilty of this on more than one account. You have tried to make out that the oldest textural tradition are the newer ones and that the newertextural tradition are the older ones, whereby hocus pocus your faricated synario fits neetly into the mess of it.

2) false cause
You presumed that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other.
Many people confuse correlation (things happening together or in sequence) for causation (that one thing actually causes the other to happen). Sometimes correlation is coincidental, or it may be attributable to a common cause.


This one ids at the very nature of your agrument as you ignore gfacts and point here and there at things that could've, should've, would've, but ain't.But none the less a 100% wantabie.

3) appeal to emotion
You attempted to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument.
Appeals to emotion include appeals to fear, envy, hatred, pity, pride, and more. It's important to note that sometimes a logically coherent argument may inspire emotion or have an emotional aspect, but the problem and fallacy occurs when emotion is used instead of a logical argument, or to obscure the fact that no compelling rational reason exists for one's position. Everyone, bar sociopaths, is affected by emotion, and so appeals to emotion are a very common and effective argument tactic, but they're ultimately flawed, dishonest, and tend to make one's opponents justifiably emotional.


I tell you the truth what I said was not a plead to emotion but rather a logical conclussion based upon factual observations. You are the one trying to make it all emotional, not me.

4) the fallacy fallacy
You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.
It is entirely possible to make a claim that is false yet argue with logical coherency for that claim, just as is possible to make a claim that is true and justify it with various fallacies and poor arguments
.

Really, this is what you are using to make your argument sound good, oy. This one is in violation of the first one above is it not. Talk about making a circuler argument to try and get around to a point. Problem with this is it can easily be seen for what it is no matter what the spin one tries to rotate the BS within.

5) slippery slope
You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.
The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.


No this is called simple prophecy in which one with common sense can easily see the result of a bad idea coming around the turn pike. It is the simpletons that have not a clue that the other is actually trying to help stop them from making mistakes, not stopping them from making forward progress. See by helping others not make mistakes they can actually make forward progress. The Anointed One made reference to this when He said something about "the blind leading the blind".

6) ad hominem
You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.
Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.


OK I am partially guilty here as I did not actaually ingauge in the textural issues at hand, but make no mistake about it I was not trying to ditract anyone away from any facts that you presented, but rather pointing out a well know fact that some people come up with the darnest things. See I did not say what I did to distract one from concidering what you said, I said what I did to try and help others see why it is that you say such things. Again this silly saying puts the cart before the horse once again. Really I advise you to stop reading this stuff, as it is missleading to the left and to the right like a criss-crossed camel traversed in her ways.

7) tu quoque
You avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser - you answered criticism with criticism.
Pronounced too-kwo-kwee. Literally translating as 'you too' this fallacy is also known as the appeal to hypocrisy. It is commonly employed as an effective red herring because it takes the heat off someone having to defend their argument, and instead shifts the focus back on to the person making the criticism.


Durrr.

<!-- s8) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cool.gif" alt="8)" title="Cool" /><!-- s8) --> personal incredulity
Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you made out like it's probably not true.
Complex subjects like biological evolution through natural selection require some amount of understanding before one is able to make an informed judgement about the subject at hand; this fallacy is usually used in place of that understanding.


Really, you gonna bring Darwin's THEORY into this to try and make your's look like they might just happen to have some validitity? I can't touch this. Next ...

9) special pleading
You moved the goalposts or made up an exception when your claim was shown to be false.
Humans are funny creatures and have a foolish aversion to being wrong. Rather than appreciate the benefits of being able to change one's mind through better understanding, many will invent ways to cling to old beliefs. One of the most common ways that people do this is to post-rationalize a reason why what they thought to be true must remain to be true. It's usually very easy to find a reason to believe something that suits us, and it requires integrity and genuine honesty with oneself to examine one's own beliefs and motivations without falling into the trap of justifying our existing ways of seeing ourselves and the world around us.


MY POINT EXACTLY!!! And I am not hollering I am simply trying to drive a point home. So I reitera "BINGO".

10) loaded question
You asked a question that had a presumption built into it so that it couldn't be answered without appearing guilty.
Loaded question fallacies are particularly effective at derailing rational debates because of their inflammatory nature - the recipient of the loaded question is compelled to defend themselves and may appear flustered or on the back foot.


Yep it would seem if you violated this one with your first two retorical staements at the begining of you last post. Read 'em and wheep.

11) burden of proof
You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.
The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.


Others here have shown proof that is beyond all doubt yet you have dismissed it with this illoghical way of thinking where by claiming the fact that you can not prove what you claim does not mean it is not valid. Really ... this reverts back to #9 in that one is not being willing to take an honest look at the facts put before them while they make conjections through much conguring up of stuff.

12) ambiguity
You used a double meaning or ambiguity of language to mislead or misrepresent the truth.
Politicians are often guilty of using ambiguity to mislead and will later point to how they were technically not outright lying if they come under scrutiny. The reason that it qualifies as a fallacy is that it is intrinsically misleading.


Steve Paul called you out on this and you tried yor best to slip out of it mby trying to turn the focus on him and make him out to be the bad guy - in true politician form.

14) bandwagon
You appealed to popularity or the fact that many people do something as an attempted form of validation.
The flaw in this argument is that the popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity.
If it did, then the Earth would have made itself flat for most of history to accommodate this popular belief.


Was not this your excuse to continue referring to Paul and his kindsmen by the S* word?

15) appeal to authority
You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.
It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However it is, entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not.
Example: Not able to defend his position that evolution 'isn't true' Bob says that he knows a scientist who also questions evolution (and presumably isn't a primate).


Again just what you did, ignoring Paul's indepth understaning on in the matter, over the S* word.
Oh yeah, again, what's up with the monkey bussiness?

16) no true scotsman
You made what could be called an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws of your argument.
In this form of faulty reasoning one's belief is rendered unfalsifiable because no matter how compelling the evidence is, one simply shifts the goalposts so that it wouldn't apply to a supposedly 'true' example. This kind of post-rationalization is a way of avoiding valid criticisms of one's argument.


Again putting the cart before the horse. It was your the OUT STANDING ARGUMENT you put before us that I drew my conclussion from. I was not trying to distract people away from what you said but rather my flaming arrow was aimed right at it. No I say it is you that is making the call to purity to try once again and ditsract people away from your highly flawed conclussions. Again you can not be taken siriously if you keep ignoring the facts that Brother Paul and others put before you whiole all the while you point at something that while may have some truth to it is not reavent to the issue at hand. And one that note I would incourage you to go against your very nature as you put it and stick to the facts and stop conjuring stuff up, at least notsuch as that goes against real world facts. So try and hold back a bit on the speculations until you at least get the facts straight, so when you do speculate it would have a far better change of lining up with fathumable cenario.

And puttimg aside the fact that I am a marginally literate English commoner as far as language goes, I will have to say that you have at lest been spot-on two accounts (count 'em two). The fact that not only that we do not speak the same language, but you astute observation as to that we are definally not at the say eye level either.

But I digress, my word of advise once again is get first the FACTS Pheshitta, and then the Greek follows.

Oh, don't bother trying to spell check this, as it would only serve to reviolate #7, and we would not want to do that now would we(?). <!-- s:tellme: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/tellme.gif" alt=":tellme:" title="Tell Me" /><!-- s:tellme: -->


Re: Word play in aramaic and syriac - SteveCaruso - 06-29-2014

Lol wow. You have also demonstrated that you don't have the slightest grasp the majority of the logical fallacies that you accuse me of, and the majority of the ones you do have a slight grasp of, you misapply, which makes this *entire* ridiculous rant add up to one whopping, ignorant ad hominem (and that's at best, before getting into specifics). <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

But such 'simple' application, I fear, leads you to believe this constitutes some kind of victory on your part.

However, it reminds me of an anecdote from Talmud Yerushalemi that makes me feel like Rabbi Hia:

Rav sha'el l'Rabbi Khiya, "Raba w'le[th e]na khamey l'Rabbi m'qabel `aloi Malkuth Shamaim?" Amar leh, "Kadh t'kh'meyneh yahev yadheh `al apoi ((Think about it: Perhaps kaf `al apoi! <!-- sConfusedatisfied: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/satisfied.gif" alt="Confusedatisfied:" title="Satisfied" /><!-- sConfusedatisfied: --> )), hu m'qabel `aloi `ol Malkuth Shamaim."

Have fun with that. <!-- sCool --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cool1.gif" alt="Cool" title="Cool" /><!-- sCool -->