Posted by Lobo [Lobo] on November 13, 1999 at 15:04:54 {OA5YBxH8IAwoj6QDdD4U60q8BzTBA6}:
There is JW scholar who likes to argue about esoteric Greek grammar and the like. I’d like to quote his responses just for fun, (I do not agree or disagree with his assertions because I don’t care to study about koiné Greek nuances. )
Apparently, this JW expected us to read his arcane discussion
At this point I cannot be too careful in reminding you of the issues, but need I remind you that YOU are not the only one to whom I am talking? Since these messages are being posted on various discussion boards and web sites I have an eye toward others reading our exchange.
Please enjoy the JW “scholar”:
The fact is Hartley is the one who characterized my forthcoming reply when he had not even read it! That is not an open-minded person, is it?
Hartley frequently misuses his statistical analysis in his thesis. And he does so again here
Other examples where Hartley's opinion overrides good judgement include Luke 7:39
Additionally, you will notice that Hartley is comparing apples to oranges. (Actually, the comparison is not even that close!)
Hartley has also grossly misunderstood my remarks about reading his theology into the text, as if I meant this in reference his entire study!
How is it that you so badly misconstrue what I have said on this matter? It seems that a highly defensive mindset can be the only cause for such thinking.
The fact that Hartley makes such great leaps of linguistic logic does not inspire confidence in his critical abilities with exegetically difficult passages.
What Hartley apparently has not gathered from my replies is that my objection involves his non-sensical rejection of the context in determine the proper lexemic tagging for a particular term
Again, the problem is your apparent inability to recognize the objection, even after reflecting on the matter some six months.
He has no evidence PROVING his position, and there is NOTHING to convincingly argue against an indefinite nuance. How does Hartley respond? In typical DTS fashion: by ignoring my salient point and taking you, the reader, down the road of "disconnect."
Hartley, your act is getting tired, fast.
Hartley's abuse and misunderstanding of the context is again very obvious
Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions.... Notice the dogmatic language used in the above statement, and yet Hartley has not a leg to stand on for any of his claims. He simply makes several wild assertions, assuming that he has already proven them! I will no longer highlight these pathetic attempts at logical argumentation, assuming that even the newest student of critical analysis can see them for what they are.
Oh, the logic of Don Hartley! Frankly, this is getting ridiculous...
Apparently, as you yourself admit, it is indeed beyond you. Let me help you try and understand the problem you have here. Recall my question to you:
If you continue to display a defective knowledge of the issues after I have made them as plain as they can be, then I will no longer discuss them with you.
Also, please refrain from immature comments and hypocritical assertions of ad hominem arguments on my part, when you have filled your error-ridden replies with cutting, negative words.
I have saved the best post for last:
Had Hartley simply read the NWT translation of these passages he might have been better prepared to address the issue of semantic signaling.
Lobo
Disclaimer: Please all the above quotes are partial quotes. Before you make any final judgment on the writing style of the JW “scholar”, you should read his l-o-o-o-n-g replies at: