Posted by J.H. on March 23, 1999 at 01:00:02 {MWKQmDRkic4cM}:
In Reply to: ****Stafford's Response to White posted by Janey on March 22, 1999 at 22:22:45:
Janey,
My oh my, did I step on a few toes here.
See this post for detailed references you could find yourself if you'd bothered to do some homework. Of course, you don't often find such works referenced in fundie or JW writings. These articles were written by honest and real scholars, which is why they are accepted in peer-reviewed journals that would reject the garbage people like Furuli, Stafford or White usually writes.
: See, you just say things and you don't back anything up.
I simply told you that on this point Stafford is obviously wrong. It's not a controversy. It is an established historical fact, which is not debated to any noticable degree. When Stafford comes along and claims such nonsense -- and I read it in his own article -- I have every right to tell that he has no clue what he's talking about, or alternatively, that he is dishonest.
: On this point you show just how backwards you are when it comes to true biblical studies. Nice going Jan, you comment on things you have not even read.
I commented on what I did read. It claimed something that is false. If he refers to 20 or 30 pages of further "evidence" that 1+1=3, that is uninteresting to me. He's wrong, just like the scholar WW referred to who claimed that the language in Genesis indicates a local flood. It's not so.
: JAN - No, it's not circular. Check out a bit more about logic. Neither is the argument robust in any sense, but it isn't circular, since it doesn't refer back to itself.
: Jan, can you read English at all? Here is what Stafford calls circular in White's argument:
I did read it in the original.
I also explained why the original argument from White is not circular. If your brain fails to make the normal connections, that is your problem. A circular argument is what points back to the conclusion as a supporting premise. White referred to all other uses of "theos" to support a particular interpretation of this word in John 1:1. Stafford misrepresented White. I don't doubt that White also misrepresented Stafford when he claimed Stafford had used circular reasoning, and neither do I doubt that these men are more than capable of quite a bit of logical fallacies. What Stafford wrote was plain wrong, that's all.
: Tell us all about Jehovah and Yahweh Jan.
See above reference.
: What is amazing is that you quote Stafford again as if you don't even know what "Anglicized" means.
Huh? Whatever gave you that idea? It means, basically, to pronounce all letters from the original, say, Latin or
Greek, as if they were really English words, and typically to remove a few annoying letters that Angos think are a waste of time and breath. That's how Caesar (pronounced Kaisar), becomes Seesar, Iesous becomes Dzeeeezuz, Iehovah becomes
Dzjehovah, Iohannes becomes John and Paulos becomes Paul. (Well, this isn't an accurate description of the term "anglicized", but it does the job)