Nice thought-terminating cliché, who cares?
Focus only on the content on its merits: refute it subtantially, if you can (I don't care how), or shut up.
If a claim is true, it is true, and if it is not, then it is not, nothing else matters.
Zechariah 12:10 Corruption in the NWT
by Sea Breeze 43 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
no-zombie
The problems here aqwsed12345, is people like you try to support their arguments by getting louder and louder and now with ChatGPT, they can scream, in an attempt that by their many words it adds some kind of weight.
But it doesn't.
And when it doesn't work, people like you turn to insults.
You can be much better, than that.
-
aqwsed12345
It's as if we're seeing two totally different films.
I gave substantive, essential arguments, on linguistic, textual and patristic grounds. These are specific claims and arguments that you can agree with, disagree with, and engage in a substantive debate with, that's what the forum would be about.
To which his response was, simply "but these translations render it this way, so then it's good that way". This is not engagement with my arguments, but his usual authority-based argument. He doesn't even know that as a Catholic, I have no obligation at all to accept as "legitimate" any specific rendering of a single Catholic Bible translation; my dogmatic obligation is solely with regard to the canonicity of the lemmas in the ancient Jerome Vulgate.
He doesn't even know that establishing the meaning of a text is not done by looking at how many people translated it this way, and then others that way, and then democratically, with the one with the most votes winning (if that were the case, the NWT would fail quite miserably). But by directly dealing with the text written in the original language.
You know, his magisterium is the Catholic-basher, sceptic "what revolutionary novelties have I invented" liberal academic elite, and since he is simply unable to engage with the given arguments himself, he always wants to talk about their names, names, and names. His holy names, they are trendy, modern, and they are many: so they must be right. He hides behind these "big names" and does not move from their shadow. He throws these names here and I have to argue with them, while he sits back. What disgusting debate ethics it is!
I didn't insult him, I don't know him personally, he could even be an nice person, for my part, I'm frustrated by his debating ethics and method.
How disgraceful and annoying that he can't give a simple yes/no answer to a simple question.
My question: Is there a first person singular object in the Hebrew text? Yes or no?
His answer: Alter, Alter, Alter. AI, AI, AI.Of course I'm frustrated by this. What can I answer to this? The best answer may be "F your Alter"?
-
no-zombie
Again I'd like to remind you (aqwsed12345) that this site is not a debating forum. Nor is it a place for people who have never been a Jehovah's Witness to post topics or comments, that inflame others who maybe in some way be recovering.
However if a person does have something theological or encouraging to add, then the appropriate way to do so, would be to approach it academically, by providing your best evidence or reasoning in one post, and then leaving it for the reader to accept it or not.