Posted by Zedechiah_the_Messiah [24.175.160.174 - cpe-24-175-160-174.stx.rr.com] on 03 March 2003 at 17.05.36 ZuluTime:

Follow the bouncing ball:

ondoher1 says, zed: "newinchrist2003 : william green, general introduction to the Old Testament: " it may be safely said that no ther work of antiquity has been so accurately transmitted.""
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ondo, uh huh. Ken is full of silly caca like that. For example: "[Alexandrians' pured over all the variants [of Homer] and allowed inferior and wild copies to perish by neglect. They simply did not copy them"
     ondoher1 says, zed: huh?
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ondo, its just empty rhetoric (not that Ken realizes what hes saying). The bible has "textual families". There are distinctly different versions of the bible. Ken thinks its based on "copyists errors" and the like. Hes desperately searching for a pinhole to squeeze thru
     zedechiah_the_messiah the Homer one is an example of how texts like Ken is talking about are transmitted
     ondoher1 says, zed: hmm, I don't know enough about the differences that make up the families to comment. but it doesn't seem likely, at least superficially
     zedechiah_the_messiah like, Ken would be clueless to pieces like the Homer example and refering to an Apocryphal Genesis account. But oddly enough it shows up in an aramaic version a thousand years later. It may reflect an example of "original wording"
     ondoher1 says, zed: of course. explained through errors.
     zedechiah_the_messiah then make a plea for the occasional "copyist error"
     newinchrist2003 says, finngoth: william green, introduction to the old testament, "it may be safely said that no other work of antiquity has been so accurately transmitted." also, Atkinson, Under-Librarian of the Library at Cambridge University said the transmission of the OT was "a little short of miraculous."
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken not really. You had two groups in the east and then in the west copying those books. jews and christians. One eventually (as with the Homer example) attempted to hone it down to a standardized text - but there are always still variants. different scribes, forwhatever reason, choose readings they favor.
     newinchrist2003 says, finngoth: you never said how many copies. You never said how may variants within those body of copies. plus I don't think a poem or poems compare to a whole body of work like the OT. plus I do not think that a poem written after 1,000 AD is necessarily ancient
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken, somewhere around the 6th-9th cent jews finally got a fairly standardized text.
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken the oldest such extant dates to about 1000 ce.
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken thats the Leningrad scroll
     newinchrist2003 says, finngoth: link for ancient body of work being copied better than the Massoretic text of the OT?
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken not really. You had two groups in the east and then in the west copying those books. jews and christians. One eventually (as with the Homer example) attempted to hone it down to a standardized text - but there are always still variants. different scribes, forwhatever reason, choose readings they favor.
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken, somewhere around the 6th-9th cent jews finally got a fairly standardized text.
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken the oldest such extant dates to about 1000 ce.
     newinchrist2003 says, finngoth: your intro never said how many total copies of the text are available. plus it never said how many variants. Plus it is not even relevant since a post 1,000 AD document is not really a ancient text. plus it is not a large body of work but merely a poem.
     zedechiah_the_messiah laughs @ Ken
     zedechiah_the_messiah :Ken doesnt think a book from 1000ce is "ancient", yet he calls the Massoretic [sic] text "ancient"
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken, somewhere around the 6th-9th cent jews finally got a fairly standardized text.
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken the oldest such extant dates to about 1000 ce.
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken thats the Leningrad scroll
     newinchrist2003 says, finngoth: i fail to see where i lied. on the other hand you have said what you put up
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken, well actually your claims have been utterly baseless
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken, you sure make up some crazy stuff
     zedechiah_the_messiah youre wack-a-do
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken why do you say then a text from 1000ce isnt ancient and then call the MT ancient, when its from, well specifically, 1010ce...?
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: it never said 1000 AD.
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: i never said 1000 AD . i said post 1000 AD
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken what "it"? What kind of vague nonsense are you trying to bring up now?
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken "1010" is post 1000.
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah and finngoth: the fact remains that you have not produced a ancient document that was copied better than the Masoretic text of the OT. You can sing and dance all you want, but that fact remains.
     zedechiah_the_messiah uh, Ken, why do you keep pretending i havent rebutted those ridiculous claims? Ive already said 1) just look at a standard version of the JPS Tanack. It has lots of footnotes for variants. It is not an exhaustic apperatus, but gives more than a general idea. 2) You keep refering to the MT as if its some incredibly ancient text. The Masorets BEGAN standardization between 6th-9th cent bce. 3) the oldest complete MT is from 1010ce
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken thats just the MT were talking about. You seem to want to ignore the other families. But thats ok. We can stick with the MT
     zedechiah_the_messiah 6th-9th CE. not bce
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken fails to rebutt me
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken has ignored every one of my posts
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken - just look at a standard version of the JPS Tanack. It has lots of footnotes for variants. It is not an exhaustive apperatus, but gives more than a general idea. 2) You keep refering to the MT as if its some incredibly ancient text. The Masorets BEGAN standardization between 6th-9th cent ce. 3) the oldest complete MT is from 1010ce
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken there is a fragmentary pentateuch from 850ce. It is missing 2/5s of its books
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah, finngoth, and alcoynian: how simple can I make it? show me a link which says another ancient text has more accurate transmission in terms of errors than the Massoretic text of the OT. You haven't done it.
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken - just look at a standard version of the JPS Tanack. It has lots of footnotes for variants. It is not an exhaustic apperatus, but gives more than a general idea. 2) You keep refering to the MT as if its some incredibly ancient text. The Masorets BEGAN standardization between 6th-9th cent ce. 3) the oldest complete MT is from 1010ce
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: link?
     zedechiah_the_messiah newinchrist2003 says, ... Plus it is not even relevant since a post 1,000 AD document is not really a ancient text.
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken, the oldest MT is the Leningrad scroll. Its dated to 1010ce
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: link?
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: i said finngoth's material was post 1,000 AD so not relevant. can't you read?
     zedechiah_the_messiah sorry Ken. i dont work from the poormans publishing house. i ALREADY refered you to the JPS Tanack. How did you miss that. it was "1)". Hhahahah youre such a weasel Ken. And why would i need to make an appeal to an authority?
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: blah, blah, blah, blah. but no link
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken arent you aware of the family youre referencing? Jeeeeeeez Ken, your argument from ignorance is awful damned silly. Youre a real kook
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken - just look at a standard version of the JPS Tanack. It has lots of footnotes for variants. It is not an exhaustic apperatus, but gives more than a general idea. 2) You keep refering to the MT as if its some incredibly ancient text. The Masorets BEGAN standardization between 6th-9th cent ce. 3) the oldest complete MT is from 1010ce
     zedechiah_the_messiah newinchrist2003 says, ... Plus it is not even relevant since a post 1,000 AD document is not really a ancient text.
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken, the oldest MT is the Leningrad scroll. Its dated to 1010ce
     zedechiah_the_messiah poor Ken
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: blah, blah, blah. but no link
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken, right. I dont need to make misplaced appeals to AOL member sites
     zedechiah_the_messiah laughs @ Ken
     zedechiah_the_messiah hahah Ken, remember the other day when you tried to equivocate between the Great Isaiah Scroll and the MT? That was funny
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: cairo codex 895AD; british museum codex 950AD
     zedechiah_the_messiah :Ken - PAY ATTENTION!!!
     zedechiah_the_messiah zedechiah_the_messiah Ken there is a fragmentary pentateuch from 850ce. It is missing 2/5s of its books
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: the Massoretic period was 500-900 AD
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken - PAY ATTENTION!!!
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken - just look at a standard version of the JPS Tanack. It has lots of footnotes for variants. It is not an exhaustic apperatus, but gives more than a general idea. 2) You keep refering to the MT as if its some incredibly ancient text. The Masorets BEGAN standardization between 6th-9th cent ce. 3) the oldest complete MT is from 1010ce
     zedechiah_the_messiah hahahaha
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken why were you asking for links for that information if you ALREADY knew it???
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken why are you only just now repeating what ive been saying over and over and OVER again?
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: william green, introduction to the old testament: "it may be safely said that no other work of antiquity has been so accurately transmitted."
     zedechiah_the_messiah hahaha Ken has gone back to square one
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken, sorry. Not true. Fine try tho. I already dealt with silliness by a simple reference to Homer. By the way, the Quote was from Michael Wise
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken Ken Ken. You so cuh-raaaaaaaaaaaasy
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: the text which the Massorites concluded with is called the "Massoretic" text. This Massoretic text is the standard Hebrew text today.
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken, you should take some reading courses. Perhaps some night classes.
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken - just look at a standard version of the JPS Tanack. It has lots of footnotes for variants. It is not an exhaustic apperatus, but gives more than a general idea. 2) You keep refering to the MT as if its some incredibly ancient text. The Masorets BEGAN standardization between 6th-9th cent ce. 3) the oldest complete MT is from 1010ce
     zedechiah_the_messiah so Ken why were you asking for links for that information if you ALREADY knew it???
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken why are you pretending your OWN posts did not parrot mine with the SAME information just 5 minutes ago, and NOW youre pretending you dont even know what YOU said?
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: you are not posting anything relevant. just nonsense. still haven't given me another work of antiquity that has been transmitted better. please provide me a link rather than your nonsense.
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken, in other words you have no rebuttal. Your claims are empty. You claim the MT is an ancient text, but the standardization process didnt even BEGIN for that family until the 6th-9th cent ce as YOU yourself said. The oldest most complete of such a text is that which was said to have been pointed by Moses ben Asher - the Leningrad scroll dated to 1010ce
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: provide a link rather than your nonsense?
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken are you going to run away now?
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken how silly of you.
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken why are you asking me for information you yourself provided?
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: done playing games. give me a link showing a work of antiquity that has been transmitted better than the OT. anything else will be ignored.
     zedechiah_the_messiah oooooo Ken, you poor thing. Ken dont be a coward.---> newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: the Massoretic period was 500-900 AD
     zedechiah_the_messiah newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: the text which the Massorites concluded with is called the "Massoretic" text. This Massoretic text is the standard Hebrew text today.
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: link? or does your atheistic dog still unable to hunt?
     zedechiah_the_messiah zedechiah_the_messiah Ken - just look at a standard version of the JPS Tanack. It has lots of footnotes for variants. It is not an exhaustic apperatus, but gives more than a general idea. 2) You keep refering to the MT as if its some incredibly ancient text. The Masorets BEGAN standardization between 6th-9th cent ce. 3) the oldest complete MT is from 1010ce
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken youve ALREADY agreed to it. Why are you asking for a link?
     zedechiah_the_messiah newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: the Massoretic period was 500-900 AD
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: have a link yet or just more babble? your atheist dog can't hunt.
     zedechiah_the_messiah newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: the text which the Massorites concluded with is called the "Massoretic" text. This Massoretic text is the standard Hebrew text today.
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: link?
     zedechiah_the_messiah tsssssssss, ooooooo Ken. oh my my my "A Survey of the Old Testament" Gleason Archer Jr from Harvard and Princeton Theological Seminary...oh and heres this www.toccoafalls.edu/.../BIB453/Lectures%20MS%20Word/ Lecture%20B%20Texts%20&%20Versions%20MS%20Word.doc
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: finally a link. it was a dead link though.
     zedechiah_the_messiah ok Ken http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:AJRlp-2k-EEC:www.toccoafalls.edu/faculty/sprinkle/BIB453/Lectures%2520MS%2520Word/Lecture%2520B%2520Texts%2520%26%2520Versions%2520MS%2520Word.doc+leningrad+ms+b19a&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
     zedechiah_the_messiah try that one
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: that was a quality link for the topic discussed but was not relevant to our discussion. You still have not provided a work of antiquity that has been more accurately transcribed than the OT.
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: if you could provide a relevant link you would, but you simply can't
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken, liar. "B 19a 1) Dates to AD 1008. The Oldest surviving manuscript of the Complete Old Testament. Said to have been pointed (vowels added) by Moses ben Asher, the last surviving member of the ben Asher family of scribes. "
     zedechiah_the_messiah thats the Leningrad scroll you ignorant moron, Ken. Hahahahahahahaah
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: provide a work of antiquity that has been better transmitted in terms of accuracy than the Old Testament.
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken, i already did that. Next?
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: link?
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken why do you ask the same questions over and over? Why do you ask questions and then not read the answers? Are you stupid?
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: link?
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken link for what? Ken have you ever heard of "text books"? Ken do you think that an AOL http://members site is some kind of authority? Ken have even ever been to SCHOOL before?
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken why, after i posted the information on the MT half a dozen times did you come back and then REPEAT what i had been saying as if it were news and then turn around and ask me for a link to verify the VERY same references you had just made in a previous post?
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: song and dance. song and dance
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken yes. You do a song and dance. A piss poor one at that. You got two left feet babe.
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken why do you say such stupid shit?
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken how can you be so low as to have to constantly lie?
     zedechiah_the_messiah Whats it like Ken? having people know as nothing but a pathological liar?
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: are you agreeing with me that no other work of antiquity has been transmitted more accurately than what the Massorites were able to achieve? Yes or No? if no, then provide a work of antiquity and a supporting link
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken i figure i may as well ask you these questions, since you cant respond to my rebuttals of your RIDICULOUS posts
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: song and dance. song and dance. the artful dodger
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken, thats one serious false dilemma. And as ive already pointed out several times you make a special plea - a really stupid one. You say that no text past 1000ce is ancient. Then you appeal to the most ancient MT from 1010ce. Which is not soley used for the translation of the Tanack, but superior readings from variants are used. Just like in all modern bibles.
     zedechiah_the_messiah sorry Ken, all modern bibles are composite texts taken from a collection of variants and then critisized for superior readings. Hahahahahaha, what, did you think each bible is copied directly from some bound canon of ancient date?
     zedechiah_the_messiah laughs @ Ken
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken wants to appeal to a late standardization process, ignore variants within that family and call it "ancient"
     newinchrist2003 says, darwin: both you and zedechiah have failed to give me a work of antiquity that has been transmitted more accurately in terms of textual corruption . That is ok but I am asking you to do the impossible because no text comes close to the old testament.
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken im sorry you have failed to make your case. Ignoring the facts doesnt help you. It only makes you look stupid
     zedechiah_the_messiah Kens major sources are AOL member websites
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: its simple. give me a work of antiquity that has been transmitted more accurately in terms of antiquity. for example, the Illiad. then give me a supporting link.
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken, turn to your MT (you may use ANY variant - shoot Ken, ill even let you throw in the LXX) and explain to me exactly why Nahash attacked Jabesh-Gilead
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken, already did that. Im sorry. Ive answered it twice already. Im not repeating it again. You need to pay attention. Just like how i posted the information on the MT for an hour (at least half a dozen posts), only for you to eventually REPEAT that information and then ridiculously ask for its verification! hahahahaha
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: a work of antiquity that has been transmitted more accurately in terms of textual corruption than the OT and a supporting link. You haven't done it. Nor will you ever do it.
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken are now back to equivocating on "OT"? hahah thats funny.
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken you have in no way supported your claim for a superior MT. link?
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: i put the challenge to you. you have not given me a work or a supoorting link.
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken you have in no way supported your claim for a superior MT. link?
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken im sorry you have failed to make your case. Ignoring the facts doesnt help you. It only makes you look stupid
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: it is evident that you can't address this issue. say hello to ignore
     zedechiah_the_messiah hahah Ken you coward. Youve been trounced. Youre ignorant and youre a liar. Youve been exposed.
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken, turn to your MT (you may use ANY variant - shoot Ken, ill even let you throw in the LXX) and explain to me exactly why Nahash attacked Jabesh-Gilead
     newinchrist2003 says, before i put zedechiah on ignore I asked him to give me a work of antiquity that has been more accurately transmitted in terms of textual corruption than the OT and give me a supporting link. He never did it.
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken never made a case for a superior MT. tsk tsk tsk. The oldest MT is from 1010 ce. Amongst the oldest bible books, which are 1000 years EARLIER, there are (for example) 1500 differences in one book ALONE
     zedechiah_the_messiah laughs @ Ken
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken thinks http://members.com/AOLuser is somehow authoritative
     zedechiah_the_messiah laughs @ Ken
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken just argues from ignorance - and thinks its an excuse
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken? stil no rebuttal? Im REALLY tired of waiting. Ive been waiting for about 2 hours
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken? Rebuttal? Evidence? hello? waiting for 2 hours over here. Anything yet?
     newinchrist2003 says, hello
     zedechiah_the_messiah 2 hours and holding Ken. any rebuttal yet? any evidence? anything at all?
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: work of antiquity more accurately transmitted in terms of textual corruption than the OT and supporting link. anything less is drivel.
     zedechiah_the_messiah already answered Ken. Ive stated that repeatedly. Ken, no rebuttal? No evidence? Anything else is weaseling. PRODUCE something Ken, and please, no more equivocations
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken? Rebuttal? Evidence? waiting for 2 hours over here. Anything yet?
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: drivel
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken yes. another vapid reponse from. No substance whatsoever.
     zedechiah_the_messiah im sorry Ken the only person here who has provided any evidence, who has supported their argument, has been me.
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken learn how to.....well, hell....THINK. And then come back, okay?
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: drivel
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken yes. another vapid reponse from. No substance whatsoever.
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: you haven't shown a work of antiquity better copied than the OT and given a supporting link. maybe you made some argument of your own but if you did i stopped paying attention to you because you were not saying anything of substance
     zedechiah_the_messiah hahaah Ken, you silly boy. What makes you think lying will cover your tracks? hahaahahah
     zedechiah_the_messiah already answered Ken. Ive stated that repeatedly. Ken, no rebuttal? No evidence? Anything else is weaseling. PRODUCE something Ken, and please, no more equivocations
     zedechiah_the_messiah 2 hours and holding Ken. any rebuttal yet? any evidence? anything at all?
     zedechiah_the_messiah im sorry Ken the only person here who has provided any evidence, who has supported their argument, has been me.
     newinchrist2003 says, what are you talking about?
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken your failure to provide any evidence for your claims has rendered it baseless and of no merit. come back when you have something to offer
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: i put out a question to you. I didn't really make any claims.
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken, already did that. Im sorry. Ive answered it twice already. Im not repeating it again. You need to pay attention. Just like how i posted the information on the MT for an hour (at least half a dozen posts), only for you to eventually REPEAT that information and then ridiculously ask for its verification! hahahahaha
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken, liar. You claimed the MT was a superior text. (so i asked about Nahash. You couldnt answer) You claimed is was the most accurately transmitted (so i refered to the JPS Tanack and its listing of variants. To which you had no reply). You said it was an ancient text (but didnt know its standardization process didnt start until the middle ages). You said you didnt accept any text "post 1000" ce as ancient, yet M19a is from 1010ce
     zedechiah_the_messiah laughs @ Ken
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken, liar. You claimed the MT was a superior text. (so i asked about Nahash. You couldnt answer) You claimed is was the most accurately transmitted (so i refered to the JPS Tanack and its listing of variants. To which you had no reply). You said it was an ancient text (but didnt know its standardization process didnt start until the middle ages). You said you didnt accept any text "post 1000" ce as ancient,(yet M19a is from 1010ce)
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: i said the OT was the most accurately transmitted text of antiquity and the Massorites did a superb job. I then said prove me wrong and show me a ancient work of antiquity that has been transcribed better and provide a supporting link because I wanted to hold you accountable. You have avoided naming a work and providing a supporting link because you never want to be held accountable for anything.
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken, liar. You claimed the MT was a superior text. (so i asked about Nahash. You couldnt answer) You claimed is was the most accurately transmitted (so i refered to the JPS Tanack and its listing of variants. To which you had no reply). You said it was an ancient text (but didnt know its standardization process didnt start until the middle ages). You said you didnt accept any text "post 1000" ce as ancient,(yet M19a is from 1010ce - two references provided Glaseon Archer Jrs "A Survey of the OT" and the link http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:AJRlp-2k-EEC:www.toccoafalls.edu/faculty/sprinkle/BIB453/Lectures%2520MS%2520Word/Lecture%2520B%2520Texts%2520%26%2520Versions%2520MS%2520Word.doc+leningrad+ms+b19a&hl=en&ie=UTF-8. Both cooberating my assertion)
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken: liar. I gave direct reference to the Alexandrian standardization of Homers works as referenced by Michael Wise in "The Dead Sea Scrolls" as an analogous transmission of text to the OT.
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: maybe its semantics. When i say massoretic text I am refferring to the Hebrew Text.
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken: liar. I made direct reference to our recieved versions of Isaiah and the 1,480 differences between them and the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIs (s))dated to the mid 2nd cent.
     zedechiah_the_messiah its not semantics Ken. Youre a liar. Now, 2 hours later youre trying to change your postition when you YOURSELF said that teh MASORETIC TEXT was a result of the MASORETS from 500-900 ce
     zedechiah_the_messiah YOU said that Ken.
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: are you saying that Homers works have been more accurately transmitted than the Hebrew text of the OT. and if so can you provide a supporting link?
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken: youre a liar. Now that you have been completely rebutted you are trying to shift goalposts around to recoup your idioctic claims. YOU said the "MASORETIC TEXT" was from 500-900ce. NOW you want to equivocate Ken and say that the MT means "all hebrew texts".
     zedechiah_the_messiah a FURTHER equivocation Ken as if all textual families were the same, which they obviously are NOT - THATS why they are in different families
     newinchrist2003 says, massoretic period I said
     zedechiah_the_messiah laughs @ Ken
     zedechiah_the_messiah Posted for the 2nd Time - Ken: liar. I gave direct reference to the Alexandrian standardization of Homers works as referenced by Michael Wise in "The Dead Sea Scrolls" as an analogous transmission of text to the OT.
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: simple question. Is there any work of antiquity that has been more accurately transmitted than the Hebrew OT?
     zedechiah_the_messiah Posted for the 3nd Time - Ken: liar. I gave direct reference to the Alexandrian standardization of Homers works as referenced by Michael Wise in "The Dead Sea Scrolls" as an analogous transmission of text to the OT.
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: are you saying Homer's works have been more accurately transmitted than the Hebrew OT?
     zedechiah_the_messiah Posted for the 4th Time - Ken: liar. I gave direct reference to the Alexandrian standardization of Homers works as referenced by Michael Wise in "The Dead Sea Scrolls" as an analogous transmission of text to the OT.
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: can you answer with a simple yes or no
     zedechiah_the_messiah Posted for the 5th Time and still an answer to Kens fallacious claim that somehow the OT is a "most accurate transmission" They key word is "analogous". If they are the SAME, then one is not "superior". So Kens premise of superiority falls flat - Ken: liar. I gave direct reference to the Alexandrian standardization of Homers works as referenced by Michael Wise in "The Dead Sea Scrolls" as an analogous transmission of text to the OT.
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: can you answer with a simple yes or no? was Homer's work more acurrately transmitted than the Hebrew OT? Yes or No?
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: fine. you are saying that Homer's work has been transmitted with equal accuracy. Now, can you provide a supporting link?
     zedechiah_the_messiah Posted for the 6th Time and still an answer to Kens fallacious claim that somehow the OT is a "most accurate transmission" They key word is "analogous". If they are the SAME, then one is not "superior". So Kens premise of superiority falls flat - Ken: liar. I gave direct reference to the Alexandrian standardization of Homers works as referenced by Michael Wise in "The Dead Sea Scrolls" as an analogous transmission of text to the OT.
     zedechiah_the_messiah Posted for the 7th Time and still an answer to Kens fallacious claim that somehow the OT is a "most accurate transmission" They key word is "analogous". If they are the SAME, then one is not "superior". So Kens premise of superiority falls flat - Ken: liar. I gave direct reference to the Alexandrian standardization of Homers works as referenced by Michael Wise in "The Dead Sea Scrolls" as an analogous transmission of text to the OT.
     zedechiah_the_messiah laughs @ Ken
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: fine. You are saying that Homer's works has been transmitted with equal accuracy as the OT. But I do not believe you. can you provide a supporting link? Yes or no?
     zedechiah_the_messiah Posted for the 8th Time Alexandrian standardization of Homers works as referenced by Michael Wise in "The Dead Sea Scrolls" as an analogous transmission of text to the OT.
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: we seem to have a failure to communicatre. I do not believe you. Can you provide a supporting link?
     zedechiah_the_messiah Posted for the 9th Time Alexandrian standardization of Homers works as referenced by Michael Wise in "The Dead Sea Scrolls" as an analogous transmission of text to the OT.
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: fine. I still do not believe you because you cannot provide a supporting link.
     zedechiah_the_messiah laughs @ Ken
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: if you want to do something provide the link supporting your claim
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken supporting what claim?
     zedechiah_the_messiah laughs
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken youre so irrational
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: transmission of Homer as accurately done as the NT. provide your supporting link. considering that Homer's Illiad was written 900 BC and the earliest copy is 400 BC and there are only 643 copies I can understand if you do not have a supporting link.
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: see post above
     zedechiah_the_messiah Posted for the 10th Time Alexandrian standardization of Homers works as referenced by Michael Wise in "The Dead Sea Scrolls" as an analogous transmission of text to the OT.
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: typo: Transmission of Homer's work donme as accurately as the OT. provide a supporting link. seeing as Homer's Illiad was written in 900BC and our earliest copy is 400 BC and there are only 643 copies I can understand if you do not have a supporting link.
     zedechiah_the_messiah Posted for the 11th Time Alexandrian standardization of Homers works as referenced by Michael Wise in "The Dead Sea Scrolls" as an analogous transmission of text to the OT.
     newinchrist2003 says, zedechiah: prove it. provide a supporting link.
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken tries to make a red herring by now suddenly calling upon QUANTITY instead of quality. A typically dishonest shift by Ken. its now to be expected
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken, ok http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0060692014.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken your turn. provide proof of the superiority of the MT
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken and please, evidence only. no whining. no http://members link. I want factual premises and logical conclusions
     zedechiah_the_messiah Ken, then we'll see if we can cooberate by general conscensus
     zedechiah_the_messiah waiting Ken
     zedechiah_the_messiah been waiting for 3 hours now, Ken
     zedechiah_the_messiah and here i am, still waiting
     zedechiah_the_messiah 's chat has gone dead again
     zedechiah_the_messiah goes to bed