Word games

[Zzyzx]

.
Rather than debate issues many Theists play word games by using esoteric definitions and by stretching definitions. In current threads attempts are made to say that golf is a religion and that Atheists are Theists . Others stretch the definition of “faith� to apply equally to religious faith and to “faith� that trash will be picked up on schedule (saying “everyone has faith�) – a form of equivocation (the use of equivocal or ambiguous expressions, especially in order to mislead or hedge)

Quite regularly there are discussions of what biblical words “really mean� (as though Bible translators and editors are incompetent and the local expert knows better).

I observe that when one defends a strong position with evidence to support their statements there is no need for word games. However, those defending weak, unsupported positions often use “creative� tactics to give the impression of having a valid argument.

Are word games and similar tactics necessary to defend supernatural beliefs?

[parsivalshorse]

[Replying to post 25 by Zzyzx]

Nobody was equating Christianity with Golf. Nor am I a 'religionist'. I am in fact an atheist.

[catnip]

.
Rather than debate issues many Theists play word games by using esoteric definitions and by stretching definitions. In current threads attempts are made to say that golf is a religion and that Atheists are Theists . Others stretch the definition of “faith� to apply equally to religious faith and to “faith� that trash will be picked up on schedule (saying “everyone has faith�) – a form of equivocation (the use of equivocal or ambiguous expressions, especially in order to mislead or hedge)

Quite regularly there are discussions of what biblical words “really mean� (as though Bible translators and editors are incompetent and the local expert knows better).

I observe that when one defends a strong position with evidence to support their statements there is no need for word games. However, those defending weak, unsupported positions often use “creative� tactics to give the impression of having a valid argument.

Are word games and similar tactics necessary to defend supernatural beliefs?

I beg to differ! I would say creative tactics are an effort to communicate despite prejudice.

Noting that translations are often weak and word usages change over time is merely to state the fact that translations are often weak and word usages change over time.

Translations between languages are notoriously difficult to overcome. They simply do not necessarily equate on numerous levels. It doesn't matter what language the translator is dealing with, these difficulties arise. Thus, "lost in translation" is often claimed.

A lexicographer would have something to say on the subject of the usage of a word. If I recall correctly, you may find this information in the preface of some dictionaries.

It behooves the question: what value is it to attempt to discuss anything with a person with a closed mind. And the only means to attempt to penetrate such a mindset is to appeal to logic--any logic. To show examples and similarities to things the person does accept of understand. Though, note, he may resent it.


In short: This is an utter waste of time. There is nothing to discuss.

[1213]

Are word games and similar tactics necessary to defend supernatural beliefs?

Is it word game to show the original meaning of the word?

[OnceConvinced]

I have recieved a great many such personal critiques, but am threatened with being banned if I ever dare respond. Why not, as I say address the topic instead?

Moderator Clarification

No such threat has been made. You can of course respond to personal criticisms made by members, you just need to do it in a civil manner. Fighting fire with fire is unacceptable. Those who cannot debate in a civil manner on this site will find themselves banned.

We recommend that when someone feels they are being attacked to use the "report" function rather than retaliating in a negative manner.

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.

[Zzyzx]

.

Rather than debate issues many Theists play word games by using esoteric definitions and by stretching definitions. In current threads attempts are made to say that golf is a religion and that Atheists are Theists . Others stretch the definition of “faith� to apply equally to religious faith and to “faith� that trash will be picked up on schedule (saying “everyone has faith�) – a form of equivocation (the use of equivocal or ambiguous expressions, especially in order to mislead or hedge)

Quite regularly there are discussions of what biblical words “really mean� (as though Bible translators and editors are incompetent and the local expert knows better).

I observe that when one defends a strong position with evidence to support their statements there is no need for word games. However, those defending weak, unsupported positions often use “creative� tactics to give the impression of having a valid argument.

Are word games and similar tactics necessary to defend supernatural beliefs?

I beg to differ! I would say creative tactics are an effort to communicate despite prejudice.

If one has sound arguments based upon verifiable evidence there is no need for tactics, word play, definition stretching, evasions, smoke screens, diversions, etc.

“Prejudice� is what the other guy has – and “we� don't, right?

Noting that translations are often weak and word usages change over time is merely to state the fact that translations are often weak and word usages change over time.

It is fortunate that among us are debaters who can say “what the Bible really means� in spite of translation weakness and word usage changes – and prove that their own literature is unworthy of trust as it exists in the hands of believers.

Translations between languages are notoriously difficult to overcome. They simply do not necessarily equate on numerous levels. It doesn't matter what language the translator is dealing with, these difficulties arise. Thus, "lost in translation" is often claimed.

Is that why amateurs debating here can provide more accurate translations than professional Bible translators and editors?

It behooves the question: what value is it to attempt to discuss anything with a person with a closed mind.

I often encounter closed minded people in debate – people who KNOW the TRUTH and whose literature is proof of truth; who consider their beliefs to be beyond question; who can't or won't admit that what they choose to believe could be wrong.

I respond to their claims, stories, speculations, testimonials, emotional appeals, threats, promises – NOT to convince them of anything (I do not care what their position or beliefs may be) but rather to present to READERS the contrast between beliefs / emotions vs. reasoning / evidence – and encourage critical / analytical thinking over “Take my word for it (or his or this book)�.

And the only means to attempt to penetrate such a mindset is to appeal to logic--any logic.

One means that may “penetrate such a mindset� is to support one's claims with verifiable evidence. Try it. It might work – but only if there IS such evidence to support one's claims and stories.

To show examples and similarities to things the person does accept of understand.

How does one show examples of anything similar to long dead bodies coming back to life, people performing supernatural feats, snakes and donkeys conversing in human language?

Though, note, he may resent it.

The people who appear to become most resentful and to become emotional (often resorting to personal attacks rather than debating issues) are those whose unsupported contentions are shown to be unsupported contentions.

In short: This is an utter waste of time. There is nothing to discuss.

If one deems a discussion a “waste of time� WHY do they choose to waste time on it? Is there some compulsion to participate in debates that are a “waste of time�?

[Zzyzx]

.

Are word games and similar tactics necessary to defend supernatural beliefs?

Is it word game to show the original meaning of the word?

Is the "original meaning of the word" unknown to Bible translators and editors? If they are likely to know the language why do they so often make mistakes in the Bibles they produce?

Is the person offering the "original meaning" fluent in the language and qualified as a translator?

[oldbadger]

Is the person offering the "original meaning" fluent in the language and qualified as a translator?

What language are you talking about?
Which translators are you talking about?
I don't think that you know about any of this at all.

Have you ever read a book about translation which was written by a translator fluent and qualified in Galilean Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek and Latin?

I have offered you a clear idea in post 26, showing how Aramaic word meanings are 'fluid', or be moved over English meanings, such as swim-feather or swim-go and how 'go' in Aramaic can also mean 'walk'. I have invited you to consider how early evangelists who were most eager to present the faith to the World might have not just been tempted to 'move' word meanings, but possibly even convinced themselves that, say, 'walk' rather than, say, 'swim' must have been the correct meaning.

Later Gospel writers (John circa 110-120CE) had become so in-love with Christ that Jesus's very titles had changed, and actions which he performed such as 'casting-out-devils' were considered beneath the Son-of-God.

A famous translator and Professor (Geza Vermes), an apostate who had once been a priest, translated the Dead-Sea Scrolls and written many books about theology etc wrote an excellent book about the words used for and about Jesus.

His book 'The changing faces of Jesus' taught me so much, and now, when I try to include such info in my posts I get responses from uninformed members talking about word-games, and criticising translators. Uninformed rubbish.

I notice that you could not bring yourself to answer my post 26? I don't think that you have studied any of this, and that you are just throwing brick-bats around and then running away when presented with studied and considered proposals.

[oldbadger]

I don't think that you have studied any of this, and that you are just throwing brick-bats around and then running away when presented with studied and considered proposals.

Oh my goodness...... Mrs Badger is more clever than me.
I was just chatting about all this at morning-tea and she said 'Some atheists can't talk about that particular subject......... can't approach it from any angle, so can't answer'
OB: Uh?
Mrs B: Well, some atheists argue that there never even was Jesus, and that all of it.... everything.... is just myth.
OB: Yeah..... the mythers. (pronounced 'miffers' )
Mrs B: So how can a myther agree that Jesus did something, which then got magnified by hyperbole or language shifting? A myther would declare that none of it ever happened at all, in an way......... drink your tea husband!
OB: ......... stupefied silence.


Ergo, if anybody here is myther, then they can't even agree that Jesus might possibly have snored in his sleep.
](*,)

[help3434]

Is the "original meaning of the word" unknown to Bible translators and editors? If they are likely to know the language why do they so often make mistakes in the Bibles they produce?

Is the person offering the "original meaning" fluent in the language and qualified as a translator?

"Bible translators and editors" can only translate words and phrases one way in any given translation. I guess they could have a footnote for every word explaining all the known connotations of the original word as used in the cultural when it written, but that would get unwieldy to say the least.

[Zzyzx]

.

Is the person offering the "original meaning" fluent in the language and qualified as a translator?

What language are you talking about?
Which translators are you talking about?
I don't think that you know about any of this at all.

I do not pretend knowledge of the multiple languages through which the Bible has been translated OR knowledge of the identity of translators. Do you?

Have you ever read a book about translation which was written by a translator fluent and qualified in Galilean Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek and Latin?

I have not read any books about translation by translators.

However, in graduate school nearly fifty years ago I successfully demonstrated proficiency in translating two languages. That gave me some appreciation for difficulties involved in translation.

I have offered you a clear idea in post 26, showing how Aramaic word meanings are 'fluid', or be moved over English meanings, such as swim-feather or swim-go and how 'go' in Aramaic can also mean 'walk'. I have invited you to consider how early evangelists who were most eager to present the faith to the World might have not just been tempted to 'move' word meanings, but possibly even convinced themselves that, say, 'walk' rather than, say, 'swim' must have been the correct meaning.

Thus, professional Bible translators must take such things into consideration based upon their knowledge of the languages involved, the culture, and possibly the agenda of the writer. They presumably do a competent job in translation. Correct?

If those translators were / are incompetent, the English language versions they produce are unreliable. Correct?

Let's say those professional translators choose “walk� (for instance).

Now, in debate, amateurs say “the language was fluid� (or whatever) and what gospel writers REALLY meant was “swim� (or whatever).

I question the legitimacy of the amateur opinions – which often have the appearance of manipulating the words to fit their argument.

Later Gospel writers (John circa 110-120CE) had become so in-love with Christ that Jesus's very titles had changed, and actions which he performed such as 'casting-out-devils' were considered beneath the Son-of-God.

A famous translator and Professor (Geza Vermes), an apostate who had once been a priest, translated the Dead-Sea Scrolls and written many books about theology etc wrote an excellent book about the words used for and about Jesus.

His book 'The changing faces of Jesus' taught me so much, and now, when I try to include such info in my posts I get responses from uninformed members talking about word-games, and criticising translators.

Notice it is the Apologists who criticize translators – and offer their own “improved� version (that happens to fit whatever argument they are attempting to make).

When opponents quote the exact words of the Bible as it is presented in English, Apologists often respond with “don't take it literally�, “that isn't what the original writers intended�, or “what it really means is . . . “ – thus trashing their own literature.

Uninformed rubbish.

I do not disagree that those “improved� amateur versions are uninformed rubbish.

I notice that you could not bring yourself to answer my post 26? I don't think that you have studied any of this, and that you are just throwing brick-bats around and then running away when presented with studied and considered proposals.

If is rather naïve and foolish to conclude “could not bring yourself to answer�, or “running away� when a post does not receive a reply (or receive a reply quickly in some cases).

Notice that there are typically between 150 and 250 new posts per day.

It might be to the advantage of some to have their posts overlooked or ignored. That way they may seem (or conclude) that they have presented "killer arguments".