Bible Versions - Page 5

**Jayhawker Soule** · 07-15-2007, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Og

I'm not sure how plagiarism can be considered pathetic.

It is blatantly dishonest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Og

There's nothing wrong with quoting a source.

In fact, it's preferable to presenting something as if it was ones own words.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Og

I don't agree with the above post that it is absurd and pathetic to reference others.

What a joke ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Og

Labeling it as plagiarism, however, is not at all the same as invalidating it.

And no one has suggested otherwise.

**Jayhawker Soule** · 07-15-2007, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by revpo

Believe what you want, the Bible was written by man hundreds of years from the so called happenings..

To when do you date Paul and Like?

alexie · 07-16-2007, 02:47 AM

Dear Jaywalker

Plagiarism! Did you not see the sentence,"The excellent OT/Tanaach scholar John Walton (in NIDOTTE)..."
The only thing I did not do was maybe restate this just before my conlcusion at the end. As for pathetic maybe you know more about that than I do but name calling does not in any way help in the intellectual discussion I am involved with on this forum. Maybe you should concentrste on agreeing with what I said or reply with a rebuttal if that is at all possible for you.

alexie

alexie · 07-16-2007, 02:49 AM

Dear Aaron

"You're right alexie. I appologise for any personal attack."

Thank you for your apology, your honesty and the courage to admit this.
This shows much about your character and humbleness. Well done mate!
Have a great week.

alexie

**Jayhawker Soule** · 07-16-2007, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexie

Plagiarism! Did you not see the sentence,"The excellent OT/Tanaach scholar John Walton (in NIDOTTE)..."

I certainly did. It's a sentence plagiarized from www.christian-thinktank.com. Since you seem so adept at using the internet, why not drop "plagiarism ethics" into your search engine and see what you come up with?

alexie · 07-17-2007, 02:47 AM

Hi Jaywalker

"I certainly did. It's a sentence plagiarized from www.christian-thinktank.com."

To start it was not from the site you mentioned.
Obviously you did not see what I wrote about John Walton and my crediting the writing to him or else you would not have said it was plaigirism. But if that is all you can do and not actually comment on what I wrote and the John Walton comments then maybe you need to rethnk why you are on this forum.
I will repeat what i said earlier. Maybe you should concentrate on agreeing with what I said or reply with a rebuttal if that is at all possible for you.

alexie

**Jayhawker Soule** · 07-17-2007, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexie

To start it was not from the site you mentioned. Obviously you did not see what I wrote about John Walton and my crediting the writing to him or else you would not have said it was plaigirism. ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexie

Deay Jaywalker

The gospels of Matthew (1:18-25) and Luke (1:26-35) both claim that Jesus was born of a virgin, but only Matthew (1:23) appeals to the Hebrew scriptures as an explanation for why this should be the case. The verse appealed to is Isaiah 7:14, which reads: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel."

Actually, Matthew doesn't supply a very causal 'why' in this passage, just as many of his other OT citations are more 'loose' than 'tight'. Matthew's reference to "all this" (totou de holon) has a wider reach than just to the conception: his narrative starts after Mary has become pregnant, and ends with the declaration that "He will save His people from their sins". The 'all this' seems to refer to the group of events (conception, prophecy, announcement) rather than just the conception. Even the verse citation might have NOTHING to do with the virginity aspect, but only with the 'Immanuel' aspect.

The excellent OT/Tanaach scholar John Walton (in NIDOTTE) who takes a less-traditional view (i.e. the virginity aspect of the word is not important), even though the lexical data is supportive of the 'alma as virgin' position: ...

Quote:

The gospels of Matthew (1:18-25) and Luke (1:26-35) both claim that Jesus was born of a virgin, but only Matthew (1:23) appeals to the Hebrew scriptures as an explanation for why this should be the case. The verse appealed to is Isaiah 7:14, which reads: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel."

Actually, Matthew doesn't supply a very causal 'why' in this passage, just as many of his other OT citations are more 'loose' than 'tight'. Matthew's reference to "all this" (totou de holon) has a wider reach than just to the conception: his narrative starts after Mary has become pregnant, and ends with the declaration that "He will save His people from their sins". The 'all this' seems to refer to the group of events (conception, prophecy, announcement) rather than just the conception. Even the verse citation might have NOTHING to do with the virginity aspect, but only with the 'Immanuel' aspect.

< -- snip -- >

This is not as obvious as it seems (although Jim's overall position is not really dependent on it); nor does the significance of the passage diminish if Jim is correct linguistically. As I mentioned earlier, there are evangelical scholars on both sides (or rather, all sides--since there are a number of options on this one!) of the question.

Let me start first by giving the opinion of the excellent OT/Tanaach scholar John Walton (in NIDOTTE) who takes a less-traditional view (i.e. the virginity aspect of the word is not important), even though the lexical data is supportive of the 'alma as virgin' position: ...

- see www.christian-thinktank.com

You cut-and-paste the words of others and present them as your own.

alexie · 07-20-2007, 11:41 PM

Obviously you cannot or are unwilling to reply to what the excellent OT/Tanaach scholar John Walton (in NIDOTTE)" has to say and seem to have a bee in your bonnet about this. Get over it!
Again I say I did not get it from the site you mentioned even if you can also find it at that site. Aagain, are you able to reply to it? Obviously not and I suppose the discussion ends here, nowhere.

alexie

**Jayhawker Soule** · 07-22-2007, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexie

Obviously you cannot or are unwilling to reply to what the excellent OT/Tanaach scholar John Walton (in NIDOTTE)" has to say ...

What should be "obvious" to the casual observer is that I have neither the need nor the desire to deal with intellectually dishonest posts. Should anyone other than you be interested in pursuing a discussion about Isaiah 7:14, I will be more than happy to oblige.

alexie · 07-29-2007, 02:00 AM

Hmmm jay man

Dishonesty hey? Wow i did not realise you were able to read my mind and know if I was being dishonest.
Lets look at this. I have aksed you three times to reply to the reply. You have not and only now state you will not as I am "intellectually dishonest".
Why did you not save us time and say this earlier? Possibly because you cannot answer the reply and only came up with this now? Or some other reason?
Have you ever come up with an original thought? An original idea? A new medical breakthrough? If you have great but every other thought must not be original so any knowledge you type here is someone elses teaching, idea or concept. So maybe your intellectual honesty requires some humility?
Remember when you point the finger three more point back at you?
I pray God does a mighty work on your heart and that you know the God of creation. God bless you jayman and I hope you get to Know God through His son Jesus.

alexie