Talk:Essay:Best Conservapedia insights about the Bible

Calming of the Storm

Precise? Preposterous! Andy, for your "insight" to work, one of the most frequent words of the Gospels, λέγω, which is used consistently to mean "to speak (aloud)" has to switch its meaning to the opposite "to observe (silently)" in Mark 4:39! And this only once, while even in the surrounding verses Mark 4:38, Mark 4:40, Mark 4:41, it is still used as "to speak (aloud)": for details read Talk:Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge#Calming_the_Storm (really, please do read this section diligently!).

It comes as no surprise that no one with a working knowledge of Biblical Greek shares your insight! --AugustO (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2017 (EDT)

It is too, right. You have a terrible understanding of Greek: classical, septuagint, koine—you name it. You are not numbered among those who have mastered the language. How do you know Mark isn't inducing in the reader a feeling of surprise by using that very word? First he describes the unexpected change and study in contrasts in verbal usage from conversational to a true perception (making any kind of conversation unneeded) and back to conversational. And as a finishing (divine) touch, the disciples are still held captive by a non-spiritual interpretation of what had happened (a miracle of faith).

This is one interpretation, and a reader not used to thinking spiritually along with the disciples at that point would anticipate the disciples' perplexity from their own reaction and, like the disciples, might only grasp the spiritual insight into Jesus' works by his empty tomb, after the reader reads the account and believes. VargasMilan (talk) 07:30, 1 April 2017 (EDT)

I recommend that VargasMilan show a little more respect for the person who is probably Conservapedia's best expert on Greek, and that he refrain from personal attacks like "You have a terrible understanding of Greek ...". While I don't know any Greek, I have been following the August/Andy controversy for years, and it is very obvious that August knows what he is talking about when he discusses the various details of Greek language and grammar, whereas Andy is unable to keep up. August has significant formal education in Greek.

I've seen this kind of blind support for Andy's positions before, in the area of relativity. And, sure enough, Vargas's name shows up there too. I particularly recommend Talk:Logical_Flaws_in_E%3Dmc%C2%B2, where Vargas holds forth on error analysis at a level that knowledgeable people moved beyond long ago. And, incidentally, gives a detailed analysis of the derivative of x³.

VargasMilan would do well to do his own thinking and writing, and stay away from personal attacks. SamHB (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2017 (EDT)

@SamHB: Thank you for your kind support! I don't care much about the baseless slurs, I just enjoy the content of the animated discussion.

@VargasMilan:

• yes, I'm not a great master of the Greek language, I first learnt classical Greek at school, and got into Biblical Greek later on. I enjoy the opportunity to extend my knowledge here at the CBP, but I'm just an amateur. But any pupil after his first year is able to differentiate between nominative, genitive, accusative and dative. Unfortunately, that's enough to have superior knowledge to Andrew Schlafly.
• à propos accusative and dative: when the verb λέγω was used in Homer's time in the sense of "lay down", it was used transitively, i.e., you would read καὶ εἶπεν τὴν θάλασσαν. But we read καὶ εἶπεν τῇ θαλάσσῃ - the dative. So, the insight doesn't work grammatically. It is preposterous to assume that Mark singled out one in hundreds of usages of the verb λέγω to be a throwback to the classical period, but then got the case wrong!
• The rich English language allows us to simulate this spiritual insight in a quite literal translation:

καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν ἐν τῇ πρύμνῃ ἐπὶ τὸ προσκεφάλαιον καθεύδων· καὶ ἐγείρουσιν αὐτὸν καὶ λέγουσιν αὐτῷ Διδάσκαλε, οὐ μέλει σοι ὅτι ἀπολλύμεθα; καὶ διεγερθεὶς ἐπετίμησεν τῷ ἀνέμῳ καὶ εἶπεν τῇ θαλάσσῃ Σιώπα, πεφίμωσο. καὶ ἐκόπασεν ὁ ἄνεμος, καὶ ἐγένετο γαλήνη μεγάλη. καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Τί δειλοί ἐστε οὕτως; πῶς οὐκ ἔχετε πίστιν;

And He was in the stern sleeping on a cushion. And they wake Him up and tell Him Teacher, doesn't it concern you that we are going to die? And being awake, He rebuked the wind and He told the sea Silence, be still And the wind fell and there was a great calm. And He told them Why are you fearful, have you still no faith?

Did you spot it? No? Now, the second use of to tell (He told the sea) is obviously the Old English to think, to esteem, as it was used before 1000 A.D., while anywhere else on Conservapedia to tell is used in the modern English sense. Preposterous! That's how a contemporary of Mark must have experienced this insight.

• Looking through the history of the CBP, there are many examples of editors who egged Andrew Schlafly on, counting on his short attention span, preference of flattery over honest feed-back, and lack of interest for details. Time and time again those editors have been unmasked as trolls and parodists, trying to debase the CBP further more. Let's hope that here we find the exemption of the rule, otherwise this whole exercise is an even greater waste of time than usual.

--AugustO (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2017 (EDT)

Mark was not an eyewitness to the calming of the storm. No one credibly disputes that. Thus it is the eyewitness account by Matthew and the more carefully written account by Luke that carry greater weight for this specific issue, and those versions must properly be the starting point. Then Mark's account should be interpreted with the more precise accounts in mind.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2017 (EDT)

General comment about AugustO's approach: I find that AugustO has tended to translate Greek wording in an overly literal manner, without regard to context, logic, or obvious underlying meaning. By insisting on an overly literal interpretation of Mark's wording without regard to the eyewitness account by Matthew and the wording by the more sophisticated historian Luke, AugustO risks making an error of being overly literal.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2017 (EDT)

• I think it is amusing that you quoted Mark as long as you were not aware that εἶπεν is a form of λέγω and you erroneously thought that Mark didn't use the word "to say". Now you brush him aside as inconvenient.
• The other accounts use the verb ἐπιτιμάω. If you look up other occurrences of this verb in Luke and Matthew, you will see that this word implies a spoken (or written) command, not just a stern look.
• In Matthew, the His companions have heard a command, as they describe their experience in Matthew 8:27 using the verb ὑπακούω which implies "to obey what is heard".
• Given this context one has to conclude that Jesus gave a command. No, most probably it wasn't Σιώπα, πεφίμωσο - I doubt that He used Greek at this occasion.
• "I find that AugustO has tended to translate Greek wording in an overly literal manner..." That is a very odd complaint: The first step of every translation is to be literal. Only after knowing the exact meaning of the words, you can go on try to improve on the text. And afterwards, when you argue about the implications of the very details of a verse, you have to go back the original, the literal meaning. Take e.g, your insight

The water did not turn into wine at the wedding at Cana until it was tasted, consistent with quantum mechanics. Precise versions of the Bible translate this sequence correctly: "When the master of the feast tasted the water now become wine."

You base it on the use of the word "now" in the ESV's translation of John 2:9. But in the original Greek, there is no precise point of time stated at which the water changed to wine: it could be the moment it was tasted, it could be the moment it was poured. John just uses the perfect participle γεγενημένον ("having become"). So, while this verse does not contradict your insight, there is nothing in it to support it. The statement "the water changed when it was poured" is equally valid.

• tl;dr - or did you?
• "...without regard to context, logic, or obvious underlying meaning." This is tough, especially as you tend to disregard even the immediate context of a verse when you use it to promote one of your insights.
• "AugustO risks making an error of being overly literal." I prefer this over inventing things.

--AugustO (talk) 08:21, 2 April 2017 (EDT)

August, there are three accounts of the same event, the Calming of the Storm: one by an eyewitness, one by a careful historian, and one by Mark. A good translation does not start with non-eyewitness Mark's version, which may have simply paraphrased one of the other two. It starts with the other two. Agreed?

Moreover, the Greek does not have quotation marks. So if you really want to be literal, you might reject quotation marks in the English also.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2017 (EDT)

• Have you stopped reading after the first bullet point again? I have addressed the other reports, too.
• No, Greek has no quotation marks. You may look at the fourth bullet point of my answer to VargasMilan above where I gave a translation without quotation marks. Why? Quotation marks are so useful, they speed up reading. But before we can insert them in a text, we have to identify which part is direct speech. BTW, that's why λέγω is used that often by Mark: in lieu of quotation marks, it indicates that there will come a section of direct speech. Unfortunately, it doesn't work as brackets, you still have to do some thinking - though the border between the main text and the direct speech can generally be figured out without ambiguity. Having done this work, it is just common sense to mark the direct speech with quotation marks. (Again, a long section, and under the second bullet point. But perhaps, you took the time?)
• --AugustO (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2017 (EDT)

You say above that Jesus would not have spoken against the storm in Greek. So why should anyone cling to translating Mark as a quoted statement of Greek?

As to ἐπιτιμάω, it more precisely means "to lay a penalty on a person," or simply "to judge."[1].

References to isolated uses of a term elsewhere in the Bible is not very significant when the context is very different, as in this case.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2017 (EDT)

You reached the second bullet point! Congratulations, keep going! --AugustO (talk) 02:24, 3 April 2017 (EDT)

But seriously: you know how a judge "laid a penalty" on a person in the ancient world? Verbally! --AugustO (talk) 02:57, 3 April 2017 (EDT)

August, you're responding to substantive points with silliness now. Please don't change the entry until these issues are resolved.

Your tendency to translate Greek words based on their use in very different contexts is, obviously, fallacious.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2017 (EDT)

• I'd appreciate your input at Conservapedia:Community Portal#Conservapedia's insights - or Andrew Schlafly's?
• Your tendency to translate Greek words based on their use in very different contexts is, obviously, fallacious. LOL What about your tendency to "translate" Greek words in the same context in absolutely different ways? Like when you attributed a Homeric meaning to the work λέγω in one verse, but not in the hundreds of others? Which was grammatically untenable, too?

Words are useful because they don't change their meaning on a whim. --AugustO (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2017 (EDT)

August, you don't respond to basic, substantive points, like the meaning of the word ἐπιτιμάω in the context of judgment. IF you don't want to have an intellectual discussion that addresses the substance of the issue, then just say so.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2017 (EDT)

• I'd say that ἐπιτιμάω in the context of judgement usually implied a spoken verdict. Again, the phrase is consistent with a verbal command.
• Hidden under the third bullet point, I wrote: "In Matthew, His companions have heard a command, as they describe their experience in Matthew 8:27 using the verb ὑπακούω which implies "to obey what is heard"." So Matthew indicates that the pupils observed that the weather followed His verbal command.
• August, you don't respond to basic, substantive points: τί δὲ βλέπεις τὸ κάρφος τὸ ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλμῷ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου, τὴν δὲ ἐν τῷ σῷ ὀφθαλμῷ δοκὸν οὐ κατανοεῖς?

--AugustO (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2017 (EDT)

A judgment is usually NOT rendered orally and, even if it were, the reference to the judgment is not a reference to the speech. "ἐπιτιμάω" refers to the judgment itself, not speech. This is basic. Jesus did not say, "Be still," he rendered a judgment that compelled the storm to be still.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2017 (EDT)

Let's summarize:

1. Mark 4:39, Matthew 8:26, and Luke 8:24 use the verb ἐπιτιμάω to state that Jesus rebuked the sea. This may or may not be done verbally.
2. Luke 8:25 uses the verb ἐπιτάσσω which indicates a spoken order.
3. Mark 4:39 uses the verb λέγω, indicating that Jesus spoke to the sea.

Nothing in these verses contradicts the idea that Jesus gave a verbal command. The idea that Jesus gave a silent command or just made an observation isn't consistent with the second and the third point. There is no compelling reason to believe that Jesus stayed silent. --AugustO (talk) 10:46, 4 April 2017 (EDT)

Reply to Sam

It's nice that you want to play policeman, Sam, but with your checkered memory, I would advise against it.

AugustO had this song and dance that analyzed, then step by step commented on, his chain of reasoning that purportedly validated the equation E=mc². Except the difference of energy units (and purported mass equivalence) between the two opposite sides of the mass-energy equation that he employed led to a precision uncertainty of several orders of magnitude larger than the smallest particle discovered by science.

So it wasn't a proof, and what was missing was the precision error you just mocked. It may be reasonable to suppose that there is a phenomenon of something like perfectly elastic collisions, which might take that precision further. But that wasn't included in the discussion either. Wouldn't you agree that the absence of concerns of precision in AugustO's step-by-step argument calls for a remedial discussion of the application of precision, and which I had mentioned in brief as the reason I had brought precision up, all while the argument was ongoing?

So AugustO has the energy to try to troll Andy (twice or more) as well as giving you attaboys without knowing (or caring) whether your comments are true or not. And yet he laments the time he's wasted just when, being a person who allows it, others are trying to untangle the lines of reasoning employed in his arguments. Sad to say, the invalidity of these arguments evokes doubt as soon as one discovers the misinformed basēs of his claims and accusations. This in turn burdens others to tip-toe around them, trying to protect AugustO's feelings from lacunæ in his knowledge, lacunæ of which I gave examples, lacunæ which foster ill-formed judgments that serve as weak links in the chain of AugustO's reasoning as he attempts to reach his goal of securing his conclusions to underlying reality.

No, I don't have to let you plumb my intellectual resources so you can determine where or whether I have ideas that are worth stealing.

Way to go. You ruined April Fool's Day. VargasMilan (talk) 01:43, 2 April 2017 (EDT)

Wedding at Cana

The original Greek of John 2:9 does not indicate when exactly the transformation of the water to wine happened:

“

ὡς δὲ ἐγεύσατο ὁ ἀρχιτρίκλινος τὸ ὕδωρ οἶνον γεγενημένον, καὶ οὐκ ᾔδει πόθεν ἐστίν, οἱ δὲ διάκονοι ᾔδεισαν οἱ ἠντληκότες τὸ ὕδωρ, φωνεῖ τὸν νυμφίον ὁ ἀρχιτρίκλινος

”

τὸ ὕδωρ οἶνον γεγενημένον is just a participle phrase, meaning (literally!) the water having become wine.

While the verse doesn't contradict Andrew Schlafly's idiosyncratic interpretation of quantum mechanics, it doesn't support it neither: the verse is equally consistent with the idea that the water changed to wine without being observed. --AugustO (talk) 13:48, 3 April 2017 (EDT)

The ESV, which prides itself on the same sort of grammatical precision that you emphasize, apparently disagrees with you in its rendering of this verse by including the word "now".--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2017 (EDT)

You should know that it is always problematic to single out a word in a translation and then read it only in your preferred way: the sentence "the master of the feast tasted the water now become wine" does not necessarily imply that the water became wine in this very instance, it just contrast the present state of the fluid with one in the past. As usual, it helps to look up the original Greek text. --AugustO (talk) 02:35, 7 April 2017 (EDT)

Move

Well done, User:Conservative! --AugustO (talk) 17:21, 6 April 2017 (EDT)