User talk:Alephb: Difference between revisions
→Very minor thing: copy that |
→Response: new section |
||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
::It happens (for example), if you write more than 4 tildes, like this: 07:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC) |
::It happens (for example), if you write more than 4 tildes, like this: 07:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC) |
||
:::Gotcha. Thanks. [[User:Alephb|Alephb]] ([[User talk:Alephb#top|talk]]) 07:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC) |
:::Gotcha. Thanks. [[User:Alephb|Alephb]] ([[User talk:Alephb#top|talk]]) 07:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC) |
||
== Response == |
|||
Alephb, |
|||
Concerning your statement: "Wikipedia requires all editors, including me and you, to avoid making unfounded accusations about each other's motives". The word unfounded, in my past message to you was not unfounded, unless you would like to use it in a fashion like you tied a woman to a bed and forced yourself upon her and when confronted that it wasn't rape, that such an accusation is unfounded and without merit in an attempt to give an excuse to your act and cover up your act. |
|||
My statement to you: "Alphb you are bigoted and a misinterpreter.", is backed by "Your first point, the disdain for the use of 19th century sources, shows an extreme bigotry for older works, and that, not only you, but all of Wikipedia staff holds such a stance and bigotry according to your final statement.", which is coupled with a past statement: "It's just another obscure 19th century book" This last statement shows disdain and bigotry literary classics that is used by universities and professors to produce the books and papers that you say Wikipedia demands ("Wikipedia, we don't just pick any old sources we like. We try to use up-to-date mainstream scholarly sources. Things that are peer-reviewed, come from university presses, that kind of thing."). This statement shows a basis against the great works of literature and research; i.e. bigotry. Also, by this statement, many of the very books you would use ("Things that are peer-reviewed, come from university presses") could not be used for they use the an "obscure 19th century book", or older. Many professors refer to the works of Josephus, or Aquila, or Socrates, and much to your chagrin and dislike, works like Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies, Gesenius' Hebrew And Chaldee Lexicon To The Old Testament Scriptures, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, The Pulpit Bible Commentary (which is of the 1900's), and many other books written long ago, that you thumb your nose at. Besides that Webster' Dictionary Of The English Language would have to be included in your list for it is "another obscure 19th century book". |
|||
It is equal to you saying that the American Revolution that was fought for the freedom of the citizens, the Civil War fought for the ending of slavery, World War II fought to end tyranny, despots, and atrocities, the act of Rosa Parks, or the work of Martin Luther King for equality, hold no value today because they did not occur in the 21st century, and should not be used as a reference, or an example; i.e. should be ignored, pretend they never happened. |
|||
Then there is your statement: "Second , and much more seriously, you are misrepresenting at least one of your sources. The Gesenius Lexicon is not from 1979, no matter what the copyright notice might say. It was translated into English by 1857. And you are blatantly misquoting it. Gesenius uses "fallers, rebels, apostates" to illustrate the view he does not hold. Gesenius himself prefers "giants." So you should not act as if Gesenius supports your view.", to which I stated: Gesenius' I did not state that it was written in 1979, rather that this is the publisher's copyright date. Do you not know reference data that is given that shows the reference. Things like the title, author, publisher, copyright date, and ISBN number if there is one? |
|||
Gesenius' Hebrew And Chaldee Lexicon To The Old Testament Scriptures,(translated by) Samuel Prideaux Tregelles. LL. D, Baker Book House, 1979 (reprinted 1990), ISBN: 0-8010-3801-4, page 556 (for you first edition published by Samuel Bagster and Sons in 1847), you state that I am misrepresenting at least one of my sources, but I am not, rather it is you who is doing this to validate your lie. what is said: "(Hebrew spelling)m.giants Gen.6:4; Nu. 13:33. The etymology (since this word might be to big for you, it means, the history of the linguistic form of a word)of this word is uncertain..... I '''prefer''' with the Hebrew interpreters and Aqu.( I add so you will know Aquila)(Greek spelling of word)falling on, attacking is of intransitive signification......... were accustomed to render (Hebrew word spelling) fallers, rebels, apostates (support of my view of no mention of giant in his preference). |
|||
This showed you not only did not know that which any student would know, the publisher's copyright date that is given as part of the reference data, thus showing you are uneducated, but, also, that it is you who misinterpreted Samuel Prideaux Tregelles translation, as well as adding a false statement to support your stance. |
|||
All of this shows that which I stated was not unfounded, but based on, and proven, by your statements, unless you would like to add another falsehood like you did in my last statement. I, also, did not state these as an unfounded insult, but rather the truth based on your statements. You may not like the truth, but don't call it an insult, or unfounded; the truth is the truth, rather you like it, or not. |
|||
Besides this another of your Wikipedia writers, did not know the word Hebraic, which is verbiage for Hebrew, and much more concerning the subject of the article and theology. Between the 2 of you, you give a strong indication of your lack of education and knowledge on subject matter. Again, this not unfounded, but based on the evidence. |
|||
I do not like to give my credentials, for I feel it is boasting, but I feel this situation merits it. I hold multiple Masters and Doctorates. In 3rd grade, with the help of a teacher that got me books and put me in contact with people who could help me, I could interpret Egyptian hieroglyphs and Roman alphabet and language. For over, forty years I have studied theology, geography, archaeology, ancient culture, language, and geography sociology, astronomy, and paleontology, besides other sciences. I do not by this state that I know all, but rather I am educated and have had some of the best teachers, besides have done an in-depth study on the subjects; especially theology. |
|||
By your statements, I gather you are uneducated. |
|||
Then, there is this, verse that I gave stated said the same as the version your article stated: "When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose. Then the Lord said, “My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty years.” '''The Nephilim were on the earth in those days'''—and also afterward—'''when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans''''''The Nephilim were on the earth in those days'''—and also afterward—'''when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans''', who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown. — Genesis 6:1–4, New Revised Standard Version". The only thing different was the statement that I gave that the nephilim were already on the earth when the sons of god had sex with the daughters of men, which is what both the version I used, and the version you used, stated. |
|||
The article statement was: "The Nephilim /ˈnɛfɪˌlɪm/ (Hebrew: נְפִילִים) before the Deluge, according to Genesis 6:1-4 of the Bible.", which is a false statement. Unless you want to say that (example) that a woman you do not know today, but will in 10 years and then will be your first sex with her, today though, before she has met you, has your baby. For to go from the verse statement that there were nephilim already on the earth when the sons of god had sex with daughters of men, to the nephilim being the offspring of this union, is no different then the example given. For Wikipedia's statement: '''were the offspring''' of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men", when the quoted Bible verse (even the Wikipedia quote) states: '''The Nephilim were on the earth in those days'''—and also afterward—'''when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans''', contradicts your statement and is a misinterpretation: just like your misinterpretation of Gesenius' Hebrew And Chaldee Lexicon To The Old Testament Scriptures (although I do not believe it was an error, rather a deliberate misinterpretation). |
|||
Unless Wikipedia staff would like rewrite the Bible, Wikipedia would have to delete the Bible quote. Then if you deleted the quote, then your statement would have no ground on which to stand and would have to be deleted as well. Or Wikipedia would have to confess to putting false statements into their articles and leave it stand as it is. |
|||
Revision as of 23:44, 2 September 2017
+
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
The Hawk
This [1] was very well said. Wikipedia at it´s finest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
| For patiently helping out new editors. —PaleoNeonate – 04:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC) |
- I appreciate it. Is there something I'm supposed to do with the barnstar? Am I supposed to put it somewhere? Do I just let it get archived? I'm new to this whole phenomenon. Alephb (talk) 07:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Some people create a user subpage which they link from their user page (sometimes via a tab) and copy them there, others copy them to a section of their user page (I do this, some also prefer to hat/collapse that section); others just leave them on their talk page and/or archives. It's not impossible that talk page blankers just delete/undo them, but it's really up to you.
—PaleoNeonate – 07:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Some people create a user subpage which they link from their user page (sometimes via a tab) and copy them there, others copy them to a section of their user page (I do this, some also prefer to hat/collapse that section); others just leave them on their talk page and/or archives. It's not impossible that talk page blankers just delete/undo them, but it's really up to you.
Hi, just wondering how the Judaizer research is going. Any progress? Any questions I can help you with? Judaizers (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else? Alephb (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
The Exodus
The dispute on The Exodus has gone to dispute resolution, and we would welcome your comments there. WP:DRN#The Exodus discussion. Tatelyle (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Very minor thing
Forgot to sign that one: [2]. Keep fighting the good fight. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Well, that's embarassing. Any idea how that one happened? I seem to have gotten the timestamp on it, but not my username. Alephb (talk) 07:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- It happens (for example), if you write more than 4 tildes, like this: 07:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Gotcha. Thanks. Alephb (talk) 07:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- It happens (for example), if you write more than 4 tildes, like this: 07:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Response
Alephb, Concerning your statement: "Wikipedia requires all editors, including me and you, to avoid making unfounded accusations about each other's motives". The word unfounded, in my past message to you was not unfounded, unless you would like to use it in a fashion like you tied a woman to a bed and forced yourself upon her and when confronted that it wasn't rape, that such an accusation is unfounded and without merit in an attempt to give an excuse to your act and cover up your act.
My statement to you: "Alphb you are bigoted and a misinterpreter.", is backed by "Your first point, the disdain for the use of 19th century sources, shows an extreme bigotry for older works, and that, not only you, but all of Wikipedia staff holds such a stance and bigotry according to your final statement.", which is coupled with a past statement: "It's just another obscure 19th century book" This last statement shows disdain and bigotry literary classics that is used by universities and professors to produce the books and papers that you say Wikipedia demands ("Wikipedia, we don't just pick any old sources we like. We try to use up-to-date mainstream scholarly sources. Things that are peer-reviewed, come from university presses, that kind of thing."). This statement shows a basis against the great works of literature and research; i.e. bigotry. Also, by this statement, many of the very books you would use ("Things that are peer-reviewed, come from university presses") could not be used for they use the an "obscure 19th century book", or older. Many professors refer to the works of Josephus, or Aquila, or Socrates, and much to your chagrin and dislike, works like Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies, Gesenius' Hebrew And Chaldee Lexicon To The Old Testament Scriptures, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, The Pulpit Bible Commentary (which is of the 1900's), and many other books written long ago, that you thumb your nose at. Besides that Webster' Dictionary Of The English Language would have to be included in your list for it is "another obscure 19th century book".
It is equal to you saying that the American Revolution that was fought for the freedom of the citizens, the Civil War fought for the ending of slavery, World War II fought to end tyranny, despots, and atrocities, the act of Rosa Parks, or the work of Martin Luther King for equality, hold no value today because they did not occur in the 21st century, and should not be used as a reference, or an example; i.e. should be ignored, pretend they never happened.
Then there is your statement: "Second , and much more seriously, you are misrepresenting at least one of your sources. The Gesenius Lexicon is not from 1979, no matter what the copyright notice might say. It was translated into English by 1857. And you are blatantly misquoting it. Gesenius uses "fallers, rebels, apostates" to illustrate the view he does not hold. Gesenius himself prefers "giants." So you should not act as if Gesenius supports your view.", to which I stated: Gesenius' I did not state that it was written in 1979, rather that this is the publisher's copyright date. Do you not know reference data that is given that shows the reference. Things like the title, author, publisher, copyright date, and ISBN number if there is one?
Gesenius' Hebrew And Chaldee Lexicon To The Old Testament Scriptures,(translated by) Samuel Prideaux Tregelles. LL. D, Baker Book House, 1979 (reprinted 1990), ISBN: 0-8010-3801-4, page 556 (for you first edition published by Samuel Bagster and Sons in 1847), you state that I am misrepresenting at least one of my sources, but I am not, rather it is you who is doing this to validate your lie. what is said: "(Hebrew spelling)m.giants Gen.6:4; Nu. 13:33. The etymology (since this word might be to big for you, it means, the history of the linguistic form of a word)of this word is uncertain..... I prefer with the Hebrew interpreters and Aqu.( I add so you will know Aquila)(Greek spelling of word)falling on, attacking is of intransitive signification......... were accustomed to render (Hebrew word spelling) fallers, rebels, apostates (support of my view of no mention of giant in his preference).
This showed you not only did not know that which any student would know, the publisher's copyright date that is given as part of the reference data, thus showing you are uneducated, but, also, that it is you who misinterpreted Samuel Prideaux Tregelles translation, as well as adding a false statement to support your stance.
All of this shows that which I stated was not unfounded, but based on, and proven, by your statements, unless you would like to add another falsehood like you did in my last statement. I, also, did not state these as an unfounded insult, but rather the truth based on your statements. You may not like the truth, but don't call it an insult, or unfounded; the truth is the truth, rather you like it, or not.
Besides this another of your Wikipedia writers, did not know the word Hebraic, which is verbiage for Hebrew, and much more concerning the subject of the article and theology. Between the 2 of you, you give a strong indication of your lack of education and knowledge on subject matter. Again, this not unfounded, but based on the evidence.
I do not like to give my credentials, for I feel it is boasting, but I feel this situation merits it. I hold multiple Masters and Doctorates. In 3rd grade, with the help of a teacher that got me books and put me in contact with people who could help me, I could interpret Egyptian hieroglyphs and Roman alphabet and language. For over, forty years I have studied theology, geography, archaeology, ancient culture, language, and geography sociology, astronomy, and paleontology, besides other sciences. I do not by this state that I know all, but rather I am educated and have had some of the best teachers, besides have done an in-depth study on the subjects; especially theology.
By your statements, I gather you are uneducated.
Then, there is this, verse that I gave stated said the same as the version your article stated: "When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose. Then the Lord said, “My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days'—and also afterward—when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans'The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown. — Genesis 6:1–4, New Revised Standard Version". The only thing different was the statement that I gave that the nephilim were already on the earth when the sons of god had sex with the daughters of men, which is what both the version I used, and the version you used, stated.
The article statement was: "The Nephilim /ˈnɛfɪˌlɪm/ (Hebrew: נְפִילִים) before the Deluge, according to Genesis 6:1-4 of the Bible.", which is a false statement. Unless you want to say that (example) that a woman you do not know today, but will in 10 years and then will be your first sex with her, today though, before she has met you, has your baby. For to go from the verse statement that there were nephilim already on the earth when the sons of god had sex with daughters of men, to the nephilim being the offspring of this union, is no different then the example given. For Wikipedia's statement: were the offspring of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men", when the quoted Bible verse (even the Wikipedia quote) states: The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, contradicts your statement and is a misinterpretation: just like your misinterpretation of Gesenius' Hebrew And Chaldee Lexicon To The Old Testament Scriptures (although I do not believe it was an error, rather a deliberate misinterpretation).
Unless Wikipedia staff would like rewrite the Bible, Wikipedia would have to delete the Bible quote. Then if you deleted the quote, then your statement would have no ground on which to stand and would have to be deleted as well. Or Wikipedia would have to confess to putting false statements into their articles and leave it stand as it is.