7th May 14:05
Paster dave makes new grammatical term "Mood tense" (!!???!!!) (christianity)
I stand on that assertion. By the way paster dave, what is a "mood tense"?
You never have defined it.
In a post of June 22nd, 2003, in reply to my post of the same date, paster
dave made a subtle change to the original web page he used as a source. He
added a comma which changed the meaning of a list of terms describing the
characteristics of verbs and nouns. Kindly read his post carefully. Then
I ask that you go to the web page he cites and examine and compare it with
what paster dave posted in the news group alt.bible.
paster dave wrote:
"4. The 4th year, or sooner if their capacities allow it, they are entered
upon Erasmus to which they are allou'd no English, but are taught to
translate it by the help of the Dictionary and Accidence, which English
translation of theirs is written down fair by each of them, after the
reciting of the lesson, and then brought to the Master for his observation
and the correction both as to the Translatio & orthography: This when
corrected is carefully reserved till fryday, and then render'd into Latin of
the Author exactly instead of the old way of Repitition, and in the
afternoon of that day it is (a part of it) varied for them as to mood tense
case number &c and given them to translate into Latin, still keeping to the
words of the Author. An example of which you have in the paper marked on the
backside A [not available]. These continue to read AEsops Fables with ye
English translation, the better to help them in the aforesaid translating.
They are also now initiated in the Latin grammar, and begin to give the
Latin rules in Propr: As in pres: [Propria: As in praesenti] & Syntax in
their parsing; and at the latter end of the year enter upon Ovid de
Tristibus (which is recited by heart on the usual time fryday afternoon) &
upon translating English into Latin, out of mr Garretson's exercises.3"
Do you note the difference between what is actually on the web page and what
you wrote? There seems to be some punctuation added to your version,
paster dave. Why would you do that? Shame on you!!! The original of this
piece shows no commas separating the words in this list. The words "mood"
and "tense" and "case" and "number" are not separated by any commas in the
original. Why did you add one between the words "tense" and "case" paster
Paster dave, there is no such thing as a "mood tense" nor is ther such a
thing as a "case number" . . . .geez, how bizarre. Must you stoop so low as
to change a source to support one of your lies? Did you believe I would not
check your story?
Below is the entire post by paster dave including all of the header
"Path: newsmaster1.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pa s.earthlink.net!elnk-pas-n f2!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!cyclone .bc.net!news-hog.berkeley. edu!ucberkeley!tethys.csu.net!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy ..com!enews4
From: Pastor Dave <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Which Bible is the best Bible?
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 17:17:57 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 300
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
Xref: stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net alt.bible:797282
X-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:35:53 PDT
On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 19:57:57 GMT, "Didymos formerly
Satan's punk-ass bitch" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Sorry, that doesn't help any. Got a useful link?
You mean, you're not sure? And yet you make so many
claims regarding my ability and what I said.
And here you are again, claiming that you know what
you're talking about, when it comes to translation and
claim to be able to correct all 47 of the KJV
translators and claiming that no such thing as "mood
tense" exists, after I made the statement that you
don't even consider it.
Well, let's see about that...
"THE CURRICULUM OF THE BOSTON
LATIN GRAMMAR SCHOOL (1712)"
"This when corrected is carefully reserved till fryday,
and then render'd into Latin of the Author exactly
instead of the old way of Repetition, and in the
afternoon of that day it is (a part of it) varied for
them as to mood tense, case number and given them to
translate into Latin, still keeping to the words of the
Interesting that you claim the more modern a
translator, the more they know, yet, in 1712, they knew
what mood tense was and you don't.
I thought you'd appreciate that one, especially since
you mentioned Latin.
How do you know if I do or don't? But let's say for
the moment that I don't. Does that mean that I should
take your word for it? Someone who states they are not
a scholar and yet, claims to be able to correct 47
scholars, as well as hundreds of others?
And does this mean that the fine work of all of these
scholars is to be rejected and that no one can figure
anything out, because they disagree with you, a person
who makes claims about their abilities, that serve only
to inflate their own ego?
You believe in evolution. Are you a scientist that is
an expert in the various fields involved? Do you also
claim to be able to correct them on various components
of their theory, if you are not a scientist, like you
did with the hundreds of scholars who worked on
translations of the Majority Texts in the past?
If you are not a scientist, then why do you believe in
evolution? Do you rely on the work of those who you
say are experts in the field? If so, then why would
you ridicule anyone who relies on experts in other
fields, if that is what they're doing? And why do you
automatically assume that you're smarter than everyone
else? And why do you automatically assume that I am
not capable of intelligent research? Why do you
automatically assume to know my education, my level of
intelligence, my research habits?
No sir, you assume way too much and why? Because you
don't like what is being said. You don't like it when
I expose your foolishness and therefore, make it your
mission to track me down in every thread I post in,
stating one lie after another about me and claiming I
said things I never said, in an attempt to ridicule me,
plain and simple. Sin never likes seeing itself in the
mirror. You sir, are an evil seed, in need of a
Saviour. And praise be to God, that there is One,
Jesus Christ. I suggest you seek Him, instead of your own destruction.
No sir, you don't get that benefit. YOU made the
accusation. YOU prove your accusation, or have the
decency to retract it.
And btw, I find it humorous that someone who claims to
be able to correct hundreds of scholars, can't even
spell the word "pastor" correctly, especially when it's
there for him to look at, in every message. Now we can
see the level of work to expect from you.
You brought it up, not me.
Try a useable link.
And yet, see below...
And there it is, the ego, out in the open once again.
You're a legend in your own mind.
1) YOU are the one who started claiming that the 47
scholars of the KJV did a poor job.
2) YOU are the one who claimed to be able to correct
them, even though you can't spell words right in front
of your face.
3) YOU are the one who came into a Biblical newsgroup,
ridiculing those who believe in God's word.
I.e., YOU are the troll.
Really? So then, you deny having followed me into
various threads? Are you going to lie right out in the
open like that?
God. Didn't you know how that works? Galatians 4:4-7.
Of course you do. He doesn't believe either. Those
who support the Alexandrian Texts pretty much never do.
When Christianity becomes religion,
it leaves the heart hungry.
In the beginning, God created...
Don't tell me you believe the end,
if you don't believe the beginning.
"There are only two possibilities as to how life
arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to
evolution; the other is a supernatural creative
act of God. There is no third possibility.
Spontaneous generation, that life arose from
non-living matter was scientifically disproved
120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That
leaves us with the only possible conclusion that
life arose as a supernatural creative act of God.
I will not accept that philosophically because I
do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose
to believe in that which I know is scientifically
impossible; spontaneous generation arising to
evolution." - (Wald, George, "Innovation and
Biology," Scientific American, Vol. 199,
Sept. 1958, p. 100)