Sorry guys, try and "hear" what I'm saying and don't try and drag me into a quagmire of opinion and unproveable history. I NEVER said there was one original language- Where did you get that? All I said is that we don't find "primitive" simplistic ancient languages, rather fully developed all encompassing vocabularies that are able to convey the full range of thought and emotion.
upside/down....Well maybe we're both misreading each other's posts, because what you just wrote here appears to misunderstand my own post....my comment about the lack of evidence of an single original language had nothing to do with the post I cited (which I tried to distinguish by saying "And on the other question"), but rather an earlier post (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com...post.ashx#1362363), which referred to God slowing down the human race by confusing the languages ("If the languages hadn't been confused knowledge and technology would have reached where humanity is now at about the time of Christ"). That is what I was responding to...I wasn't attributing any particular position to you (I didn't say you said there was one original language), but in case you or anyone else were accepting the biblical story as historical (which does claim that there was one language), I was offering some information that was relevant to that question. Understand?
All I said is that we don't find "primitive" simplistic ancient languages, rather fully developed all encompassing vocabularies that are able to convey the full range of thought and emotion.
That's all you said in that post; my comments that you are objecting to referred to an earlier post of yours (which, as I said above, was distinguished by writing "And on the other question"). And regarding this question, I was questioning your statement (which you omit here) that ancient languages were more complex than those spoken today. That is what I was talking about in the first part of my post.
I hope this clears things up.
Take the proverbial "chip off the shoulder", and please don't try and read into what's written, it exposes a strong "bias", for your point of view
We are all biased; I made this same point to scholar last week in another post, and I hope you understand that I wasn't trying to read anything into what you wrote (as this accusation is based on a misunderstanding of what my post was responding to) and that you appear to have done the same thing in response to my post...such as presuming that I claimed that you "said that there was one language" when I didn't.
But why do you seem to be hostile in tone towards me? I detect nothing intentionally hostile or rude in my post to you; I was only trying to present some information that I thought was relevant to the discussion, yet you seem to feel that I had a "chip on my shoulder"....why did you say this? Also you characterize my writing as "overly intellectual" and then in a later post say:
Just their statement based on their credentials (PhD etc.) is not proof. You can almost always find an "expert" opinion to disagree with anything that is conjecture or un-provable. The WTS uses this motif quite oftento their advantage. Do we want to reason as they do? It's tyranny of authority (of sorts) and still doesn't help one understand, as the original question asked.
Although this is not in reference to me but to "experts" or "critics" in general (just to be clear on this, so you won't misunderstand like before), there is a clear connection to my writing as you then say "Again I say are only the "intellectual" highly intelligent and/or educated privy to "God's" ways? Are only they capable of reason?" and you had just described my writing as "overly intellectual". So....first of all, I am no expert in biblical studies but I am a critic like many of us here in JWD and I look at texts critically. Critical inquiry is not an anarchy of "opinion" and "conjecture," as if there were no facts, evidence, and interpretive methodologies involved. I assure you that there is lots of evidence and facts to consider. What motivates me to post is to share some of this evidence to those who may not be aware of it. This involves some interpretation and analysis, which certainly can be questioned -- but questioned on the basis of the evidence. It is the same with academic debate and analysis of biblical and extrabiblical evidence. Conjectures do abound, but these are hypotheses that need to be confirmed or disconfirmed with further evidence or analysis -- just as science necessarily works with hypotheses as well. The job of the critic is to study the evidence to the best of one's ability to evaluate hypotheses to determine whether one is more likely or less likely than another. Since you don't say that there are no facts or evidence, I want to make myself absolutely clear that I am not saying that you expressed yourself in such a way...but rather that you only talk about "expert" or "critical" study in terms of conjecture and don't represent fairly what the endeavor is about. Then you say that the WTS does the same thing and then ask "Do we want to reason the way they do?" I assure you, the WTS evidences very little critical thinking in its publications and instead of this unsavory comparison, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that scientists and police detectives reason the same way (using deduction and abduction with material evidence)? Then you say that it's a "tyrrany of authority". Considering that this follows my attempts to show some evidence that bears on this and the connection to your previous post addressed to me about having a "chip on my shoulder" and being "overly intellectual," I don't know how I should feel about this. Should I stop posting researched posts? Apparently they are in some way objectionable to you...
I don't want to argue...I find it stressful and emotionally very draining....I just want to talk about evidence and facts and what I think about them (which, yes, may involve conjecture), and if anyone thinks that is a sign of hubris or immodesty or having a "chip on my shoulder," I'm truly sorry that person feels that way because it's very much untrue and gravely misreads my intentions and feelings....not to say that you have these opinions per se (because I'm not sure entirely what you mean in your post, and please don't feel I am misattributing these to you and please correct me gently if I have misconstrued yourself).
Hope I haven't offended you....
