Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Schmuel <schmuel AT nyc.rr.com>]

Hi Folks,

Schmuel
>> So you are defending the blatant and obvious mistakes and 
>> misrepresentations
>> that Richard Anthony makes in order to  cry 'liar, liar' ?  

>HH: I admit that Anthony misunderstood Jones'  argument about Methusaleh, 
>and Jones was right on 
>that point.

Schmuel
So a writer, based on his own errors, stridently accuses another writer of a 
50-page article, 
well-documented and thought out and expressed (whether one agrees or not) of 
being a 'liar'.
Again and again.

Does it get much worse that that ?

>HH: I did not read the whole Anthony article. My point was that people found 
>much to criticize in 
>Jones' article, so Jones' article did not seem good on that basis.

Then you should be much more careful in your research.  
One could find 'much to criticize' in anybodies scholarship, using the 
Anthony methodology.

>HH: You made a strange assertion and then backed it up with an article that 
>I found lambasted. 

And you forgot to check the lambasting. 

You did not even read the whole article of the 'critic', much less yet notice 
that it 
was full of huge holes.

>Your article turns out to have some significant factual problems. Neither 
>source seems reliable, Anthony or Jones.

That is like an "even-handed" approach to a crazed loony versus a person who 
may make an error or two.  And you really have shown little of import versus 
Floyd Nolen Jones, although I will happily agree that a couple of points may 
be off.  

Do you know any 50-page articles on such a difficult subject where this is 
not true ?

>HH: Anthony evidently regards the Septuagint highly and does not like to see 
>it smeared. There 
>is no doubt that this article by Jones smears the Septuagint.

There is plenty of doubt about that.  Jones writes very cautiously and 
carefully and quite accurately.  And some of his analysis of particular 
verses is among the very best I have seen.  Even if he is wrong on some 
points he does not "smear" anything, he does call people "liars" stridently 
to try to buttress his case. 

You should simply disown Anthony and go on.
You do better discussing from scholarly sources like Robert Kraft, who at 
least offer substance.

Your 'even-handed' approach between honestly and dishonesty in writing does 
not wash.

You can have (likely) the last words linking yourself to the Richard Anthony 
article
versus Floyd Jones if you really think that is the smart thing to do for your 
own credibility.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic