Brian2
Veteran Member
Historians study the internal evidence of documents also. The modern historians have discarded that evidence in favour of the idea that prophecy is not real.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Questions about the Greek of the New Testament
Historians study the internal evidence of documents also. The modern historians have discarded that evidence in favour of the idea that prophecy is not real.
@Subduction Zone said : “The earliest is fifty years after Mark was written, assuming a 65 CE dating for it. At that point it is merely a weak unsubstantiated belief. It is why modern scholars do not think that the names on the Gospels reflect authorship at all. They were all written by people well educated in Koine Greek. That does not appear to describe any of the earliest of followers of Jesus.”
@Brian2 said : “I think that is pretty good textual testimony really even if the synoptics were written in the 50s. I don't think that is why modern scholars don't think the names on the Gospels reflect authorship. It is because the dates for their writing have been pushed to after 70AD. That is the reason.”
I reviewed only the parts of your discussion that had to do with authorship and simply wanted to make a specific point that all Old and New Testament book are pseudoepigraphs since no one knows and no one can prove who wrote any of them.
This does not mean the original source text was not written by the person they are attributed to by tradition, merely that one cannot know the author of the original source text.
As an aside, one can determine with somewhat greater accuracy regarding what early Christians believed about the writings and how they interpreted the various texts as the amount of early Christian literature increases as the Jesus movement spreads.
In any case, good luck to both of you in coming to your own historical models regarding these early texts.
Clear
p.s. Brian2, I also agree with you that historians make a LOT of "assumptions", but they give them clever names that sound more credible (like "historical models", theories, etc). They then give their reasons for believing the models they make. In this context, almost all of the historical models are tentative and subject to improvement and correction.
ειτζσετωω
@Brian2 said : “I think that is pretty good textual testimony really even if the synoptics were written in the 50s. I don't think that is why modern scholars don't think the names on the Gospels reflect authorship. It is because the dates for their writing have been pushed to after 70AD. That is the reason.”
I reviewed only the parts of your discussion that had to do with authorship and simply wanted to make a specific point that all Old and New Testament book are pseudoepigraphs since no one knows and no one can prove who wrote any of them.
This does not mean the original source text was not written by the person they are attributed to by tradition, merely that one cannot know the author of the original source text.
As an aside, one can determine with somewhat greater accuracy regarding what early Christians believed about the writings and how they interpreted the various texts as the amount of early Christian literature increases as the Jesus movement spreads.
In any case, good luck to both of you in coming to your own historical models regarding these early texts.
Clear
p.s. Brian2, I also agree with you that historians make a LOT of "assumptions", but they give them clever names that sound more credible (like "historical models", theories, etc). They then give their reasons for believing the models they make. In this context, almost all of the historical models are tentative and subject to improvement and correction.
ειτζσετωω
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You should try to look into why modern scholars put the dates that they do on the various gospels. Luke is the only one that may have been written by the person traditionally said to have written it. But of course Luke was not an eyewitness and he does not even claim to have talked to any. Many Christian misinterpret the introduction to Luke. He only claims that eyewitnesses were the ultimate source. There was quite a bit of time between the events described and the time that they were written down. Thirty years minimum of oral tradition is long enough to concoct all sorts of myths about a person.
@Subduction Zone said : “You should try to look into why modern scholars put the dates that they do on the various gospels. Luke is the only one that may have been written by the person traditionally said to have written it. But of course Luke was not an eyewitness and he does not even claim to have talked to any. Many Christian misinterpret the introduction to Luke. He only claims that eyewitnesses were the ultimate source. There was quite a bit of time between the events described and the time that they were written down. Thirty years minimum of oral tradition is long enough to concoct all sorts of myths about a person.
Hi Subduction Zone.
My interest does not lie in answering the difficult to determine time frame origins or to answer who wrote the earliest Christian textual traditions (I don’t think anyone can prove either origin date or author), but instead, my interest is what the earliest Christians themselves believed and how they interpreted the earliest texts as they received them.
At any rate, good luck in your discussions regarding origins and authors.
Clear
ειτζνεειω
Hi Subduction Zone.
My interest does not lie in answering the difficult to determine time frame origins or to answer who wrote the earliest Christian textual traditions (I don’t think anyone can prove either origin date or author), but instead, my interest is what the earliest Christians themselves believed and how they interpreted the earliest texts as they received them.
At any rate, good luck in your discussions regarding origins and authors.
Clear
ειτζνεειω
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Knowing the early history o f the Bible should help you in what people believed.
Subduction zone said : "Knowing the early history o f the Bible should help you in what people believed."
Hi @Subduction Zone
I agree in small degree with you on this specific point.
I simply disagree that one can know who the author of a specific text was and one cannot know specifically when and under what specific circumstances it was produced.
The data is lacking to be very specific in such things.
If I could somehow know that John wrote biblical John, it still would not tell me what the early Christians themselves believed John meant in much of his writings.
However, knowing what early christians themselves wrote and said they themselves believed and how they themselves interpreted the bible is the information I am interested in rather than debating unknowns about who wrote the biblical text or debates about determining most accurately when it was written.
Even if I could know who wrote it and when it was written, that would not tell me how the early Christians themselves interpreted the biblical text and what they themselves believed.
Clear
ειειτζφυω
Hi @Subduction Zone
I agree in small degree with you on this specific point.
I simply disagree that one can know who the author of a specific text was and one cannot know specifically when and under what specific circumstances it was produced.
The data is lacking to be very specific in such things.
If I could somehow know that John wrote biblical John, it still would not tell me what the early Christians themselves believed John meant in much of his writings.
However, knowing what early christians themselves wrote and said they themselves believed and how they themselves interpreted the bible is the information I am interested in rather than debating unknowns about who wrote the biblical text or debates about determining most accurately when it was written.
Even if I could know who wrote it and when it was written, that would not tell me how the early Christians themselves interpreted the biblical text and what they themselves believed.
Clear
ειειτζφυω
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
One should be able to come to at least a reasonable conclusion as to who some of the authors were. Especially when one finds out how the books got their names.
Hi @Subduction Zone
Subduction zone : "One should be able to come to at least a reasonable conclusion as to who some of the authors were. Especially when one finds out how the books got their names."
Good luck with that.
I do not think one can conclusively prove who wrote any of the earliest literature in the Old or new Testament.
See you S.Z.
Clear
Subduction zone : "One should be able to come to at least a reasonable conclusion as to who some of the authors were. Especially when one finds out how the books got their names."
Good luck with that.
I do not think one can conclusively prove who wrote any of the earliest literature in the Old or new Testament.
See you S.Z.
Clear
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Why do you insist on using a strawman? That is about as close as one can get to breaking the Ninth Commandment without openly breaking it.
Hi @Subduction Zone
The meaning of straw man is a weak or imaginary opposition (such as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted.
Why are you claiming that an opinion that no one can prove a specific historical point without sufficient specific and verifiable historical data a "strawman"?
Clear
The meaning of straw man is a weak or imaginary opposition (such as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted.
Why are you claiming that an opinion that no one can prove a specific historical point without sufficient specific and verifiable historical data a "strawman"?
Clear
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Using a strawman argument is also attempting to change the argument of another. That is what you did.
Hi @Subduction Zone
Subduction Zone said : "Using a strawman argument is also attempting to change the argument of another. That is what you did."
If this statement of yours is true, then claiming a strawman argument is being used when it is not being used is also a strawman argument.
Perhaps you can clarify what your argument IS.
I thought you seem to feel it is important to prove specifically who wrote the early sacred texts.
I do not think it is important to prove specifically who wrote the early texts nor do I have interest in proving the author. (Nor do I think one is able to do this)
How does my disagreement and apathy regarding your point "change the argument of another"?
If you keep your opinion and want to debate with someone about it who cares about that area of historical discovery, that is perfectly fine with me.
I simply don't think you are going to be able to prove specifically who wrote any of the earliest Judeo-Christian biblical texts nor does my interest lie in that historical area of discovery.
Clear
ειεισεειω
Subduction Zone said : "Using a strawman argument is also attempting to change the argument of another. That is what you did."
If this statement of yours is true, then claiming a strawman argument is being used when it is not being used is also a strawman argument.
Perhaps you can clarify what your argument IS.
I thought you seem to feel it is important to prove specifically who wrote the early sacred texts.
I do not think it is important to prove specifically who wrote the early texts nor do I have interest in proving the author. (Nor do I think one is able to do this)
How does my disagreement and apathy regarding your point "change the argument of another"?
If you keep your opinion and want to debate with someone about it who cares about that area of historical discovery, that is perfectly fine with me.
I simply don't think you are going to be able to prove specifically who wrote any of the earliest Judeo-Christian biblical texts nor does my interest lie in that historical area of discovery.
Clear
ειεισεειω
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, if I claimed that a strawman was used when one was not the too would be an example of a strawman. Like many you make the mistake of misusing the word "prove". That is not what is done in arguments since a literal "proof" is all but impossible. What one does is to find evidence and then eventually decide if the evidence is sufficient for belief. Those that are afraid that they are wrong or often only want to believe cannot deal with evidence so they make your error.
Once again the error that you used was misusing the word "prove" by truing to rely on more of the mathematical definition of "prove". than the one that would be more appropriate the legal definition of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt'.
Hi @Subduction Zone
Subduction Zone said : "Like many you make the mistake of misusing the word "prove". That is not what is done in arguments since a literal "proof" is all but impossible
Ah, I see.
If you do not like the word "prove", I am certainly amenable to using a different word such as "demonstrate" or "determine" or "accurately speculate", etc.
In this case my point is :
I thought you seem to feel it is important to demonstrate or determine or accurately speculate specifically who wrote the early sacred texts.
I do not think it is important to demonstrate or determine or accurately speculate specifically who wrote the early texts nor do I have interest in demonstrate or determine or accurately speculate who the author was. (Nor do I think one is able to do this).
I honestly do not mind using different words to try to indicate my opinion that any effort to "demonstrate or determine or accurately speculate" who a specific author of certain ancient texts is futile without sufficient historical evidence..
If I use use different words than "prove", is that helpful?
Clear
Subduction Zone said : "Like many you make the mistake of misusing the word "prove". That is not what is done in arguments since a literal "proof" is all but impossible
Ah, I see.
If you do not like the word "prove", I am certainly amenable to using a different word such as "demonstrate" or "determine" or "accurately speculate", etc.
In this case my point is :
I thought you seem to feel it is important to demonstrate or determine or accurately speculate specifically who wrote the early sacred texts.
I do not think it is important to demonstrate or determine or accurately speculate specifically who wrote the early texts nor do I have interest in demonstrate or determine or accurately speculate who the author was. (Nor do I think one is able to do this).
I honestly do not mind using different words to try to indicate my opinion that any effort to "demonstrate or determine or accurately speculate" who a specific author of certain ancient texts is futile without sufficient historical evidence..
If I use use different words than "prove", is that helpful?
Clear
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
"Evidence" is the best word to use. I think that you do not like that word because scholars have to base their conclusions on clear evidence and you do not appear to like the conclusion. By the way "speculate" is a word that you should avoid. When one claims that another is speculating that is an accusation and must itself be supported by evidence.
Subduction zone said : "Evidence" is the best word to use. I think that you do not like that word because scholars have to base their conclusions on clear evidence and you do not appear to like the conclusion.
If you like the word "evidence" then use it.
In this context I can certainly use the word "evidence" as follows :
"I do not think you will find appreciable "evidence" that will tell you with significant accuracy who specifically wrote any of the Old or New Testament books."
Subduction Zone said : "By the way "speculate" is a word that you should avoid. When one claims that another is speculating that is an accusation and must itself be supported by evidence."
Now this seems silly (and a bit petty).
To speculate is to "form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence".
When you form an opinion with little firm "evidence" this is speculation and it is not a moral accusation.
I speculate on money markets.
When I speculate, I am investing in stocks, property, or other ventures in the hope of gain but with the risk of loss.
It is a guess and it has nothing to do with an "accusation" in that context.
Historians speculate and make tentative models based on what they feel is evidence.
If you personally don't like the word "speculate", you do not need to use it and let others use it properly as they desire.
Clear
If you like the word "evidence" then use it.
In this context I can certainly use the word "evidence" as follows :
"I do not think you will find appreciable "evidence" that will tell you with significant accuracy who specifically wrote any of the Old or New Testament books."
Subduction Zone said : "By the way "speculate" is a word that you should avoid. When one claims that another is speculating that is an accusation and must itself be supported by evidence."
Now this seems silly (and a bit petty).
To speculate is to "form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence".
When you form an opinion with little firm "evidence" this is speculation and it is not a moral accusation.
I speculate on money markets.
When I speculate, I am investing in stocks, property, or other ventures in the hope of gain but with the risk of loss.
It is a guess and it has nothing to do with an "accusation" in that context.
Historians speculate and make tentative models based on what they feel is evidence.
If you personally don't like the word "speculate", you do not need to use it and let others use it properly as they desire.
Clear
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And then that raises the question: What are your qualifications? What do you base that claim upon? It appears that you are rejecting the evidence that exists without valid reasons. Denial does not work in debate. If one only has denial it is rather clear who is in the wrong to observers.
And no, it is far from petty to point out that using the word "speculation" is a personal attack by those that use it. Speculation is allowed in the sciences and history as part of the process. But if one cannot go past speculation then one does not publish. You are taking on a burden of proof when you say that and it is best to avoid that term. That you want to use a slur and not support it also is not a good indicator when a person does so.
1) REGARDING THE USE OF THE WORD SPECULATE
Clear said : "To speculate is to "form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence".
When you form an opinion with little firm "evidence" this is speculation and it is not a moral accusation
Subduction Zone replied : "And then that raises the question: What are your qualifications?
What do you base that claim upon? "
My qualification is that I am an educated english speaker who can look up the meaning of "speculate" in a dictionary.
2) THE CLAIM THAT ONE IS REJECTING EVIDENCE BY USING THE WORD "SPECULATE"
Subduction Zone said : "It appears that you are rejecting the evidence that exists without valid reasons. Denial does not work in debate. If one only has denial it is rather clear who is in the wrong to observers."
Actually, you appear to be the one denying the evidence.
I gave you two dictionary meanings for "speculate".
This is evidence regarding the actual meaning of the word.
Why are you denying the evidence of the usage of the word in this context?
Do you have a dictionary meaning that supports your claim in this context?
3) THE CLAIM THAT THE WORD "SPECULATE" IS A "PERSONAL ATTACK"
Subduction Zone said : "And no, it is far from petty to point out that using the word "speculation" is a personal attack by those that use it."
Of course it is both silly and petty (and a bizarre conclusion) to say that the term "speculate" or "speculation" is an attack on that person.
If a weatherman speculates about the weather, this is no personal attack.
Why would a speculation about what car will win a race be a personal attack?
When the historian DeVaux examined the Qumran ruins, he speculated that one of the rooms was a "scriptorium". Why would the use of the word "speculated" be a personal attack on DeVaux?
4) THE THEORY THAT ONE SHOULD NOT USE THE TERM "SPECULATE" AND WE SHOULD "AVOID THAT TERM"
Subduction Zone claimed : "You are taking on a burden of proof when you say that and it is best to avoid that term. That you want to use a slur and not support it also is not a good indicator when a person does so."
a dictionary definition of a speculator is :
1) a person who invests in stocks, property, or other ventures in the hope of making a profit.
2) a person who forms a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence.
I both speculate in ventures and speculate that you cannot tell us with any specificity who wrote the book of Genesis. I am neither offering a personal attach on myself or you. I am simply stating an opinion.
Subduction Zone, If you don't have anything important or noteworthy to discuss and want to simply argue about whether the word "speculate" is a personal "attack", I think our time can be better spent on much more important themes and considerations and I don't understand why you want to spend time debating whether the definition and use of the word "speculation' is a "personal attack".
Is there some reason you think the word is worthy of public debate?
Clear
Clear said : "To speculate is to "form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence".
When you form an opinion with little firm "evidence" this is speculation and it is not a moral accusation
Subduction Zone replied : "And then that raises the question: What are your qualifications?
What do you base that claim upon? "
My qualification is that I am an educated english speaker who can look up the meaning of "speculate" in a dictionary.
2) THE CLAIM THAT ONE IS REJECTING EVIDENCE BY USING THE WORD "SPECULATE"
Subduction Zone said : "It appears that you are rejecting the evidence that exists without valid reasons. Denial does not work in debate. If one only has denial it is rather clear who is in the wrong to observers."
Actually, you appear to be the one denying the evidence.
I gave you two dictionary meanings for "speculate".
This is evidence regarding the actual meaning of the word.
Why are you denying the evidence of the usage of the word in this context?
Do you have a dictionary meaning that supports your claim in this context?
3) THE CLAIM THAT THE WORD "SPECULATE" IS A "PERSONAL ATTACK"
Subduction Zone said : "And no, it is far from petty to point out that using the word "speculation" is a personal attack by those that use it."
Of course it is both silly and petty (and a bizarre conclusion) to say that the term "speculate" or "speculation" is an attack on that person.
If a weatherman speculates about the weather, this is no personal attack.
Why would a speculation about what car will win a race be a personal attack?
When the historian DeVaux examined the Qumran ruins, he speculated that one of the rooms was a "scriptorium". Why would the use of the word "speculated" be a personal attack on DeVaux?
4) THE THEORY THAT ONE SHOULD NOT USE THE TERM "SPECULATE" AND WE SHOULD "AVOID THAT TERM"
Subduction Zone claimed : "You are taking on a burden of proof when you say that and it is best to avoid that term. That you want to use a slur and not support it also is not a good indicator when a person does so."
a dictionary definition of a speculator is :
1) a person who invests in stocks, property, or other ventures in the hope of making a profit.
2) a person who forms a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence.
I both speculate in ventures and speculate that you cannot tell us with any specificity who wrote the book of Genesis. I am neither offering a personal attach on myself or you. I am simply stating an opinion.
Subduction Zone, If you don't have anything important or noteworthy to discuss and want to simply argue about whether the word "speculate" is a personal "attack", I think our time can be better spent on much more important themes and considerations and I don't understand why you want to spend time debating whether the definition and use of the word "speculation' is a "personal attack".
Is there some reason you think the word is worthy of public debate?
Clear
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Sorry, but you keep using terms improperly. This is a equivocation fallacy on your part. Your source fails because no one ever in the sciences speculated to "form a theory". A theory is if anything above a law in the sciences. Once again, speculation can be a tool but it is only used very early on. Once one has tested an idea it is no longer a speculation. Do you understand this?
No, it appears that you abused the dictionary. I did not see any links. You cannot honestly claim to have provided definitions without links to your sources. You appear to have cherry picked. A person that supplies evidence correctly provides links to proper sources.
Sorry, but it is. It is only used to denigrate a work so that one does not have to refute it. But then go ahead. Show that I am wrong. Refute the work without using improper language.
You should not use words that you do not understand. In the context that we are using the term "theory" does not apply. And please, if you want to claim that you supported a claim then do so properly. If you want me to support a claim that I make I can do so,. Right now I have been merely stating facts that you should know, but if you want support for any of my claims simply ask.
1) REGARDING THE USE OF THE WORD SPECULATE
Clear said : "To speculate is to "form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence".
When you form an opinion with little firm "evidence" this is speculation and it is not a moral accusation
Subduction Zone replied : "And then that raises the question: What are your qualifications?
What do you base that claim upon? "
Clear replied : “My qualification is that I am an educated english speaker who can look up the meaning of "speculate" in a dictionary.”
Subduction Zone replied : “Sorry, but you keep using terms improperly”
Can you provide evidence as to why the english dictionary gives false meaning and useage of the word “speculate” and your meaning is to be preferred?
2) REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT ONE IS REJECTING EVIDENCE BY USING THE WORD "SPECULATE"
Subduction Zone said : "It appears that you are rejecting the evidence that exists without valid reasons. Denial does not work in debate. If one only has denial it is rather clear who is in the wrong to observers."
Clear replied : Actually, you appear to be the one denying the evidence.
I gave you two dictionary meanings for "speculate".
This is evidence regarding the actual meaning of the word.
Why are you denying the evidence of the usage of the word in this context?
Do you have a dictionary meaning that supports your claim in this context?
Subduction replied : “No, it appears that you abused the dictionary. I did not see any links.”
Definition of speculate | Dictionary.com
None of the definitions support your claim that to speculate is a “personal attack”.
Do you have a dictionary meaning that supports your claim in this context?
3) REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT THE WORD "SPECULATE" IS A "PERSONAL ATTACK"
Subduction Zone said : "And no, it is far from petty to point out that using the word "speculation" is a personal attack by those that use it."
Clear replied : “Of course it is both silly and petty (and a bizarre conclusion) to say that the term "speculate" or "speculation" is an attack on that person.
If a weatherman speculates about the weather, this is no personal attack.
Why would a speculation about what car will win a race be a personal attack?
When the historian DeVaux examined the Qumran ruins, he speculated that one of the rooms was a "scriptorium". Why would the use of the word "speculated" be a personal attack on DeVaux?
Subduction Zone said : “Sorry, but it is. It is only used to denigrate a work…”
You did not answer a single question I asked.
Perhaps on another planet having another dictionary but on the planet most people here live on it has a dictionary meaning that is not a term that is “a personal attack” or “a term used to denigrate a work…”
As per your complaint, I do not see you offering readers a dictionary definition or your link to support your claim.
4) REGARDING THE THEORY THAT ONE SHOULD NOT USE THE TERM "SPECULATE" AND WE SHOULD "AVOID THAT TERM"
Subduction Zone claimed : "You are taking on a burden of proof when you say that and it is best to avoid that term. That you want to use a slur and not support it also is not a good indicator when a person does so."
Clear replied : "a dictionary definition of a speculator is :
1) a person who invests in stocks, property, or other ventures in the hope of making a profit.
2) a person who forms a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence.
I both speculate in ventures and speculate that you cannot tell us with any specificity who wrote the book of Genesis. I am neither offering a personal attack on myself or you. I am simply stating an opinion.
Subduction Zone : “Right now I have been merely stating facts that you should know, but if you want support for any of my claims simply ask.”
I would ask for support, but I think your claim that the word “speculate” means “a personal attack” was never going to be a claim you were going to support by any dictionary or any other objective data and it still feels quote silly and petty and unworthy of spending time on.
You don’t have support for your claim and I don’t have the interest in why you want to argue about why you think the word “speculation” is a personal attack.
Do you want me to mail you a fence post?
Clear
ειτωτζακω
Clear said : "To speculate is to "form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence".
When you form an opinion with little firm "evidence" this is speculation and it is not a moral accusation
Subduction Zone replied : "And then that raises the question: What are your qualifications?
What do you base that claim upon? "
Clear replied : “My qualification is that I am an educated english speaker who can look up the meaning of "speculate" in a dictionary.”
Subduction Zone replied : “Sorry, but you keep using terms improperly”
Can you provide evidence as to why the english dictionary gives false meaning and useage of the word “speculate” and your meaning is to be preferred?
2) REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT ONE IS REJECTING EVIDENCE BY USING THE WORD "SPECULATE"
Subduction Zone said : "It appears that you are rejecting the evidence that exists without valid reasons. Denial does not work in debate. If one only has denial it is rather clear who is in the wrong to observers."
Clear replied : Actually, you appear to be the one denying the evidence.
I gave you two dictionary meanings for "speculate".
This is evidence regarding the actual meaning of the word.
Why are you denying the evidence of the usage of the word in this context?
Do you have a dictionary meaning that supports your claim in this context?
Subduction replied : “No, it appears that you abused the dictionary. I did not see any links.”
Definition of speculate | Dictionary.com
None of the definitions support your claim that to speculate is a “personal attack”.
Do you have a dictionary meaning that supports your claim in this context?
3) REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT THE WORD "SPECULATE" IS A "PERSONAL ATTACK"
Subduction Zone said : "And no, it is far from petty to point out that using the word "speculation" is a personal attack by those that use it."
Clear replied : “Of course it is both silly and petty (and a bizarre conclusion) to say that the term "speculate" or "speculation" is an attack on that person.
If a weatherman speculates about the weather, this is no personal attack.
Why would a speculation about what car will win a race be a personal attack?
When the historian DeVaux examined the Qumran ruins, he speculated that one of the rooms was a "scriptorium". Why would the use of the word "speculated" be a personal attack on DeVaux?
Subduction Zone said : “Sorry, but it is. It is only used to denigrate a work…”
You did not answer a single question I asked.
Perhaps on another planet having another dictionary but on the planet most people here live on it has a dictionary meaning that is not a term that is “a personal attack” or “a term used to denigrate a work…”
As per your complaint, I do not see you offering readers a dictionary definition or your link to support your claim.
4) REGARDING THE THEORY THAT ONE SHOULD NOT USE THE TERM "SPECULATE" AND WE SHOULD "AVOID THAT TERM"
Subduction Zone claimed : "You are taking on a burden of proof when you say that and it is best to avoid that term. That you want to use a slur and not support it also is not a good indicator when a person does so."
Clear replied : "a dictionary definition of a speculator is :
1) a person who invests in stocks, property, or other ventures in the hope of making a profit.
2) a person who forms a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence.
I both speculate in ventures and speculate that you cannot tell us with any specificity who wrote the book of Genesis. I am neither offering a personal attack on myself or you. I am simply stating an opinion.
Subduction Zone : “Right now I have been merely stating facts that you should know, but if you want support for any of my claims simply ask.”
I would ask for support, but I think your claim that the word “speculate” means “a personal attack” was never going to be a claim you were going to support by any dictionary or any other objective data and it still feels quote silly and petty and unworthy of spending time on.
You don’t have support for your claim and I don’t have the interest in why you want to argue about why you think the word “speculation” is a personal attack.
Do you want me to mail you a fence post?
Clear
ειτωτζακω