Smoky, I am not angellous. That is part one.
Part 2: Your blase attitude regarding the CONCEPT of plagiarism is what I was criticizing, not any particular point you were making.
I understand that.
Part 3: While I wasn't participating in that conversation, I remember that you were particularly insistent that angellous was not using a concordance, as you attempted to say per Poisonshady's disgust at those who would ignore the translations of Hebrew by those who USE Hebrew and prefer to use a concordance that doesn't take common usage or context into account.
And after hounding him for several pages, you cited something or other, and angellous asked YOU where you got your translation of your Greek. You claimed your translation as your own, and then angellous called you on it: it was not your own translation, but the interlinear translation.
Looks like you've decided who's right and who's wrong on the issue.
Do you mean interlinear instead of concordance, because a concordance does not give translations?
And are you sure you're correct on this?. . .because I'm not remembering any point regarding angellous and concordances.
Also, let me say that, while very close to accurate, your
understanding of it needs some clarification on two quite small matters (
"text" and "qualifiers")
which are very significant here, and constitute the heart of this matter.
The problem is that clarification of "he said, she said" takes a lot of ink. One of the reasons this remains an issue is because it takes time and attention to reckon
with clarifications, and so they are skimmed over, at best, but more likely they are just skipped over.
However, I will present once more the actual facts of the matter,
trusting you will take the time and attention to reckon with them.
To begin with, that's not quite how it went down.
First, the
issue was the correct translation of the Greek
parthenos to mean "virgin" or
"maiden."
He maintained that it always meant "maiden". . .
unless it was accompanied by a specific kind of qualifier.
I provided verses from my Bible where it was translated "virgin" and pointed out that "it was
not accompanied by such qualifiers."
He asked how I knew that. I said I could read the
text (
meaning there were no qualifiers in the text of my Bible, and yet parthenos was still translated "virgin").
(I had no idea "
text" was a code word for "
text of the original language.")
He then presented a text in Greek and asked me to translate it.
I didn't know why he asked (and I didn't bother to ask him, because I suspected I would just get one of his useless cryptic responses), but nevertheless,
I translated it from an interlinear. . .I thought maybe he wanted to show some obscure meaning of one of the words in the sentence,
so I provided a
word-
for-
word translation of the sentence (which in English is grammatically incorrect) as the basis to work from.
And he went ballistic. . .said it was more than obvious that it was not my translation (duh!). . .accused me of plagiarism. . .said I claimed it was my own personal translation of the Greek (false--show where I actually said that). . .and the rest is history. . .of the infamous kind.
It took me a while to understand what was really going on there, why he went so ballistic, and why he had so much vested in his false charge of plagiarism.
That understanding is explained here:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2277247-post678.html
No one would have faulted you for using a translation, Smoky. I use a translation somewhat regularly. However, I would not have the audacity to claim that a translation I used was my own, unless it truly was. You claimed the interlinear translation as your OWN translation. That was the first claim that you had plagiarized.
I did no such thing, I made no such claim. . .he asked for a translation of the Greek and I provided one. How was I to know he wanted me to personally translate it myself?
I didn't know "
text" was a
code word, which to him evidently means "
text of the
original language," while to me it means "
text of
my Bible," which is English, not Greek.
When I said, "I can read the
text," I was referring to the "
text of my Bible,"
which had no qualifiers in the sentence, and yet still translated
parthenos as "virgin". . .
I was not referring to the "
text of the original language."
Not realizing he wanted me to personally interpret the Greek
text he quoted, I gave him the interpretation from an interlinear. . .I don't know Greek!
Not because you USED a translation, but because you claimed the translation to be your own work when it clearly was not. I was not a part of your argument about your individual usage of plagiarism.
I understand that, and am not too sure why you are getting into it now.
I merely took objection to your blithe mention of how "lovers of the Bible" don't object to plagiarism, when in the name of sharing knowledge.
I realize that. . .and the issue
there was not in reference to using the
interlinear, it was in reference to the list of
titles from my Sunday school teacher.
You'll note
these two issues of supposed "plagiarism" are not the plagiarism with full knowledge and consent which they are still misrepresented to be:
the first was a
false claim of what did not occur. . .and the second was an
honest mistake, it never occurring to me it was plagiarism.
A mountain has been made out of a mole hill here.
BTW: I don't know for sure that my Sunday school teacher got that info from Roberts, until he tells me so.
He may have gotten it somewhere else where it was common knowledge. I'm not comfortable with assuming that he got it from Roberts when he hasn't told me so.
I like to ascertain things for myself. . .otherwise, that's how things get misrepresented and facts get screwed up. . .I may have acted hastily and have to revisit this.
For some reason, you wish to include me in your argument with angellous (which he excluded himself from), fallingblood, esmith, and whoever else is calling you on whatever plagiarism they are pinning on you.
Are you referring to me asking you to show him in my post (link below) where the references were located? That was all I was requesting from you.
I was not requesting that you get involved in the argument itself. I guess I wasn't clear enough to you at the time.
I don't care about that. Your argument about that is with them. I was arguing with you on the principle of the matter: Bible-lovers do indeed object to plagiarism.
I know all this. . .I didn't mean for you to get involved in the argument itself. . .but just to point out the physical location of the references he said were not there in
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2290408-post950.html
I hope this finally puts this nonsense to bed.