|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Nov 19, 2020 16:14:07 GMT -5
Sorry bub The province called Cilicia and Syria is a NE MED nook. Samaria province was south of it Judea province south of Samaria Idumea province south of Judea The Gaza Strip was west of Judea and Idumea Keep on trusting in yr one only source Keener. It'll take much more than you an him to make me incredible or unworthy of trust. As for your researched substandard source you need ones like May's Oxford Bible Atlas of the correct era, Herodian/Greek Holy Scriptural. Don't hate cos I got um de sources like the above maps, the likewise shared earliest Acts 8:26 fragment, one set of Acts 8:26 full passage critical texts Koine and English in Fontes Historiae Nuborium a source work shared to refute Meroe or Kush castratos, and the 2 Xian Fathers works withheld due to win or lose debatesmanship challenging inimacle to fruitful discussion of facts critical of wil-o-d-wisp suppositions EDIT map of greater Judea with an arrow clearly pointing to the previous page that says To province of Syria.
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Nov 19, 2020 17:14:11 GMT -5
Originally Posted by Tukuler al~Takruri:
Like I said I'm tired of doing the hard research while wild guesses fly against what the earliest commentators on the passage said about the characters ethnicity.
All you have produced is a snapshot of a textual fragment of unknown provenance, and you cant even explain how it supports your dubious claims. You follow that up with a cartoon/comic strip, and a contradictory web link. Your excuse of being tired is a dodge to wriggle away from real research.
Why would a 2nd/3rd century Christian Father deny any of the Holy Greek Scriptures foundation of the Christian Church and Civilization is ahistoric.
Here again you are trying to duck and dodge. You said that the "earliest cmmenbtators" supported you claims. When asked to name them and yur sources you go into diversionary mode.
You then say: Look up the Christian Fathers, see who the ones from the century I mentioned are, and read what they say as you refer to critical translation and original language text.
No, its for YOU, he who made the sweeping claim to produce. I asked you to name these Christian fathers that denied the existence of the Kushite. You again ducked, your bluff being exposed.
[bn]We are not bound by faith in critical examination. I cannot claim Hebrew prophet Elijah historically ascended to heaven in a chariot Swing Low Sweet Chariot style in a 'secular' this and that on the text and its purpose.[/b]
Here you go again trying diversionary/goalpost shift tactics. The issue at hand is not Elijan the Hebrew being caught up or Phillip, but your claim that the Kushite is a mere fantasy, non-existent. When called on your claim you can produce no credible evidence in support, all you do is fall back on diversions.
Spare me the exegesis, I can get that in church Bible study.
I don't care yr so-called errant authority. Unlike you I can assemble the puzzle. You don't even have the pieces and kick and scream every time told go collect the clues starting with the textual passage itself beginning at Acts 8:26. Without grounding in the text you have no foundation.
There is no "exegesis" at issue. If so, why do you mention a Chief Rabbi who himself engaged in plenty of "exegesis" in his day. You are only trying to smokescreen to cover. The issue is your claim that the Kushite is a mere fantasy, non-existent. When called on your claim you can produce no credible evidence in support, all you do is fall back on diversions. You are the one tghat should be gathering the "clues" to support your own argument, but strangely, you can produce nothing credible.
And I have cited plenty of evidence, much more than you, and much more than a pic of "primary Greek text" which you bragged that you examined. As it turns out you cannot even give a credible description of the fragment's provenance, dating, etc and how it supports your claim.
And you haven't "assembled" anything- what you give is a textual fragment you can't decipher, and a cartoon- neither f which support your claim. So far you have "assembled" nothing credible, bluff and bluster to the contrary.
I said to compare the selected Fathers' commentary against current critical biblical text critics of the prime text and the Fathers' texts both.
That's for YOU to do, as the guy making the sweeping claim. You claim to be this master researcher, but you cannot even name the Fathers in question, or their commentary where they support your claim as to the Cushite's non-existence, nor can you provide the touted "critical translation" in support. When are you actually going to produce something credible rather than bluff?
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Nov 19, 2020 17:16:45 GMT -5
Exactly! He can't talk about what he doesn't know about. And instead of learning Ss*phan*yah ben-Kushi 7th century BCE meaning, like you invents one of his own never mind what the people inheriting the book culture and heritage say Daught of My Diaspora means. Preposterous, a 7th century BCE community of converts. Do you know Hebrew history from 10th to 7th century BCE? Daughter is for the matrilineal Jewish Mother link that allows for Hebrew land inheritance only in Israel/Judea. Once the age of masses of converts arose to save them from being ineligible landowners converts are invited adoptees into families of Hebrew stock. I don't care what Keener's talking about. He's on no who's who list just somebody you dragged in in lieu of doing the proper original research yourself. But go ahead and defend him while attacking me. He's wrong on Zephaniah's ~630 BCE meaning of Daughter of MY Diaspora specifying the type of diaspora. We cant just go off your opinion. He cites Zeph in relation to Ethiopia, and to the gathering of Israel even from parts as distant as Ethiopia. Where and how exactly is this “wrong”? No need to indicate the Jewish mother for a proselyte community. It is one reason Chief Sephardic Rabbi Obadia Yossef and others before him recognized Beta Israel as Jews. Converts don't have Jewish mothers. But he is not talking about “Jewish mothers” but the in-gathering of Israel from distant parts, even from beyond Ethiopia. How is this “wrong” as you claim?
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Nov 19, 2020 17:21:04 GMT -5
You fail Zar You fail miserably to provide a single thing I asked for. To mask your failure you huff and puff but cant put up and wont shut up.
You can't show where I'm wrong you keeping singing same song
Even after showing you where to look you too lazy to go peek scared AF it blows yr smoke&mirrors away.
Ain't nobody taking you unsubstantiated suppositions as fact.
I broke up your long ass rant for a reason. Do not jumble up my separate posts into a mangled out of context non-sequitor response thank you please
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Nov 19, 2020 18:09:40 GMT -5
Sorry bub The province called Cilicia and Syria is a NE MED nook. Samaria province was south of it Judea province south of Samaria Idumea province south of Judea The Gaza Strip was west of Judea and Idumea Keep on trusting in yr one only source Keener. It'll take much more than you an him to make me incredible or unworthy of trust. As for your researched substandard source you need ones like May's Oxford Bible Atlas of the correct era, Herodian/Greek Holy Scriptural. Don't hate cos I got um de sources like the above maps, the likewise shared earliest Acts 8:26 fragment, one set of Acts 8:26 full passage critical texts Koine and English in Fontes Histoiae Nuborium a source work shared to refute Meroe or Kush castratos, and the 2 Xian Fathers works withheld due to win or lose debatesmanship challenging inimacle to fruitful discussion of facts critical of wil-o-d-wisp suppositions I have quoted multiple sources- more than just Keener, as in the data on people converted to Judaism, conversions you said were "revolting." But who are you to pass such judgment on the thousands of people converted to Judaism in those past centuries? As your map hasn't done much- it actually shows the close relation between the regions and in fact, Roman "Syria," incorporated certain parts of "Judea" at various times. When Keener uses the term "Syria" he is referring to this general region. The various labels sometimes used- Palestina, Syria, Syria/Palestina - all point to same general location. Or as another academic source says: "In 6 CE Augustus responded to the complaints of Archelaus's subjects against he ethnarch and deposed him. The ethnarchy became the new province of Judaea, comprising the districts of Judaea, Idumaea, and Samaria, and subordinated to Syria."Palestine, Clayton Miles Lehmann. Univ of South Dakota. web.archive.org/web/20090810234952/http://www.usd.edu/~clehmann/erp/Palestine/palestin.htmor "It seems that on Herod's death this link was dissolved, as the city of Gaza was detached from the ethnarchy of Archelaus and attached directly to the province of Syria, remaining so after the inauguration of the new province of Judaea." --The Jewish People in the First Century, Volume 1: Historical Geography By Shmuel Safrai, Stern p340 If the Cushite was traveling from Jerusalem through Gaza and onward, he was indeed in Roman "Syria" or "Syria/Palestina"- makes no diff. Its a real location, not a fantasy one. The map you post does not change the basic fact. Mine was in keeping with those facts. and the 2 Xian Fathers works withheld due to win or lose debatesmanship challenging inimacle to fruitful discussion of facts Man come off it. Why would you "withhold" the names of these Christian Fathers? You implied they or the "2 commentators" refuted the Cushite's existence. I asked you to name them, and the applicable sources where they support that claims. But you still can't- no doubt because they don'ts support your claim. If they did, it should be an easy matter to name them and the supporting translated works. Now you say you are "withholding" the names? Really dude?
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Nov 19, 2020 18:14:34 GMT -5
You fail Zar You fail miserably to provide a single thing I asked for. To mask your failure you huff and puff but cant put up and wont shut up. You can't show where I'm wrong you keeping singing same song Even after showing you where to look you too lazy to go peek scared AF it blows yr smoke&mirrors away. Ain't nobody taking you unsubstantiated suppositions as fact. I broke up your long ass rant for a reason. Do not jumble up my separate posts into a mangled out of context non-sequitor response thank you please Nope, its you who have failed and rather than say, well let's call for more research or provide credible support for your claims, you went the bluff and bluster route, even saying that you are "withholding" the names of the people you are referencing. Really? But hey, lets backtrack here and cool things down, and recap- and agree to disagree. --The OP article says that the rider was not an Ethiopian/Cushite but a Judean"(to wit, non-African) --You say the Ethiopian never existed. I believe I have shown in detail, with credible supporting references, that both these positions are false. You say nay. OK, well let's call it a day and agree to disagree then.
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Nov 19, 2020 18:25:37 GMT -5
Now to continue before I was so rudely interrupted You have yet to produce a single critical biblical scholar supporting the historical existence of the religious fiction character. You even deny anything 'critical' exists and didn't know the difference between exegesis and critical commentary. Still in denial you snipe at me and expect me to give away my research to you when you bring me nothing after I show you where I went and found out before concluding one way or the other? Who the .... are you? I'm not yr Blk American casting my vote to yte DEMs for absolutely nothing in return. We're not talking belief here. Belief requires faith Here we require fact. In my analysis the Aithiopian eunuch of Acts 8:26 represents Christian conversion applies to use a once common saying "all the way to Timbuktu". An exotic Jew from the ends of the earth, high official of a little known land, shows acceptance and spread among extra-Judaea Jewish peoples before goyim converted. Shomroniym conversion immediately preceding the Kushi nobleman no less Jewish than Hebrew prophet Zephaniah ben-Kushi and his message from his deity that Daughter of Diaspora Israel prayers are accepted and they will be Ingathered alongside of the Scattered House of Israel. With Jews all the way to world's end in agreement with Evangelist Philip's take on Christianity as in the Books of Luke and Acts. Roman Cornelius is the first bona fide non-Jewish believer converted to Xianity in Luke-Acts. Worst of all that writer puts words in "Luke's" mouth who scripted nothing about Philip meeting a goy. A Hebrew scripture reading goy heading homeward after aliyah to Jerusalem? YOU find it impossible to believe, but numerous credible scholars, much more knowledgeable, find the narrative credible. So far you have not produced anything that is of any substance to refute that. In fact, you keep dodging and ducking when asked to provide credible research in support of your claims, even though you talk about reading the Greek and critical translations.
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Nov 19, 2020 18:36:43 GMT -5
To conclude and invite anyone willing to put in the research to reply one point at a time to maintain clarity and to avoid confusion. Willing to entertain even questions already presented as challenges to any and all who want more info, or can expand or help precision me. Have had enough demolishing opponent of this sorry arsed no-debate. Look at you with the yte apologetics. No Egyptians are defined by seeing "unrest and turmoil in the area". What kinda preposperous bullshih. The Roman saw someone who looked like an Egyptian could look. Yr passage is one of many yte ppl don't like cos it shows Judaeans easily fit in the southern ppls category. Ytes hate that and anything showing indigenous south Levantines anyhow related to blk ppls, ala, Lachish must be foreign they must not be indigenous. Throw the fact of dark skinned Egyptians under the bus. The lengths losers go through to salvage a sunk debate. "If it suits my purpose byebye avg Egy skin colour. F everthang on ESR about AE just as long as I win."Don't wonder why I'm through with you and as an adult won't cave in to schoolyard taunting a ploy of one the_Lioness netcher of ES. Your child psychological ploy another Big-L 4 u. Why don't you go make out Ashkenazim to be the easily historic provable converts they are. Why wage their war that Africa's Jews are converts not of Hebrew descent.I am not “waging their war”. That is a strawman. What is at issue is your sweeping claims for which you can provide little credible evidence. And you say you cited the Church Fathers but which one holds that the Ethiopian did not exist? Name them. A Roman thought Paul an Egyptian. Guess that was due to unquestionable palloured European Jewish lineage. Not really. The Roman admin in Acts 21 thought Paul was an Egyptian because of previous unrest and turmoil in the area associated with an Egyptian and the assassins group. When unrest and turmoil returned as the Jews objected to Paulthe convert, the Roman apparently thought the Egyptian and the unrest had returned. Had nothing to do with any skin coloration.
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Nov 19, 2020 18:50:08 GMT -5
Now to continue before I was so rudely interrupted You have yet to produce a single critical biblical scholar supporting the historical existence of the religious fiction character. You even deny anything 'critical' exists and didn't know the difference between exegesis and critical commentary. Still in denial you snipe at me and expect me to give away my research to you when you bring me nothing after I show you where I went and found out before concluding one way or the other? Who the .... are you? I'm not yr Blk American casting my vote to yte DEMs for absolutely nothing in return. We're not talking belief here. Belief requires faith Here we require fact. In my analysis the Aithiopian eunuch of Acts 8:26 represents Christian conversion applies to use a once common saying "all the way to Timbuktu". An exotic Jew from the ends of the earth, high official of a little known land, shows acceptance and spread among extra-Judaea Jewish peoples before goyim converted. Shomroniym conversion immediately preceding the Kushi nobleman no less Jewish than Hebrew prophet Zephaniah ben-Kushi and his message from his deity that Daughter of Diaspora Israel prayers are accepted and they will be Ingathered alongside of the Scattered House of Israel. With Jews all the way to world's end in agreement with Evangelist Philip's take on Christianity as in the Books of Luke and Acts. Roman Cornelius is the first bona fide non-Jewish believer converted to Xianity in Luke-Acts. Worst of all that writer puts words in "Luke's" mouth who scripted nothing about Philip meeting a goy. A Hebrew scripture reading goy heading homeward after aliyah to Jerusalem? YOU find it impossible to believe, but numerous credible scholars, much more knowledgeable, find the narrative credible. So far you have not produced anything that is of any substance to refute that. In fact, you keep dodging and ducking when asked to provide credible research in support of your claims, even though you talk about reading the Greek and critical translations. You have yet to produce a single critical biblical scholar supporting the historical existence of the religious fiction character. You even deny anything 'critical' exists and didn't know the difference between exegesis and critical commentary. Still in denial you snipe at me and expect me to give away my research to you when you bring me nothing after I show you where I went and found out before concluding one way or the other?
Who the .... are you?You bluster cannot hide the exposure of the hollowness of your claims. YOU are the one talking about the :"primary Greek" and "critical translations" and the Christian fathers (who are so secret that you are now "withholding" their names- lol), and after all that , you still stand exposed, you cannot produce anything credible to support your claims. In fact you are so ludricrous that you are "withholding" the names of the people who you say are supporting your claims.. lmao.. And my reference gave plenty of critical commentary directly on the facts which debunked your claims, and none of your blustering can hide that. And you have done precious little. You are so invested in bluffing that you say you are "withholding" the very references that allegedly support your argument. You talk about "giving away your research".. lol. What "giving away"? None only have you done little but by your own admission you are now "withholding" your supporting references and names? Seriously? We're not talking belief here. Belief requires faith Here we require fact.Try all the diversionary "spin" you want it won;t work. Plenty of facts were given. But on your side you have not only failed to produce credible evidence and facts to support your claims, you even say you are "withholding" them. The guy who talk about facts, can't put credible facts supporting his argument on the table..
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Nov 19, 2020 19:02:43 GMT -5
To conclude and invite anyone willing to put in the research to reply one point at a time to maintain clarity and to avoid confusion. Willing to entertain even questions already presented as challenges to any and all who want more info, or can expand or help precision me. Have had enough demolishing opponent of this sorry arsed no-debate. Look at you with the yte apologetics. No Egyptians are defined by seeing "unrest and turmoil in the area". What kinda preposperous bullshih. The Roman saw someone who looked like an Egyptian could look. [/quote] To conclude and invite anyone willing to put in the research to reply one point at a time to maintain clarity and to avoid confusion. Willing to entertain even questions already presented as challenges to any and all who want more info, or can expand or help precision me. Have had enough demolishing opponent of this sorry arsed no-debate. Look at you who claims to be this big researcher, examining the "primary Greek" and "critical translations" but who now is "withholding" his research, when called to support his claims. Really? You haven't "demolished" anybody. No Egyptians are defined by seeing "unrest and turmoil in the area". What kinda preposperous bullshih. The Roman saw someone who looked like an Egyptian could look.Laughable nonsense. As the text clearly shows the reason the Roman chilliarch ever got involved in the first place was precisely because of unrest in the city involving Paul. Quite logically given that background, he thought back to the unrest brought about by the Egyptian and the assassins- hence his question to Paul if he was that Egyptian who led out to the wilderness 4000 assassins. Its a logical query, for the Egyptian not only created unrest but went out with 4000 dangerous men. For as the Roman says: "that Egyptian who before these days raised a sedition and led out into the wilderness the four thousand men of the assassins?" (Acts 21:38) The only thing preposterous is you trying to shoehorn a dubious "Egyptian skin colorist" notion into the situation. And your claim re: "Throw the fact of dark skinned Egyptians under the bus" is just plain pitiful. Don't wonder why I'm through with you and Fine. The feeling is mutual. Let others now chip in their research, and the issue can be examined in further detail with full references.
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Nov 21, 2020 4:05:58 GMT -5
I have posted nothing but replicable data in 16 years of ES membership and 10 years of ESR membership. At first tightly documented. There's no such thing as objectivity. I've tried hard to be fair in my compositions. Over the years, original well thought out and duly source documented hypotheses were replaced by cut&paste articles. That and non-critical doggish regurgitating published authors favored by a poster. Lack of original hypotheses and not citing members' posts when those subjects get revisited time and again over the years led to the de-frocking of the EgyptSearch scholar brand. Open to valid criticisms I have admitted when in error even going back to update erroneous positions recently demonstrated in warning readers to not use my previous reduxes or posts on D'Atanasio's Green Sahara nrY DNA data. A deniers' job is to contest by producing contrary primary evidence. I've posted the oldest fragment of Acts 8:26 in existence. I didn't expect kudos for a job well done but at least expected readers to be delighted with the find. Because one lacked the required research skills to do so themselves they have said I made a self-serving fabrication intentionally designed to mislead the reading audience. While waiting for someone calling me a charlatan to produce an older or any fragment of Acts 8:26 other than what I posted in proof they have any idea at all of what they're talking about, thought I'd add this transcriptive folio making things a tad easier for those who lack any background on the subject or discipline but can recognize key words in printed Greek spellings to aid locating them on the papyrus. I have a $100 US 'gift card' to snail mail anyone who can 1 - show the img I posted is not a papyrus of Acts 8:26 2 - produce an older surviving fragment of Acts 8:26 The holders of the priceless biblical relic would pay more for updating them something pros haven't done as of today, tomorrow may be another story. Who is making a Sudanese Jew out to be something else other than what the two earliest Christian commentators on him made this fictional non-existent character out to be? BTW their account 2nd & 3rd century is older than the earliest fragment of the incident 4th or 5th century by which time the guy's ethnic identity became moot or debatable and ideas of black race over Jewish ethnicity begin. EDIT END EDITI'm tired of pulling the ancient research. Name and bring me the conclusion of those authors and move beyond presenting readers with assumptions. Surfers please rest assured when your search engine led you here for the image of the oldest surviving fragment of our Acts 8:26 what you see is authentic. Compare this folio to the Greek text in the Nubiorum with its accompanying English translation.- YYT al~Takruri -
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Nov 21, 2020 11:42:54 GMT -5
I heartily endorse “tight documentation” on various issues but so far nothing credible has been furnished from that posted above, as to to supporting claims about the Cushite’s non-existence. Even more strange are posters who, unable to furnish the data specifically backing their claims, then announce that they are “withholding” their own documentation proofs, which contradicts the call for “tight documentation.”
Hopefully assorted readers can earn rewards and gifts mentioned here and there, but should keep in mind what the key issues and arguments are. The issue is not whether a papyrus or picture has been posted, or whether anything older can be produced. No doubt it is an old fragment, fine, but that was never at issue. The crucial question asked repeatedly, is:
In what way. specifically, do said picture(s) support the argument of the Cushites non-existence?,
and
Who are the Christian fathers, and the sourced references therefrom that deny the Cushites’s existence?
The reader would recall that the Cushite was called a “fictional character” by some posters, using two pics of untranslated Greek. That is the crucial issue.
Then there is the OP article racialist author on whether the “fictional” Cushite was a Jew or “Judean.” Thread replies started out by noting that being “Judean” was not at all incompatible with being black or African. So far so good- but then the Cushite was dismissed as a mere “fictional character.”
As for whether he was "Jewish", it was said multiple angles fit the case, ranging from: (a) indigenous black Judeans in Syria-Palestine, to (b) conversions to Judaism (called ”revolting” by some posters) to (c) non-Jew Gentiles, the so-called ”God-Fearers” who were not Jews but people attracted to and sympathetic to the Jewish faith that earnestly studied its writings and tenets. The Biblical text and that of most credible scholars who have studied the issue, as detailed above, strongly suggest or hold that he was not a Jew. A pious God-fearer, and (many such are documented in the record) more easily fits the bill. But if he was a Jew, and was a convert to Judaism such conversion would not be “revolting.” And as to the third angle- indigenous black Jews in the region, OK, that works as well, but that STILL means the man is a real personage not a “fictional” character. All thee angles work as to the man’s Africanity and his existence.
So let’s recap the key issue fro which various side flow:
(1) The OP article referenced was by a white racialist author into “Pre-Adamic Caucasoids.” His implication was that the chariot rider was “Judean”- that he could not be Cushite. Given the "pre-adamite" racialist source- the man, in modern racial terms, could not “black”, as if being "Jewish" was incompatible with being "Black."
(2) Other posters were even more extreme and dismissed the Cushite as “fictional.”
As already argued in detail above, both of these positions are false. One minimizes the man's Africanity, the other minimizes or denies the man's existence.
But if anyone can put up “critical translations” of the untranslated Greek pictures posted above that support claims 1 or 2 above, go ahead. As noted above multiple angles and lenses work on this, but full documentation is needed to flesh them out.
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Nov 21, 2020 12:14:27 GMT -5
Nobody's talking to you. You can't do the research. You can't do what I've done. You haven't posted any fragment of Acts8:26 though when you introduced fragments I went out of my way to produce it. And this is the thanks I get for it. So why don't you shut your whining and put up a contrary fragments
All you can do is regurgitate one seminarians' faith based exegesis or apologetic commentaries.
Given the fragment its folio and the Nubiorum (do you even know what that standard is?) you still squalking. Must I spoon feed you or take you by the hand to a chart of the Greek alphabet teach you how to recognize Aithiopian, eunuch, Candace and whatever keywords so you finally understand? What would get for it? You'll just keep posting the same fluff about how you know it's all incredible. Now shut up and let inquisitive readers with a polite tongue and appreciative mind step up.
I have a $100 US 'gift card' to snail mail anyone who can 1 - show the img I posted is not a papyrus of Acts 8:26 2 - produce an older surviving fragment of Acts 8:26
Here's your chance Mr Expert Egyptologist Easy money
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Nov 21, 2020 12:28:25 GMT -5
All your diversionary bluff still won't work. The issue at hand is not posting a fragment of Acts 8. That is a strawman and your "gift card rewards" follow that strawman. It is not up to other people to show what you posted is not Act 8. It is your job. You posted the fragment, therefore you, the master of research, should at a minimum, have included details about its provenance. Why should people thank you for an incomplete job, master "researcher"?
Few doubt they are old fragments, but proper sourcing has not even been given as on the text, showing another documentation lapse. Oldest from Where? What archive or museum, or published work? What is the dating of the manuscript? And what are the critical translations of the text in the manuscripts? Here again, the call for tight documentation has not been heeded by the same people calling for documentation. The above should have been easy, since you said you examined the "primary Greek" and "critical translations." But again and again, you can't produce these basics, which would have avoided much of the thread debate.
First you fail to properly source your main line of evidence. Then you announced earlier than you were "withholding" details on your own line of evidence. Now you want people to do the work you should have done in the first place.
But let's see if others can provide the missing info. Thread readers, go ahead and post or disprove those images, but be sure to include details on provenance and sourcing, and the English translation. One that is done, then examining how they support the claim of the Cushite's non-existence can be dealt with in detail..
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Nov 21, 2020 12:38:59 GMT -5
EDIT END EDITCompare this image to its folio to the Greek text in the Nubiorum with its accompanying English translation. I'll pay a research assistant to 1 - falsify the image as a papyrus of Acts 8:26 2 - produce an older surviving fragment of Acts 8:26 Either one will do.
|
|