Kght

Aramaic Primacy

Can I ask you -- while this user name is still available -- why you keep doing this? Editing in Wikipedia can be a constructive, rewarding experience. It doesn't have to be this way. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. What have I done that has not been constructive Sky? Tell me. I've been talking with you all. I have made no changes to any article myself. This is what I'm doing because I can see that you both are trying to push a POV unworthy of Wikipedia. We should be giving a balanced interpretation of the evidence, not your own POV. Kght (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

May I ask what Aramaic original you think you have access to? SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

May I ask you if we have access to the originals? Kght (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. There are no Aramaic originals; neither are there early generation Aramaic manuscripts. What we have is Greek; not originals, but very early generation manuscripts. The only ancient evidence we have is in Greek, not Aramaic. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You took some time to come out with that. 11 minutes in fact. The fact is we do not have the originals. The originals are therefore a source of debate as to whether they originally were written in Hebrew or Aramaic - in other words, we do not know: an argument that has been put forth by scholars for decades. Just because the oldest manuscripts we have are in Greek, doesn't mean the originals were. I might also mention that the manuscripts we have are copies of copies of other copies. Many problems are said to disperse when we consider that the NT was written in Hebrew. This is what one notable scholar has said and any amount of study would prove it. Read the material and see for yourself. Kght (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Balance is essential?

Of course I took time to get back to you. I DO have a life beyond this subject. In any case, Greek Primacy is the accepted mainstream view, and Aramaic Primacy is not. That's what Wikipedia goes by. We aren't here to prove anything. We are merely here to report notable and verifiable views in proportion to their notability and verifiability. That's it. If you are here to prove something, you are in the wrong place. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope you have a life beyond Wikipedia Sky :). Yahweh is also the accepted scholarly view, so why do we have in the opening paragraph of the Yahweh article that no one knows for sure if the Name was Yahweh. In this same way, no one knows for sure that the New Testament was originally written in Greek, especially because we do not have the original manuscripts. Now, if the NT was written in Hebrew (perhaps not all but some), then the Name may have appeared there.

It's similar to the Septuagint. Mainstream scholars believe the Name appeared in the Septuagint but was later taken out by Christians who wanted to respect Jewish Law. Kght (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you look at what you just wrote? If then...maybe. If then maybe? That's not Wikipedia. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Balance Sky. It's all about balance. Before this time you believed that the NT was written in Greek, no doubt. Now you know there is doubt and plenty of it. We don't even have the original manuscripts. Kght (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

My beliefs have nothing to do with it. We report what is notable and verifiable in proportion to its notability and verifiability. That's it. My opinion is that it was written in Greek because there is no evidence to the contrary. If ancient Aramaic manuscripts were discovered, it would interest me. If a Bigfoot body were discovered, it would also interest me. In the absence of real evidence, however, I defer to the mainstream view -- regardless of how exciting or boring such a view may be. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Now your being immature. You are comparing an Aramaic or Hebrew original to Big Foot. You don't realise there is EVIDENCE for Hebrew or Aramaic originals. Scholars cannot just say something and write books and volumes about subjects, with only a crumb of evidence supporting such a notion. As I said, read the material that was given and do some research. I have. Kght (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Conclusion:

We do not know what the original manuscripts were written in. Evidence tends to point to Hebrew or Aramaic originals. Please do some study on the subject, both you and Lisa. It's advisable to do research on a subject before forming erroneous conclusions. At the moment you're treating opinion as fact, and this is what I have a problem with. Kght (talk) 12:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Help

Hello admins. I've studied several different avenues of how to come to a clear consensus, however, they are two disruptive embers going by the name of SkyWriter (Tim) and LisaLiel. These members are refusing to come to a consensus of what previous members agreed, deleting huge chunks out of articles and refusing to even talk now. They're actually deleting my attempts to talk with them from their pages[[1]][[2]]. . What should I do? I have talked to them on every article I can to try to get them to see that they cannot push their own agenda forward all the time, and allow scholarly evidence to interpret itself: [[3]] [[4]][[5]][[6]][[7]]. It doesn't seem to be working. Other members have also been alerted on this vandalism and have already taken action to prevent it. Kght (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd post this problem in WP:ANI. I'll also take a look myself. Tan | 39 16:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

To be quite honest, it looks like you might be as much of the problem as the other editors are. Doesn't look like any pages need to be protected at this time; will look into sock-puppet allegations by LisaLiel. Removing help tag; take to ANI if you wish to pursue. Tan | 39 16:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

So okay. You're going to look in to Lisas sock puppet allegations, after I told you that they're deleting huge chunks out of articles, and not coming to a consensus? Okay??? I haven't changed any articles so what is the problem? Is discussing wrong?. Kght (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not necessary to edit articles to be a disruption to Wikipedia, Kght. I have reviewed their edits and don't see anything that demands admin attention. Be careful how you go about pushing your OWN agenda. Tan | 39 16:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. How can I be pushing my agenda forward? I haven't been deleting anything, I haven't changed any article. I 've been talking to these two users and they delete what I write. Would you like me to delete four sections in a day which are well cited? Are you telling me that I could get away with that? Lisa keeps deleting a quote on the YHWH article because her own beliefs says that the Name cannot be pronounced. Now, this can't be acceptable surely? Other members are also concerned. Kght (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)