Re: [asa] philological notes on randomness (was: Re: What my tiny little brain was thinking...)

On Nov 14, 2009, at 10:22 PM, Cameron Wybrow wrote:

> I notice that you did not reply to my philological information about
> the Biblical passage you cited. I don't know how to interpret your
> silence on the question. But perhaps the original argument came
> from Randy, not you. Still, you implicitly endorsed it by
> reproducing it as an argument. Should you not consider retracting
> your support for the argument, having become aware that the English
> translation you used is at best highly questionable and probably
> downright misleading?

Any study of logical fallacies should tell you that what you should
conclude from my silence is NOTHING. The real reason I was silent was
your argument was so poor it required no refutation (much like when
the defense rests immediately after the prosecution has made its
case). Let's look at my highly questionable translation:

NIV: at random
NASB: at random
The Message: without aiming
Amplified Bible: at random
NLT: randomly shot
KJV: at a venture
ESV: at random
CEV: without even aiming
NKJV: at random
NCV: by chance
21st Century KJV: at random
ASV: at a venture
Darby: at a venture
Holman: without taking special aim
NiRV: without taking aim
NIV (UK): at random
Today's NIV: at random

Let's chalk another area for you. You know more biology than the
biologists, more climate science than the climatologists, and now more
about Bible translation than the language scholars. I'm impressed.

Rich Blinne
Member ASA

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Nov 15 09:22:56 2009