[cont]

BLACK KNIGHT: Come on then.
ARTHUR: What?
BLACK KNIGHT: Have at you!
ARTHUR: You are indeed brave, Sir knight, but the fight is mine.
BLACK KNIGHT: Oh, had enough, eh?
ARTHUR: Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left.
BLACK KNIGHT: Yes I have.
ARTHUR: Look!
BLACK KNIGHT: Just a flesh wound.
[bang]
ARTHUR: Look, stop that.
BLACK KNIGHT: Chicken! Chicken!
ARTHUR: Look, I'll have your leg. Right!
[whop]
BLACK KNIGHT: Right, I'll do you for that!
ARTHUR: You'll what?
BLACK KNIGHT: Come 'ere!
ARTHUR: What are you going to do, bleed on me?
BLACK KNIGHT: I'm invincible!
ARTHUR: You're a loony.
BLACK KNIGHT: The Black Knight always triumphs!
Have at you! Come on then.
[whop]
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's other leg off]
BLACK KNIGHT: All right; we'll call it a draw.
ARTHUR: Come, Patsy.
BLACK KNIGHT: Oh, oh, I see, running away then. You yellow
bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you.
I'll bite your legs off!
>>

I hereby nominate Boazy as the inaugural recipient of the OLO Black Knight award for his efforts in this thread.

CJ.. you are too kind :) (and..good morning)

I'm not sure what you mean by 'discredited'.. after all, my "position" from which I'll move for no man, or woman.. is very simple.

That text has meaning.

The simpler and more straight forward the text.. "Black cat bites white dog" or. "The man said to the black cat 'sikim, go..bite that white dog'" the easier to interpret/understand it.

Dear CJ.. I don't have any real problem with your informed assessment of the myth..but I can guarantee you one thing, it was not arrived at on the basis of that little bit of text alone which you gave me, but rather the accumulated information of various individuals and the FULL version of the myth. What you offered is based on much more than the text you gave me. (Not 'out of depth' but.. lack of depth of information. )

You (like brother Pericles) are still not quite up to speed with the actual core topic, which is that when we are faced with limited information "Text on a page" it will have limited meaning aside from external knowledge that we might bring to it. (as with the Tsimshian myth)

We might derive immediate broader significance from the "Black cat bites white dog" as follows:

-Cats don't like dogs.
-Black cats don't like WHITE dogs.
-The white dog annoyed the black cat.

But when we only have the "Black cat bites white dog"...really it's all we can say "A black cat bit a white dog.. we don't know why"
But of course..if the report continues and fills in the blanks.. we have a better chance of knowing why.

Same with the Tsimshian myth:) so.. conclusion.."your attack (along with Romany's) is out of order and invalid".. Hacked off arm is hereby.. *RESTORED* aaah :)

Going back to the first page of this thread, about this portion of textual analysis, which is potentially one of the most important of all written words to be able to analyse:

That is, in respect of:
"come after"
"deny himself"
"take up the cross"
"follow"

The truth is this: if you can't believe in everlasting life being the result of following Jesus, then you are not truly following.

Remember that Jesus directed his disciples to follow him in death as well as in life, only AFTER Jesus faced Satan. Therefore, the ressurection is the defeat of Satan as a permanent endeavour. This is proven in the minds of real Christian believers, through internal psychological debates in which it will be either the part of Jesus or the part of Satan, whom prove to have the way into reality of future positive consequences. In my own mind, Satan is already, and has always been, bowing to Jesus, and that is what makes me able to say I am Christian.

Religious texts based only on belief per se has no meaning or reality - anyone can do so today and claim it as having substance and none can argue with it - but it is insubstantial. When a text also alligns with reality and is vindicated today, as with Genesis, it has substance. Eg:

1. That the universe was 'created' and is 'finite' - as opposed to which other scientific alternative theory?

2. That formless became formed [entropy] - how else?

3. That light was a primodial factor - what else would you nominate?

4. That the elements were critically seperated [eg. water from land; light from darkness; etc]- how else could life emerge?

5. That the first emergence of life forms were dual-gendered ['Man and woman created he them'] - this is a legitimate premise, with no alternative to a female emerging from a dual-gendered life?

6. That there was a graduating chronological order of life forms - sea born; air born, transit mamals, land based, humans [Evolution]?

7. That repro is via the seed factor - is this not manifest?

8. That a seed shall follow its own kind - is this not manifest?

9. That humans were the final life form?

10. That speech endowed humans are less than 6000 years old, vindicated by the world's most accurate and oldest calender - with no counter conclusive proof anywhere?

contd.

Christianity was correct in choosing the OT as its foundation - else it would never have got up. The power of Genesis:

I would say, science was introduced in genesis, with the first cosmological account of the universe's formation and that it is finite, given in an orderly, step by step description [scientific]. Medicine, a foremost faculty of science, was also introduced here, with the first seperation of it from the occult: consider the first recording, ID, treatment, quarantine of leprosy, which is a form of incurable malignancy, that it is both contagious and infecticious, that the victim requires seperation from the community, all possessions destroyed by fire - eg. wood, but not iron. Previous and outside of the OT, a leper was regarded cursed by an evil spell - while the OT was first to dislodge this notion.

The premise of ex nihilo also stands, because we have no alternative scientific explanation for the universe emergence. It had to be created, via something from nothing, because at one time there were no tools and elements to produce matter or energy.

Creationism and Monotheism are 100% scientific premises - with no alternatives.

The more you keep shifting the ground, Boaz, the sillier you look.

>>my "position" from which I'll move for no man, or woman.. is very simple. That text has meaning.<<

But you have moved from your immediately prior position, haven't you?

>>Just because various antagonistic/critical posters say some unfounded, irrational things about me or what I say..does not mean they laid a glove on my argument...(u'll need kryptonite I'm afraid)... ARGUMENT -"Text has known meaning".<<

The sequence of your stance has been: text has objective meaning, independent of writer and reader. Then, text has "known meaning" - without, of course, specifying to whom this meaning is known, and how it is determined.

Now you can only tell us that "text has meaning".

Well, duh.

I think you finally managed to supply your own kryptonite, Boaz.

And just to prove to us all that you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about, you come up with this gem:

>>The simpler and more straight forward the text.. "Black cat bites white dog"... the easier to interpret/understand it.<<

Reality is, the shorter the text, the greater the number of interpretations that can be applied to it.

Sometimes, it appears you do understand the subjective nature of textual analysis...

>>when we are faced with limited information "Text on a page" it will have limited meaning aside from external knowledge that we might bring to it<<

I.e., interpretation is entirely subjective.

In the end, there's no need to argue against you.

A couple of gentle nudges, and you will happily argue against yourself.