< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
|Sep-20-13|| ||Jambow: <Everett: <jambow> Yet a priori and ad hoc are the exact tools of the trade that all people of the book use. I see that you are basically saying this yourself in a way.>|
No actually that is not only ad hominem it unfortunately is the most common retort, and it is patently false. All the a priori and ad hoc so far has come from those that are against the Bible.
I cited evidence that supports a hypothesis from a strictly scientific perspective. Again the claims are that there is no evidence to support the biblical account and I demonstrated that not only does it exist it is found everywhere and there are billions if not trillions of examples. I also gave specific evidence showing how the hypothesis of long eons of time is a physically impossibility to falsify those beliefs.
I have done this deliberately to refute the oft repeated notion that people who use the bible are scientifically ignorant. I don't adhere to the philosophy of materialism and yet I can easily support the biblical account strictly using natural empirical evidence.
Well the coffee cup analogy is cute I'm not sure it has much application. You can have all the theories you like as to why man made virtually no advancement, his population growth was utterly abnormal for long epochs, he somehow did not become extinct during that time when his numbers were miniscule, but at the end of the day the evidence so happens to fit the biblical account with no ad hoc hypothesis to explain it. If the bible weren't true and civilization arose at the same time and population accidentally matches Thomas Malthus's calculations that in itself is a miracle, or if we apply Occam's razor it is the simplest explanation that fits the evidence.
On that note using your patients as an example. Remember language, civilization and all the things that go with it didn't just happen rapidly it happened <simultaneously in diverse places>. A better analogy would be an entire town gets cancer at virtually the same moment in time, but we presume because of our philosophy it must be a random happenstance.
BTW people of the book as you call us don't need theories to go away, we are simply pointing out we have theories that far better fit the evidence, but people need to honestly see for themselves and have to be willing to leave their pet theory behind.
I thank you for being peaceful also, being hateful serves no purpose. My intention is not to look smart or humiliate anyone but hopefully to get people to go hmmm what if... I better have another look. Maybe we can lead people to Christ which is the endgame strategy and the great commission.
He that wins souls is wise.
|Sep-20-13|| ||Everett: Claiming <ad hominem> is like a disease on these threads, and seems doomed to misuse for eternity. |
<I cited evidence that supports a hypothesis from a strictly scientific perspective.> It seems you are seeking evidence and explanations to support an old book. <Again the claims are that there is no evidence to support the biblical account> not my claims, I claim their are different interpretations of the same material and evidence <and I demonstrated that not only does it exist it is found everywhere and there are billions if not trillions of examples. <I also gave specific evidence showing how the hypothesis of long eons of time is a physically impossibility to falsify those beliefs.> > your evidence and logic regarding time is unconvincing.
<simultaneously in diverse places> This is a myth. At least 2000 years separated this "simultaneity." <http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/H...>
<leave their pet theory behind.> yes, good idea.
|Sep-20-13|| ||norami: I see that a book called "Zealot - the Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth" by Reza Aslan is a #1 best- seller. Anyone know anything about it?|
|Sep-21-13|| ||Jambow: <Everett> no matter if ad hominem is frequently misdiagnosed or truly epidemic, the question that needs to be answered, is that what you just did or not? |
You countered my claim that you used blatant ad hominem with an irrelevant answer. So what if every other claim of it is false it doesn't matter in the least about this one. Instead of answering the facts and logic I presented you made this statement <Yet a priori and ad hoc are the exact tools of the trade that all people of the book use>. See you didn't muster the least bit of a rational answer, yet you did slander me and every single other person that trusts the Bible.
You are the only person guilty of using this tactic so far in these discussions. I truly would rather examine the scriptures, and science and see if it holds, I made that clear from the outset.
<It seems you are seeking evidence and explanations to support an old book.> No I am putting to rest the lie that there isn't evidence that verifies the Bible, not claiming it is your lie but it is the predominant lie none the less. Often claims are made that there is no empirical evidence that supports the Noachian flood of Genesis, that couldn't be any more false. If the Bible is old does that make it untrue? No matter of fact the Bible is filled with countless examples of knowledge scientists have only recently discovered. How could ignorant and unlearned men choose Adams rib to make Eve from, how would they know it could regenerate anyway? How would these unscientifically educated man have knowledge that to perform surgery you put people to sleep I wonder? Maybe because it comes from Gods word not mans.
<not my claims, I claim their are different interpretations of the same material and evidence> Agree and OCF also commended you for not being dogmatic (my words). What I want to do is show those who might be willing to listen that one of those interpretations fails when examined critically, which is what science is supposed to be about. Science is methodology not an appeal to authority or the masses.
<your evidence and logic regarding time is unconvincing.> To you perhaps but your counter arguments certainly didn't answer my objections, neither did your statements. Instead you chose to denigrate collectively <all people of the book>
All verifiable dates for civilizations only go back about 4-5 thousand years. I do not accept the subjective opinions based on false presumptions as anything more than opinion. No matter for sake of argument Let us say that the Acadians, Sumerians, Chinese, Egyptians, Hittites and who ever else we can add are separated by 2,000 years that would be virtually simultaneously as 2ka compared to 300ka is in the last .66% of mans existence is it not? Now most anthropologists say "modern humans" have been around for 2-3 million years which puts civilization even using the most generous criteria at .1-.07% of mans existence. That for all practical purposes is at the same time and we haven't even discussed the Mayans or other American civilizations that formed recently by some incredible stroke of luck also?
Now I could present details that would show that the more ancient dates are hypothetical, but what would be the point of examining detains considering the gross failure of your argument?
No the Bible is the word of God, and Jesus Christ is exactly who he claimed he was in his Word.
|Sep-21-13|| ||Jambow: <norami> Sorry don't know a thing about it.|
|Sep-21-13|| ||TheFocus: <norami> I have the book but have not read it yet. I have skimmed thru it and it looks very interesting.|
|Sep-21-13|| ||Jambow: Just Read some reviews it is a book that presents Jesus Christ as a political zealot as opposed to the Christ or Messiah.|
|Sep-22-13|| ||OhioChessFan: <Everett: <simultaneously in diverse places> This is a myth. At least 2000 years separated this "simultaneity." >|
Your side can't narrow things down to a range of millions of years, but you have this worked out to 2000 years? I mean, seriously?
|Sep-22-13|| ||Jambow: One other note on the formation of civilization, it actually follows that population growth is the prime factor with agriculture and written language as the natural outcome. The Americas also go through the same explosion when populations reached a certain point. If you have a few people they may never develop written language and subsist on hunting and gathering, only communicating orally. |
<Your side can't narrow things down to a range of millions of years, but you have this worked out to 2000 years? I mean, seriously?> Sure + or - 1,000% or so. ;0]
Usually when conclusions are drawn from subjective non confirmable opinions wild fluctuations are normal, when you start using records of known kings and contemporaries along with verifiable events you end up right in line with the Bible. The Bible says they will become vain in their imaginations and truly that has come to pass. The Bible also says that they will no longer endure sound doctrine, but I also am of the opinion that ends up affecting mans reasoning across the board.
|Sep-23-13|| ||norami: The book "Zealot" contains the statement "the Bible is replete with the most blatant and obvious errors and contradictions". The author previously wrote a best-seller about Islam called "No god but God". I wonder if he had the courage to make a similar statement about the Koran.|
|Oct-10-13|| ||Jambow: <norami> Just saw an interview with the author, about what I expected and really nothing new really Jesus was accused of being an insurrectionist 2ka ago.|
Here is the author of a great book speaking at the presidential inauguration breakfast in January. Warning his message to America is not for the faint of heart.
Not sure how he was allowed to give the message as another pastor was forbidden since he called marriage marriage and sodomy sin. Just when I thought there was only ear ticklers God raises up a man for such an hour as this.
All right watch and comment.
|Nov-09-13|| ||optimal play: <Jambow> Prompted by your posts in my forum, I have just finished reading Sir William Mitchell Ramsay's "St. Paul: The Traveler and Roman Citizen" online at https://openlibrary.org/|
I liked it and generally agree with most of Ramsay's views, although of course the missionary journeys of Paul in Acts are able to be assessed historically as well as theologically, as distinct from the stories of the Garden of Eden or Noahs Ark in Genesis, whose message is wholly theological.
That leads to my next point in which I found the book somewhat deficient in how Ramsay repeatedly referred to Luke as "the historian" but seemed to minimise his theological purpose in writing Acts.
And yet Ramsay is also critical at times of Luke as an historian, such as <It is remarkable that Luke has not a word to say about the process by which Christianity spread to Rome> (page 351) and then goes on to speculate about an unwritten "Third Book"?!
Why can "no-one accept the ending of Acts as the conclusion of a rationally conceived story"(page 351-352)? It certainly *can* be accepted as such when Luke's theological purpose in writing, as distinct from a purely historical purpose, is understood.
Also, Ramsay's interpretation of the "man of Macedonia" as being Luke himself (pages 202-204) is another example of conjecture.
Interestingly in chapter IV he makes a comparison between Luke's Acts and Homer's Ulysses [Odysseus] which is a controversial topic that a few latter-day writers have also investigated.
Ramsay certainly does make some quite good observations such as <The marvels recorded in Acts are not, as a rule, said to have been efficacious in spreading the new religion ... The importance of these events lie rather in their effect on the mind of the Apostles themselves, who accepted them as an encouragement and a confirmation of their work.> (page 115-116)
Overall, I admit it is quite a good book, if a little dated compared to current works on Luke & Acts.
Now if I may suggest a book for yourself; 'Liberating the Gospels' by John Shelby Spong.
If you dare! :)
|Nov-21-13|| ||Jambow: Sorry it has been library quite for a while so I haven't even been checking in. |
<Optimal Play> Thanks for taking the time to read Ramsay at my bequest, it is no light read, and honestly I never supposed anyone would.
There are no doubt opinions (conjecture) in Ramsay's works, but there are also confirmed fact after fact verifying the historical accuracy of "<The Book of Acts>" which is why I read the book myself. What it most assured me of, is that the so called methods of higher criticism themselves are almost purely based upon conjecture and speculation. These higher critics are used as a source frequently to discount the Bible as myth. So you have men's unverifiable biased opinions determining what is true, as opposed to hard empirical evidence etc.. That it is accepted so easily uncritically makes me leery of those who consider themselves the educated elite. Usually I find eloquent writers devoid of basic logic, loved for smooth words not substance.
Remember Ramsay was a skeptic who did NOT believe the Bible, but he made an honest sincere inquiry to know the truth, and was not disappointed. Most scoffers refuse to even acknowledge facts that confirm the Bible and certainly wont go and see. This mans life was spent seeing if it was so.
<That leads to my next point in which I found the book somewhat deficient in how Ramsay repeatedly referred to Luke as "the historian" but seemed to minimise his theological purpose in writing Acts.>
Well his intended purpose from the outset was not theological, but rather historical in nature and scope so his treatment seems to be based on that primary purpose. He wasn't arguing against theologians he set out to demonstrate that the Bible was largely fiction, and since he believed it was theological implications don't really matter. If the Bible was fiction then I agree, what do theological considerations have to do with anything.
So yes like the rest of the Bible there are theological purposes, that in no way shape or form precludes them from being an accurate record of real events in times past, the two simply are not mutually exclusive.
I have not read any of Homers works since junior high school so I'm ill equipped to make any judgments in that regard. I have read some of Plato's, Xenophon's and Herodotus's works and I am hoping to read Plato's Republic for the first time.
<Ramsay certainly does make some quite good observations such as <The marvels recorded in Acts are not, as a rule, said to have been efficacious in spreading the new religion ... The importance of these events lie rather in their effect on the mind of the Apostles themselves, who accepted them as an encouragement and a confirmation of their work.> (page 115-116)>
While the effect was to encourage and confirm they are indeed a record of actual events that occurred in time & space and the quote confirms that.
If time permits I might very well read "<Liberating the Gospels>" but if he is primarily forming opinions with no empirical support I will quickly lose interest. I'm not a big fan of conjecture but allow for it if the person recognizes that is what it is. I believe the record from Genesis to the now transpiring events in Revelation. I think geology, archeology, astronomy, genetics, anthropology, biology and HIStory all confirm the biblical account. Prophecy is the one that is happening before our eyes and even so people are blind. Israel that tiny spec of land on the globe is the center of the worlds focus just like God told us it would be.
Thanks again and I appreciate your comments more now than ever.
|Nov-30-13|| ||LIFE Master AJ: I am now a premium member, through a strange series of events. |
The way I understand things, a detractor made a very strong statement, and then tried to back away from it. I think that <Diademas> held his feet to the fire, and told him to "pay up or shut up." (I wasn't much a part of it.)
Apparently he paid up. Most bizarre.
|Nov-30-13|| ||optimal play: <Jambow> <...the so called methods of higher criticism themselves are almost purely based upon conjecture and speculation...> Not entirely, ongoing archaeological evidence drives a lot of Biblical exegesis.|
<...the two simply are not mutually exclusive...> Yes of course that's correct, but ancient oral traditions when eventually written down, were used for primarily theological purposes (and also sometimes political) and therefore need to be viewed from that perspective. The ancient Biblical writers never wrote history just for history's own sake.
<Prophecy is the one that is happening before our eyes and even so people are blind> We all bring our own pre-conceived ideas to the Bible when reading it, and that often causes a certain degree of blindness as to what the Biblical writers are really saying. Prophecy in the Bible was always about recognising the inherent dangers in their own contemporary society, not about pre-ordained events thousands of years away.
<LIFE Master AJ> First <TheFocus> phones you and now <john barleycorn> gives you a free Premium Membership.
The Lord indeed works in mysterious ways :)
|Dec-01-13|| ||LIFE Master AJ: You can say that again.|
|Dec-04-13|| ||LIFE Master AJ: Hi!
I was just curious and wanted to ask a couple of questions:
#1.) How did you come up with your handle and does it mean anything in particular? (Tell me to bug off, if I am being too nosey here.)
#2.) Does your original offer still stand? In other words, when my current membership runs out, are you going to pitch for the second year? (Of course, I take that - as a condition - my behavior has to remain above board at all times.)
|Dec-04-13|| ||john barleycorn: <LIFE Master AJ:
#2.) Does your original offer still stand? In other words, when my current membership runs out, are you going to pitch for the second year?>
Are you a christian <AJ>? Or just a pathetic scrounger?
<"Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they?>
|Dec-04-13|| ||john barleycorn: There is an old story explaining "chutzpah" (<AJ> take note!):|
beggar: "Please sir, give me some money".
rabbi gives him 1 dollar.
beggar: "Sir, last week you gave me 2$".
rabbi: "I had a bad week".
beggar: "And why should I suffer from that?".
|Dec-04-13|| ||LIFE Master AJ: Pathetic, huh? Well, maybe. I guess I have been called much worse. |
I guess <Diademas> was right, I could never have a real conversation with you. (Best - for the peace of this site - that I not take you off the iggy list.)
|Dec-04-13|| ||john barleycorn: <LIFE Master AJ: Pathetic, huh? Well, maybe. I guess I have been called much worse.>|
hahaha. The words were "pathetic scrounger".
<I guess <Diademas> was right, I could never have a real conversation with you. (Best - for the peace of this site - that I not take you off the iggy list.)>
Iggy list??? That is most laughable, as you are reading all my posts and by now, you should be well aware that I am a homosexual. And what will you do now? Stone me? Reject my donation? hahaha. You will not. You don't have the guts or what else it takes. Premium membership is your idol - your golden calf. Keep on dancing around it.
|Dec-04-13|| ||LIFE Master AJ: << Nov-29-13 <Diademas:> Let me be the first to congratulate the new premium member. It sure has been a strange voyage, and that we made one of your largest foe pay for it sure is some poetic justice. I think the chess equivalant would be check and mate!
I'm gonna chuckle for a week over this. :)
Take care. >>
|Dec-04-13|| ||LIFE Master AJ: <JB> All I will say is to please read the Bible. |
Genesis, Exodus, etc. Also the book of Romans, Chapter 1.
God's word needs no defense (or justification) from me. If you cannot (or will not) heed God's Word, then I have nothing else to say to you.
You will NOT bait me, nor insult me! Nor will I insult you. If you are incapable of proper conduct and refuse to obey the 4 guidelines for kibitzing, then <unfortunately> I must keep you on my ignore list.
I have nothing more to add to this, other than the fact that I will pray for your immortal soul.
|Dec-04-13|| ||john barleycorn: <LIFE Master AJ> I
1.) You are still reading my posts although you have me on your ignore list. Ergo, you are a liar.
2.) Are you happy with free premium membership donated by a homosexual? Forget about <Diademas> it is about YOU.
3.) Pray for yourself, little Judas.
Do you do you mama proud?
|Dec-05-13|| ||MarkFinan: <<LIFE Master AJ: Hi!
I was just curious and wanted to ask a couple of questions:|
#1.) How did you come up with your handle and does it mean anything in particular? (Tell me to bug off, if I am being too nosey here.)
#2.) Does your original offer still stand? In other words, when my current membership runs out, are you going to pitch for the second year? (Of course, I take that - as a condition - my behavior has to remain above board at all times.)>>
Jambow. Just in case you are thinking of buying the charming Mr Goldsby his NEXT free premium, please stipulate that he must stop mentioning that he's ignoring people... because he's not!
He is a tard of the highest order.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
from the Chessgames Store