Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

11,417 bytes added, 23:20, 12 January 2017
meeting of the minds
How is this statement hinting to set-theory? Could this explained? And did it hint the LIFO principle of queuing theory? For me this seems to be quite a stretch. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:04, 17 June 2012 (EDT)
 
Yes, could someone offer some explanation. [[User:Richardm|Richardm]] ([[User talk:Richardm|talk]]) 08:56, 23 September 2016 (EDT)
 
There is no credible argument that this has anything to do with set theory, and its inclusion simply weakens the credibility of the article and the encyclopaedia. I'm deleting this example. [[User:Erniecohen|Erniecohen]] ([[User talk:Erniecohen|talk]]) 22:03, 13 November 2016 (EST)
 
:I would like to hear an argument in support of this, but before someone does, it should not be deleted. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:13, 13 November 2016 (EST)
 
::I deleted it (before the deletion was reverted) because the original objection to it is over 3 years old, with no responses in favor of keeping it. How long are we supposed to wait before deleting such nonsense? Absurd entries like this just make the page into a joke. I would not be surprised if some of these examples were put in by people trying to do just that. [[User:Erniecohen|Erniecohen]] ([[User talk:Erniecohen|talk]]) 22:26, 13 November 2016 (EST)
:::Thanks for deleting it. There is no need to put in entries which are not clear examples.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:50, 13 November 2016 (EST)
::::My question for [[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] is when is it okay to actually delete it. [[User:Erniecohen|Erniecohen]] ([[User talk:Erniecohen|talk]]) 13:40, 14 November 2016 (EST)
:::::An editor whom I trust has stated that the article is better without it, so I won't object you removing it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:28, 14 November 2016 (EST)
::::::I deleted it (FILO :-) ) - after four and a half year... Success of sorts... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 07:29, 20 November 2016 (EST)
== Pi to one significant figure ==
While Paul enumerates many sins of men in the end times, gaining weight isn't mentioned explicitly. Reading these verses I don't get the image that epidemic obesity is a sign of the end times. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:52, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
::Are you claiming that hedonism is not a major cause for obesity? If so, why? Is the Christian conservative Chuck Norris wrong about obesity primarily being caused by hedonism? See: [[Chuck Norris on the topic of obesity]] If so, why? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:29, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
:::AugustO, I reread your criticism. It was valid. I removed the material. Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:46, 13 November 2016 (EST)
::::Has anyone in your collective gained weight lately ;-) ? No, seriously, thanks - perhaps you can take a look at the other points I've made over the last five years on this talk-page.... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 07:33, 20 November 2016 (EST)
Your welcome. Second, I don't think me being a mediator between you and the owner of the website would change matters significantly. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:00, 20 November 2016 (EST)
:I'm just happy that you have changed your mind and hope that it wasn't for the last time... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 14:18, 20 November 2016 (EST)
== Seriously disappointed... ==
Or will you use the article as your bully pulpit, ignoring any input by others, insisting that you are right, because you had a special insight? It is hard to ignore the fact that you are still claiming in your [[Essay:Calming the Storm]] that λέγω doesn't appear in Mark's verse, making you the laughing stock of everybody with even a little Greek! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 18:06, 13 March 2016 (EDT)
 
''a closer look at the Greek reveals that the key term does not necessarily mean a spoken "rebuke"; it was the act of Jesus observing the chaos that caused it to "collapse" into an orderly state, similar to the effect of observing a wave function.'' Where is this closer look? I'm afraid that you, Andrew Schlafly, are the only one to have this ''revelation''! But I'm waiting for your analysis of ἐπιτιμάω: there are 29 occurrences of this word in the New Testament (according to Strong), and all of them are compatible with a spoken command.... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 04:45, 14 March 2016 (EDT)
 
:I am looking into this further today. Thanks for your patience.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 11:39, 18 March 2016 (EDT)
 
::It is difficult to sort through the substance from the silly put-downs, but the bottom line is this: according to even the limited view of Strong's, λέγω is translated as "I say, speak; I '''''mean''''', mention, tell." [http://biblehub.com/greek/3004.htm] (emphasis added). Strong, of course, was no modern physicist, and he was hampered by his own lack of abstraction. Strong's goes further to admit that "légō (originally, 'lay down to sleep,'" - which fits perfectly in the calming of the storm.
 
::There is no reason to think that Mark, who was not there on the boat, was precisely quoting Jesus rather than describing His thoughts.
 
::If you have something substantive in rebuttal, then please provide it without the ad hominems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:34, 18 March 2016 (EDT)
 
:::#''"It is difficult to sort through the substance from the silly put-downs"'' It took you '''eight months''' to delete the sentence ''But "λέγω" -- the Greek term used for said in some versions -- does not appear in the Greek above'' from your [[Essay:Calming the Storm]]! Perhaps I could have shortened this time if I had sugar-coated my contempt by flattery, but I think that this would have been dishonest: not to spot that εἶπεν is a form of λέγω is a school-boy's error, and deserves school-yard's mockery.
:::#''"the bottom line is this: according to even the limited view of Strong's, λέγω is translated as "I say, speak; I '''''mean''''', mention, tell." [http://biblehub.com/greek/3004.htm] (emphasis added)."'' λέγω is the nineth most used word in the Greek New Testament. It is the most used non-auxiliary verb - and εἰμί ("I am") is only used slightly more often (2,460 vs. 2,350 times.) Why? We talked about this above: as Biblical Greek has no quotation marks, direct speech is indicated by words like λέγω. It is used in this sense a couple of hundred times in the Gospel of Mark, even in the verses directly before and after Mark 4:39. It would be quite dishonest of Mark to use it in this single verse in a way it isn't used elsewhere in his Gospel, and in a way it hadn't been used for hundreds of years! Therefore all the translations which Strong is proposing describe verbal utterances.
:::#''"Strong, of course, was no modern physicist, and he was hampered by his own lack of abstraction. Strong's goes further to admit that "légō (originally, 'lay down to sleep,'" - which fits perfectly in the calming of the storm."'' There is nothing abstract in this glorified quotation mark λέγω. If I go to a courthouse in New Jersey and present myself as a "solicitor", you have every right to believe that I'm misrepresenting myself as a laywer - even if I say that I use the word in its original sense - as the French did a couple of hundred years ago, and that I'm meaning "troublemaker", not "lawyer". The same holds for λέγω: in the context of the Gospel it means something like "to say", and no one but you would think of the meaning "to lay down to sleep".
:::#''"There is no reason to think that Mark, who was not there on the boat, was precisely quoting Jesus rather than describing His thoughts."'' There is every reason to think that Mark described the events and dialogues '''''faithfully''''' as they were reported to him. Only very rarely '''''His thoughts''''' or feelings are described in the Gospels: just when they are obvious from his actions and words.
:::#''"If you have something substantive in rebuttal, then please provide it without the ad hominems."'' Well, for substance, take a look at the second point of this enumeration - or read [[#Mark 4:38-41]]. But this is indeed a very personal matter, so "ad hominems" are of relevance:
:::##your ideas and translations are based on your personal insights - like your translation of [[Son of Man]] as "the Son, a human being", or your Biblical rebuttals to the theory of relativity. Until now, only the likes of [[PetyrB]] have been claimed to be able to follow your lines of thoughts when it comes to these insights.
:::##you have shown your lack of Greek time and time again. You claim that you just don't have this "literal and narrow view of the Greek" - but this "literal and narrow view" comes from knowing the basics, and being actually capable of translating a Greek text, and not only paraphrasing the KJB with help from a glossary.
::::It is frustrating to wait for eight months for the correction of a silly mistake (see the first point) - there can be no surprise that I become frustrated and cranky, and perhaps even more snappish than necessary. But the "ad hominems", the personal remarks above are rooted in my experience of editing Conservapedia over the last years. I'll be happy if I'm proven wrong: you just have to come up with a well-thought reply, addressing each of my points in this sections and the sections above sincerely (i.e., other than by just repeating "λέγω can mean ''lay to rest''") and diligently. It is an important matter, and it should be discussed in depths, or not at all.
::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 10:21, 19 March 2016 (EDT)
::::Will it take another eight months? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:12, 28 March 2016 (EDT)
::::::::::'''waiting for {{Days since|2016|3|19}} days...''' --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:33, 10 April 2016 (EDT)
 
After 40 days and 40 nights just another observation: Andy claims that «''Strong's goes further to admit that "légō originally [means] 'lay down to sleep,'" - which fits perfectly in the calming of the storm.''» and cites as source http://biblehub.com/greek/3004.htm . In reality, Strong doesn't do anything like this. He only gives the '''short definition''': ''I say, speak'' and the '''definition''': ''(denoting speech in progress), (a) I say, speak; I mean, mention, tell, (b) I call, name, especially in the pass., (c) I tell, command.''
 
So, Strong makes it clear that in the Bible, λέγω is used to denote speech in progress. He doesn't bother with irrelevant Homeric meanings. ..[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 07:48, 28 April 2016 (EDT)
 
== Perhaps a little more dual attribution ==
;I only read the lead section before posting this comment. I may revise after a more careful reading.
You may want to be a little more careful in the claims made in the lead section and, when appropriate, provide double-attribution. The prophecy of events in the Bible is OK but you should avoid revisionist claims in terms of specific scientific progress. It is sometimes very easy to take credit for specific aspects of scientific progress. I am just recommending caution and editorial review for the sake of protecting the reputation of the wiki as a trustworthy encyclopedia. An example might be a claim that it was G-d's Will that some fortunate historic event came out one way or the other (such as a military battle or potential Act of Nature) but it is more extraordinary to claim that a particular game of chess (or some such) was won through Divine Intervention. There are many scientific discoveries that came about in part because of accidents that can be treated as Acts of God, but attribution to the efforts of the researcher is also appropriate. One example might be the invention of the light bulb that was in part due to the grace of G-d but it was also due in part to Edison's persistence of making many hundreds of tries before he came upon a viable working model. Oh, I now see that my comments might be more appropriate over at [[Essay:Rebuttal to Biblical scientific foreknowledge]]. I am not sure I intend for a direct rebuttal but rather cautious claims and, to some degree, a meeting of the minds.--[[User:Amorrow|Amorrow]] ([[User talk:Amorrow|talk]]) 18:03, 12 January 2017 (EST)
SkipCaptcha
1,839
edits