Tom Short
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-12-2014, 11:44 AM
RE: Tom Short
(06-12-2014 03:39 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(05-12-2014 03:22 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  No, not mystical... esoteric means "limited people have" this knowledge. I was roundly attacked for mentioning that we need to know how to acquire certain esoteric knowledge, when science is getting a bit specialized.

You were chirped ("roundly attacked" - fuck, *now* you're growing a thin skin?) for implying that there is scientific knowledge which is gained through science and a body of "esoteric knowledge" which either cannot be accessed by or is ignored by science, and which somehow scientists are now more in touch with, possibly because they're spending time navel gazing, which is what you seem to do a lot of.

And now you try to pretend that you were just referring to increasing specialization in science. Bullshit.

It wasn't my intention to cause offense. I responded when I was criticized for using the word esoteric. Perhaps a better word choice would have been "difficult to acquire" knowledge and then you would have foreseen both the spiritual and secular applications I was thinking of.

Thanks.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 11:48 AM
RE: Tom Short
(08-12-2014 10:51 AM)Impulse Wrote:  
(05-12-2014 03:26 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I haven't changed my rubric in--oh, as long as I can remember--about contradictions. The only honest way is to accept them at face value and then go through the implications. A sub-part of that is realizing how many issues there are in an English Bible. I went to the Greek. Four of five meanings in the first concordance I looked at gave other senses of the word. Your contradiction was new to me--I can't recall hearing it before. I looked in the Greek and said "oh."

So the Greek one was the one where you said "oh". So then why did you present 4 interpretations to me? Which one was the Greek one? And why was that the one - because it fit your preconceptions?

Like I said, dishonesty is your biggest problem.

There were five English definitions listed in a concordance beneath the Greek term used in the scriptures. Four of the five lie on the side of what I was proposing, which made sense since I cannot think of any English translation that supports your proposal. I don't find that a conspiracy of any kind, since when we talk about English Bibles alone, we are talking about hundreds of separate translations from all ranges of conservative to liberal scholars. Remember that in the case of say, the NAS Bible, you have a wide variety of scholars included, even Witnesses and Mormons, to avoid future controversies in what I call inter-Christian apologetics, sharing accurate doctrine with cultic and "wrong" Christian groups.

Or if you like, approach the subject from a translation popular in academia. You'll find the same thing, along with no notes suggesting an error in the text (a missed eschaton).

I can live with being called dishonest but it's not earned in this case.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 12:37 PM
RE: Tom Short
(09-12-2014 11:48 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  There were five English definitions listed in a concordance beneath the Greek term used in the scriptures. Four of the five lie on the side of what I was proposing, which made sense since I cannot think of any English translation that supports your proposal.

You listed only four and you gave no sources or even identification of which ones were English and which one was Greek. Nor did you indicate which one you preferred (which, by what you said here, apparently was the Greek one).

(09-12-2014 11:48 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I don't find that a conspiracy of any kind, since when we talk about English Bibles alone, we are talking about hundreds of separate translations from all ranges of conservative to liberal scholars. Remember that in the case of say, the NAS Bible, you have a wide variety of scholars included, even Witnesses and Mormons, to avoid future controversies in what I call inter-Christian apologetics, sharing accurate doctrine with cultic and "wrong" Christian groups.

Or if you like, approach the subject from a translation popular in academia. You'll find the same thing, along with no notes suggesting an error in the text (a missed eschaton).

Please show me even one translation where the word "coming" in "coming in his kingdom" doesn't mean "returning" or at least coming from someplace else to here.

(09-12-2014 11:48 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I can live with being called dishonest but it's not earned in this case.

Sure it is. You had an "oh" moment where you believed you had the correct definition and, instead of just saying so, you provided 4 different definitions and didn't even spell out which was the "oh" one. I call that "when you don't have a strong point, bury the weak ones in a lot crap and maybe they won't notice". Furthermore, after I asked you here to spell it out (which one was the Greek one?), you still avoided answering the question. Yes, dishonest. Drinking Beverage

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
12-12-2014, 10:37 AM
RE: Tom Short
(09-12-2014 12:37 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 11:48 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  There were five English definitions listed in a concordance beneath the Greek term used in the scriptures. Four of the five lie on the side of what I was proposing, which made sense since I cannot think of any English translation that supports your proposal.

You listed only four and you gave no sources or even identification of which ones were English and which one was Greek. Nor did you indicate which one you preferred (which, by what you said here, apparently was the Greek one).

(09-12-2014 11:48 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I don't find that a conspiracy of any kind, since when we talk about English Bibles alone, we are talking about hundreds of separate translations from all ranges of conservative to liberal scholars. Remember that in the case of say, the NAS Bible, you have a wide variety of scholars included, even Witnesses and Mormons, to avoid future controversies in what I call inter-Christian apologetics, sharing accurate doctrine with cultic and "wrong" Christian groups.

Or if you like, approach the subject from a translation popular in academia. You'll find the same thing, along with no notes suggesting an error in the text (a missed eschaton).

Please show me even one translation where the word "coming" in "coming in his kingdom" doesn't mean "returning" or at least coming from someplace else to here.

(09-12-2014 11:48 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I can live with being called dishonest but it's not earned in this case.

Sure it is. You had an "oh" moment where you believed you had the correct definition and, instead of just saying so, you provided 4 different definitions and didn't even spell out which was the "oh" one. I call that "when you don't have a strong point, bury the weak ones in a lot crap and maybe they won't notice". Furthermore, after I asked you here to spell it out (which one was the Greek one?), you still avoided answering the question. Yes, dishonest. Drinking Beverage

Huh? All came from a concordance--that is Greek words given full voice in English. There is no Greek "one" just as some words in English have multiple meanings. I'm sorry if I confused four for five as this has been bashed about for some days.

There are hundreds of English Bibles with different renderings of the same scriptures--despite that many of them are word-for-word the same here, I'm pointing out the folly of misinterpreting the word IN as FROM or OUT OF or RETURNING TO EARTH. I'm saying it's foolish or folly but not trying to anger you or name call.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2014, 11:41 AM
RE: Tom Short
(12-12-2014 10:37 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Huh? All came from a concordance--that is Greek words given full voice in English. There is no Greek "one" just as some words in English have multiple meanings. I'm sorry if I confused four for five as this has been bashed about for some days.

Ok, I'll take you at your word. Frankly, I see problems even with this, but it's not worth belaboring the point.

(12-12-2014 10:37 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  There are hundreds of English Bibles with different renderings of the same scriptures--despite that many of them are word-for-word the same here, I'm pointing out the folly of misinterpreting the word IN as FROM or OUT OF or RETURNING TO EARTH. I'm saying it's foolish or folly but not trying to anger you or name call.

The word was "coming", not "from" or "out of".

Also, I asked you:

(09-12-2014 12:37 PM)Impulse Wrote:  Please show me even one translation where the word "coming" in "coming in his kingdom" doesn't mean "returning" or at least coming from someplace else to here."

So the word we were discussing should have been quite clear. Also, I see you provided no example of such a translation.

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2014, 12:11 PM
RE: Tom Short
Well, it would be logically impossible for me to show you a Bible that says "coming" and show you it "really doesn't mean returning". It's not falsifiable EITHER way. All I can do is try to point out where you are jumping to conclusions by not attempting to look at a Greek concordance.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2014, 12:48 PM
RE: Tom Short
(12-12-2014 12:11 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Well, it would be logically impossible for me to show you a Bible that says "coming" and show you it "really doesn't mean returning". It's not falsifiable EITHER way. All I can do is try to point out where you are jumping to conclusions by not attempting to look at a Greek concordance.

So in other words this has all been:
"I don't like the most likely and obvious interpretation because it causes too much cognitive dissonance. Surely there must be alternatives... ah, here are a few possibilities. Whew, off the hook. I don't know which, if any, of these interpretations are correct, but at least now I don't have to admit to that one I don't like."

But it is falsifiable. All you have to do is provide one example where the passage clearly means something else and then you will have provided an example of one that doesn't mean "returning". So it's possible. Whether you can find one is another matter.

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
15-12-2014, 12:01 PM
RE: Tom Short
(12-12-2014 12:48 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(12-12-2014 12:11 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Well, it would be logically impossible for me to show you a Bible that says "coming" and show you it "really doesn't mean returning". It's not falsifiable EITHER way. All I can do is try to point out where you are jumping to conclusions by not attempting to look at a Greek concordance.

So in other words this has all been:
"I don't like the most likely and obvious interpretation because it causes too much cognitive dissonance. Surely there must be alternatives... ah, here are a few possibilities. Whew, off the hook. I don't know which, if any, of these interpretations are correct, but at least now I don't have to admit to that one I don't like."

But it is falsifiable. All you have to do is provide one example where the passage clearly means something else and then you will have provided an example of one that doesn't mean "returning". So it's possible. Whether you can find one is another matter.

All this has not been as you put it. Restating. I see the contradiction that is bothering us in English:

1. The context in all synoptic gospels is an immediate transfiguration of Jesus and the voice of Father God Himself, along with the appearance of Moses and Elijah speaking about the judgment day! That was insufficient for you--that's okay, it's been insufficient for each liberal scholar I've discussed the passage with also, so...

2. I went to the Greek which provides four or five (you said "four" and I won't argue with you) possibilities in the English, one of which would feed the contradiction and the remaining would not and...

3. We seem to be disputing what the word "in" means. It doesn't say in English "coming out of heaven" or "coming out of space" or "coming unto His Kingdom" but "coming IN His Kingdom" which to me makes good sense in the passage--Jesus is in/among His disciples, Father God, Moses and Elijah, and God says listen to JESUS.

Every conservative/evangelical I've discussed this with feel it's not a contradiction and every liberal scholar/commentator feels it is so... we can move on if you like.

Thank you for your patience with me.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2014, 02:24 PM
RE: Tom Short
(15-12-2014 12:01 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  All this has not been as you put it.

I didn't expect you to admit it.

(15-12-2014 12:01 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  1. The context in all synoptic gospels is an immediate transfiguration of Jesus and the voice of Father God Himself, along with the appearance of Moses and Elijah speaking about the judgment day!

Citation needed.

(15-12-2014 12:01 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  2. I went to the Greek which provides four or five (you said "four" and I won't argue with you) possibilities in the English, one of which would feed the contradiction and the remaining would not and...

The fifth was mine which I didn't understand to be in agreement with any of yours, but if it was, maybe that's why we're disagreeing on the count. The one, however, that "feeds the contradiction" is also the only one that really fits - except for the part that it never came true.

(15-12-2014 12:01 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  3. We seem to be disputing what the word "in" means. It doesn't say in English "coming out of heaven" or "coming out of space" or "coming unto His Kingdom" but "coming IN His Kingdom" which to me makes good sense in the passage--Jesus is in/among His disciples, Father God, Moses and Elijah, and God says listen to JESUS.

I'm not disputing "in" at all. It doesn't matter which way you interpret that word, it hasn't happened. It's the word, "coming" that is the key.

(15-12-2014 12:01 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Every conservative/evangelical I've discussed this with feel it's not a contradiction and every liberal scholar/commentator feels it is so... we can move on if you like.

No big surprise there.

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2014, 12:22 PM
RE: Tom Short
(15-12-2014 02:24 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(15-12-2014 12:01 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  All this has not been as you put it.

I didn't expect you to admit it.

(15-12-2014 12:01 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  1. The context in all synoptic gospels is an immediate transfiguration of Jesus and the voice of Father God Himself, along with the appearance of Moses and Elijah speaking about the judgment day!

Citation needed.

(15-12-2014 12:01 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  2. I went to the Greek which provides four or five (you said "four" and I won't argue with you) possibilities in the English, one of which would feed the contradiction and the remaining would not and...

The fifth was mine which I didn't understand to be in agreement with any of yours, but if it was, maybe that's why we're disagreeing on the count. The one, however, that "feeds the contradiction" is also the only one that really fits - except for the part that it never came true.

(15-12-2014 12:01 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  3. We seem to be disputing what the word "in" means. It doesn't say in English "coming out of heaven" or "coming out of space" or "coming unto His Kingdom" but "coming IN His Kingdom" which to me makes good sense in the passage--Jesus is in/among His disciples, Father God, Moses and Elijah, and God says listen to JESUS.

I'm not disputing "in" at all. It doesn't matter which way you interpret that word, it hasn't happened. It's the word, "coming" that is the key.

(15-12-2014 12:01 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Every conservative/evangelical I've discussed this with feel it's not a contradiction and every liberal scholar/commentator feels it is so... we can move on if you like.

No big surprise there.

I'll let you have the last word here. But first, I'll say I'm disappointed you need a reference since in the three synoptics that say "some of you will..." the next IMMEDIATE passage is the transfiguration passage. The gospels are not written as linear histories the way we moderns expect to read chronological histories but clearly the three gospels each present the transfiguration to be shown as the fulfillment of the story. Go to any of the three then read the next verses--the issue is sometimes, that the next verses start a new chapter--but chapters as we know didn't come with the original texts...

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: