Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Re-interpretations

The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 11:59:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: Now it is popularly known that many versions of the bible have been reinterpreted from the original Greek version.

But even that withstanding, much in fact, most of the Bible depends on reinterpretation to remain non-contradictory and the more we learn about the universe we are in and around, the more reinterpretation is needed..

Why is it that Socrates or old pre-Socratic human philosophers not need their works reinterpreted, from a time much earlier than the bible, but yet that of divine Scripture need so much interpretation?

But the hard question is, with that Justification does a human have for taking it in any other sense from the divine literal meaning?

How do you know what to change and what keep?

Why would God be so dishonest in claiming the Heaven to be in the sky and hell underground to the people the Bible was originally given too?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 1:23:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 11:59:46 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Now it is popularly known that many versions of the bible have been reinterpreted from the original Greek version.


Can you give some examples?

But even that withstanding, much in fact, most of the Bible depends on reinterpretation to remain non-contradictory and the more we learn about the universe we are in and around, the more reinterpretation is needed..


I think it only needs to be looked at in light of a first century greco roman perspective. (The new testament that is.)

Why is it that Socrates or old pre-Socratic human philosophers not need their works reinterpreted, from a time much earlier than the bible, but yet that of divine Scripture need so much interpretation?


One has nothing to do with the other.

But the hard question is, with that Justification does a human have for taking it in any other sense from the divine literal meaning?


Huh?

How do you know what to change and what keep?


Still don't understand.

Why would God be so dishonest in claiming the Heaven to be in the sky and hell underground to the people the Bible was originally given too?

Can you either: 1. show it is dishonest to say that heaven is "in the sky" or at least up somewhere or 2. prove the bible is speaking strictly literal in regards to those passages.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 2:56:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
*bump* try a little harder.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 3:25:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 2:56:32 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
*bump* try a little harder.

He gave you a response and asked for clarification. Will you not deign to give him that?
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 4:30:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Socrates' works have a very large amount of interpretation involved... a pretty substantial number of historians and philosophers believe Socrates didn't exist, and a still substantial size believe Plato's work holds a layer of irony mocking some of Socrates' ideas e.g. on rhetoric.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 5:56:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 4:30:25 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Socrates' works have a very large amount of interpretation involved... a pretty substantial number of historians and philosophers believe Socrates didn't exist, and a still substantial size believe Plato's work holds a layer of irony mocking some of Socrates' ideas e.g. on rhetoric.

The Fool: So I take it you are responding to only the second of the many question put forth. I believe you have arbitrary selected this one for reasons of Ill intentions and we all know why? It's the same ill intended claims of Wnope.
On top of that you know exactly what I mean and agree I am sure. That is what makes it worse.

Question 2

The Fool: Why is it that Socrates or old pre-Socratic human philosophers not need their works reinterpreted, from a time much earlier than the bible, but yet that of divine Scripture need so much interpretation?

Firstly this question is a standalone and the rest of them can be answered are self-substantial on their own. The point here is you are not sincere in the topic but trying to get Revenge on me, again. You are intentionally trying to look for slips to point out. Even when you understand and most likely agree with the main idea I am getting at.

Secondly, in these works we get the best translation of the Greek we can, many times leaving concepts un-translated. Apiorion LOGOS, NOUS and many more. The Rest of the interpretation is left to the reader.

The Hawk: Socrates' works have a very large amount of interpretation involved... a pretty substantial number of historians and philosophers believe Socrates didn't exist, and a still substantial size believe Plato's work holds a layer of irony mocking some of Socrates' ideas e.g. on rhetoric.

The Fool: Very large and substantial are over lapping conceptions, and they don't give any particular in formation.

They are like Heap principles. And those philosophers are left to interpret how they like. It is of fallible humans. And I know you are smarter than this. Get over it. Try and work with me, you can have friendly refutations, I don't care about passed argument, get rid of hate and start fresh, or you are going to have a miserable time here. I don't mind if you give some advice, maybe I could have said something clearer; I encouraging positive criticm that is why I put my arguments out in the open AT RISK! But make sure too also know when you have been refuted.

Review:
1.It's not necessary for the thread
2.You know what I am saying anyway
3.You intentions are ill. (immoral)
4.Your claims were irrelevant
5.You intentionally left out the information of the pre-Socratic philosophy.
6.You conflated the different type of interpretation and the difference in time.
7.The Western Bible is spin off and manipulation of the original Orthodox Greek Bible.

As I told you before, stop this bullsh!t.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 6:03:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 3:25:56 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/29/2012 2:56:32 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
*bump* try a little harder.

He gave you a response and asked for clarification. Will you not deign to give him that?

The Fool:
1. What is your intention?

He has avoided trying to even make sense of the questions. It's an effect of Cognitive Bias. That is his mind is so against what I am saying before he reads it that they are simple questions which he didn't put any effort to try and make sense of them. Good luck reading a Kant paper will already having a mindset that it's wrong. Without POC you can't learn anything.

2. So do you have any remarks about the topic or is this more of the same old immoral endeavour?

3. Can you actually answer any of the 40 questions I have asked in the past??
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 6:20:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 6:03:01 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/29/2012 3:25:56 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/29/2012 2:56:32 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
*bump* try a little harder.

He gave you a response and asked for clarification. Will you not deign to give him that?

The Fool:
1. What is your intention?

He has avoided trying to even make sense of the questions. It's an effect of Cognitive Bias. That is his mind is so against what I am saying before he reads it that they are simple questions which he didn't put any effort to try and make sense of them. Good luck reading a Kant paper will already having a mindset that it's wrong. Without POC you can't learn anything.

2. So do you have any remarks about the topic or is this more of the same old immoral endeavour?

3. Can you actually answer any of the 40 questions I have asked in the past??


1. My intention is point out that asking what you mean by "But the hard question is, with that Justification does a human have for taking it in any other sense from the divine literal meaning?" is a relevant question.

2. For instance, in order to get to English, a translation in the Bible must be made of the word "yom."

If one person says "the divine literal meaning is that 'yom' means 'day'" and another says "the divine literal meaning is that 'yom' means 'age.'" One interpretation means "the universe was created in seven days" and the other is "the universe was created in seven ages." Yom translates to either "day" or "age."

Which person is using the divine literal meaning?

3. Among other things, I showed your stated attempt to remaster Hume was a trivial tautology, and you responded with an incoherent reference to and impossible explanations being indistinguishable from lacking knowledge of how an event is explained.

http://www.debate.org...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 6:27:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 6:03:01 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/29/2012 3:25:56 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/29/2012 2:56:32 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
*bump* try a little harder.

He gave you a response and asked for clarification. Will you not deign to give him that?

The Fool:
1. What is your intention?

He has avoided trying to even make sense of the questions. It's an effect of Cognitive Bias. That is his mind is so against what I am saying before he reads it that they are simple questions which he didn't put any effort to try and make sense of them. Good luck reading a Kant paper will already having a mindset that it's wrong. Without POC you can't learn anything.


How do you know it's not YOU who has the stronger effect of "Cognitive Bias"? How do YOU know YOU'RE not the one who's mind is so against whatever he's saying before you read it that you won't put in the effort to try to engage with his answer?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 6:34:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 1:23:54 AM, stubs wrote:
At 7/28/2012 11:59:46 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Now it is popularly known that many versions of the bible have been reinterpreted from the original Greek version.


Stubs: Can you give some examples?

The Fool: The Original Bible is the orthadox Greek Bible that was hand select from older books by The Greek Eastern Roman empire. The Original Orthadox(true) Christianity. It wasn't for hundred of years after, the Western Roman Empire Came up with a 'Remix' of the original version, in Latin. And from the beginning the Bible has been retranslated and interpretated by an indefinite amoung of government BY HAND, with many errors and intention to Rule. But even that withstanding. Its still need to be reinterprated it to make it have some sanity.

But even that withstanding, much in fact, most of the Bible depends on reinterpretation to remain non-contradictory and the more we learn about the universe we are in and around, the more reinterpretation is needed..


I think it only needs to be looked at in light of a first century greco roman perspective. (The new testament that is.)

The Fool: right so by what authority do you pick and choose God words over another.?

Why is it that Socrates or old pre-Socratic human philosophers not need their works reinterpreted, from a time much earlier than the bible, but yet that of divine Scripture need so much interpretation?


Stubs: One has nothing to do with the other.

The Fool: well we would think that one which is claimed to be the words of God, Should not be allowed to be reinterprated, because one would have to have a Divine knowledge to have such justification. While this is not the case in the philosophy of humans.


But the hard question is, with that Justification does a human have for taking it in any other sense from the divine literal meaning?

Stubs: Huh?

The Fool: why do theologins and past popes(pre-luther) have the Godly justification to re-interprate the Bible from its literal meaning. Aka there is not UNIVERSE in the Bible. Everything popped into existence only 6000 thousand years ago, when civilizations are known to have existed still. People leaving in fishes, and nohahs ark being with a set of all animals including dino-saurs which lived waaay before 6000 years ago, even that not being possibly enough genitic variation.

How do you know what to change and what keep?


Stubs: Still don't understand.

The Fool: now you do.

Why would God be so dishonest in claiming the Heaven to be in the sky and hell underground to the people the Bible was originally given too?

Can you either:
1. show it is dishonest to say that heaven is "in the sky" or at least up somewhere.
It was specifically mean to be in the clouds. Jesus went into the Sky, not in outer space. With his complete body. Because then they thought you go to heaven with your complete mind and body. Which has been completly re-interpreted since then.
How could the people of the first century know that God did'nt literally mean what he said.

2. prove the bible is speaking strictly literal in regards to those passages.

The Fool: firstly I asked the questions? so you should be answering first. But its so simple it doesn't matter. Do you think it actually makes sense that the Bible given to people in the first century were given a God world that could only be known through the future reinterpretation by Theologins and churches which are not part of the bible what so ever???/ Does that make sense to you. All the literal interpretation made sense the First century people because they were completly ignront about how the world worked. If we never learned what is passed the heavens there would never need to reinterpretation. They also thought the mind was in THE HEART. Not brain. that is why it is written that THE FOOL says in his heart there is not God. Because they thought your heart was you Brain. THey thought the Todays Brain was Cooling system for the body. All those crazy notions were plausable to people the but not now. That is why they need to be Reinterpretated now. So they can't keep up with Reality.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 6:49:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 6:27:37 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/29/2012 6:03:01 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/29/2012 3:25:56 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/29/2012 2:56:32 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
*bump* try a little harder.

He gave you a response and asked for clarification. Will you not deign to give him that?

The Fool:
1. What is your intention?

He has avoided trying to even make sense of the questions. It's an effect of Cognitive Bias. That is his mind is so against what I am saying before he reads it that they are simple questions which he didn't put any effort to try and make sense of them. Good luck reading a Kant paper will already having a mindset that it's wrong. Without POC you can't learn anything.


How do you know it's not YOU who has the stronger effect of "Cognitive Bias"?

The Fool: It is part of my philosophic method to only look for refutation. That is what it means to The Fool, is to assume you are a fool and thus wrong and then look only for information that can prove yourself wrong aka FALSIFIABILITY CRITERION. Read my Critical thinking about Scientific methods in the science sections. That is part of the PCP method(progressive CRITICAL philosophic method.)

popculturepooka: How do YOU know YOU'RE not the one who's mind is so against whatever he's saying before you read it that you won't put in the effort to try to engage with his answer?

The Fool: Because I know he is smarter then that and the writing was clear that time. If it was the same information that agree with him, he would have no problem in understanding it precisely.

So what part of the topic are you intrested in?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
acvavra
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 6:52:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 11:59:46 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Now it is popularly known that many versions of the bible have been reinterpreted from the original Greek version.
No one has this "original" Greek version. It doesn't exist. You 'd be a millionaire if you had the originals. No, the new versions are based on corrupt Greek texts.

But even that withstanding, much in fact, most of the Bible depends on reinterpretation to remain non-contradictory and the more we learn about the universe we are in and around, the more reinterpretation is needed..

Why is it that Socrates or old pre-Socratic human philosophers not need their works reinterpreted, from a time much earlier than the bible, but yet that of divine Scripture need so much interpretation?

But the hard question is, with that Justification does a human have for taking it in any other sense from the divine literal meaning?

How do you know what to change and what keep?

Why would God be so dishonest in claiming the Heaven to be in the sky and hell underground to the people the Bible was originally given too?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 6:55:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 6:52:12 PM, acvavra wrote:
At 7/28/2012 11:59:46 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Now it is popularly known that many versions of the bible have been reinterpreted from the original Greek version.

No one has this "original" Greek version. It doesn't exist. You 'd be a millionaire if you had the originals. No, the new versions are based on corrupt Greek texts.

The Fool: which makes the new versions much more likly to be further corrupt.
The Orthadox Christianity is the most original version. The other versions came Way later.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
acvavra
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 7:16:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 6:55:31 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/29/2012 6:52:12 PM, acvavra wrote:
At 7/28/2012 11:59:46 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Now it is popularly known that many versions of the bible have been reinterpreted from the original Greek version.

No one has this "original" Greek version. It doesn't exist. You 'd be a millionaire if you had the originals. No, the new versions are based on corrupt Greek texts.

The Fool: which makes the new versions much more likly to be further corrupt.
The Orthadox Christianity is the most original version. The other versions came Way later.

Correct. So get you an old king james bible and you'll have the Word of God.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 7:23:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 7:16:39 PM, acvavra wrote:
At 7/29/2012 6:55:31 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/29/2012 6:52:12 PM, acvavra wrote:
At 7/28/2012 11:59:46 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Now it is popularly known that many versions of the bible have been reinterpreted from the original Greek version.

No one has this "original" Greek version. It doesn't exist. You 'd be a millionaire if you had the originals. No, the new versions are based on corrupt Greek texts.

The Fool: which makes the new versions much more likly to be further corrupt.
The Orthadox Christianity is the most original version. The other versions came Way later.

Correct. So get you an old king james bible and you'll have the Word of God.

The Fool: That was much later, your is derived from Orthadox Christianity. that is why they had to call it Orthadox which then means TRUE because they noticed the amount of manipulated versions that stems from it. But they are the ones that but it together. Your was not out for hundreds of years after.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 7:24:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: Facts are Facts..
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 7:34:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 11:59:46 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Now it is popularly known that many versions of the bible have been reinterpreted from the original Greek version.

But even that withstanding, much in fact, most of the Bible depends on reinterpretation to remain non-contradictory and the more we learn about the universe we are in and around, the more reinterpretation is needed..

Why is it that Socrates or old pre-Socratic human philosophers not need their works reinterpreted, from a time much earlier than the bible, but yet that of divine Scripture need so much interpretation?

Those are only some examples. Much of old history is re-interpreted because the accounts of various events (namely geologic ones) are inaccurate because they do not understand what is really going on.

And with many of the old scientists, they are simply called wrong because of their lack of understanding. While Roemer was actually wrong in his measurement, given the tools of the time and the understanding, what he accomplished was amazing, even though it was wrong.


But the hard question is, with that Justification does a human have for taking it in any other sense from the divine literal meaning?

How do you know what to change and what keep?

Why would God be so dishonest in claiming the Heaven to be in the sky and hell underground to the people the Bible was originally given too?

You ever try to explain the creation of the universe via the big bang to a 3 year old? It is far easier and better to give them a simple answer until they are old and wise enough to understand the true answer.

We still do this in education, by teaching Newtonian physics instead of Relativistic physic in into classes.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 8:02:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 7:34:33 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/28/2012 11:59:46 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Now it is popularly known that many versions of the bible have been reinterpreted from the original Greek version.

But even that withstanding, much in fact, most of the Bible depends on reinterpretation to remain non-contradictory and the more we learn about the universe we are in and around, the more reinterpretation is needed..

Why is it that Socrates or old pre-Socratic human philosophers not need their works reinterpreted, from a time much earlier than the bible, but yet that of divine Scripture need so much interpretation?

Those are only some examples. Much of old history is re-interpreted because the accounts of various events (namely geologic ones) are inaccurate because they do not understand what is really going on.

And with many of the old scientists, they are simply called wrong because of their lack of understanding. While Roemer was actually wrong in his measurement, given the tools of the time and the understanding, what he accomplished was amazing, even though it was wrong.


But the hard question is, with that Justification does a human have for taking it in any other sense from the divine literal meaning?

How do you know what to change and what keep?

Why would God be so dishonest in claiming the Heaven to be in the sky and hell underground to the people the Bible was originally given too?

You ever try to explain the creation of the universe via the big bang to a 3 year old? It is far easier and better to give them a simple answer until they are old and wise enough to understand the true answer.

We still do this in education, by teaching Newtonian physics instead of Relativistic physic in into classes.

The Fool: I think that the Big Bang theory is horrible now. lol. But I think its far to see that I am talking about Universal claims of divinity, Such as commandment. See my reponse to stubs to get a full grasp of what I mean.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 8:59:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 6:20:36 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/29/2012 6:03:01 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/29/2012 3:25:56 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/29/2012 2:56:32 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
*bump* try a little harder.

He gave you a response and asked for clarification. Will you not deign to give him that?

The Fool:
1. What is your intention?

He has avoided trying to even make sense of the questions. It's an effect of Cognitive Bias. That is his mind is so against what I am saying before he reads it that they are simple questions which he didn't put any effort to try and make sense of them. Good luck reading a Kant paper will already having a mindset that it's wrong. Without POC you can't learn anything.

2. So do you have any remarks about the topic or is this more of the same old immoral endeavour?

3. Can you actually answer any of the 40 questions I have asked in the past??


1. My intention is point out that asking what you mean by "But the hard question is, with that Justification does a human have for taking it in any other sense from the divine literal meaning?" is a relevant question.

2. For instance, in order to get to English, a translation in the Bible must be made of the word "yom."

If one person says "the divine literal meaning is that 'yom' means 'day'" and another says "the divine literal meaning is that 'yom' means 'age.'" One interpretation means "the universe was created in seven days" and the other is "the universe was created in seven ages." Yom translates to either "day" or "age."

Which person is using the divine literal meaning?

3. Among other things, I showed your stated attempt to remaster Hume was a trivial tautology, and you responded with an incoherent reference to and impossible explanations being indistinguishable from lacking knowledge of how an event is explained.

http://www.debate.org...

Were you planning to respond?

You like to accuse me of ducking topics, yet we keep seeming to find you scurrying away at some point during a conversation.

Does the literal divine meaning of "yom" translate to "day" or "age?" The interpretational choice has MAJOR implications (whether the universe existed for billions of years or thousands), and the two are mutually exclusive.

Unless there is some method by which we can say either "yom as day" or "yom as age" is the "literal divine meaning" then you cannot coherently claim there is only one meaning from which generations deviate.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 10:18:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 8:59:47 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/29/2012 6:20:36 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/29/2012 6:03:01 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/29/2012 3:25:56 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/29/2012 2:56:32 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
*bump* try a little harder.

He gave you a response and asked for clarification. Will you not deign to give him that?

The Fool:
1. What is your intention?

He has avoided trying to even make sense of the questions. It's an effect of Cognitive Bias. That is his mind is so against what I am saying before he reads it that they are simple questions which he didn't put any effort to try and make sense of them. Good luck reading a Kant paper will already having a mindset that it's wrong. Without POC you can't learn anything.

2. So do you have any remarks about the topic or is this more of the same old immoral endeavour?

3. Can you actually answer any of the 40 questions I have asked in the past??


1. My intention is point out that asking what you mean by "But the hard question is, with that Justification does a human have for taking it in any other sense from the divine literal meaning?" is a relevant question.

2. For instance, in order to get to English, a translation in the Bible must be made of the word "yom."

If one person says "the divine literal meaning is that 'yom' means 'day'" and another says "the divine literal meaning is that 'yom' means 'age.'" One interpretation means "the universe was created in seven days" and the other is "the universe was created in seven ages." Yom translates to either "day" or "age."

Which person is using the divine literal meaning?

3. Among other things, I showed your stated attempt to remaster Hume was a trivial tautology, and you responded with an incoherent reference to and impossible explanations being indistinguishable from lacking knowledge of how an event is explained.

http://www.debate.org...

Were you planning to respond?

You like to accuse me of ducking topics, yet we keep seeming to find you scurrying away at some point during a conversation.

Does the literal divine meaning of "yom" translate to "day" or "age?" The interpretational choice has MAJOR implications (whether the universe existed for billions of years or thousands), and the two are mutually exclusive.

Unless there is some method by which we can say either "yom as day" or "yom as age" is the "literal divine meaning" then you cannot coherently claim there is only one meaning from which generations deviate.

The Fool: In time man I am working here at my desk. IF you have a personal vendeta then create a thread in the personal section, of message me privatly. Havent even read you nonsense here or in the other thread. Your credentials have been shot!. To many irrational and Hate driven quesiton. You last one was agianst me not relating my argument to Kant, out of know where. and then twisted to I have made his argument worse. These are weird superflious of your own arguments. No body is on the recieving end to those. They are wierd. I will get to them when I am done with more intellectually stimulating matters. You never ending quest to catch me slipping is of immoral and deplorable nature. If you want I will make a section for you in the personal section and we can go your problems with me but STOP RUINING THE THREADS FOR YOU PERSONAL SELF-ESTEEM.

What part concerns re-interpretations. Not Just linguistical interpretation but from physical to metaphysical inquiries beyond human understanding(divine) Your ill intended question was already answered among other Responses.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 10:29:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Edit
The Fool: Your last one was against me not relating my argument to Hume, which is ridulas because I have exclusive access to that. Then out of know where. and then twisted to I have made his argument worse. Which is irrelant to the argument in the first place. That would be an appeal to authorty, Anyways, Make a forum in the personal section or contact me if you have personal issues.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL