Questions, Misconceptions, Objections,..etc,

[betsy]

At least there's no debate about the non-existence of betsy's response to the above.

Oh yes, that's already been responded to. Of course everything flew over his head!

Furthermore, saying, "There is not one word of God, there are many words of God," only proved that Canadien has no clue as to what he's talking about!

Apparently he doesn't even understand what the Bible is.

What? He's talking "quotations" from God?

FYI, the whole Bible is THE WORD OF GOD!

Edited September 18, 2012 by betsy

[g_bambino]

Oh yes, that's already been responded to.

Where? I took a look through the posts that followed his and couldn't see any response to those particular points of his.

[betsy]

Where? I took a look through the posts that followed his and couldn't see any response to those particular points of his.

He was just re-hashing an argument that's already been addressed - scroll back past him! I'm not going to keep repeating myself. Obviously everything flew over his head!

No surprise there - now it shows he doesn't even understand what the Bible is! Thanks for bringing that up, btw, I almost forgot about that part. And here I am wasting my time on him!

Edited September 18, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

Oh Canadien....

Have you ever heard of the, "Letter of the law?" You wouldn't say, "the letters of the law" unless you're of course corresponding with your lawyer....or your probation officer. :D

See what happens when you yoke yourself with non-believers???

[BubberMiley]

See what happens when you yoke yourself with non-believers???

As an even stronger believer, I'm not sure what you're getting at.

But as my born-again soul has become super-powered. I almost have the Creator convinced to forgive you for bearing false witness against Obama.

You may thank me in the here(in)after.

[g_bambino]

He was just re-hashing an argument...

Seems like a valid point to me.

Putting aside the fact that your argument is predicated upon an assumption (namely that the use of the word "stretches" in one version of the modern Bible refers to only one of its possible interpretations - the metric expansion of space - and thus is proof the Bible must be the "word of God", since man could not have written about what he did not yet understand), the word "stretches" itself is, indeed, both a modern interpretation and translation of passages written in an older language. Further, the Bible in other modern languages does not use that language's equivalent of the English "stretches" in the sentences we're talking about; even the King James and English Standard Bibles differ in using "spreadeth" and "stretched", respectively. In other words, on top of your aforementioned assumption, your "proof" also relies on the deliberate denial of the variety of language.

[ed.: sp, +]

Edited September 18, 2012 by g_bambino

[CANADIEN]

I wasn't telling you what you think. I was asking you.

Yet, unsurprisingly, you keep doing it. Like in...

Since you're saying that the various translations of the Bible from Hebrew to different languages does not translate well thereby the message gets changed, you are actually suggesting our Bibles that's not in Hebrew, are not the Word of God!

See, I wasn't even aware I said, or though, such a thing. Thank you so much for telling me I think that.

And there is this.

Furthermore, since obviously you don't understand Hebrew - otherwise you would've gladly explained the big difference in meaning between Hebrew and the current translations - you're pulling things out of thin air! :lol:

I could have sworn that my point was that, if someone claim that one word appeared in 11 different places in the Bible thousands of years ago, when biblical textes existed in one language, they should be able to tell what the word was. I stand corrected again.

Edited September 18, 2012 by CANADIEN

[betsy]

Seems like a valid point to me.

Putting aside the fact that your argument is predicated upon an assumption (namely that the use of the word "stretches" in one version of the modern Bible refers to only one of its possible interpretations - the metric expansion of space - and thus is proof the Bible must be the "word of God", since man could not have written about what he did not yet understand), the word "stretches" itself is, indeed, both a modern interpretation and translation of passages written in an older language. Further, the Bible in other modern languages does not use that language's equivalent of the English "stretches" in the sentences we're talking about; even the King James and English Standard Bibles differ in using "spreadeth" and "stretched", respectively. In other words, on top of your aforementioned assumption, your "proof" also relies on the deliberate denial of the variety of language.

[ed.: sp, +]

So it seems valid to you. If you don't agree with the logic....what more can I say? That's your opinion.

Edited September 18, 2012 by betsy

[CANADIEN]

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ15.html

So yes, it provides such description!

Interesting. Most people would not think a hand reaching out is an apt analogy for the stretching of the Universe. As for me, I'll wait until you tell me what my opinion is.

Edited September 18, 2012 by CANADIEN

[betsy]

Interesting. Most people would not think à Gand reaching out is an apt analogy for the stretching of the Universe. As for me, I'll wait until you tell me what my opinion is.

You kidding me? After all your convoluted contradictions? You can have your opinion anyway and anyhow you want it....I just ain't buying none of it, is all.

[g_bambino]

If you don't agree with the logic....what more can I say?

No, I do agree with the logic. What CANADIEN & others are arguing is logical. What you are arguing is not; it relies on assumptions and denial.

[CANADIEN]

Oh canadien....you and your contradictory merry ways!

Here is another empirical evidence how confused and non-credible you are: On the simple argument about "bullying." You even made a parody about me....

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=19801&st=765

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=19801&st=765

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=19801&st=780

You call that, bullying? For being called an oppressive jerk???

Ha-ha-ha! ROFL Ha-ha-ha!

Once again, you know what I think better than I do. I could have sworn my point was that I am no more a jerk that he is a bully for calling me so - that is, not at all. I stand corrected again.

[CANADIEN]

Oh yes, that's already been responded to. Of course everything flew over his head!

Furthermore, saying, "There is not one word of God, there are many words of God," only proved that Canadien has no clue as to what he's talking about!

Apparently he doesn't even understand what the Bible is.

I can only marvel once again at your knowledge. I was under the impression I was arguing that the only conclusion one can draw from the "God included some words at a later time when he thought people would understand His meaning" argument is that there muat be more than one Word of God. Thanks for pointing out I meant something else.

What? He's talking "quotations" from God?

I am? News to me. You truly amaze me.

[CANADIEN]

I'm not going to keep repeating myself.

That would be a first.

[CANADIEN]

At least there's no debate about the non-existence of betsy's response to the above.

Actually, there is a response. It consists in treating as non-relevant anything that doesn't fit her own interpretation of what people what is the meaning of "the Bible is the Word of God".

Speaking of which. I DO believe the Bible is the word of God. From beginning to end. It is also clear to me that God uses various ways of telling His Word, including allegories, poetry and imagery. I suspect not many people would argue today that He actually stopped the Sun to help Joshua win a battle. The truth that text reveals seems to me to be that He stands by His people, not that He stopped the Sun.

Somehow, that makes unworthy of being a Christian. And of course, that can not be what I actually believe.

Edited September 18, 2012 by CANADIEN

[g_bambino]

As I've said before, and I'll repeat again - it doesn't matter whether the translation is not exactly the same from the original text. What matters is that the word, "stretches," which accurately describes what's happening to the universe (which was only understood by science in 1929]) ended up appearing in the Bible!

Who knows, perhaps God did wait for a certain time to have that word to appear. Perhaps He did wait for the time when we'll actually understand what's being described (through modern technology)! How do we actually understand what God's plan is? Do you understand what His plan is?

In other words, you have no idea whether or not the Bible contains the word of God or the words of men.

[CANADIEN]

You kidding me? After all your convoluted contradictions? You can have your opinion anyway and anyhow you want it....I just ain't buying none of it, is all.

I am simply pointing that many people would have a hard time equating the laying out of a hand with the stretching of the Universe.

As for my opinion of it, thanks for you for saying I can have it. Now, if you would be kind enough to give it to me...

[betsy]

In other words, you have no idea whether or not the Bible contains the word of God or the words of men.

Bambino, I'm not going to repeat myself about this. That argument had also been given, and addressed.

Actually, your statement is just another re-hash of the same old argument - worded and angled differently, but the same answer applies nevertheless.

Actually, that had been answered several times.

Read back and and read well.

If you don't want to accept the logic....then don't. That still doesn't change the fact.

Edited September 19, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

deleted.

Edited September 19, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

I can only marvel once again at your knowledge. I was under the impression I was arguing that the only conclusion one can draw from the "God included some words at a later time when he thought people would understand His meaning" argument is that there muat be more than one Word of God. Thanks for pointing out I meant something else.

Just for the record, I was not saying that's what it is. I was making my own speculation - for who really knows how God works?

My speculation didn't mean that God just suddenly "included" the word, "stretches"....like as if it got used sudenly out of nowhere - thereby throwing into question the validity of the other translations.

As I've given my cite to include the translation of Hebrew "stretch," and tenses.....how about you cite what backs your speculation. Talk is cheap. Especially, speculation.

What baffles me is why you find it so hard to accept that science that reveals or points to Creation is somehow unacceptable? Will you clarify on that lest I "misunderstand" your point again?

Edited September 19, 2012 by betsy

[CANADIEN]

Just for the record, I was not saying that's what it is. I was making my own speculation - for who really knows how God works?

My speculation didn't mean that God just suddenly "included" the word, "stretches"....like as if it got used sudenly out of nowhere - thereby throwing into question the validity of the other translations.

As I've given my cite to include the translation of Hebrew "stretch," and tenses.....how about you cite what backs your speculation. Talk is cheap. Especially, speculation.

What baffles me is why you find it so hard to accept that science that reveals or points to Creation is somehow unacceptable? Will you clarify on that lest I "misunderstand" your point again?

In one post, it's a fact, in the next one a speculation.

In one poster you claim that people re-hash the same argument, in the next one you ask that people do exactly that.

And now to ask people to prove a ngative, namely that the Word of God doesn't include a description of the working of His Creation that is scientifically accurate... One can only wonder at your logic.

What baffles me is why you find it so hard to accept that science that reveals or points to Creation is somehow unacceptable? Will you clarify on that lest I "misunderstand" your point again?

That's what I thinl? Thanks for telling me so. I would have never thought I thought that.

[betsy]

In one post, it's a fact, in the next one a speculation.

What are you talking about???? Be specific!

In one poster you claim that people re-hash the same argument, in the next one you ask that people do exactly that.

Explain!

And now to ask people to prove a ngative, namely that the Word of God doesn't include a description of the working of His Creation that is scientifically accurate... One can only wonder at your logic.

I don't get what you're trying to say here. Explain.

Edited September 19, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

betsy:

What baffles me is why you find it so hard to accept that science that reveals or points to Creation is somehow unacceptable? Will you clarify on that lest I "misunderstand" your point again?

That's what I thinl? Thanks for telling me so. I would have never thought I thought that.

See what I mean? This is a pattern with you....evading to answer, or clarify. Slick and slide. What's the point of discussion?

You know what? You're afraid to clarify....or more so, you know that I see you're full of beans, and that you won't be able to explain what you're saying! Yes sirreee.

Because, just like the "bullying" or the gay union or the adultery-analogy tight spot you placed yourself in....same now with this....you know that I'm poised to check-mate you again!

You can't have it both ways, Canadien. You should know the drill by now.

Edited September 19, 2012 by betsy

[Black Dog]

Bambino, I'm not going to repeat myself about this. That argument had also been given, and addressed.

Actually, your statement is just another re-hash of the same old argument - worded and angled differently, but the same answer applies nevertheless.

Actually, that had been answered several times.

Read back and and read well.

If you don't want to accept the logic....then don't. That still doesn't change the fact.

I enjoy how, whenever someone catches you in one of your many, many inconsistencies or logical failures, you pretend like the discussion has already taken place and refer them back to the previous debate (in which you probably threw that back to another older debate and so on and so forth: turtles all the way down). Often it seems like this Möbius strip approach even confuses you, at which point you lose the plot and resort to emoticons and insults.

I think what it boils down to is you are actually incapable of formulating an argument: that is, stating a premise and providing evidence to support the conclusion you draw from it. It's quite sad, actually.

[g_bambino]

That argument had also been given, and addressed... I'm not going to repeat myself about this.

Since my assertion was in direct response to the vague statements of yours that immediately preceded it, it's impossible that the argument I made has been addressed already. If you mean someone's earlier expressed observation about some previous comments of yours was similar to the one I just made, the argument can't have been addressed, since you're obviously still making the same contradictory claims (indicating you actually have been repeating yourself) as those that prompted that other person to point them out before.

Surely you don't intend for this to get bogged down in an endless "please address the point" "I already did" cycle. So, can you explain for me why you say that you know and have proof the Bible is the word of God while simultaneously expressing uncertainty about which of the authors of the various versions of the Bible and the translators of those versions into multiple different languages God chose to influence and when He chose to do so? The legitimacy of your wider argument depends upon it. You also might, if you don't elaborate as requested, seem a hypocrite in light of this:

This is a pattern with you....evading to answer, or clarify. Slick and slide. What's the point of discussion?

You know what? You're afraid to clarify....or more so, you know that I see you're full of beans, and that you won't be able to explain what you're saying! Yes sirreee.

You can't have it both ways, Canadien. You should know the drill by now.

[ed.: +]

Edited September 19, 2012 by g_bambino