J. Wensveen is just an illiterate and doesn't know how to properly utilize English mechanics (punctuation, grammar, etc). His proper path for action would've been to place a comma succeeding the word "concept". As such, it would read (as it would be intended) "in concept, false", denoting the pause and description of the propositional phrase "in concept" with the word false. This informs the reader of the subject matter ("any claim") that it is felt to be false by whoever authored the material. Linguistic competence comes first in exposition.
QUOTE (McMuffulkins+Sep 15 2006, 02:13 PM)
J. Wensveen is just an illiterate and doesn't know how to properly utilize English mechanics (punctuation, grammar, etc). His proper path for action would've been to place a comma succeeding the word "concept". As such, it would read (as it would be intended) "in concept, false", denoting the pause and description of the propositional phrase "in concept" with the word false. This informs the reader of the subject matter ("any claim") that it is felt to be false by whoever authored the material. Linguistic competence comes first in exposition.
Ach, je zou mij zo kunnen noemen. Ik heb natuurlijk niet de opleiding gehad vanaf kinds af aan waarin mij een en dezelfde taal is bijgebracht. Dit heeft niet alleen invloed op mijn algemene ontwikkeling maar natuurlijk ook op mijn algemene intelligentie. Wat een type zoals jij natuurlijk niet snapt is dat er mensen op deze planeet zijn die een andere taal leze en schrijven, die misschien wel zijn opgevoed met een totaal andere talen kennis. Voor jou zal het blijkbaar zo zijn dat engels de enige taal ter wereld is, dat alle originele bronteksten in het engels zijn en dat iedereen ter wereld in daarbuiten de engelse taal in zowel woord als schrift perfect beheerst. Met als logish gevolg dat mensen die uit beleefdheid de moeite nemen om jouw taal te gebruiken, maar door het feit dat dat slechts een van de vele talen is die zij spreken, zij fouten maken in concept of interpunctie, voor jou blijkbaar meteen afdoen als "slechts een ongeletterde" wat maar eens bewijst dat jij niet alleen asociaal en oer dom bent, maar ook totaal geen eerbied waard ben in wiens ogen dan ook.
Exactly my point. lol.
So in other words, you’ve got nothing to add to the discussion and decide to bloviate or grammatical structure rather than the topic at hand.
So I suppose all of your posts are grammatically correct and proper in structure? If not, then your castigation is hypocritical.
So I suppose all of your posts are grammatically correct and proper in structure? If not, then your castigation is hypocritical.
QUOTE (J. Wensveen+Sep 15 2006, 12:31 PM)
any claim based on literal intrepetation of lines of text is in concept false.
In concept means that for determining true or false of such a claim, False must be the startingpoint at determination, and as long as no other supporting evidence is found that can prove otherwise on its own merit, the claim remains false.
So basically put, any claim based on literal intrepetation of lines of text in a translated version of the bible is False unless you have the original language part of the text that can support the translation without reasonable doubt.
i think i get what he meant now,In concept means that for determining true or false of such a claim, False must be the startingpoint at determination, and as long as no other supporting evidence is found that can prove otherwise on its own merit, the claim remains false.
So basically put, any claim based on literal intrepetation of lines of text in a translated version of the bible is False unless you have the original language part of the text that can support the translation without reasonable doubt.
kinda like when an ancient language says "what goes up, will keep going up" being translated into [literal] english without knowledge/explanation that it was just a saying.... just a thought (somehow, i think that wasn't spelled right)
and what's with the grammar flaming? i don't get.
jduke. I've spotted you. You are an atheist here pretending to be a creationist to make creationists and religionists look bad. You've certainly done a good job.
J.Wensveen. Considering almost everything about the bible is wrong or false, then nothing about it can be trusted.
raqnarpendon. In court, ID was shown to be creationism under another name. Two books were produced, an earlier creation book and a latter ID book. It was shown that they were exactly the same, only the word "creationism" had been changed to "intelligent design".
IT IS ALL A BIG CON GAME TO FOOL PEOPLE LIKE YOU!
IT IS ALL A BIG CON GAME TO FOOL PEOPLE LIKE YOU!
jduke. Name one provable truth about christianity to show it is not all a lie.
newguy. There are no demons, spirits or similar nonsense. Uneducated people believed that 2000 years ago but we have since discovered microbes, viruses, etc since then and there is no reason for anyone to subscribe to fairy tales. Unless they too are uneducated.
Jerry Duke. That creation proof would not fool a new born baby. Admitting belief in such jabberings is like believing in a square world.
QUOTE (kaneda+Nov 23 2006, 01:49 PM)
newguy. There are no demons, spirits or similar nonsense. Uneducated people believed that 2000 years ago but we have since discovered microbes, viruses, etc since then and there is no reason for anyone to subscribe to fairy tales. Unless they too are uneducated.
kaneda: Well, your post deserves a response, as busy as I am. There are demons/spirits. IN FACT, I cast one out of someone in Jesus Christ's name late last night after putting in a 16 hour work day. YOU are the one who is uneducated...not me. As I've told previous ignoramuses(willful) like GeneSplicer who have come before you, your ignorance does absolutely nothing to change reality. Absolutely nothing. The people that I've helped repeatedly for many years in Jesus Christ's name are still healed/delivered. Bothers you, doesn't it? That just shows how sick you and your type are. Enjoy your ignorance. I've got work(physical and spiritual) to do.
Dear newguy,
I am pretty sure that you will stick to your belief in demons no matter what evidence is shown to the contrary.
This is your prerogative. However, if you wanted to convince any rational person of the existence of spirits you must realize that the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim, not the skeptic. You have provided no evidence whatsoever aside from your assertion. This is just as valid as saying the sky is green and the grass is pink.
How can you know, really, that you and your patients are not playing an elaborate game of self deception? How can you prove that you all are not responding to a cultural environment that has indoctrinated you to believe in "supernatural" phenomena?
The myth of demons came down to us through the Bible from the ancient Chaldeans, who called their seven evil deities shedu, or "storm-demons." As you may know, the Hebrew writers of the Bible used the same word - shedim - to refer to demons. They attributed many sicknesses to their actions, which we know today have a purely natural cause.
"Hebrew demons were workers of harm. To them were ascribed the various diseases, particularly such as affect the brain and the inner parts. Hence there was a fear of "Shabriri" (lit. "dazzling glare"), the demon of blindness, who rests on uncovered water at night and strikes those with blindness who drink of it; also mentioned were the spirit of catalepsy and the spirit of headache, the demon of epilepsy, and the spirit of nightmare." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon
I am pretty sure that you will stick to your belief in demons no matter what evidence is shown to the contrary.
This is your prerogative. However, if you wanted to convince any rational person of the existence of spirits you must realize that the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim, not the skeptic. You have provided no evidence whatsoever aside from your assertion. This is just as valid as saying the sky is green and the grass is pink.
How can you know, really, that you and your patients are not playing an elaborate game of self deception? How can you prove that you all are not responding to a cultural environment that has indoctrinated you to believe in "supernatural" phenomena?
The myth of demons came down to us through the Bible from the ancient Chaldeans, who called their seven evil deities shedu, or "storm-demons." As you may know, the Hebrew writers of the Bible used the same word - shedim - to refer to demons. They attributed many sicknesses to their actions, which we know today have a purely natural cause.
"Hebrew demons were workers of harm. To them were ascribed the various diseases, particularly such as affect the brain and the inner parts. Hence there was a fear of "Shabriri" (lit. "dazzling glare"), the demon of blindness, who rests on uncovered water at night and strikes those with blindness who drink of it; also mentioned were the spirit of catalepsy and the spirit of headache, the demon of epilepsy, and the spirit of nightmare." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon
DiscipulusIgnorantus,
There is no reason to reply to NewGuy in this or any post. If backed into a corner, he simply will not reply or claims work is to heavy for him to do so.
Besides, he recently announced again that he will no longer be posting here due to the presence of rational skeptics that do no buy into his superstition.
I would direct you to a suitable replacement for conversation, but there is none. NewGuy was the most rational of the xian mad-hatter collective here on Physorg. Those that have not been outright banned are simply not worth debating.
There is no reason to reply to NewGuy in this or any post. If backed into a corner, he simply will not reply or claims work is to heavy for him to do so.
Besides, he recently announced again that he will no longer be posting here due to the presence of rational skeptics that do no buy into his superstition.
I would direct you to a suitable replacement for conversation, but there is none. NewGuy was the most rational of the xian mad-hatter collective here on Physorg. Those that have not been outright banned are simply not worth debating.