- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,757
- 52,536
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No, they don't, historians do that.
I was asked my opinion and I gave it. You're welcome to think (or "know") I'm wrong ... and I'll do the same with you guys.Your point being?
Again, scientists discover new stuff every day. The output of my institute alone is enough to result in a new scientific article every day of the year, and that is just one small institute in a medium sized university.
Why would scientists go through the elaborate procedure of setting up whole procedures, meetings etc.. to gain attention, when they produce enough output daily anyway?
Do scientists at times overhype there findings? Sure. But that is not what you are claiming here. You are claiming that they deliberately set up an elaborate scheme with the demotion of Pluto to gain attention. When they could have gained almost as much attention, especially in the short-term, with the discovery of Ceres in 2005 ("Planet X"). And that is quite bizarre.
Then you're what we would call "a cut above," in my opinion.
Most Internet scientists here just copy-and-paste something, or parrot something they've heard.
That's why they keep harping on things like the events of the Resurrection Day not being able to be placed in chronological order (and therefore contradictory), when the Scofield Reference Bible has done a masterful job on it.
I honestly think most "scientists" are not here to learn our side, but are here just to vent & ridicule; or push us around with their clipboards.
How are they not scientists?
Why do you automatically assume that the Scofield Reference Bible is the last word on this, that if he would look at the arguments those scientists have he would reach the same conclusion you have, or that those people who disagree with you have not seen both the arguments in Scofield and the other side of the debate?
Because I said it.
Watch him backtrack now that you made a point.
I was asked my opinion and I gave it. You're welcome to think (or "know") I'm wrong ... and I'll do the same with you guys.
Fair enough?
Frankly because I think they're just parroting something they've heard; not to mention the fact that they probably don't have a Scofield Reference Bible.
The conversation might go something like this:
IS: I've never seen anyone reconcile the events of the Resurrection Day.
ME: [types Scofield's footnote] Now you have.
IS: Scofield is wrong. I've never seen anyone [correctly] reconcile the events of the Resurrection Day.
Perhaps, but likely that is giving yourself a bit too much honour AV. The view the historians other scientists in the social or cultural sciences are not actual scientists is still reasonably wide-spread. So personally, I'll go for that reason rather than you being the causative factor.
I think that is quite a misrepresentation of the way these debates go, especially if the debate involves you, but whatever.
Lets just say that you are right and the vote was rigged.
Why did they do it? To persecute christians?
That observation did not come from scientists, it came from historians.I suppose.
But then, if scientists can speculate that Matthew didn't write Matthew, and that the prophecies in the Bible were penciled in ex post facto, yadda and so forth ... am I supposed to really care?
"They" can actually tell that it was originally composed in Hebrew. (And the actual first inking of it, as well as the date, is irrelevant anyway)
Again, why wouldn't historians be scientists?That observation did not come from scientists, it came from historians.
Composition and Date. The great frequency of citations and allusions to Matthew found in the Didache, Epistle of Barnabas, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and others attests its early composition and widespread use. The literar connections of this Gospel must be considered in its relations to the other Synoptics, and also to the statement of Papias that "Matthew wrote the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each one interpreted as he could" (Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 3.39). Many have explained Papias' statement as referring to an Aramaic original from which our Greek Gospel is a translation. Yet our Greek text does not bear the marks of a translation, and the absence of any trace of an Aramaic original casts grave doubts upon this hypothesis. Goodspeed argues at length that it would be contrary to Greek practice to name a Greek translation after the author of an Aramaic original, for Greeks were concerned only with the one who put a work into Greek. As examples he cites the Gospel of Mark (it was not called the Gospel of Peter) and the Greek Old Testament, which was called the Septuagint (Seventy) after its translators, not after its Hebrew authors (E. J. Goodspeed, Matthew, Apostle and Evangelist, pp. 105, 106). Thus Papias is understood to mean that Matthew recorded (by shorthand?) the discourses of Jesus in Aramaic, and later drew upon these when he composed his Greek Gospel. Though it is surely possible that Mark was written first, and may have been available to Matthew, there was no slavish use of this shorter Gospel by Matthew, and many have argued for the complete independence of the two books.
Second there are none of the hallmarks of translation that an expert can spot.
Again, why wouldn't historians be scientists?
I thought you said you weren't going to post until you had a credible source?
Now, hush.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?