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.
You have been both Plutoed and subducted, due to missing obvious signs of translation, and still being oblivious to them. Thus, your credibility on the matter is shot. (Look up Hebrewisms if you would ever dare raise your head on the subject again)
How is my credibility shot? I rely on the expertise of others and they all say that Matthew was written in Greek originally.
Hmm, interesting question.
I am sure that they have their own form of peer review. My question, how would a historian perform an experiment? Perhaps the same way that paleontologists do. I suppose they could even write theories about how past events happened.
In a sense I don't see why the scientific method could not be applied to history. The question is do they apply it?
Wallowing in ignorance is not so becoming for one who advances the arguments you make, and I have already furnished you with everything you need to correct that. That you prefer not to speaks volumes.
How would an epidemiologist perform an experiment. Except in rare cases, not. The scientific method is not limited to experiments only.
Given the source that you quote, how is that not applying the scientific method? They propose a hypothesis, that Matthew is originally Greek. They find evidence that could confirm or falisfy this hypothesis, in this case tell-tale signs of translation. I fail to see how this is not the scientific method.
I agree. A good historian can use all sorts of tools. The scientific method is not limited to science.
Of course not ... the ends justifies the means, doesn't it?
Hah! Very good. Now let's see if I can at least get you for a spelling error without invoking Muphry's Law: "ment"?I think you ment "the scientific method is not liimted to experiments"?
AV1611VET said:The Pluto issue is a sore spot with me.
Let's not make this thread about me, okay?Why exactly do you care so much? How is your life affected by Pluto's status?
Hah! Very good. Now let's see if I can at least get you for a spelling error without invoking Muphry's Law: "ment"?
AV1611VET said:Let's not make this thread about me, okay?
Otherwise, they'll be showing up to let me know that they think I'm narcissistic, and even egoistic.
So what is the point here? That science adapts and improves as new information is discovered? And this is somehow a bad thing?
According to AV (and many others here), science is always bad. If science does not change and keep making the same mistakes, it is bad. If science self-corrects and improve, it is bad. In other words, whatever does not agree 100% with their views is bad.
For what it is worth, most Christians don't have to stick their heads in the sand and deny everything that doesn't fit their world views.
While I agree with you that many Christians are reasonable, I would not say that "most" are. But my sampling can be biased.
While I agree with you that many Christians are reasonable, I would not say that "most" are. But my sampling can be biased.
According to AV (and many others here), science is always bad.
If science does not change and keep making the same mistakes, it is bad. If science self-corrects and improve, it is bad. In other words, whatever does not agree 100% with their views is bad.
Let's not make this thread about me, okay?
Otherwise, they'll be showing up to let me know that they think I'm narcissistic, and even egoistic.
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?