Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[2PhiloVoid]

So here I am, faced with multiple Biblical scholars who have spent years studying this, they all have multiple texts written about their fields of specialty, they are so well regarded that even you accept them as experts and they all have intensive education and qualifications in the field...

Surely, those aren't the only Biblical scholars you've read or have books/sources from, right?

...and there's you who disagrees with them.

Did I say I disagree with them? No. Did I say I either disagree or agree with all of them. No.

So...............you see how your response looks, don't you? It's probably best not to impute words, thoughts, or actions to your interlocutor he (or she) hasn't actually said, thought or done. Doing so doesn't show integrity, even if it makes for an amusing debate tactic.

Do you have anywhere near the same level of experience as them in this field?

No, but the many scholars I typically refer to ....... do. Oh, and it's amazing! You'll never believe this: some of the scholars you've read and/or refer to are also some of the same ones I've read and can, or do, refer to, as well.

See? We have some things in common, and not just a love for Sci-Fi.

Tell me, why should I not side with the experts here?

I didn't say that you can't. Doing so wouldn't demonstrate that you're right, but hey, if those particular scholars alone seem to "do it" for you, and you feel you've got your web all lined up for the fly, then by all means, stick with it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

They why does God call His word "quick"?

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Quick means It's alive.

As in up to date.

I'm not sure how Hebrews 4:12 contextually relates to Genesis or to my comment about paradigms. But I know, everyone has their own chosen personal style of exegesis.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Honestly, it's like if there's a dozen doctors who claim you have a particular condition and you need Treatment X, but you remain unconvinced because some celebrity appeared on a talk show and said that waving crystals around your head will fix it.

No, I think you're overestimating the power and efficacy of your vantage point.....and underestimating mine.

But that's ok because Reality will test us both.

Nah. Any valid science will show the working, and show the raw data, making it possible for people to see the exact method and results. So people can point out if there was any inaccuracies introduced by a poor method ("When you did this, you failed to account for such and such, and that could bias the results in this particular way") and they can point out if the results were reached through miscalculation of the data.

Sure. I agree. ..... you might want to revisit your methodology while were at it.

No need for trust, you can go and see for yourself.

And that right there is the problem. How can you know you've reached an accurate conclusion if part of your decision making process is, "It's what I want to believe"?

You're confused, Kylie. Motivation has to be a part of any endeavor, otherwise you'll just sit there staring at the wall. And none of us wants that as a form of doing either science or belief.

If the evidence is incomplete, why not just admit it and say, "There's insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion about this yet."

"Sufficiency" of evidence is such a loose term, especially where coloring in between the lines comes in once we've connected the dots.

Speaking of which, where did I lay my 1st grade coloring book? I know it's around here somewhere.....................

Hey, if there's one source that claims that in year X so and so was king, and we find that there are coins with that king's name on it from around that year, the enemy of that king wrote about how he battled that king, there are tax records about taxes paid to that king, historians of the time wrote about that king, how is that not verification?

After all, it's saying, "If this source's claim that so and so was king is true, we should find other contemporary sources that fit in with that," and then we find other sources that fit in with that. Seems fairly straightforward to me.

If that's all "history" is to you.............................. well, doing History and then finding results in the doing of that historical thinking results in more than simply plotting points on a line and saying, "AHA! That happened then!"

Right.

So, "Here is the evidence, and it supports position A, position B and Position C, and I'll therefore conclude that it supports Position C because that's what I already believe," is a perfectly reasonable conclusion to you?

No. In fact, we haven't even discussed historical methodology and all of its intricate, variable nuances. And we won't here because I'm about done discussing this in this thread.

I was very clearly talking about the performance of miracles as being an extraordinary claim. And let's not forget that according to the Bible, it is such a miracle that causes Peter to follow Jesus.

Don't get out of it, Kylie. Articulate a specific claim and stick with it without changing it.

So it's not a claim about someone who had followers. It's a claim about someone who had followers because those followers were convinced by the miracles he performed. And that is indeed an extraordinary claim.

Are you going to stick with that claim without changing your wording? I'm guessing you won't.

Y'know, I know that you know that I know you're smarter than that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Check with Einstein. He worked out how your spore moves. (Sorry for the science content. I know this is a bible study now.)

But on a serious note: I think we both know that a thread on "embedded age" can't help but only BE a Bible study, Hans.

And don't tempt me to give you the full quote from Einstein that I actually have ........................

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So here I am, faced with multiple Biblical scholars who have spent years studying this, they all have multiple texts written about their fields of specialty, they are so well regarded that even you accept them as experts and they all have intensive education and qualifications in the field...

...and there's you who disagrees with them.

Do you have anywhere near the same level of experience as them in this field?

Tell me, why should I not side with the experts here?

Honestly, it's like if there's a dozen doctors who claim you have a particular condition and you need Treatment X, but you remain unconvinced because some celebrity appeared on a talk show and said that waving crystals around your head will fix it.

Nah. Any valid science will show the working, and show the raw data, making it possible for people to see the exact method and results. So people can point out if there was any inaccuracies introduced by a poor method ("When you did this, you failed to account for such and such, and that could bias the results in this particular way") and they can point out if the results were reached through miscalculation of the data.

No need for trust, you can go and see for yourself.

And that right there is the problem. How can you know you've reached an accurate conclusion if part of your decision making process is, "It's what I want to believe"?

If the evidence is incomplete, why not just admit it and say, "There's insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion about this yet."

Hey, if there's one source that claims that in year X so and so was king, and we find that there are coins with that king's name on it from around that year, the enemy of that king wrote about how he battled that king, there are tax records about taxes paid to that king, historians of the time wrote about that king, how is that not verification?

After all, it's saying, "If this source's claim that so and so was king is true, we should find other contemporary sources that fit in with that," and then we find other sources that fit in with that. Seems fairly straightforward to me.

Right.

So, "Here is the evidence, and it supports position A, position B and Position C, and I'll therefore conclude that it supports Position C because that's what I already believe," is a perfectly reasonable conclusion to you?

I was very clearly talking about the performance of miracles as being an extraordinary claim. And let's not forget that according to the Bible, it is such a miracle that causes Peter to follow Jesus.

So it's not a claim about someone who had followers. It's a claim about someone who had followers because those followers were convinced by the miracles he performed. And that is indeed an extraordinary claim.

One more thing, Kylie. For now, I'm not going to continue to debate anything with you, but I'll tell you what I will do. I'll start praying (as best as I can and as often as I can remember to do so) for the Lord to remove whatever 'mountain' exists in your life that you feel prevents you from being able to believe and have faith in Jesus of Nazareth as Lord and Savior.

May you and your husband be blessed in the long run, whether my prayers mean anything or do anything, or not.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Thanks for the comic relief, Hans.

Just shooting at your pigeon.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Just shooting at your pigeon.

Well, you missed.

 

[River Jordan]

It seems like a case of Poe's law in action. Is he serious or satirically trolling? I'm not sure we can tell the difference when abandoning reason altogether is a mark of pride.

Possibly, but that's a long time to maintain that kind of act. I'm still sticking with playing games out of sheer boredom.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Possibly, but that's a long time to maintain that kind of act. I'm still sticking with playing games out of sheer boredom.

He's been here on CF a very, very long time, and as I've said before, he's Independent Baptist. Understanding his seeming insularity, coming as it does from his association with his own denomination, shapes some of his chosen delivery style.

I count him as a fellow Christian, however--------even if I know he's 'MAD.'

 

[Fervent]

He's been here on CF a very, very long time, and as I've said before, he's Independent Baptist. Understanding his seeming insularity, coming as it does from his association with his own denomination, shapes some of his chosen delivery style.

Yeah, understanding that affiliation does make it plausible he's sincere

I count him as a fellow Christian, however--------even if I know he's 'MAD.'

I try not to make a practice of counting fellow Christians, their word is good enough for me. God'll sort 'em out. Though that isn't to say I don't make distinctions between Nicene brothers and those who exceed the confines of Christian ecumenical orthodoxy. I do doubt he would extend us the same consideration, though.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, understanding that affiliation does make it plausible he's sincere

I try not to make a practice of counting fellow Christians, their word is good enough for me. God'll sort 'em out. Though that isn't to say I don't make distinctions between Nicene brothers and those who exceed the confines of Christian ecumenical orthodoxy. I do doubt he would extend us the same consideration, though.

"In my opinion, if they say they are Christians, then I'll do my best to treat them as such."

Post 119

 

[AveChristusRex]

Then why does God call His word "quick"?

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Quick means It's alive.

As in up to date.

I think 1 Peter 1:23 works to exemplify the point: "Since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God;" Living obviously means active and therefore continuing. Now, note John 1:1: "IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Any good theology student would know [without quoting Hebrews 13:8] that "but the word of our God will stand forever" (Isaiah 40:8) and if God the Word is unchanging, so too is His word unchanging and always up to date [as He is beginning and end, outside of time].

 

[AveChristusRex]

He's been here on CF a very, very long time, and as I've said before, he's Independent Baptist.

He joined this forum 1 month before I was born...that still hasn't sunk in with me yet...

 

[AV1611VET]

I think 1 Peter 1:23 works to exemplify the point: "Since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God;" Living obviously means active and therefore continuing. Now, note John 1:1: "IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Any good theology student would know [without quoting Hebrews 13:8] that "but the word of our God will stand forever" (Isaiah 40:8) and if God the Word is unchanging, so too is His word unchanging and always up to date [as He is beginning and end, outside of time].

Amen!

 

[Kylie]

As you continue to insist on trying to defend a fallacious maxim and doing so with loaded language(while casually ignoring that your restriction of what counts as evidence is evidence that is amenable to the scientific method...but we're totally not talking about the scope of science, huh?) I see no point in engagement other than pointing out your intellectual dishonesty. Emotionally loading your argument with phrases like "wishing" while defending personal incredulity as somehow valid(which I bet would be an entirely different story if someone were using the maxim to defend doubting scientific consensus items like evolution because they see it as an extraordinary claim),

Let me know when you want top continue this discussion and we can.

 

[Kylie]

From the online etymology dictionary:

QUICK:

"living persons," Old English cwic, from quick (adj.). Frequently paired with the dead, from phrasing in the Nicene and Apostles' creeds, as in Middle English þan cwike and þa deaden, Old English cwicum & deadum.

From the 1828 Webster's dictionary:

QUICK:

Primarily, alive; living; opposed to dead or unanimated; as quick flesh. Leviticus 13:10.

The Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead. 2 Timothy 4:1.

[In this sense, the word is obsolete, except in some compounds or in particular phrases.]

From Mirriam Webster...

joke
noun
ˈjōk
Synonyms of joke
1
a
: something said or done to provoke laughter
especially : a brief oral narrative with a climactic humorous twist
b
(1)
: the humorous or ridiculous element in something
(2)
: an instance of jesting : kidding

 

[Kylie]

Surely, those aren't the only Biblical scholars you've read or have books/sources from, right?

What are you trying to do here? Play the argument from popularity? Are you trying to suggest that those people are outliers, and are the only ones who claim that the best we can say about Jesus based on the evidence is that he was baptised and crucified?

Did I say I disagree with them? No. Did I say I either disagree or agree with all of them. No.

So...............you see how your response looks, don't you? It's probably best not to impute words, thoughts, or actions to your interlocutor he (or she) hasn't actually said, thought or done. Doing so doesn't show integrity, even if it makes for an amusing debate tactic.

Okay, then I'll ask you outright: Do you disagree or agree with them?

Because when you said, "...doesn't mean I'm automatically obligated to agree with any of them..." it sure made it look like you didn't agree with them.

No, but the many scholars I typically refer to ....... do. Oh, and it's amazing! You'll never believe this: some of the scholars you've read and/or refer to are also some of the same ones I've read and can, or do, refer to, as well.

See? We have some things in common, and not just a love for Sci-Fi.

And, based on what those scholars say, do you agree or disagree with the scholars I posted?

I didn't say that you can't. Doing so wouldn't demonstrate that you're right, but hey, if those particular scholars alone seem to "do it" for you, and you feel you've got your web all lined up for the fly, then by all means, stick with it.

Oh look, you ARE trying suggest that the people I presented are outliers!

You know, I can't help but feel that this conversation would have been much more efficient if you had simply said something like, "You've presented scholars who argue that all we can say about Jesus is that he was baptised and crucified. I have a bunch of other scholars who claim we can know much more, this is a list of them."

 

[AV1611VET]

From Mirriam Webster...

joke

Oh, I'm sorry.

Why didn't you tell me you were joking?

 

[Kylie]

No, I think you're overestimating the power and efficacy of your vantage point.....and underestimating mine.

But that's ok because Reality will test us both.

Oh, this isn't the old, "You'll find out when you're dead" line, is it? Because I'd be really disappointed if that's all you've got...

You're confused, Kylie. Motivation has to be a part of any endeavor, otherwise you'll just sit there staring at the wall. And none of us wants that as a form of doing either science or belief.

Yeah, I remember reading about all those scientists whose research was proved wrong because it turned out they were motivated by needing to write their paper instead of being motivated by the noble search for the truth.

"Sufficiency" of evidence is such a loose term, especially where coloring in between the lines comes in once we've connected the dots.

Speaking of which, where did I lay my 1st grade coloring book? I know it's around here somewhere.....................

Childish insults? That's really disappointing.

If that's all "history" is to you.............................. well, doing History and then finding results in the doing of that historical thinking results in more than simply plotting points on a line and saying, "AHA! That happened then!"

No. In fact, we haven't even discussed historical methodology and all of its intricate, variable nuances. And we won't here because I'm about done discussing this in this thread.

Ah yes. You get out of it by saying, "It's more complicated than that, but you'll just have to take my word for it because I refuse to explain any further!"

I think you can guess what I think of your word.

Don't get out of it, Kylie. Articulate a specific claim and stick with it without changing it.


Are you going to stick with that claim without changing your wording? I'm guessing you won't.

Y'know, I know that you know that I know you're smarter than that.

How am I trying to get out of anything? I stated back in post 2518: "the claim that Jesus had followers who had seen him perform many miracles is a very extraordinary claim, and that requires much more extraordinary evidence."

What did Jesus have? Followers who had seen him perform miracles.

That is an extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary evidence.

 

[Kylie]

One more thing, Kylie. For now, I'm not going to continue to debate anything with you, but I'll tell you what I will do. I'll start praying (as best as I can and as often as I can remember to do so) for the Lord to remove whatever 'mountain' exists in your life that you feel prevents you from being able to believe and have faith in Jesus of Nazareth as Lord and Savior.

May you and your husband be blessed in the long run, whether my prayers mean anything or do anything, or not.

You wouldn't be the first.

But hey, maybe God will listen to you. I mean, he hasn't listened to any of the other countless people who have offered to pray for me. But maybe you're the one who will get through.