hey everyone, here is a fun little test..... : http://www.mystcweb.net/misc/smart.htm.
enjoy .
love.
Seeker,
As for why the answer is the way it is, remember there are two halfs to an inning, thus double the number of outs we went to think of.
Eh, yeah, sure. Whatever.
Never even seen a baseball game-class.
- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]
ha ha that's a good one comf.. rochelle, don't get me wrong.
i've always been a 'tomboy'--but c'mon--watch golf for 4 hours straight?
sorry dear but my mind is gonna wander.. some 'typical' girls things i don't do (never have) and don't teach my daughter to do: (let the reader beware--my personal foibles).
I wonder of there are more girls who are/were "tomboys" on this board, simply because this is a computer board, and finding and using it requires some personal knowledge about computers, originally associated with "boy culture" (for reasons that are unclear).
- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]
hey everyone, here is a fun little test..... : http://www.mystcweb.net/misc/smart.htm.
enjoy .
love.
I don't think AlanF is necessarily right here. If a marriage is defined in law as a union between a woman and a man of legal age, and this excludes a corpse, then it is per definition illegal, even if that is not spelled out in law.
(Heh. I got that one right!)
- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]
50 years ago respected textual critic ernest cadman colwell created an apparatus of 64 scriptures to determine which is the best new testament.
i created a chart using the same criteria...and the results will surprise you!!.
http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/colwell.htm .
If I understand this correctly, it is not the quality of translations per se that is evaluated, but to what degree the translators have chose to agree with Westcott & Hort's text critical work. Of course, the NWT translator had no basis for any professional disagreement with these. Other translations were done by professionals, who were at least as qualified in having a professional opinion of such matters as Westcott and Hort, and of course had the benefit of much research done later.
If you did some research, I am quote sure you would find articles in solid journals of textual criticism where these scholars defend their choices. Without evaluating their arguments, you can't possibly criticize them. Most importantly, few such issues are very black and white. Good arguments can be made either way. Lastly, from the list I did not find these specific translation issues very significant.
To use agreement with W&H as a litmus test for quality is totally absurd.
- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]
hey everyone, here is a fun little test..... : http://www.mystcweb.net/misc/smart.htm.
enjoy .
love.
Dang. 9.
But I consider the innings/outings question unfair. What the heck is that? I know what it is in Cricket, but assume this was based on Baseball...?
That I fell for the Moses question again was a bit more emberrassing...
- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]
there is a fallacy of logic that is so common that few people realize that it is, indeed, a fallacy of logic: the fallacy by appeal to nature.. one argument against homosexuality goes something like this:.
the natural use of the reproductive organs is obviously to make children.
using these organs in a way that cannot produce children is unnatural and thus ethically wrong.. .
they're kim oyhus' ideas and not yours
Indeed, these ideas are many hundred years old. Kim merely wrote it in predicate calculus.
I posted the proof as an image link to Kim's homepage.
Even an absolute dimwit like you could follow the link and find out that Kim was its author. So your assertion I did not credit Kim with this work is absurd.
But why don't you write Kim and ask him if he feels plagiarized?
- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]
if this happened to you?.
sitting behind my computer a few mornings ago, i was doing the share of reading that i do on a daily basis, sipping my coffee, minding my own, when an instant message appeared on my screen.
call it second nature, i responded as i usually do.
Stalking yourself, suzi/dc? That is a novel idea.
- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]
another book i am reading called "the jesus mysteries" makes this claim:.
"according to matthew, jesus is born in the reign of herod, who tries to have him killed as a baby to prevent him becoming king of the jews.
herod who died in 4bce.........luke makes a similar point of having his jesus born 10 years later at the time of the census of 6ce.".
jst2laws,
I cannot but say it is an amazing display of intellectual dishonesty to call it a "technicality", when the whole point of Jesus' statement was that David entered the House of God, and in fact he did not! As you can see in my commentary, Jesus screwed up practically every possible detail in the story. Names, numbers, events, what happened, everything. Ok, David was there, and there was a priest. Oh, even that was wrong, 'cause Jesus said high priest. Bummer!
I guess when choosing that word, bigboi scored a good rhetorical point with people who desperately grasp for straws.
Whatever Jesus said, it did not get an overwhelming jeer from his audience. And I suspect his audience was at least as skeptical as the readers on this discussion board.
And yet, hardly any of them believed Jesus. Perhaps that should tell you something? Only people far distant in time and space started to believe those fantasy stories about a magic-worker in Palestine who also happened to be the Son of God.
- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]
another book i am reading called "the jesus mysteries" makes this claim:.
"according to matthew, jesus is born in the reign of herod, who tries to have him killed as a baby to prevent him becoming king of the jews.
herod who died in 4bce.........luke makes a similar point of having his jesus born 10 years later at the time of the census of 6ce.".
My oh my, Bigboi,
Are you really serious? I have a problem contemplating anyone being both able to enter a discussion board and yet totally inept at reading and understanding a simple narrative in a book.
Your reference to "opinion" is just pathetic handwaving. Do you seriously mean that anyone's opinion is just as valid as anybody elses? That it is impossible to attain any form of knowledge? That would be the logical consequence of your ridiculous statements. Of course you don't mean that. It is just a self-serving excuse for having to face facts that are too inconvenient. A sad case of self-deception.
Fact: Jesus got names wrong. He got events wrong. For example: He said David and the men with him entered the House of God. And in fact, David did not enter it. And no "men" were with him; as the author of 1 Samuel goes to great pains explaining.
Answer this, Bigboi: Did or did not David and his men enter the "House of God" in the story as told in 1 Samuel? Yes or no.
About when these men met David is a massive red herring. Jesus referred to what was written this is a story. A narrative. It conveys information. The information Jesus in Mark conveyed is incompatible with what the story in 1 Samuel says.
I find it laughable that twobit apologists like Scorpion, who can't even post an URL in two attempts, claim being able to "explain" anything, and then do not dare to touch the argument itself. I started this by saying it is a typical endeavour of fundie apologists to claim that someone, somewhere, can "explain" all these things. Of course, they make no attemot to tell us where, when and how. They live in a happy ignorant bliss of wishful thinking, just like those JWs who are totally convinced that someone in the Society surely can explain their wacky doctrines, but are unwilling to actually look at this "explanation."
Your form of "argument" is intellectually vacouus and dishonest to the extreme. I posted a careful analysis of the text itself. None of you have made any attempts to deal with the arguments honestly.
- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]
there is a fallacy of logic that is so common that few people realize that it is, indeed, a fallacy of logic: the fallacy by appeal to nature.. one argument against homosexuality goes something like this:.
the natural use of the reproductive organs is obviously to make children.
using these organs in a way that cannot produce children is unnatural and thus ethically wrong.. .
How many IDs do you have on this board?
PS: It's obvious you don't know who Kim Øyhus is, nor what he does, and neither do you know what plagiarism isnor what a thesis is. It seems your skill level is limited to being able to create new IDs on this board.
*plonk*
- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]
