LET THE FORCE BE WITH YOU

[Ellipsis]

[ understood about the axis, and I knew you couldn't show them to me.

Just google "axis" for examples.

How far is up, was a play with words, and I agreed with you, but for your benefit perhaps I should have said "How far CAN YOU GO up " It meant the same thing.

How far you can travel in a given direction greatly depends on your ability to move in the terain. If you have a hot-air baloon you can go significantly further up than if you just jump.

To me that's just common sense not some kind of profound philosophical quandary; like asking 'what does water tast like'.

As for Noah and the flood, we are on the same page, but you seemed to imply you got that from the Bible. I haven't gone in for hebrew translations, but our information appears to amount to the same. Have you read instalment two?

The Hebrew isn't a translation. The Hebrew is the original.

And yes I got that the flood was regional from the bible; that's what the scripture says it was. That an english translation of scripture misleads the reader, or that most Christians don't bother to study the bible, doesn't change what the original actualy said.

 

[doniston1]

[ understood about the axis, and I knew you couldn't show them to me.

Just google "axis" for examples.

How far is up, was a play with words, and I agreed with you, but for your benefit perhaps I should have said "How far CAN YOU GO up " It meant the same thing.

How far you can travel in a given direction greatly depends on your ability to move in the terain. If you have a hot-air baloon you can go significantly further up than if you just jump.

To me that's just common sense not some kind of profound philosophical quandary; like asking 'what does water tast like'.

As for Noah and the flood, we are on the same page, but you seemed to imply you got that from the Bible. I haven't gone in for hebrew translations, but our information appears to amount to the same. Have you read instalment two?

The Hebrew isn't a translation. The Hebrew is the original.

And yes I got that the flood was regional from the bible; that's what the scripture says it was. That an english translation of scripture misleads the reader, or that most Christians don't bother to study the bible, doesn't change what the original actualy said.

Sorry to push but can you give me the title of that bible (what traslation)??, I am most familiar with the King James version. If you remember, I already asked what bible it came from. (WHAT SCRIPTURE???)I'm not arguing, I just want to know where you got it. is there some reason you don't want to say? you are overly precise on much of the rest, even when I say I understand, like the axis, I don't need instruction there, I used to teach math and I learned that long ago. or are you just attempting to be obtuse?

 

[Ellipsis]

Sorry to push but can you give me the title of that bible (what traslation)??, I am most familiar with the King James version.

The NIV Study Bible is a good one for non-hebrew readers. It's saturated with footnotes and source material wherever there are significantly diferent versions of a passage, it gives all the versions, where they came from, and a reason why one or another was chosen to be cannon over the others. Where a verse was completely left out of cannon, it gives you the verse, its origin and why it was left out.

There are also verious apologist books which help.

The thing to keep in mind is that Hebrew does not translate very well at all into English. Much of the nuance is lost. English may take a whole sentence to convay the idea contained in a few Hebrew words.

Also, wheras the 'old testament' is in Hebrew, much of the 'new testament' is in Greek, and Greek translates into English much easier, though not perfectly.

When reading about Jesus from fairly acuratly translated Greek, the Christian becomes acostomed to taking scripture at face value. A Christian will carry the habbit of taking scripture at face value over to the old testoment without accouting for the diferent language the old testoment comes from; the result is confusion and that's how we get Young Earth Creationism.

 

[doniston1]

Sorry to push but can you give me the title of that bible (what traslation)??, I am most familiar with the King James version.

The NIV Study Bible is a good one for non-hebrew readers. It's saturated with footnotes and source material wherever there are significantly diferent versions of a passage, it gives all the versions, where they came from, and a reason why one or another was chosen to be cannon over the others. Where a verse was completely left out of cannon, it gives you the verse, its origin and why it was left out.

There are also verious apologist books which help.

The thing to keep in mind is that Hebrew does not translate very well at all into English. Much of the nuance is lost. English may take a whole sentence to convay the idea contained in a few Hebrew words.

Also, wheras the 'old testament' is in Hebrew, much of the 'new testament' is in Greek, and Greek translates into English much easier, though not perfectly.

When reading about Jesus from fairly acuratly translated Greek, the Christian becomes acostomed to taking scripture at face value. A Christian will carry the habbit of taking scripture at face value over to the old testoment without accouting for the diferent language the old testoment comes from; the result is confusion and that's how we get Young Earth Creationism.

 

[Ellipsis]

...or are you just attempting to be obtuse?

Call it a character flaw, this habbit of thought can be a problem in many areas of my life. I tend to zero in on a point, a kind of tunnel vision. It can be very helpful in the lab as I track down the exact cause of a deviation, but I can lose context, not see an unexpected influence, and molti-tasking can be impossible at times.

I can easily not 'get' something which is common sense to others simply because I'm not paying attention to the same things they are.

P.S.: water tasts like the minerals disolved within it. Altering the way water is treated and the chemicals/minerals within it is what changes the taste.

 

[doniston1]

[ understood about the axis, and I knew you couldn't show them to me.

Just google "axis" for examples.

How far is up, was a play with words, and I agreed with you, but for your benefit perhaps I should have said "How far CAN YOU GO up " It meant the same thing.

Thank you for hatn info. Now I munderstand where you/I/we went wrong. we werereferencing two different sources, no wonderb we were sumwhat confused. Therefire itn is best tht
How far you can travel in a given direction greatly depends on your ability to move in the terain. If you have a hot-air baloon you can go significantly further up than if you just jump.

To me that's just common sense not some kind of profound philosophical quandary; like asking 'what does water tast like'.

As for Noah and the flood, we are on the same page, but you seemed to imply you got that from the Bible. I haven't gone in for hebrew translations, but our information appears to amount to the same. Have you read instalment two?

The Hebrew isn't a translation. The Hebrew is the original.

And yes I got that the flood was regional from the bible; that's what the scripture says it was. That an english translation of scripture misleads the reader, or that most Christians don't bother to study the bible, doesn't change what the original actualy said.

Sorry to push but can you give me the title of that bible (what traslation)??, I am most familiar with the King James version.

The NIV Study Bible is a good one for non-hebrew readers. It's saturated with footnotes and source material wherever there are significantly diferent versions of a passage, it gives all the versions, where they came from, and a reason why one or another was chosen to be cannon over the others. Where a verse was completely left out of cannon, it gives you the verse, its origin and why it was left out.

There are also verious apologist books which help.

The thing to keep in mind is that Hebrew does not translate very well at all into English. Much of the nuance is lost. English may take a whole sentence to convay the idea contained in a few Hebrew words.

Also, wheras the 'old testament' is in Hebrew, much of the 'new testament' is in Greek, and Greek translates into English much easier, though not perfectly.

When reading about Jesus from fairly acuratly translated Greek, the Christian becomes acostomed to taking scripture at face value. A Christian will carry the habbit of taking scripture at face value over to the old testoment without accouting for the diferent language the old testoment comes from; the result is confusion and that's how we get Young Earth Creationism.

Thank you for the information, now I know why there was confusion, we were referencing from different sources, I have intentionally steered clear of instructional Bibles, they add people and situations that are not
otherwise listed, and change the wording of the verses so they are nearly unrecognizable. There are so many new editions. and they are all different. So, I think we should each take the others interpretations with a grain of salt, because they are from different books. Generally we seem to be on the same pages tho you appear to be a bit more strict than I.

However, my question regarding abtuseness has been answered by your last post. Forgive me. An since this a discussion and notreally a debate, I don't need and won't address a lot of references, for my purposes, they simply aren't necessary.

 

[Ellipsis]

Thank you for the information, now I know why there was confusion, we were referencing from different sources, I have intentionally steered clear of instructional Bibles, they add people and situations that are not
otherwise listed, and change the wording of the verses so they are nearly unrecognizable. There are so many new editions. and they are all different. So, I think we should each take the others interpretations with a grain of salt, because they are from different books. Generally we seem to be on the same pages tho you appear to be a bit more strict than I.

However, my question regarding abtuseness has been answered by your last post. Forgive me. An since this a discussion and notreally a debate, I don't need and won't address a lot of references, for my purposes, they simply aren't necessary.

There's a lot of asshols on this board, you're right to keep your guard up

Some days I'm one of those assholes, but I try not to be. No offence will be taken if you use the ignore feature from time to time

On the topic of scripture, in the last year I've taken up Buddhism and thus have been learning verious darma. Talk about taking things with a grain of salt, in Buddhism you aren't supposed to ever, not ever, take any text or any teacher's word on faith. You're supposed to try it for yourself, make up your own mind and share your experience. There is very little brow-beating between Bhuddists on what a text says.

 

[doniston1]

Thank you for the information, now I know why there was confusion, we were referencing from different sources, I have intentionally steered clear of instructional Bibles, they add people and situations that are not
otherwise listed, and change the wording of the verses so they are nearly unrecognizable. There are so many new editions. and they are all different. So, I think we should each take the others interpretations with a grain of salt, because they are from different books. Generally we seem to be on the same pages tho you appear to be a bit more strict than I.

However, my question regarding abtuseness has been answered by your last post. Forgive me. An since this a discussion and notreally a debate, I don't need and won't address a lot of references, for my purposes, they simply aren't necessary.

There's a lot of asshols on this board, you're right to keep your guard up

Some days I'm one of those assholes, but I try not to be. No offence will be taken if you use the ignore feature from time to time

On the topic of scripture, in the last year I've taken up Buddhism and thus have been learning verious darma. Talk about taking things with a grain of salt, in Buddhism you aren't supposed to ever, not ever, take any text or any teacher's word on faith. You're supposed to try it for yourself, make up your own mind and share your experience. There is very little brow-beating between Bhuddists on what a text says.

Thats what I've heard does that mean I am a Budist Athiest? Hmm!!! I certainly am a different atheist.

 

[Ellipsis]

Thats what I've heard does that mean I am a Budist Athiest? Hmm!!! I certainly am a different atheist.

Well, Buddhism doesn't involve the worship of any god, and you aren't required to even accept that any god in any Buddhist story is literaly real; they're peribles and often openly embellished versions of real events. Atheism fits in just fine with Buddhism. Buddha himself is not to be worshiped, he was just a teacher, a real person who lived and died, not a god.

Buddhism is about you. Not 'believe in this god or go to hell'...its about you personaly and your health and well being. Even Bhuddist gods are not deities but personified aspects of yourself. 'Praying' to a given god is just a guided self-talk to direct your intentions.

You don't have to shave your head and wear a yellow robe and live in the temple to be a Buddhist; only if you want to be a monk.

There's nothing hypoctitical or contradictory about being a Bhuddist Atheist at all.

 

[doniston1]

Thats what I've heard does that mean I am a Budist Athiest? Hmm!!! I certainly am a different atheist.

Well, Buddhism doesn't involve the worship of any god, and you aren't required to even accept that any god in any Buddhist story is literaly real; they're peribles and often openly embellished versions of real events. Atheism fits in just fine with Buddhism. Buddha himself is not to be worshiped, he was just a teacher, a real person who lived and died, not a god.

Buddhism is about you. Not 'believe in this god or go to hell'...its about you personaly and your health and well being. Even Bhuddist gods are not deities but personified aspects of yourself.

(I was just kidding in the last post,) however, that's all for tonight, I'll start again in the morning. Niteall ( Oh, that puts you to sleep doesn't it????)

 

[Ellipsis]

(I was just kidding in the last post,) however, that's all for tonight, I'll start again in the morning. Niteall ( Oh, that puts you to sleep doesn't it????)

Nah, I work nights, the sunrise makes me tired. I've said my goodbyes to the light.

 

[doniston1]

(I was just kidding in the last post,) however, that's all for tonight, I'll start again in the morning. Niteall ( Oh, that puts you to sleep doesn't it????)

Nah, I work nights, the sunrise makes me tired. I've said my goodbyes to the light.

Good morning.

 

[Ellipsis]

(I was just kidding in the last post,) however, that's all for tonight, I'll start again in the morning. Niteall ( Oh, that puts you to sleep doesn't it????)

Nah, I work nights, the sunrise makes me tired. I've said my goodbyes to the light.

Good morning.

'Mornin....almost the end of my shift