How is saying by all means read it, like discouraging people from reading it, bizarre…
1 Like
Did I ask for a “general sense?” I asked which stories(gospels) are you interested in specifically. Or is “which ones”? too difficult a concept?
Codex Sinaiticus : Is a study all on its own, predating as it does the Vaticanus. Counting the differences, inadvertent and deliberate between our earliest complete codex and even those produced within 200 years is an absorbing hobby all of its own. It certainly sheds an unflattering light on the modern “interpretations” from the Vaticanus onwards.
What about the Sinaiticus particularly interests you?
I have really no idea, as that is not what I said, maybe if you re read my post, your comprehension of the point I made would improve. Then you could ask a sensible question.
4 Likes
Your ability to make straw men from nothing is on a par with your mythology. Note: I do not react to strawmen. If you have trouble with my communication/your comprehension, then ask for clarification, don’t make things up.
5 Likes
I feel your pain, it’s beyond tedious, and then he turns into a real crybaby when people point out how dishonest he’s being. As you say, it is probably a lack of comprehension skills on his part, or he is breathtakingly dishonest. I am 50/50 as a) they’re not mutually exclusive, and b) he rolls past posts that explain in unequivocal detail why he has woefully misunderstood / misinterpreted what was said.
4 Likes
Actually I clearly referred to “the ancient manuscripts that form the extra canonical gospels and epistles.”
Yes.
Indeed.
That and other rare relics interest me because of the light that can be shed on language use in the ancient world in this case Greek including the OT and apocrypha. But I’m curious about the entire subject, I’m no authority here but I do have an interest in the subject.
I was just seeking extra details on what you meant by “accuracy” of an interpretation of text.
As I didn’t say or write that in the first place why would you seek extra details?
I see from your plethora of posts on other topics you seem to have the same problems comprehending plain language. Is there a reason for this? Medical or?
2 Likes
Yes you did actually:
Right there you are asserting that the “accuracy” is a function of the degree to which the study is “secular”.
See above.
Lame excuse.
I routinely bring here scientific papers on a range of subjects, and exert the effort to present the contents thereof, in an accessible manner to a non-technical audience, while at the same time reporting honestly the findings and conclusions of the authors of said papers. A labour for which many here have expressed gratitude in the past.
Funny how I never condescend to treat an honest audience for my work as being “beneath” me.
But then I leave the requisite deficits of conduct to mythology fanboys.
3 Likes
Yes, you do like to feign erudition, its been noted. You post whatever makes you happy my friend but if you expect replies from me then keep it tight, to the point, concise, none of this self congratulatory verbosity marathons you bore everyone to tears with.
By using the word everyone, you speak for all. Do not speak for me.
3 Likes
To - atheists?
On an - atheist forum?
Theists and religious apologists often appear irony impaired to me, so for clarity, are you seeing a problem there yet? I mean bringing your apologetics to a forum of the people you subjectively insist are the least qualified to understand it, or what constitutes evidence for it, then making unevidenced subjective claims about it?
Oh that’s right, it’s the neutral readers you’re targeting. 
This is hilarious sorry, and just for clarity general relativity, physics and non-Euclidean geometry all provide data to be examined within a strict objective methodology, you’re touting unevidenced undetectable magic you don’t know the origins of, can’t explain at all, and don’t have a clue, I mean not one single word, to explain how it is possible, are you sure you;re not seeing any of the inroy there at all?
My bad, it appears to be a total irony impairment.
Absolutely total irony impairment apparently, the use of the word everyone there was the clincher.
1 Like
Oh look, snide condescension in 3 … 2 … 1 …
I leave pretence to your ilk.
Oh wait, how many times have I pointed out elementary concepts that eluded you while you were peddling your vacuous apologetics? It won’t take the diligent long to alight upon some hilarious examples.
After your recent excursions into War and Peace length verbiage, you’re in NO position to lecture me on being “concise”.
But I’m used to seeing your ilk drive a tank battalion though Matthew 7:5.
You mean like your assertion to be a “trained theoretical physicist”? Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
I leave superfluous verbiage to mythology fanboys.
In case it hasn’t penetrated your thick skull yet, I had a proper education.
Funny how no one else here is “bored” with my output … looks like you’re in a class of one, and a remedial class at that.
1 Like
Thank you for admitting your complete lack of comprehension so publicly.
I did not write anything about “interpretation” or indeed “translation” both or either terms I would have mentioned if relevant to my point. Please read properly and if in doubt either message me or reply seeking clarification.
Strawmen are tedious and mal comprehension is correctable.
Now if you would like to discuss Marcion or even a text of your choice please do so. Or STFU. Thankyou
4 Likes
I think what he means by concise is use less technical objective evidence, you know the sciency stuff. Take a look at his posts for example, pithy vapid rhetoric, that’s what he wants, leave the facts alone, or just present them with a sweeping one liner, that is facile to the point of mendacity.
Like his “all beliefs are subjective” line, brilliantly concise, and in a sweep it implies the shape of the earth is as subjective as your favourite colour. No one wants to know it is a false equivalence fallacy, christ almighty you might as well be using Latin.
Oh and if someone presents complex scientific data that doesn’t support your position, or even if you are not sure, just label it scientism, and roll your eyes at their “bias”.
Sorry I have used up my irony reserves now, and will have to take a break. 
1 Like
That some concepts cannot be reduced to a 30 second Facebook soundbite, while simultaneously being represented both honestly and rigorously , is of course one of those ideas mythology fanboys routinely fail to understand.
Indeed, on the old version of this forum, I attempted to provide an accessible explanation of the concept of ‘tensor’, and even though I exerted much effort on that exercise, it still left several readers wondering what they had just read.
Now if I, with an actual understanding of that concept, and a willingness to exert diligent effort to explain the concept properly and in an accessible manner, encountered this problem, what makes mythology fanboys think that they can demand to be spoon fed 30 second soundbites packaging, say, 80 years’ worth of prebiotic chemistry research?
Of course, no one who understands what the word “concise” genuinely means, thinks brevity should be pursued at the expense of rigour or pedagogical success. It’s not surprising to see mythology fanboys think otherwise, because the whole purpose of apologetics is to obfuscate and twist, in order to sell absurd assertions as purportedly constituting fact to the gullible and uneducated.
Pedlars of apologetics, as a corollary, recoil from honest pursuit of rigour, and erect whiny excuses when the rest of us exert said diligent effort.
I’m also familiar with the “stonewall” brigade (Facebook is polluted with this dross to a fulminating extent), the ones who stubbornly double down on manifest (and frequently infantile) lies even after patient effort has been exerted to correct said lies. Creationists deploy this “ferrous cranium” tactic, in the mistaken belief that they “win” the argument by mindlessly driving the opposition to frustrated exhaustion, and I refer to this ilk as “Chatty Cathy bots”, because at bottom that’s a succinct encapsulation of their conduct.
The extension thereof taking, of course, the form of the Gish Gallop, named after professional liar for doctrine Duane Gish. Whose duplicitous modus operandi consisted of unleashing scatter-gun assertions in rapid succession,knowing full well that answering them all properly would require a week or so of intensive classes in the relevant material. Another mendacious means by which creationists claim to “win” debates constrained by time.
And of course, there’s the egregious attempts to posture as being in a position to redefine entire swathes of scientific concepts, for the utterly reprehensible purpose of erecting the weakest possible strawman caricatures of said concepts, in order to avoid addressing the relevant inconvenient reality.
I’ve seen this, and much more, in 14 years of dealing with mythology fanboy duplicity and stupidity, and do not anticipate any positive change in conduct from said demographic occurring even in the next millennium, let alone within my lifetime. Rampant and egregious dishonesty is so endemic to apologetics, that only the extirpation thereof will remedy this.
1 Like
Why did you do that? There are many resources on the web that discuss this concept and millions more. to what end did you concoct this “accessible explanation”? and oh, may I peruse said explanation?
For educational purposes. Did this concept fail to register while you were posting this?
Except that the majority thereof require a fairly thorough grounding in vector mathematics beforehand. I was attempting to make the concept accessible to people without that background.
Just answered that above.
Go here.
I read this and stopped, as we say in Liverpool “are you takin the piss?”
So a set is also a tensor? a group? a category? No, of course they are not.
Here’s an explanation by a mathematician and electrical engineer:
I have his book A Student’s Guide to Vectors and Tensors and it is very accessible. Mathematics is often best taught visually too, pages and pages of waffle are hardly as digestible as something pictorial or dynamic like a video when explaining somethin technical to novices.
So you quote mined my post to raise a specious objection for the usual duplicitous apologetic purposes.
You really do sink to new lows with each passing day, don’t you?
1 Like