Originally posted by DeepThoughtI must point out your rather glaring error, its not a prediction concerning the 'end of the world' as you have also erroneously assumed, its simply an attempt to understand a prophecy and its composite parts, which we did not author nor originate. But hey you were never really one for details. 馃樀The scientific data is open for all to examine, the arguments based on it robust ...The only problem is that it doesn't support your position. On the bright side, as a member of the JW's your position fits their unhappy history of predicting the End of the World like a glove.
Yes the scientific data does support my position, there has been an increase in the frequency of earthquakes with a large magnitude since the epoch that Christ was referring to. Its not my fault you assume values and heap further assumed values on your assumptions to form a rather large steaming pile of. . . . assumption.
18 Apr 16
Originally posted by KazetNagorraFeel free to interpret the scientific data anyway you like.
Sorry Robbie - an article titled "EARTHQUAKES - WHAT ARE THE LONG TERM TRENDS?" which does not even mention the concept of a power law is not awfully likely to have any merit.
18 Apr 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat bit from Mathew 24. Old Matt never met JC, he wrote that stuff down 50 odd years later. But you take that as verbatum from the mouth of JC. I think it much more likely they would write ANYTHING down to further their cause even if totally made up.
Yes and I am a nuclear submarine commander lost from the cold war!
Struts about like a cockerel caring not a jot!
Originally posted by sonhouseYou have of course evidence for your ludicrous claim? or shall we be once more treated to an appeal to your own authority, 'its true because I say its true'?
That bit from Mathew 24. Old Matt never met JC, he wrote that stuff down 50 odd years later. But you take that as verbatum from the mouth of JC. I think it much more likely they would write ANYTHING down to further their cause even if totally made up.
18 Apr 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat works for you I see. There have been alternative interpretations to fit every "epoch" since the year dot. We need a criterion to evaluate why your interpretation is superior and to be trusted. The invalid interpretation of unreliably sourced data is not a great start in establishing the credibility of your claim.
On what basis do you determine to which epoch Christ was referring and how does that answer correspond to the dates in the reference under discussion?
At last an excellent question. The prophecy clearly is a composite sign. The phrase 'nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom', is part of that composite sign. Now while it is ...[text shortened]... nning of pangs of distress' when 'nation would rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom'.
18 Apr 16
Originally posted by finneganI have provided a time frame, the epoch beginning with the first truly global conflict. Feel free to refute it or provide an alternative which is as reasonable.
That works for you I see. There have been alternative interpretations to fit every "epoch" since the year dot. We need a criterion to evaluate why your interpretation is superior and to be trusted. The invalid interpretation of unreliably sourced data is not a great start in establishing the credibility of your claim.
18 Apr 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe alternate is JC said he was coming back 'soon'. Only the super-religious would say 2000 years later is soon.
I have provided a time frame, the epoch beginning with the first truly global conflict. Feel free to refute it or provide an alternative which is as reasonable.
There is very little known from independent verification about words actually coming from the lips of JC. There is a LOT of uncorroborated words written decades later attributed to JC.
And of course the super religious set swallows the whole deal as if it were 100% true.
What is that term? Let's see. Uhmm, I'm thinking. OH YEAH. Gullibility.
Originally posted by sonhouseSo you have NO evidence for your claims - thankyou.
The alternate is JC said he was coming back 'soon'. Only the super-religious would say 2000 years later is soon.
There is very little known from independent verification about words actually coming from the lips of JC. There is a LOT of uncorroborated words written decades later attributed to JC.
And of course the super religious set swallows the w ...[text shortened]... it were 100% true.
What is that term? Let's see. Uhmm, I'm thinking. OH YEAH. Gullibility.
The term that is usually translated as coming, is infact a rather interesting Greek word, parousia, meaning presence.
The word pa·rou·si使a, “presence,” is different from the Greek word e使leu·sis, “coming,” which occurs once in the Greek text, in Ac 7:52, as e·leu使se·os (Lat., ad·ven使tu). The words pa·rou·si使a and e使leu·sis are not used interchangeably. TDNT, Vol. V, p. 865, noted that “the terms [pa使rei·mi and pa·rou·si使a] are never used for the coming of Christ in the flesh, and παρουσ委α never has the sense of return. The idea of more than one parousia is first found only in the later Church [not before Justine, second century C.E.] . . . A basic prerequisite for understanding the world of thought of primitive Christianity is that we should fully free ourselves from this notion [of more than one parousia].”
Concerning the meaning of this word, Israel P. Warren, D.D., wrote in his work The Parousia, Portland, Maine (1879), pp. 12-15: “We often speak of the ‘second advent,’ the ‘second coming,’ etc., but the Scriptures never speak of a ‘second Parousia.’ Whatever was to be its nature, it was something peculiar, having never occurred before, and being never to occur again. It was to be a presence differing from and superior to all other manifestations of himself to men, so that its designation should properly stand by itself, without any qualifying epithet other than the article,
“From this view of the word it is evident, I think, that neither the English word ‘coming’ nor the Latin ‘advent’ is the best representative of the original. They do not conform to its etymology; they do not correspond to the idea of the verb from which it is derived; nor could they appropriately be substituted for the more exact word, ‘presence,’ in the cases where the translators used the latter. Nor is the radical [root] idea of them the same. ‘Coming’ and ‘advent’ give most prominently the conception of an approach to us, motion toward us; ‘parousia’ that of being with us, without reference to how it began. The force of the former ends with the arrival; that of the latter begins with it. Those are words of motion; this of rest. The space of time covered by the action of the former is limited, it may be momentary; that of the latter unlimited . . . .
“Had our translators done with this technical word ‘parousia’ as they did with ‘baptisma,’—transferring it unchanged,—or if translated using its exact etymological equivalent, presence, and had it been well understood, as it then would have been, that there is no such thing as a ‘second Presence,’ I believe that the entire doctrine would have been different from what it now is. The phrases, ‘second advent,’ and ‘second coming,’ would never have been heard of. The church would have been taught to speak of THE PRESENCE OF THE LORD, as that from which its hopes were to be realized, whether in the near future or at the remotest period,—that under which the world was to be made new, a resurrection both spiritual and corporeal should be attained, and justice and everlasting awards administered.”
jw.org
18 Apr 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe prophesies in the book called The Revelation of Jesus Chriat are aimed at Christians, not atheists.
So you have NO evidence for your claims - thankyou.
The term that is usually translated as coming, is infact a rather interesting Greek word, parousia, meaning presence.
The word pa·rou·si使a, “presence,” is different from the Greek word e使leu·sis, “coming,” which occurs once in the Greek text, in Ac 7:52, as e·leu使se·os (Lat., ad·ven使tu). The ...[text shortened]... al and corporeal should be attained, and justice and everlasting awards administered.”
jw.org
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
18 Apr 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAt the source document, cited below, the author discusses "cherry picking" by which, in the example of it that he gives, a earthquake magnitude level is arbitrarily chosen that just happens to lead to results that support the desired interpretation, ignoring or not even evaluating other choices that might fail to support the desired interpretation. You would have to show a good reason for your choice of 8.0, and the reason cannot be "because it leads to the results I desire."
random chance, ha! how so vewy vewy convenient! Let us make this clear for our erudite friends so that there can be NO mistakes,
Earthquakes 8.0 magnitude and above have struck at a record rate since 2004
So yes, how vewy vewy convenient.
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/3/651.full
Originally posted by JS357Actually 'my choice' as you put it was greater than 6.99. Secondly since many earthquakes are significantly below this range and undetectable without specialist equipment it would make NO SENSE for us to utilise them in reference to a composite sign, would it? I therefore reject your accusation of cherry picking. Furthermore the author makes it clear why they have limited their data to earthquakes over 6.99.
At the source document, cited below, the author discusses "cherry picking" by which, in the example of it that he gives, a earthquake magnitude level is arbitrarily chosen that just happens to lead to results that support the desired interpretation, ignoring or not even evaluating other choices that might fail to support the desired interpretation. You ...[text shortened]... ts I desire."
So yes, how vewy vewy convenient.
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/3/651.full
By limiting the range of earthquakes being counted in this report to magnitude 7 or above, it means these earthquakes can easily be identified by a limited number of seismographs, and we have ensured that any increase in frequency for these larger earthquakes cannot be down to the increase in overall detection rates in this 25-year period, as all these larger earthquakes are able to be easily detected with fewer seismograph stations.