Jump to content

Vance

Contributor
  • Content Count

    6,347
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Vance

  1. There is no reason to think there might be hermaphrodite Gods. So I am not sure why you would think I might be trying to say that. Welcome aboard.
  2. So Jesus spends the evening with two sisters and the Pharisees and the lawyers don't go cuckoo with all kinds of accusations of sin and misdeeds? Must have been some kind of legitimate relationship there. Again, just sayin.
  3. To me the word "God" is like the words sheep, deer, elk, quail, moose etc. It is both singular and plural. So, it would be correct to say, "There are male Gods and female Gods". If we include the previous verse it clears it up even more. Gen 1:26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. It would also be correct if it said. Vance 1:26 ¶ And the Gods said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So the Gods created man in their own image, in the image of the Gods created they them; male and female created they them. Or in other words, Abr 4:26 And the Gods took counsel among themselves and said: Let us go down and form man in our image, after our likeness; and we will give them dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So the Gods went down to organize man in their own image, in the image of the Gods to form they him, male and female to form they them. Again, just sayin.
  4. Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. I think it is clear that the image of God is both male and female. Just sayin.
  5. Regarding the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea . . . . Currently both are below sea level. The Sea of Galilee is about 700 feet below sea level and the Dead Sea is more than 1300 feet below sea level. Currently, for water to run from the Dead Sea to the ocean the water level would have to rise more than 1500 ft. and then it would flow over Afula and past Haifa into the Med. That would cause the two bodies of water to merge into one.
  6. I liked this one, https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Paul-Richard-Lloyd-Anderson/dp/1590387295
  7. I notice that you didn't either. Is it because you can't? You could start by showing where in the Bible it says that God is "immaterial".
  8. Let's just call it what it really is, "immaterial material". The interesting thing to me is that when the term "immaterial" was coined, it referred to things like, spirit, breath, and wind (from the Greek word "pneuma"). Let us get out of the dark age science and just admit that "immaterial" doesn't mean what people think it means.
  9. I noticed that Mouw made no Biblical defense of the "orthodox" position, nor did he provide a Biblical based justification for rejection of the "LDS" position. I am thinking it is because he could do neither.
  10. In addition to that verse there is this one. Heb 5:4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. Is it ok to call someone you usurps the authority of God a blasphemer?
  11. The later portions of this debate were posted in another thread. JW does misrepresent the beliefs of others (ok, he lies about them). He claims to "know" LDS doctrine and history, yet he doesn't act like it. Also, either he is not really familiar with Hebrew OR he is willing to let his debating partner misrepresent it. Letting a false information stand without correction is to perpetrate a deception. I think the "kid" did well, but he let a few false premises get introduced without question.
  12. Only some of the assumptions are tied to empirical measurements. Others are independent of empirical measurements. The end results are controlled by the assumptions. We can speculate about what is not there all we want. But with the information currently available to us, we can never know the length of the scroll with any degree of accuracy. What real difference would it make if the scroll was 5 ft. or 50 ft. in length?
  13. You (and others) made a misleading claim. You have no support for that claim, neither do they. That is why I am stuck on your unsupportable claim. JS used the word "translate", fine. The "book of breathings" part is just you critics misrepresenting what is known. Your speculations are not facts. Your opinions are not facts. You can't stick with the facts because you would loose your narrative. That is a statement of opinion, nothing more. That is his opinion. That is something you can't know. Ergo, still just your opinion. I think you meant align not alien. Still, just your opinion. All, signifying nothing.
  14. EXACTLY!!!! Nobody really knows. By the way, you are included in that "nobody".
  15. Assumptions are influenced by opinions about the evidence. Quite frankly, we only know about the fragment of papyrus that is available. We can only ASSUME the implications about the rest that no longer exists. You can measure this and that and the other thing all you want. But you have to assume what it all means to the no longer existent scroll. And what if you what you assumed was off by a factor of 2? What real difference would it make? What if the damage to the fragment was from a second mode effect rather than a first? So, assume the constraints on the assumptions all you want. To me, it is all just hot air.
  16. Back in the 80's, I spent years working with rolls and rolls of computer generated plots. Rolls that were no more that 2" outside diameter and nearly 1" inside diameter could easily roll out to 30 feet in length. So, go ahead and tell me I don't know what I am talking about. The equation I gave simply provides a rough estimate (with 10%) of the maximum possible length. If the inside circumference is 50% of the outside circumference then reduce the length by 25%. If the packing efficiency of the roll is less than 100%, say 50% then reduce the length by 50%. The length you end up with depends upon the ASSUMPTIONS you make to start with. So, all you are really doing is arguing about ASSUMPTIONS.
  17. There are numerous ways to make the calculation, and the results will depend greatly upon the assumptions made. In Engineering, when the solution isn't directly determinable, it can be very useful to bound the problem. Without much difficulty I could estimate the maximum possible length knowing only the outer circumference and the average thickness. Lmax ≈ c^2/4πt
  18. The two on either side of Christ out lived him. What is the significance of that fact? I don't know. The pain of crucifixion cannot compare to the spiritual suffering experienced in the garden. But the suffering that was in addition to the pain of crucifixion we can never know. The suffering from having the Father withdraw from Him could be argued to be experienced by all of us who have sinned. But we do know what the Savior has said, D&C 19:18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink— To me, that seems to indicate that the greater suffering was in the garden.
  19. Actually, I would argue that it was a "translation". Just not the definition of "translate" that is commonly understood in current times. http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Translate
  20. You ignoring them doesn't mean they don't exist. There is some evidence for you.
  21. Well, yes I expected a quote because you said he made the claim. So, it is only your OPINION and not a fact. Now we are getting somewhere. There you go again, falsely representing the situation. He didn't make that claim. The Church didn't make that claim. It is only your opinion. You know, you would do well to understand the definitions of "translate" used in the early 1800s. http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Translate You are stuck on the wrong definition.
  22. No one has yet provided a reference to support this claim. Can ANYONE please provide a reference where "JS claimed he translated the BOM from 'the Book of Breathings.' "?. In his own hand would be preferable. I would say that people who claim that "JS claimed he translated the BOM from the Book of Breathings" are the real deceivers here.
  23. So, descriptions of lengthier scrolls than the fragment extant, provided by people who saw them, aren't evidence that they existed?
  24. Ok, I asked for the claim and you provided none. You can make of the scribbles what ever you want. But the fact of the matter is that you can't provide a reference where JS claimed that the "book of breathings" was the source of the BOA.
×
×
  • Create New...