The Bible's Buried Secrets

[lady of shallot]

and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands"

Then what is Dawn, (Stahrwe too) doing in this continent? If the one statement is true should not the other be also?

[stahrwe]

stahrwe
The rantings that there is not a difference between the Bible and fsm is easily tested. Frank013, write the bible of the fsm, create a church and have it run for 2,000 years.

The time invested is meaningless… the popularity of the belief is meaningless… all of this can and does happen with claims that are not truthful. Only weather the claims can be supported matters… in your case the best thing you can say is that they cannot be disproved… which is all any of the fantasies above can say too.

Stahrwe
Show me where I:
Said I was blind - I didn't
Hinted I was blind - I didn't
Insinuated I was blind - I didnt.

I was hoping you would not make such a false claim and spare me the effort of exposing you as a liar… but you asked for it…

Here is what you actually wrote…

Stahrwe
What would you say if I told you I was blind?
How do the blind watch the videos?

thanks for your sensitivity.

You conveniently left out the last part in your quoting of yourself… and that (of course) is the most damning part. Why would you need sensitivity if you’re not blind… this suggests that I have been insensitive to you because you are blind…

Your comment impeaches your premise. By using the word suggests you confirm that I did not make an outright claim and my exact words are framed in a hypothetical, so once again you are wrong.

You then added this…

Stahrwe
You highlight text, move it to MSword or another program which has a reading function.
You dictate responses using DragonSpeech program by Nuance or a similar program, and have your text read back to you for corrections, despite Nuance claims, my program is only ~70% accurate.

This exposes the fact that you did indeed intend us to (at least) consider the possibility that you were blind, your “program is only 70% accurate” Why would you need DragonSpeech if you weren’t blind? Why would you mention it if you did not intend us to think you were blind?

Actually, I was confating two thoughts. 1) I have worked with people who have various disabilities to help them function more efficiently with some standard software applications available on XP, and now Windows 7. As for using Dragon Speech, it is actually not a program marketed to sight limited. It is a speech recognition program which I use to write with because my notebook's keyboard is too small to comfortably use my fat fingers. It is also more conducive to the creative process to be able to 'dictate' rather than type. The advantages are the the program will replay my dictation (as it is recorded) or read sections with a computer generated voice.

As for the insensitive comment, if you can't figure that out then there isn't much hope for you.

It also shows just how stupid your position on wanting a hard copy for translation is… listing to the video is 100% accurate… listing to a transcript from DragonSpeech is 70% accurate… your reasoning for needing a transcript is as bad as your reasoning for belief in Jesus... but that does not surprise me.

That is not exactly true, there are words that can have more than one meaning and in the context of a video/audio (one watches the video and listens to the accompanying audio) presentation the meaning may not be clear from the context. In that case, a transcript is the solution.

You misunderstand the accuracy of Dragon Speech. It is 70% accurate in recognizing my dictation. As for recognizing set text, like a transcript, it should be nearly 100% accurate.

In conclusion, I never said that you claimed that you were blind, but it is clear that you insinuated through hinting that you were… again, I see why you label yourself a sinner.

Later

As you go on belaboring a non-point, I will conclude with the final thought I had regarding the blindness insinuation which I have not previously mentioned as I wanted to cut the discussion short, it being a side track. This is the 2nd thought I alluded to above. While John 9:25 refers to a specific event, it is thematic that condition runs through mankind as evidenced by you and many other BT participants and Newton's famous hymn. In that context I claim full support for my statement and under that claim it was true but no more for me.

[Frank 013]

From your above rationalizations only prove to show me that you are now embarrassed by the whole situation, because as you may remember many people commented on your proposed blindness and you never corrected them…

This explanation is long overdue but did have some comments that I found worth commenting on…

Stahrwe
As for using Dragon Speech, it is actually not a program marketed to sight limited.

In the context of the conversation it made you appear to say that you were blind… I doubt that it was unintentional… the damage is done… back peddling now will not take away your lie.

Stahrwe
That is not exactly true, there are words that can have more than one meaning and in the context of a video/audio (one watches the video and listens to the accompanying audio) presentation the meaning may not be clear from the context. In that case, a transcript is the solution.

We were talking about YOUR reasons for not watching the videos…

Stahrwe
What would you say if I told you I was blind?
How do the blind watch the videos?

thanks for your sensitivity.

So this means what in the above context? How does this apply to you in that situation?

Which is what we were discussing.

Besides if you had bothered to watch the videos it would be clear that you’re above statement is moot (because the video was an animated mouth moving) watching it is the equivalent of listening to a transcript.

stahrwe
You misunderstand the accuracy of Dragon Speech. It is 70% accurate in recognizing my dictation. As for recognizing set text, like a transcript, it should be nearly 100% accurate.

“Nearly 100% accurate” is still less than 100% accurate... Logic FAIL!!!!

Stahrwe
In that context I claim full support for my statement and under that claim it was true but no more for me.

This is a distinction that you left out for quite a while… while people publicly questioned your newfound disability… you let it ride to long for it to have been accidental.

Later

[Interbane]

As for the insensitive comment, if you can't figure that out then there isn't much hope for you.

There isn't much hope for every person who read your comment then, which includes half a dozen of us. No matter what, it was written in a way that implied you were blind. Every person who read it took it the same way.

The instant I saw the comment I saw that you were hoping to score debate points by proposing a hypothetical situation that people should be sensitive to. It was your only move, since there is no valid excuse to not watch a movie without a transcript. But in letting people think you were actually blind by leaving all the questions unanswered and not correcting people's misinterpretations of what you said, you were being intentionally deceitful. Your last resort is to make the vacuous claim that regardless of how everyone interpreted it, you didn't intend for it to be taken that way.

Stahrwe, it's an honest question when I ask you if you believe your own lies. You intended for people to think you were blind, that's a fact. Do you have a distorted memory of that moment? Actually, I'm sure somewhere deep down, you are aware it was a debate tactic, and are ashamed that the bluff is called yet your pride will never let you admit it. Jesus would be ashamed, you should banish your pride.

[stahrwe]

From your above rationalizations only prove to show me that you are now embarrassed by the whole situation, because as you may remember many people commented on your proposed blindness and you never corrected them…

This explanation is long overdue but did have some comments that I found worth commenting on…

Stahrwe
As for using Dragon Speech, it is actually not a program marketed to sight limited.

In the context of the conversation it made you appear to say that you were blind… I doubt that it was unintentional… the damage is done… back peddling now will not take away your lie.

Stahrwe
That is not exactly true, there are words that can have more than one meaning and in the context of a video/audio (one watches the video and listens to the accompanying audio) presentation the meaning may not be clear from the context. In that case, a transcript is the solution.

We were talking about YOUR reasons for not watching the videos…

Stahrwe
What would you say if I told you I was blind?
How do the blind watch the videos?

thanks for your sensitivity.

So this means what in the above context? How does this apply to you in that situation?

Which is what we were discussing.

Besides if you had bothered to watch the videos it would be clear that you’re above statement is moot (because the video was an animated mouth moving) watching it is the equivalent of listening to a transcript.

stahrwe
You misunderstand the accuracy of Dragon Speech. It is 70% accurate in recognizing my dictation. As for recognizing set text, like a transcript, it should be nearly 100% accurate.

“Nearly 100% accurate” is still less than 100% accurate... Logic FAIL!!!!

Stahrwe
In that context I claim full support for my statement and under that claim it was true but no more for me.

This is a distinction that you left out for quite a while… while people publicly questioned your newfound disability… you let it ride to long for it to have been accidental.

Later

I am vascillating between marveling that you truly believe your rants and thinkng this is just an attempted assault to minimize my opinions. In the final analysis does it matter who has the disability? If a video is posted without a transcript you are limiting accessibility aren't you?

Does the good of the many outweigh the good of the few or the one?

ps, you seemed to have missed my point in citing John.

[Interbane]

In the final analysis does it matter who has the disability?

No. Neither does it clean the tarnish on your character for the initial insinuation, not to mention this ridiculous backpedaling.

Your moral question was already answered.

[Dawn]

There is nothing to back up he's right in his assessment of it.

Can you not allow for a case where all humanity has descended from Adam? Why not?

And wheres the evidence that we descended from this Adam? Do you have DNA evidence to prove that we came from Adam? ...

Hmmm... apparently LofS does...Interesting.

Truth does not devolve to myth just because it's not believed.

And what truth is that? Bible thumpers keep preaching truth I see it in all the forums I visit yet none know what the truth is. ... If the bible has any truth to it at all it's shrouded in myth.

Shrouded to some, yes, but not in myth. See: IICor.4:4 blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=2Cr& ... ESV#comm/4

My question is why do you automatically suppose that what you read in Acts 17:26 is myth?

Can you prove its not? My guess is no. The books of the NT were written 70 to 130 years after the events that they purpose to speak of.

Can you prove this?

[Dawn]

I wonder how strict Biblical literalists deal with a comment I heard today on t.v. that had nothing to do with either religious belief or disbelief. A man was showing rocks containing minerals to an expert and asked how old they were. The expert said "Oh millions of years" So what I wonder is do Dawn and/or Stahrwe think the man is lying, crazy, just plain wrong, ill informed or what?

Handy theory, misguided though. How many millions do you suppose? Why isn't he being more specific? Do we have any concept of what even one million years looks like? Only in 'science' texts! This is bad science.

They also say that all humanity is descended from the same "scientific Eve" who lived 120,000 + or - years ago. This does not of course mean that there were not other beings like Eve and Adam alive at their times only that their descendants did not pass their gene pools or DNA on.

Now this is more interesting. Just drop a few digits and get real... Of course without the evidence for other gene pools... there's only conjecture right? (as to why other DNA was not passed on). Actually it's not necessary for there to have been any other man than Adam to begin with. His gene pool was complete. We've been devolving since...

[stahrwe]

In the final analysis does it matter who has the disability?

No. Neither does it clean the tarnish on your character for the initial insinuation, not to mention this ridiculous backpedaling.

Your moral question was already answered.

Having shown that I never said I was blind let me ease your anger a bit by saying that I also never said I wasn't blind. To complete the discussion let me say that I WAS blind, and that I have publicly proclaimed that hundreds of times. Finally, it was and is true that I Once Was Blind. Anyone familiar with Christianity since Newton will immediately fill in the ending phrase of that quote and understand the context in which I use and used it. It was no insuation, nor am I backpedaling now, it is just a bit of Christian doctrine which you all failed to recognize.

The moral question has not been answered and one cannot use logic to answer it. There is a basic factor missing which renders logic unreliable to answer the question. Do you know what the factor is?

[stahrwe]

Nova used to offer transcripts of programs for sale now they just advertise videos. But I checked and guess what, Nova provides a full transcript of the show, free on their website. Full analysis to be forthcoming.