Nathan_Jr

There is no punctuation in the Greek. How then could it be moved? I’ve tried to find other verses in Luke where Jesus reminds his audience that he is speaking to them on the same day that they are listening to him. MOREOVER, Jesus and those two criminals knew that day on the cross was their last. Would that dying criminal need to be reminded that the day Jesus was speaking was the day he was speaking? Which other day, if not today? But, hey, if there is a religious theological position to advance, and one clings and clutches to inerrancy, well, one will just have to MAKE it fit, like a hand in a…

I rest my case.

The irony of this does not escape my sense of humor. I learned it by watching you. *The read-only folks at home should not limit their reading to GSC, victor wierwille, Mike, or Nathan_Jr. They should read deeply, widely. They should find out for themselves.

You don't understand how language changes, either. And you don't want to understand. Again, I could explain it and provide some links, but I won't waste my time, and you don't have the time -- all your projects keep you too busy to learn. I'll give you a hint: language changes, it doesn't evolve. Find out for yourself what drives language to change.

You still don't understand critical thinking or confirmation bias. You are willfully ignorant of what those terms mean.

You really don't understand the meaning of critical text, textual criticism or critical thinking. The word critical/criticism really throws you for a loop. Victor was confused about this, also. I could explain it all to you, but it's clear you are unwilling to learn, to find out. I won't waste my time.

As WordWolf points out, victor was WAY off on this. Not even close. If a "doctor" could be so, so inaccurate about how (H-O-W) we got the Bible, what other egregious errors might he spew? Anyone can find out. Test all things.

Thanks. So, words interpret themselves? Great. I'll start working that key to test for its efficacy.

Fair enough. Let's see if Mike can get honest with his answers. We've asked honest questions. Can you answer me this: Are we talking about the keys to words interpreting themselves?

Keys to how words interpret themselves? Seriously. Just trying to understand. Help a brotha out, please.

You have yet to mention details. This is not a gotcha. It’s a simple question. What are your methods?

Not an answer. What are the methods?

What methods of probing are acceptable to you?

Does no one see a distinction between what is known and what is believed? Between certainty and probability?

As in Luke 23:43? The criminal would be unconscious in paradise with the master?

Really? Are we not talking about heuristics and epistemology? How (H-O-W) we know or don’t know? My question is right on topic. I’ve seen this deflective tactic before. I’m not disappointed, because I don’t expect more from you.

A. Always B. Be C. Closing

You can upvote it seven times, if you can beleeeve big enough. Got oil?

To get you started.... Confirmation bias, a phrase coined by English psychologist Peter Wason, is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms or strengthens their beliefs or values and is difficult to dislodge once affirmed.[2] Confirmation bias is an example of a cognitive bias. Some psychologists restrict the term "confirmation bias" to selective collection of evidence that supports what one already believes while ignoring or rejecting evidence that supports a different conclusion. Others apply the term more broadly to the tendency to preserve one's existing beliefs when searching for evidence, interpreting it, or recalling it from memory.[6] Confirmation bias is a result of automatic, unintentional strategies rather than deliberate deception.[8][9] Confirmation bias cannot be avoided or eliminated, but only managed by improving education and critical thinking skills. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias#Definition_and_context

How do you know? Have you experienced death?

Impossibly unfair question to ask.

Either you don't understand what Kuhn meant by normal science or you are simply unable to meaningfully and accurately convey the term. And to conflate confirmation bias with normal science is a huge misunderstanding - nothing but confusion can arise by asserting this error. I can explain it all to you, but I don't have time right now. Merry Christmas

Well done, T-Bone. In a court of law intent is usually proven beyond a reasonable doubt with circumstantial evidence. Drawing inferences, even conclusions, about victor's intent based on circumstantial evidence is not unreasonable, IMO. I'm sure you already know this is not MY statistical formula. Not REALLY. It's from Anchorman. You know the scene, right?

I don’t remember that, but I believe you. What was his point? Was it an unintentional indictment of himself?