I've changed my mind. I now believe the "earth" is 6k years old

[Tristen]

20 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

21 hours ago, Tristen said:

If I had used multiple translations, that would have introduced bias into the evidence. I could, for example, have eliminated 'became' altogether by bouncing between translations to suit my position.

Have you not yet clicked on the transliteration word above "was" in biblehub.com?

Why would I?

How is this related to the fact that using multiple translations would have introduced bias into my methods.

 

20 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I explained my misstatement.  I counted 69 occurrences according to bible hub.com.  But if v.2 means "became", that would be 70 occurrences.  I was mistaken.  

Even 59% for "became/become" means THE MOST COMMON translation for the FORM found in v.2.  And according to the occurrences of "was" comes to a measly 4.5%, being THE LEAST common, or one of the least common translations of that form of "hayah" in v.2.

This is the first I'm hearing of this correction - but OK. None of it matters unless you are willing to show me.

It also makes me suspicious as to whether you initially counted anything. It indicates rather that you just went along with what someone else had stated (i.e. confirmation bias). It also means your initial statement was an exaggeration - which is fine, since we all make mistakes - but why would you then expect me to trust anything you claim when you are so suspiciously reluctant to provide the evidence.

I did the work and provided my own evidence. You've refused to even attempt to provide me evidence supporting your position. You claim it exists, you claim it is easy to access, but weirdly, you won't show it to me. It makes me wonder if there is something wrong with your evidence that you don't want me to see.

 

20 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

When you presented the list of verses, there was no "source" mentioned

You understand that a "source" is the initial person who did the research, and where they published that research. At the earliest stage of the process, someone simply has to do the work themselves. In this case, that person was me, and it was published first in posts responding to you.

And in my previous post, I provided you a summary of my methods. As far as sources are concerned, that's as good as it gets without providing an actual research paper.

 

20 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I gave coumy source:  biblehub.com.

You telling me to, 'Just go to this website and figure out how to do the work for yourself' is not a valid "source" of your specific claim.

 

20 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I had no idea how you found the verses you did.  

Well, all you had to do was ask for my methods. Since I have no provided said methods, this is no longer a valid excuse.

 

20 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I disagree with your opinion.  It is so obvious that everyone knows that every object has a form, or the object simply isn't visible.  That's hardly disingenuous.  To claim otherwise is what is disingenuous.

Oooow. Tu Quoque fallacy - I haven't seen that one in a while. It is the intellectual equivalent of, 'I know you are, but what am I'.

 

20 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

22 hours ago, Tristen said:

I have further demonstrated, from your own words, that you fully understand this to be a disingenuous argument.

How do my own words refute me?  And specifically WHAT words?

I've shown you several times where you have used the word "formed" to describe the process of changing something that already has "form". If you want to know the "words", you'll have to go back and look through the posts. You've made me do this several times already - i.e. ignore my statements, insinuate that such statement were not made, then make me to go back and search through the posts to find what you claim I didn't say.

I'm not going to play that game any more. 

 

20 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

22 hours ago, Tristen said:

That would have been a waste of time. It's not my job to track down evidence of your position.

No, your job is to prove your own claims.  Which you can't.

My "job" is to provide evidence supporting my claims - which I have done. Likewise, your "job" is to provide evidence supporting your claims - which you have been oddly reluctant to do. 

It is not my "job" to go away and find evidence of your claims. That's not how the debate process works.

 

20 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

22 hours ago, Tristen said:

"Too bad" you didn't just follow your own instructions, and then just provide the link to the results.

Why would I need to, since anyone and everyone who reads these posts can do it for themselves and SEE for themselves the truth.

You would need to provide evidence supporting your position because that is your responsibility in a debate. It's not rocket surgery.  

 

20 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Your list didn't convince me of anything

Confirmation bias does have a way of dismissing disagreeable evidence.

 

20 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Not knowing your source and how it works means there would be NO WAY to verify your list

You could test it against your biblehub list. Or you could use an interlinear Bible to verify the right form is being counted. There's two easy WAYS to scrutinize my list.

 

20 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

This proves that you didn't bother using biblehub.com

Lol. Yes that, and my direct statements to that effect.

 

20 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I used what they provided.  If you had gone to biblehub.com you would have known that.

But I didn't go "to biblehub" - as you just proved above.

 

20 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Grrrr.   Please GO to bible hub.com and do your own research

No. I already did my "own research" without biblehub. Though I would be happy for you to present the evidence you found at biblehub.

 

20 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I'm stunned at what you are claiming here

Well - I provided the evidence here for you to scrutinize. If you have an issue with my evidence, I'll happily consider it.

 

20 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I used the data that biblehub.com shows

You haven't presented any of that "data" to me. That's the only valid use in our conversation.

 

21 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

If you aren't interested to SEE for yourself, or too busy, or whatever, doesn't matter to me.  It is available for anyone who is interested in SEEING for themselves the data.

The is another Appeal to Motive.

The reason I will not 'go to biblehub' is because it is not my job in a debate to track down evidence for the opposing position.

Also, it is somewhat fascinating to me that you are so reluctant to provide such evidence. When you finally do (if you ever do), I'm curious to see what about your evidence would make you so reluctant to share it for yourself.

 

21 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Do you believe that any explanation for an old earth is linked to evolution?  I totally reject that idea and am as strongly against the stupidity of evolution as you are.

I consider this to be a Red Herring fallacy.

 

21 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

It seems to me that just because God didn't include any explanation for WHY or HOW the earth became a wasteland, it couldn't have become that.

That is what I call a completely unsupported argument. 

Most Strawman arguments are indeed fallacious. 

 

[ChristB4us]

On 5/29/2023 at 7:42 AM, FreeGrace said:

Why keep focusing on some specific age?  That's not the issue.  The issue is that the earth has the appearance of being VERY OLD.  WHY would God deceive the whole world by creating an earth that looks VERY OLD when in fact it is very young?

Why Adam & Eve are adults?

Why are the animals?

Why are plants fully grown and bearing seeds and fruits on the day they were created?

When it comes to the earth, how can we compare an ancient earth as opposed to something that was brought into existence by the word of God when there is a maturity to living things?

How can we determine the age of the universe when it was created the fourth day to give her lights ( no matter how light travels ) to govern the earth that day?

Is it deceptive for not being able to determine the age of the earth?  Or is it our ability to determine the age of the earth without really confirming the methods as accurate when there has been errant results from those testing, especially when it is based on the assumption that there has been no global calamity within the last 55,000 years??

They are not taking the Biblical global flood into account, let alone what calamity would cause that, are they?

[FreeGrace]

17 hours ago, Tristen said:

Have you not yet clicked on the transliteration word above "was" in biblehub.com?

Why would I?

Why ask a question to my question?  

17 hours ago, Tristen said:

This is the first I'm hearing of this correction - but OK. None of it matters unless you are willing to show me.

Go to biblehub.com.  It's all there.

17 hours ago, Tristen said:

It also makes me suspicious as to whether you initially counted anything. It indicates rather that you just went along with what someone else had stated (i.e. confirmation bias). It also means your initial statement was an exaggeration - which is fine, since we all make mistakes - but why would you then expect me to trust anything you claim when you are so suspiciously reluctant to provide the evidence.

I'm not interested in your "suspicions", since I GAVE you the source for my data.  Please go look it up yourself.

17 hours ago, Tristen said:

I did the work and provided my own evidence. You've refused to even attempt to provide me evidence supporting your position. You claim it exists, you claim it is easy to access, but weirdly, you won't show it to me. It makes me wonder if there is something wrong with your evidence that you don't want me to see.

I'm getting tired of this round and round.  There was NO source shown for the quotes you gave.  And it isn't "your own evidence".  Evidence means facts.  I used a reputable website that shows how a certain word in that EXACT SAME FORM is translated in EVERY other verse in the OT.  That is evidence.  It isn't my evidence.  It belongs to ANYONE who goes to biblehub.com and sees for themselves.  It seems that you aren't willing to do that.

17 hours ago, Tristen said:

You understand that a "source" is the initial person who did the research, and where they published that research.

A source is a reputable document that gives the facts (evidence).

17 hours ago, Tristen said:

You telling me to, 'Just go to this website and figure out how to do the work for yourself' is not a valid "source" of your specific claim.

Everyone is free to their own opinion.  The source of my information came from biblehub.com, so if you don't think that is not valid, then there is nothing more to discuss.  Because I KNOW it is valid.

17 hours ago, Tristen said:

My "job" is to provide evidence supporting my claims - which I have done. Likewise, your "job" is to provide evidence supporting your claims - which you have been oddly reluctant to do.

Again, biblehub.com is my source, like it or not.

17 hours ago, Tristen said:

It is not my "job" to go away and find evidence of your claims. That's not how the debate process works.

That's not my problem.  It seems to me that you don't want to see the evidence.  It's sure easy enough to see it.

17 hours ago, Tristen said:

You would need to provide evidence supporting your position because that is your responsibility in a debate. It's not rocket surgery.  

And I provided the evidence.  59% of ALL translations of the EXACT SAME FORM of "hayah" were either "became" or "become".  FACT.  You are free to look it up yourself.

17 hours ago, Tristen said:

You could test it against your biblehub list.

Go ahead and prove me wrong if I am.

17 hours ago, Tristen said:

Or you could use an interlinear Bible to verify the right form is being counted. There's two easy WAYS to scrutinize my list.

I DID.  Biblehub.com's interlinear, as a matter of fact.

17 hours ago, Tristen said:

But I didn't go "to biblehub" - as you just proved above.

A rather perplexing statement.  It is quite evident that you didn't go to my source.  Which YOU yourself proved to everyone who reads this thread.

17 hours ago, Tristen said:

No. I already did my "own research" without biblehub. Though I would be happy for you to present the evidence you found at biblehub.

Did you provide a translation of all 111 verses where the EXACT SAME FORM of "hayah" occurs?  Like biblehub.com did.

17 hours ago, Tristen said:

Well - I provided the evidence here for you to scrutinize. If you have an issue with my evidence, I'll happily consider it.

I used biblehub.com.  I have no idea where you got your "evidence".  Or even it was every verse with the EXACT SAME FORM of "hayah".

17 hours ago, Tristen said:

The reason I will not 'go to biblehub' is because it is not my job in a debate to track down evidence for the opposing position.

Seems any excuse will work.   But not for me.  There is no "tracking down" of anything on biblehub.  One click of the mouse, and poof, you see EVERY one of the 111 verses that contain the EXACT SAME FORM of "hayah" as in Gen 1:2.

17 hours ago, Tristen said:

Also, it is somewhat fascinating to me that you are so reluctant to provide such evidence.

That is a blatantly false statement.  Biblehub is a valid source, whether you realize that or not.

17 hours ago, Tristen said:

When you finally do (if you ever do), I'm curious to see what about your evidence would make you so reluctant to share it for yourself.

I've shared EVERYTHING I found when looking at EVERY verse in the OT that contains the EXACT SAME FORM of "hayah".  

17 hours ago, Tristen said:

I consider this to be a Red Herring fallacy.

Most Strawman arguments are indeed fallacious. 

Thank you for your opinions.

[FreeGrace]

17 hours ago, ChristB4us said:

Why Adam & Eve are adults?

Why are the animals?

Why are plants fully grown and bearing seeds and fruits on the day they were created?

When it comes to the earth, how can we compare an ancient earth as opposed to something that was brought into existence by the word of God when there is a maturity to living things?

Function comes to mind.  Why else?  But how would that argument work for the universe?  No YEC seems able to provide a reasonable/rational explanation.

17 hours ago, ChristB4us said:

How can we determine the age of the universe when it was created the fourth day to give her lights ( no matter how light travels ) to govern the earth that day?

Not necessary to "determine the age".  All that is necessary is to determine that the earth/universe is either very old or very young.  Not hard to do at all.

17 hours ago, ChristB4us said:

Is it deceptive for not being able to determine the age of the earth?

Red herring.  It IS IS IS deceptive to create a universe that APPEARS very old when it can be calculated that Adam was on earth only 6-10,000 years.  That is the only issue.

17 hours ago, ChristB4us said:

  Or is it our ability to determine the age of the earth without really confirming the methods as accurate when there has been errant results from those testing, especially when it is based on the assumption that there has been no global calamity within the last 55,000 years??

They are not taking the Biblical global flood into account, let alone what calamity would cause that, are they?

Any focus on "determining the age" of earth/universe is misguided.  The issue is ONLY about whether the earth/universe is WAY older than Adam's appearance on earth.  Nothing else.  Everything else is a smokescreen.

[Vine Abider]

19 hours ago, Tristen said:

Why would I?

How is this related to the fact that using multiple translations would have introduced bias into my methods.

 

This is the first I'm hearing of this correction - but OK. None of it matters unless you are willing to show me.

It also makes me suspicious as to whether you initially counted anything. It indicates rather that you just went along with what someone else had stated (i.e. confirmation bias). It also means your initial statement was an exaggeration - which is fine, since we all make mistakes - but why would you then expect me to trust anything you claim when you are so suspiciously reluctant to provide the evidence.

I did the work and provided my own evidence. You've refused to even attempt to provide me evidence supporting your position. You claim it exists, you claim it is easy to access, but weirdly, you won't show it to me. It makes me wonder if there is something wrong with your evidence that you don't want me to see.

 

You understand that a "source" is the initial person who did the research, and where they published that research. At the earliest stage of the process, someone simply has to do the work themselves. In this case, that person was me, and it was published first in posts responding to you.

And in my previous post, I provided you a summary of my methods. As far as sources are concerned, that's as good as it gets without providing an actual research paper.

 

You telling me to, 'Just go to this website and figure out how to do the work for yourself' is not a valid "source" of your specific claim.

 

Well, all you had to do was ask for my methods. Since I have no provided said methods, this is no longer a valid excuse.

 

Oooow. Tu Quoque fallacy - I haven't seen that one in a while. It is the intellectual equivalent of, 'I know you are, but what am I'.

 

I've shown you several times where you have used the word "formed" to describe the process of changing something that already has "form". If you want to know the "words", you'll have to go back and look through the posts. You've made me do this several times already - i.e. ignore my statements, insinuate that such statement were not made, then make me to go back and search through the posts to find what you claim I didn't say.

I'm not going to play that game any more. 

 

My "job" is to provide evidence supporting my claims - which I have done. Likewise, your "job" is to provide evidence supporting your claims - which you have been oddly reluctant to do. 

It is not my "job" to go away and find evidence of your claims. That's not how the debate process works.

 

You would need to provide evidence supporting your position because that is your responsibility in a debate. It's not rocket surgery.  

 

Confirmation bias does have a way of dismissing disagreeable evidence.

 

You could test it against your biblehub list. Or you could use an interlinear Bible to verify the right form is being counted. There's two easy WAYS to scrutinize my list.

 

Lol. Yes that, and my direct statements to that effect.

 

But I didn't go "to biblehub" - as you just proved above.

 

No. I already did my "own research" without biblehub. Though I would be happy for you to present the evidence you found at biblehub.

 

Well - I provided the evidence here for you to scrutinize. If you have an issue with my evidence, I'll happily consider it.

 

You haven't presented any of that "data" to me. That's the only valid use in our conversation.

 

The is another Appeal to Motive.

The reason I will not 'go to biblehub' is because it is not my job in a debate to track down evidence for the opposing position.

Also, it is somewhat fascinating to me that you are so reluctant to provide such evidence. When you finally do (if you ever do), I'm curious to see what about your evidence would make you so reluctant to share it for yourself.

 

I consider this to be a Red Herring fallacy.

 

Most Strawman arguments are indeed fallacious. 

 

Wow, that was quite the lesson in logical fallacies - I think you pointed out at least four in that post - and I don't think I've ever seen that many referenced in one post!  Not saying you are right or wrong with your application of them, however, I just couldn't help but notice (critical thinking was one of my fav classes in grad school. 

And BTW - I may have invented the term "rocket surgery," but feel free to use it nonetheless! 

[Tristen]

14 hours ago, Vine Abider said:

Wow, that was quite the lesson in logical fallacies - I think you pointed out at least four in that post - and I don't think I've ever seen that many referenced in one post!  Not saying you are right or wrong with your application of them, however, I just couldn't help but notice (critical thinking was one of my fav classes in grad school. 

Yeah - it's unfortunate that conversations can get away from rational argument. People forget that they always have the right to say, 'I'm still not convinced, but I have appreciated the discussion and you've given me some things to think about'. Unfortunately, everyone thinks they need to win something.

All these conversations would go much smoother if we'd all stop trying 'own' the discussion through emoting, and posturing, and fallacy. Since these strategies do not facilitate rational debate, you have to call them out, or otherwise let the discourse spin out of control.

 

14 hours ago, Vine Abider said:

And BTW - I may have invented the term "rocket surgery," but feel free to use it nonetheless! 

Well - I've known about it for several decades - And I'm usually one of the last people to cotton-on to such things. So if it was you, it must have been a good while ago.

I think the funniest thing is when people think I've made the mistake - Like with Tarjshay and horsedoovers.

 

[Tristen]

16 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

On 5/31/2023 at 8:01 AM, Tristen said:

Have you not yet clicked on the transliteration word above "was" in biblehub.com?

Why would I?

Why ask a question to my question?

Because your question insinuated an unwarranted, unspecified obligation on my part - which therefore requires clarification and justification before I can answer.

 

16 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

On 5/31/2023 at 8:01 AM, Tristen said:

This is the first I'm hearing of this correction - but OK. None of it matters unless you are willing to show me.

Go to biblehub.com.  It's all there.

On the main page?

 

16 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I'm not interested in your "suspicions", since I GAVE you the source for my data.  

You have not given me any "data". Just a vague, "source" which doesn't have the relevant "data" on it. There is no relevant "data" on the "biblehub.com" main page.

Surely you could provide a link to what you did in Biblehub. I mean - if it's not too much trouble to give me something supporting your own claims?

 

16 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Please go look it up yourself.

No.

 

16 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I'm getting tired of this round and round

Well, once you provide your data, we can compare our data - and then track down and investigate any discrepancies.

 

16 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

There was NO source shown for the quotes you gave

I told you where they came from. I told you how I found the right form, and how I confirmed that the right form was being used, and what version of the Bible I used. Once you know the translation, the provided book title, chapter and verse numbers are all the references you should require to confirm the "quotes".

 

17 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

And it isn't "your own evidence".  Evidence means facts

You claimed a certain word was translated a certain way, and at a certain rate. I found all uses of that word, and then listed quotes for each usage from one translation of scripture. The listed quotes and their counts are the "facts" (i.e. the facts of how verses using the specific form have been translated in the NKJV of the Bible). These "facts" represent valid "evidence" supporting my argument and refuting yours.

Whether I can claim ownership over the "facts" is probably a broader semantic philosophical discussion. But the research is certainly my "own".

 

17 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I used a reputable website that shows how a certain word in that EXACT SAME FORM is translated in EVERY other verse in the OT.  That is evidence.

No it's not. It's just an unsupported claim that you found some "evidence".

Did you really use "a reputable website that shows how a certain word in that EXACT SAME FORM is translated in EVERY other verse in the OT"?

OK - show me what you found.

 

17 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

It belongs to ANYONE who goes to biblehub.com and sees for themselves.  It seems that you aren't willing to do that.

There is no 'seeming' about it. I've stated it outright. Unless you provide me a direct link to the data, I have to assume that your supposed "evidence" doesn't exist. That's how debates work. It's not my job to seek out and provide supporting evidence for your position.

 

17 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Everyone is free to their own opinion

Which, I have now come to understand to be your way of admitting you don't have a rational rebuttal to what I just stated.

 

17 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

The source of my information came from biblehub.com, so if you don't think that is not valid, then there is nothing more to discuss

That is not how sources work. Sources are supposed to directly point to the claimed information being referenced - so that the reader can verify that what is being said is true. The onus is always on the person making the claim to provide the source. The onus is never on the person seeking to verify the claim to have to track down the source based on some vague directions.

 

17 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Because I KNOW it is valid.

And you would be incorrect.

Your supposed "source" for the claimed information would not be accepted as a "valid" by any reviewer trying to verify your claim.

 

17 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Again, biblehub.com is my source, like it or not.

Your "source" is only slightly less vague than claiming google as a "source".

I don't "like it" (your pseudo-source) because it doesn't do the job of a "source" - i.e. to verify the claimed information.

 

17 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

A source is a reputable document that gives the facts (evidence).

A source doesn't have to be a "document". But that's beside the point.

Do you understand that, for each "document", there is a primary researcher who did the work to generate the data? In this case, that 'primary researcher' is me. Hi  . 

The presented data is in the posts on this thread (including a summary of the methods). 

 

17 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

On 5/31/2023 at 8:01 AM, Tristen said:

It is not my "job" to go away and find evidence of your claims. That's not how the debate process works.

That's not my problem

Then why are you here?

What makes you so important that you get to challenge everybody else to provide evidence for their claims (and ignore it when they do), but when they challenge you back, you get to tell them to, 'go look for my evidence yourself'?

 

18 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

It seems to me that you don't want to see the evidence.  It's sure easy enough to see it.

This is a lie, and an Appeal to Motive (logic fallacy).

 

18 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

And I provided the evidence.  59% of ALL translations of the EXACT SAME FORM of "hayah" were either "became" or "become".  FACT.  You are free to look it up yourself.

Lol. You haven't "provided" anything to me. You just told me you found it, and to 'go find it myself'.

 

18 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

On 5/31/2023 at 8:01 AM, Tristen said:

You could test it against your biblehub list.

Go ahead and prove me wrong if I am.

But I don't have your supposed biblehub evidence. You are the only one who has evidence from both of us - to make such a comparison. I posted my evidence on this thread for your scrutiny. Whereas you've just told me to 'go find' your evidence.

 

18 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

On 5/31/2023 at 8:01 AM, Tristen said:

Or you could use an interlinear Bible to verify the right form is being counted. There's two easy WAYS to scrutinize my list.

I DID.  Biblehub.com's interlinear, as a matter of fact.

So you tested my list with "Biblehub.com's interlinear". Did you find my list to be wrong somewhere? Where?

 

18 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

On 5/31/2023 at 8:01 AM, Tristen said:

But I didn't go "to biblehub" - as you just proved above.

A rather perplexing statement.  It is quite evident that you didn't go to my source.

What "source"? You mean biblehub.com? Lol.

It should be more-than "quite evident" since I have directly, and repeatedly, stated such.

 

18 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Which YOU yourself proved to everyone who reads this thread.

Yup. I'll shout it from the rooftops, "I will not go looking for evidence supporting your position. Your job in a debate is to reference the explicit evidence of what you are claiming. Simply telling me to 'go find it' on a website does not (and never will) qualify as referencing your claim".

 

18 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Did you provide a translation of all 111 verses where the EXACT SAME FORM of "hayah" occurs?

Yes. The "EXACT" form of 'haya' we are discussing is 'hayetha'.

 

18 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Like biblehub.com did.

Did they? It would be nice to have something other than your word for that.

 

18 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I used biblehub.com

I got that. Lol.

 

18 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I have no idea where you got your "evidence".  Or even it was every verse with the EXACT SAME FORM of "hayah"

But don't you have a list from "biblehub.com"? Surely you can use your "biblehub.com" list to scan through my list to make sure I used the same verses.

And if there's a discrepancy, we can check it out together using "Biblehub.com's interlinear".  

 

18 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

On 5/31/2023 at 8:01 AM, Tristen said:

The reason I will not 'go to biblehub' is because it is not my job in a debate to track down evidence for the opposing position.

Seems any excuse will work

My appeal to the conventions of mannerly debate "seems" like a perfectly valid "excuse" - a.k.a. a sensible reason.

 

18 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

But not for me.  There is no "tracking down" of anything on biblehub.  One click of the mouse, and poof, you see EVERY one of the 111 verses that contain the EXACT SAME FORM of "hayah" as in Gen 1:2.

Cool - Can you provide a link to the results of this?

 

18 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

On 5/31/2023 at 8:01 AM, Tristen said:

Also, it is somewhat fascinating to me that you are so reluctant to provide such evidence.

That is a blatantly false statement.  Biblehub is a valid source, whether you realize that or not.

My statement was not "false". All you've given me is a general website, and some vague instructions on how to find evidence supporting your position, then told me essentially to 'go-fetch'.

Whereas all you've ever had to do is provide a link to the results.

I give you enough credit to assume that you are aware of how obtuse you are being. So much effort to deflect, when, if your evidence is so compelling, you could put much of this episode to bed by simply presenting the evidence you've found.

And you think I'm worried about "everyone who reads this thread".

 

18 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I've shared EVERYTHING I found when looking at EVERY verse in the OT that contains the EXACT SAME FORM of "hayah".

All you've done in our conversation is relayed to me what you supposedly found, then presumed to give me an errand to find that same evidence for myself - i.e. for your case.

 

18 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

On 5/31/2023 at 8:01 AM, Tristen said:

I consider this to be a Red Herring fallacy.

Most Strawman arguments are indeed fallacious. 

Thank you for your opinions.

I guess you didn't have a response for that one either. 

To be fair, fallacies are notoriously difficult to defend. It surprises me so many people still choose to use them.

 

 

[Vine Abider]

4 hours ago, Tristen said:

Well - I've known about it for several decades - And I'm usually one of the last people to cotton-on to such things. So if it was you, it must have been a good while ago.

I think the funniest thing is when people think I've made the mistake - Like with Tarjshay and horsedoovers.

 

Oh no - I say horsedoovers too!  However, I can't take credit for that one as I heard it from my nephew-in-law . . .

And I sometimes get clichés a little mixed up, like I sometimes say to my wife things like "my little hamster gets tired climbing to the top of its happy meal." 

[FreeGrace]

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

FreeGrace said: 

Have you not yet clicked on the transliteration word above "was" in biblehub.com?

Because your question insinuated an unwarranted, unspecified obligation on my part - which therefore requires clarification and justification before I can answer.

Since when are questions "unwarranted"?  I gave you my source and you sure seem to want to avoid it at all costs.  Why is that?  

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

On the main page?

You have not given me any "data". Just a vague, "source" which doesn't have the relevant "data" on it. There is no relevant "data" on the "biblehub.com" main page.

Surely you could provide a link to what you did in Biblehub. I mean - if it's not too much trouble to give me something supporting your own claims?

Getting real tired of this back and forth.  Just playing games, it appears.  If you are as knowledgeable about the Hebrew as appears from your posts, why is it that you seem to be totally unaware of how biblehub.com works?  And not even interested in checking it out to see what I learned from that site?

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

Well, once you provide your data, we can compare our data - and then track down and investigate any discrepancies.

I HAVE provided the DATA for ALL to see, if they are willing.  Those who aren't is their own problem.  

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

I told you where they came from. I told you how I found the right form, and how I confirmed that the right form was being used, and what version of the Bible I used. Once you know the translation, the provided book title, chapter and verse numbers are all the references you should require to confirm the "quotes".

There is only ONE "form" of 'hayah' in Gebn 1:2.  And those who are interested only have to click on the transliteration of the word in the interlinear function and they will get a list of 111 verses, ALL of which have that EXACT SAME FORM.  How is that so difficult?

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

You claimed a certain word was translated a certain way, and at a certain rate.

Prove me wrong by going to biblehub and doing your own research on their site and show me your results.  I've shown you mine and you know where I got them.  It is that simple.

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

I found all uses of that word, and then listed quotes for each usage from one translation of scripture. The listed quotes and their counts are the "facts" (i.e. the facts of how verses using the specific form have been translated in the NKJV of the Bible). These "facts" represent valid "evidence" supporting my argument and refuting yours.

Not relevant.  Just go to Gen 1:2 on biblehub, click on 'interlin' and then click on the transliteration above the Hebrew word there for "hayah".  Real easy to do.  Then, scroll through the 111 verses and keep track of how many times you see 'became/become'.  That amounts to 59% of all 111 verses with that EXACT SAME FORM of the verb.

Or prove me wrong by using my own source and data.

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

Whether I can claim ownership over the "facts" is probably a broader semantic philosophical discussion. But the research is certainly my "own".

Just prove me wrong with my own research.  Very easy and quick to do.

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

No it's not. It's just an unsupported claim that you found some "evidence".

Not very scholarly response to the FACT that I gave the website, and how to use it to find how many times throughout the OT that "hayah" is translated as "become/became".  

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

Did you really use "a reputable website that shows how a certain word in that EXACT SAME FORM is translated in EVERY other verse in the OT"?

OK - show me what you found.

I did.  Prove me wrong by going to that website and counting for yourself.

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

There is no 'seeming' about it. I've stated it outright. Unless you provide me a direct link to the data, I have to assume that your supposed "evidence" doesn't exist.

This is pitiful.  www.biblehub.com  Now, go to it and prove me wrong.

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

That's how debates work. It's not my job to seek out and provide supporting evidence for your position.

I know exactly how debates work.  Seems you are not willing to admit that my data is accurate.  

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

Which, I have now come to understand to be your way of admitting you don't have a rational rebuttal to what I just stated.

That's silly.  I stand fully behind what biblehub shows for the EXACT SAME FORM for "hayah" in Gen 1:2.  The irrational "rebuttal" is failing to prove me wrong by showing  how I erred from their data.  Very easy to do.

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

That is not how sources work. Sources are supposed to directly point to the claimed information being referenced - so that the reader can verify that what is being said is true. The onus is always on the person making the claim to provide the source. The onus is never on the person seeking to verify the claim to have to track down the source based on some vague directions.

I know fully how "sources" work.  

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

And you would be incorrect.

Then prove it by going to biblehub yourself.  Show me my error please.  I don't want to be wrong any more than you do.

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

Your supposed "source" for the claimed information would not be accepted as a "valid" by any reviewer trying to verify your claim.

Let me get something straight here.  I haven't provided a "supposed source", with quotes around it.  What are you trying to pull here anyway?  It seems you are suggesting that biblehub isn't a legitimate source.

But the refusal to go to it and find if I've erred shows a clear bias.

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

Your "source" is only slightly less vague than claiming google as a "source".

Nonsense.  And please stop wasting your quote marks.  Biblehub is a legitimate source for understanding both the Hebrew and Greek.  

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

I don't "like it" (your pseudo-source) because it doesn't do the job of a "source" - i.e. to verify the claimed information. 

Oh, there we go.  Biblehub is now a "pseudo-source".  Just keep demonstrating that total lack of objectivity and un-scholarly attitude.

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

What makes you so important that you get to challenge everybody else to provide evidence for their claims

Another example of extreme bias.  I never even suggested that I was important at all.  This illustrates how negatively my posts are being read (bias).

What IS totally important is what the Word of God SAYS.  I gave my data from biblehub, so those who don't like it can go there themselves, count for themselves, and show me my error.  Very easy to do.

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

Lol. You haven't "provided" anything to me.

lol.  Negative bias at work again.  Sure I did.  And everyone has seen it.

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

But I don't have your supposed biblehub evidence.

And that's my problem?  No, that's yours.  Challenge my data by going to that "pseudo-source" for yourself and count how many times "hayah" in the EXACT SAME FORM as found in Gen 1:2 is found elsewhere in the OT.

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

So you tested my list with "Biblehub.com's interlinear". Did you find my list to be wrong somewhere? Where?

You gave no information for where you got your information from.  I highly doubt you read through the entire OT to find the EXACT SAME FORM of "hayah" as in Gen 1:2.  Thta's why I use biblehub.  They have done that.  

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

What "source"? You mean biblehub.com? Lol.

Right.  It's just a "pseudo-source", to quote you.  lol is right.

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

Yup. I'll shout it from the rooftops, "I will not go looking for evidence supporting your position. Your job in a debate is to reference the explicit evidence of what you are claiming. Simply telling me to 'go find it' on a website does not (and never will) qualify as referencing your claim".

Then you are simply unwilling to prove me wrong.  Some might call this laziness.  I have no words for what it might be.  But it would be VERY EASY to prove me wrong by going to the source for my data and doing your own counting for yourself.

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

But don't you have a list from "biblehub.com"? Surely you can use your "biblehub.com" list to scan through my list to make sure I used the same verses.

The list is provided by biblehub for anyone to see and count.  Those who are really interested.  And those who think I've erred and want to prove I'm wrong.

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

And if there's a discrepancy, we can check it out together using "Biblehub.com's interlinear".

I don't need to compare to anyone's list.  If you can prove that what biblehub provides is either incomplete, or simply in error, that's how to refute my data.

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

 Cool - Can you provide a link to the results of this?

Sure.  biblehub, which you have called a "pseudo-source".  

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

My statement was not "false". All you've given me is a general website, and some vague instructions on how to find evidence supporting your position, then told me essentially to 'go-fetch'.

Wow.  A "general website".  I guess you view ALL websites as simply "general" then.  Or is there some biased reason for calling biblehub a "general website"?

As to the charge of my giving "vague instructions" on how to use biblehub, I had no idea there is so much unfamiliarity on your part with using Bible study websites.  At any rate, there was nothing "vague" about my instructions.  Either your skills at using  Bible study websites is rather lacking, or the extreme bias (pseudo-source) has gotten the better of you. 

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

Whereas all you've ever had to do is provide a link to the results.

For the umpteenth time, biblehub.com

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

I give you enough credit to assume that you are aware of how obtuse you are being.

From https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obtuse

a

: lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect : INSENSITIVE, STUPID

He is too obtuse to take a hint.

b

: difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression

It is also, unfortunately, ill-written, and at times obtuse and often trivial.

 

Do insults make you feel better?  Everyone who reads this thread knows I have been very clear.  So maybe all the "difficult to comprehend" or "insensitive,stupid" isn't on my side of the conversation.

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

So much effort to deflect, when, if your evidence is so compelling, you could put much of this episode to bed by simply presenting the evidence you've found.

And you think I'm worried about "everyone who reads this thread".

Why would I be concerned about what worries you?  What would that matter?

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

All you've done in our conversation is relayed to me what you supposedly found, then presumed to give me an errand to find that same evidence for myself - i.e. for your case.

"what I've supposedly found"??  Really.  Why not go to that "pseudo-source" and count for yourself to prove me wrong, since you clearly think I am.

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

I guess you didn't have a response for that one either.

I tend to ignore comments, claims, charges that are bogus.

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

To be fair, fallacies are notoriously difficult to defend. It surprises me so many people still choose to use them.

Since you haven't provided ANY defense for your own claims, I can see that.

One thing is clear;  given what I've presented, it would be VERY EASY to refute me by my own data simply by going to that "general" website that you've called a "pseudo-source" and counting for yourself.

So, having NOT done that, and making fun of biblehub as seen throughout your posts, it is clear that refuting me by using my data is impossible.

[Tristen]

7 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Since when are questions "unwarranted"?  I gave you my source and you sure seem to want to avoid it at all costs.  Why is that?  

Getting real tired of this back and forth.  Just playing games, it appears.  If you are as knowledgeable about the Hebrew as appears from your posts, why is it that you seem to be totally unaware of how biblehub.com works?  And not even interested in checking it out to see what I learned from that site?

I HAVE provided the DATA for ALL to see, if they are willing.  Those who aren't is their own problem.  

There is only ONE "form" of 'hayah' in Gebn 1:2.  And those who are interested only have to click on the transliteration of the word in the interlinear function and they will get a list of 111 verses, ALL of which have that EXACT SAME FORM.  How is that so difficult?

Prove me wrong by going to biblehub and doing your own research on their site and show me your results.  I've shown you mine and you know where I got them.  It is that simple.

Not relevant.  Just go to Gen 1:2 on biblehub, click on 'interlin' and then click on the transliteration above the Hebrew word there for "hayah".  Real easy to do.  Then, scroll through the 111 verses and keep track of how many times you see 'became/become'.  That amounts to 59% of all 111 verses with that EXACT SAME FORM of the verb.

Or prove me wrong by using my own source and data.

Just prove me wrong with my own research.  Very easy and quick to do.

Not very scholarly response to the FACT that I gave the website, and how to use it to find how many times throughout the OT that "hayah" is translated as "become/became".  

I did.  Prove me wrong by going to that website and counting for yourself.

This is pitiful.  www.biblehub.com  Now, go to it and prove me wrong.

I know exactly how debates work.  Seems you are not willing to admit that my data is accurate.  

That's silly.  I stand fully behind what biblehub shows for the EXACT SAME FORM for "hayah" in Gen 1:2.  The irrational "rebuttal" is failing to prove me wrong by showing  how I erred from their data.  Very easy to do.

I know fully how "sources" work.  

Then prove it by going to biblehub yourself.  Show me my error please.  I don't want to be wrong any more than you do.

Let me get something straight here.  I haven't provided a "supposed source", with quotes around it.  What are you trying to pull here anyway?  It seems you are suggesting that biblehub isn't a legitimate source.

But the refusal to go to it and find if I've erred shows a clear bias.

Nonsense.  And please stop wasting your quote marks.  Biblehub is a legitimate source for understanding both the Hebrew and Greek.  

Oh, there we go.  Biblehub is now a "pseudo-source".  Just keep demonstrating that total lack of objectivity and un-scholarly attitude.

Another example of extreme bias.  I never even suggested that I was important at all.  This illustrates how negatively my posts are being read (bias).

What IS totally important is what the Word of God SAYS.  I gave my data from biblehub, so those who don't like it can go there themselves, count for themselves, and show me my error.  Very easy to do.

lol.  Negative bias at work again.  Sure I did.  And everyone has seen it.

And that's my problem?  No, that's yours.  Challenge my data by going to that "pseudo-source" for yourself and count how many times "hayah" in the EXACT SAME FORM as found in Gen 1:2 is found elsewhere in the OT.

You gave no information for where you got your information from.  I highly doubt you read through the entire OT to find the EXACT SAME FORM of "hayah" as in Gen 1:2.  Thta's why I use biblehub.  They have done that.  

Right.  It's just a "pseudo-source", to quote you.  lol is right.

Then you are simply unwilling to prove me wrong.  Some might call this laziness.  I have no words for what it might be.  But it would be VERY EASY to prove me wrong by going to the source for my data and doing your own counting for yourself.

The list is provided by biblehub for anyone to see and count.  Those who are really interested.  And those who think I've erred and want to prove I'm wrong.

I don't need to compare to anyone's list.  If you can prove that what biblehub provides is either incomplete, or simply in error, that's how to refute my data.

Sure.  biblehub, which you have called a "pseudo-source".  

Wow.  A "general website".  I guess you view ALL websites as simply "general" then.  Or is there some biased reason for calling biblehub a "general website"?

As to the charge of my giving "vague instructions" on how to use biblehub, I had no idea there is so much unfamiliarity on your part with using Bible study websites.  At any rate, there was nothing "vague" about my instructions.  Either your skills at using  Bible study websites is rather lacking, or the extreme bias (pseudo-source) has gotten the better of you. 

For the umpteenth time, biblehub.com

From https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obtuse

a

: lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect : INSENSITIVE, STUPID

He is too obtuse to take a hint.

b

: difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression

It is also, unfortunately, ill-written, and at times obtuse and often trivial.

 

Do insults make you feel better?  Everyone who reads this thread knows I have been very clear.  So maybe all the "difficult to comprehend" or "insensitive,stupid" isn't on my side of the conversation.

Why would I be concerned about what worries you?  What would that matter?

"what I've supposedly found"??  Really.  Why not go to that "pseudo-source" and count for yourself to prove me wrong, since you clearly think I am.

I tend to ignore comments, claims, charges that are bogus.

Since you haven't provided ANY defense for your own claims, I can see that.

One thing is clear;  given what I've presented, it would be VERY EASY to refute me by my own data simply by going to that "general" website that you've called a "pseudo-source" and counting for yourself.

So, having NOT done that, and making fun of biblehub as seen throughout your posts, it is clear that refuting me by using my data is impossible.

Bottom line - your position relies heavily on your claim that the Hebrew 'haya', in the specific form 'hayetha' is translated 'became' 70% of the time it is used in the Old Testament (now, if I understand correctly, this figure has been adjusted down to 59%).

I spent many hours researching your claim from basic principles and found your claim to be incorrect - providing a full list of the relevant scriptures; quoting how they are translated. That is, I posted these facts directly to this site for everyone to see - and scrutinize.

Meanwhile, you accused me of making false statements and having no idea about what I claimed.

And now, though you claim the evidence of your position is easy to find, you utterly refuse to provide it to me for scrutiny. You instead point me to a website and tell me to find your evidence for myself.

No matter how many ways you try and posture your way around it, until you directly provide your own evidence for the scrutiny of myself (and perhaps other readers), the status of your claim remains at "incorrect". And the status of your overall position remains unsupported.

That's how logic and debates work.