Jump to content

Bartholomew Jones

Senior Members
  • Posts

    190
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bartholomew Jones

  1. The law yet requires truth, excluding nothing that might be recommended as evidence by either party if it duly bears on the relative issues. Excluding any class of information if it has bearing is a form prejudice/bias, in law, in science or otherwise. All just information offered is considered in the burden proving, for example, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Excluding anecdotes if redundant is fair, if several is not fair; If collectively unified, is malformed.
  2. Again, the original text was in Greek because Hebrews in Roman time only wrote in Greek, like the rest of the world. They were conveying Hebrew thoughts in Greek. No, the plot makes very clear Mary and Joseph had not come together and that she was confirmed to Joseph as not having been with a man. Also she states she had not been with a man.
  3. That was a reinstatement a few generations before Babylon toppled them. David instituted the first unified place of worship in Jerusalem 14 generations prior to Babylon. No, that's begins in Genesis 2, by Moses.
  4. You've spent more time here, as I have, than on the question at hand which is yet yet not fully navigated. So were the 10 studied components of the kefir also isolated, judging from the abstract given? We're they bacteriaYahweh I'm not being lazy, but prudent, by asking in this format rather than reading beyond the abstract. No such thing as excellence in persecution. That's like excellence in crime or in malpractice. Though written originally in Greek they were conveying Hebrew thought in Greek terms. The Hebrew term was used interchangeably to convey a virgin, defacto, or a young woman. No such thing as excellence in persecution. That's like excellence in crime or in malpractice. El, was used as axiom in all very early time periods universally to convey the notion of a god or of gods or of the Hebrew God. By the third generation of men stemming from Adam through Seth to Enosh, "men began to call on the name of the LORD (translated in all caps means the name YHWH)." Genesis 4:26. That's the historical first use. The first use in Scripture is Genesis 2:4, coupled with el, "the LORD God," or, el Yah(weh). These and other deities were NAMED thus, but when referred to generically were called "gods," that is, elohim, singularly, el.
  5. By the same measure, how can science exclude the ideal of proving a theory? In fact, when I was formally taught the definition of science as a youth it began as hypothesis, proceeded to a theory, and was perfected as a law; that is, a principle.
  6. You asked about science being supernatural. I answered not so. But that I believe in a divine God; that there's no phenomena counted as supernatural.
  7. In which case, God is subject to experimentation. Define it and we can test it God as axiom is equivalent with the ancient Hebrew, el, in singular, and elohim, in plural form. Singularity vs plurality in ancient Hebrew is more discrete than I understand. But our definition here is sufficient. el, is the same term, when used by ancient Hebrews as terms used equivalently for the gods of non-Hebrews, contemporary with them. It was used by Hebrews interchangeably, whether of the Hebrew God, or by non-Hebrews. Hebrews, however, and following with the people called Christian, also by tradition call the God beginning with the name, el, and elohim, by other, more discrete names: YHWH God ("the LORD God") being the first alternate name in the scriptural text (Genesis 2:4); YHWH being the first alternate name in scriptural history (Genesis 4:26). Names of God scripturally convey different persona of the one God. Far eastern notions shouldn't be elusive either. Of India, would equate with elohim. Of China, Bhudda, equates with atheism, as there's no notion of god. I'm not familiar with the other groups. Arabic stems from that language shared with ancient Hebrews, that being Aramaic. The Muslim religion (sic) came six or seven hundred years after Jesus. It contradicts the Biblical Christian God. The name allah, however is related to the Hebrew term, el. Muslim doctrine denies that Jesus died. This last entry is an attempt at defining God by name. I said if I were in an office, I would enforce older economy, not a particular view. God as it, is not common traditionally; rarely the Holy Spirit is referred to by his pronoun, it, usually He. This is my quarrel: I'm going to be censored for questions philosophical because they center metaphysically, particularly favoring the way called Christian. Science, removed from modern science, wouldn't discriminate. It might nonetheless be fractious.
  8. I'm always part of the problem, but I'm biased towards solutions.
  9. It's never luck. Sometimes it's time and chance. Usually the one saying, "that's not the way it's done 'roun these parts," is the one out of order. I'm quite casual about this forum. You seem more the type to become frustrated. I do get quite zealous, but anxiety is not my common response.
  10. I'm saying there's no such thing as supernatural. Everything God does is of nature. I'm not for cheap cobblers. I'm for shoe stores, custom built, custom repaired. I'm for the primary form of proper exercise: real work while maintaining proper posture. Proper posture may always be enforced and reinforced. Thank you for your ear.
  11. Freedom must be found in one's heart. Democracy is an an ideology I believe in and support. There are various forms. American Democracy, which I do support, is Republican Democracy. Sometimes an officer is granted executive power. Sometimes legislative prerogative. Sometimes judicial care. In any case, the officer exercises a kind of prerogative or authority; it ought not be authoritarian. As executive, I would enforce said measures by vetoing "progressive" economy, if by line item. If I were a legislative officer I might be more proactive with said policy measures. I'm not qualified judicially.
  12. Before the term, "proof," was admitted as a technical term in math, it was a general term: to prove something in general one needs proof. That's the sense I'm using.
  13. Yes, you feel science is supernatural? No. I believe science is included under the umbrella of nature when science discovers a truth. I don't believe the things done by a divine nature are supernatural. My God, who created the world and everything in it, who is a person, three to be more perfect, is of nature. Jesus was born of woman, conceived of the Holy Spirit. I'll be censored probably for that.
  14. Aren’t the discoveries of science included within the umbrella of nature? Are you suggesting science is supernatural? Yes, if and when science discovers a truth, which in my view requires proof, not "mountains of evidence." What I offer is resistance, not imposition. If I had an office affording a prerogative to enforce it, that would be an imposition I would make. At the risk of being persecuted as preaching and violating a rule, I submit human testimony as evidence: Jeremiah 6:16. Never mind I thought you might be sincerely helpful. I have better kefir anyway.
  15. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18810658/ So I've ruffled some feathers here saying such things as, "natural discovery is of an order higher than science," notwithstanding that I've also said, "science is one very useful way of looking at nature." I've been working at home with my own ferments, as a way to preserve and enhance foods. My methods are based on Biblical clues, and clues from Katrina Blair's, Wild Wisdom of Weeds. I've accidentally developed skills manufacturing kombucha and kefir, carbonated kefir. So in the abstract above, the paper isolates a bacteria from kombucha rather than studying the kombucha, and the kefir directly. This is why I contend against this modern science. It is optimal, for example to isolate such bacteria; to mass manufacture. I'd rather pay a shoe maker to make me a pair of shoes and repair them if necessary; or draw water daily, than choose between Nike and another, or buy plastic water. My point is that mass manufacturing diminishes the quality of life if you love diligence. Also, were the strains from the kefir also isolated? Are they bacteria?
  16. Both deal objectively with facts and figures. Im just further qualifying the subject. Both seek objectivity. Objectivity is justified; requires justification. Either way, it's a form, not of proof, of evidence. A theory is subject. Not an established proof; evidence. I'm equating an anecdote with testimony. In every case, if you convince me I'm wrong, I'll acknowledge it. It requires proof, not evidence.
  17. What I'm leading up to is this: the only objective argument begins justified and proceeds justified. If you begin with a theory, you can't finish justified if relative anecdotal evidence (sic) is dismissed. Establish it as not relative before proceeding. Or else, admit it as evidence. It's proportional like any other evidence. It doesn't establish proof. Peer review as an accounting term means that the accounts are subject to review by peers. An anecdote is a personal account, correct?
  18. That just makes for a strong statement. One person's testimony in a court of law is not conclusive, but might be admitted as evidence. If sarcasm is present, if by tone only, mockery is present. Agree. Published research was anecdotal before being peer reviewed. Peer review is more supportive evidence. . . . What I'm leading up to is this: the only objective argument begins justified and proceeds justified. If you begin with a theory, you can't finish justified if relative anecdotal evidence (sic) is dismissed. Establish it as not relative before proceeding.
  19. Some children are better readers for one reason. Teach them: Twinkle twinkle little star equals The ABCs. It's the same tune precisely. Here's another: Leaning on the Everlasting Arms equals The Bear Necessities. https://youtu.be/WJizAYb7OAk
  20. I'm as fit as a fiddle at 45 and younger every day. I've studied ehret, and others, "with a grain of salt." The formula is correct. Remember, English is Ehrets 5th language, and did choose some rather funny vocabulary. The same people who put the bone joints in a cast to "heal" a fracture, when proper healing requires some natural motions during the process. Modern medicine is based on restraints; synthetic medicine. When Ehret wrote, the medical establishment did hold that the heart runs the human system, when in fact it had been proven a century or more before, that the lungs run the human system. Arnold calculated correctly.
  21. This theoretical formula is based on Arnold Ehret's work from I believe around a hundred years ago? Arnold Ehret was a dietetic practitioner who stated the following, but not formulaic. I need to know if it's the right format: Human wellness (physical and mental) is measured as follows: the degree of direct work output and maintenance of full stamina against the inverse proportion of foods and substances consumed and the mitigation if any, of fatigue. How might it be better formed?
  22. "Liberal arts generally covers three areas: sciences, arts, and humanities. Its central academic disciplines include philosophy, logic, linguistics, literature, history, political science, sociology, and psychology.".. (good old Internet search engine) Okay, so which PRIMARY FIELDS OF STUDY aren't covered there? After 30 years of working for a paycheck, I've determined I won't work for money. It always betrays. I work for the fruit from the ground and the superfluous goodwill of the community. I've determined there are better things to account for than money, like the condition of the land towards posterity. Truthfully, I loved (past tense) every moment working for Wal-Mart. But you learn things along the way. You have to love your job to do it honestly. Just look at medicine in America. It hardly exists with an insurer in between. And people wonder why medicine is so expensive. Common sense shows when there was no third party to pay it was less costly. But we're too accustomed, also, to think of expense in terms of money in one person's pocket, or one household. The real expense is the the quality of life and the grueling quality of work. Now that money doesn't dictate what I do, I'm freer than a bird. What I actually said was, I'll argue. As for you zapatos, go debate.
  23. Arguing is to a purpose. Debating is pointless. I'd rather watch Sesame Street.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.