gagster

Wayne,

I think the problem here is not malice on Bible John's part, but rather, poor reading skills.


Greg

gagster

About what? By my count, I made five claims above:

1. That I don't believe your claim that you would have done fine if you just had more time.
2. That you were late three times.
3. That there were three rounds in which you could have been late.
4. That your posts appeared to be written in the last minute.
5. That the last minute of a two week period is no longer than the last minute of a one week period.

I'm guessing that you're saying I'm wrong on point #4.

Why wouldn't I conclude that? Your first round was due on October 30th. You asked for and received an extension to November 4th. Then, on the 4th, you posted a message on usenet, asking how to submit your post.

http://groups.google.com/group/free....51152836b9c55/

When you were asked if you had completed the first draft of your second round post, you ignored the question.

http://groups.google.com/group/free....8c8ab6ccfe97a/





What does this rubbish you've posted have to do with anything? Like I said, you're free to ignore my advice. Just please don't post more of this nonsense in response to my posts again. Okay? Thank you.

Greg

bobhope2112

Bible John,

Have you proposed to Pervy and the moderators that you continue the debate with a two week interval?

Wayne Delia

I never made any such assumption about the "quality" of information on the Internet. Nor was I discussing the Bible in what I searched for on Google. Rather, I showed you how to obtain information on the plot of a two-part episode of a reality TV show on Fox Network by entering three simple search keywords.

Bible information, though, is another matter entirely. I make heavy use of http://www.biblegateway.com to perform quick online searches of keywords I'm familiar with from years of personal Bible study, including reading it cover-to-cover five times. If you think there's something wrong with the information on that site, you'll have to take it up with the webmasters of the site, since there's nothing I can do about it.

Do any of those references deal with the Trading Spouses episodes you knew nothing about? If not, then perhaps you're not following the discussion. Do you find yourself getting distracted easily lately?

Perhaps you were using a bad set of search keywords. Try something related to the subject, instead of "praise jesus god bible hallelujah." If your keywords were on topic, and you still received no hits, you might consider that the work you were doing was either way off script, or genuinely innovative and novel study.

While the current subject took a minor derailment, this is not heavy intense study or exegesis of the Bible. It's a review of a two-part reality TV show episode, which is essentially "pop culture" and widely discussed on the Internet.

Actually, that's one of Google's hottest projects in current development, a subject of considerable controversy and heated debate. Ironically, I obtained information on it from Google's search engine itself, by entering the search keywords "Google Library Project". It returned twenty-one MILLION hits, ordered by relevance, describing the project (termed "Google Book Search Library Project") with the first relevant hit from Google's official project site, http://print.google.com/googleprint/library.html. It describes three different methods for viewing books on that page: "snippet" view, "sample pages" view, and "full book view."

Take a break. No, wait, don't - that's what caused you to fumble the debate you just lost by default - too many breaks. Video games, movies, kickin' back with your buds. Don't take any more breaks.

News flash: it's no longer 1995. In fact, it's now a decade later. Lots of progress has been made in the past decade, particularly with Google's search capabilities.

So you figure http://print.google.com/googleprint/library.html is one of those monster hoax websites? That's odd, they're not asking me for my credit card number, social security number, or bank account number.

Far more than what? More than the detailed information available for free on the web? I'll call your bluff. Prove it, and use something more than the smokescreening and handwaving of your "millions of others" who can't manage to use Google effectively.

That's all well and good. If the Bible is the only thing standing between you and climbing the tower with a high-powered rifle, picking off innocent people as target practice, then by all means, keep reading the Bible.

Why can't God do something about that? Why does God condemn the victims of this "evil one" (sounds like "He Who Must Not Be Named," referring to Lord Voldemort, an evil character in the Harry Potter series of books, which is a set of stories about.... oh, never mind) instead of simply removing this "evil one?" Sounds like God's a part of this evil conspiracy, don't you think? Each of these questions is purely rhetorical; don't bother trying to answer, because your cart is about five miles ahead of your horse. You need to establish that God exists, for starters, then that the Bible is an accurate portrayal of the nature of God, then that God's abominable character in the Old Testament is somehow deserving of respect and worship instead of condemnation and resistance. It's all just a fairy tale as far as I'm concerned unless and until you are able to establish all that.

What if I'm not? Would that qualify as evidence that your God doesn't exist? that your prayers don't work? that you don't have enough faith in God for Him to answer your prayers? What do you have to lose? Pray to God that I will post a message to you, in a new thread, with words to the effect that I apologize for ever doubting you and that I accept God as my Lord and personal Savior - to be posted on or after December 1, 2005, but also on or before December 31, 2005.

If God exists (Yeah, I know, this is more approprate for EoG than BC&H), AND if God hears/answers your prayer, AND if you have sufficient faith to qualify you to get your prayers answered, then you've got nothing to worry about. Your God, being omnipotent, could compel me to write such a note.

However, if I do not post that note, we can safely conclude one or more of the following outcomes:

1) God doesn't exist.
2) God exists, but cannot compel or convince me to write that note.
3) God exists, but does not care whether I believe in Him or not.
4) God exists, but Jesus lied when He said that all prayers from the faithful would be answered.
5) God exists, but you don't have enough faith to qualify for God to deliver what you pray for.
6) God exists, but I am more powerful than He is.

Are you brave enough to pray for me as you said you would, but with those dates in place? I'm guessing you aren't. That's because each one of those six possible conclusions are pretty much completely unacceptable to any Christian, and the last thing you would want would be to create an opportunity for God to unequivocally let you down. It might come down to a battle of wills between me and your God, and I guarantee your God will lose. I'll bet you five bucks that you won't commit to that prayer request.

WMD

Wayne Delia

But to miss the point as badly as he did would require reading skills at or below the sixth-grade level. I mean, come on, my son Joe is 12 years old, and he could comprehend what I wrote better than Bible John.

WMD

Bogie

...et voila!

Bogie

<edit>

Evilicious

Matthew 5:22 "But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell."

gagster

I think your son and Bible John read for different purposes. Your son reads to comprehend what was written. Bible John reads to see if the writer has completely agreed with him and praised him. If not, he just looks for something to complain about. Go reread my posts and tell me what I said that was so insulting to him. All I did was try to give him some helpful advice, but since it wasn't what he wanted to hear he characterized my comments as mean spirited. IOW, he's reading with his emotions, not his intellect.

Greg

Bible John

Nothing wrong with it. It just does not have the detailed information that a bible student will need. Bible students need commentaries, bible dicts, theological dicts, atlases, lexicons, study bibles, cross ref guides, and a half dozen other things you cnat find for free on google.

Speaking of google this is what I found.

<We're working with several major libraries>

Several Major libraries? Do you know how many libraries there are out there? Thousands, perhaps even millions I dont know. But several major libraries looks like a really small number in comparison.

<<Perhaps you were using a bad set of search keywords. Try something related to the subject, instead of "praise jesus god bible hallelujah." If your keywords were on topic, and you still received no hits, you might consider that the work you were doing was either way off script, or genuinely innovative and novel study. >>

Maybe, but I was given access to a scholarly search engline that only those attending the college could access and was able to find some professional documents for one research project but not for the other. However for my last major paper I had to turn to old books. Some perhaps were written in the 1800's. I've had to use sources that old or older before for my papers. Google found me nothing worth using.

I take it you have never been to college, did not graduate, or have not been to college in a long time, if you think that the Internet will replace books.

<<News flash: it's no longer 1995. In fact, it's now a decade later. Lots of progress has been made in the past decade, particularly with Google's search capabilities. >>

Yes it is nice, but for those of us that have been to college we understand that the information available for free on the net has not and will never replace the information that you need to pay for in a book.

<<Far more than what? More than the detailed information available for free on the web? I'll call your bluff. Prove it, and use something more than the smokescreening and handwaving of your "millions of others" who can't manage to use Google effectively. >>

Well for one you cant find an equilivent to print dictionary of biblical imagery on the web.

You cant find the New Dictionary of Theology (Master Reference Collection) (Hardcover)

Yes I am aware of carms basic theological dictionary. But this basic dictionary is very basic, and does not have the detail found in my book dictionaries.