Explanation for JS's initial first vision account?

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by woot

The PoGP account was one of the later ones. 1842, as I recall. That explanation therefore doesn't work.

Edit: Swing and a miss. 1838 indeed. Still, it was one of the later accounts.

The explination does work -don't let your bias get in the way of what lies before you. Further, fusnik posted some interesting information that you failed to address in your attempt to be 'right'.

By the way the prophet Darwin didn't make edits to his journals many months or even years after his initial obseervations did he?

[woot]

Originally Posted by tooblue

The explination does work -don't let your bias get in the way of what lies before you. Further, fusnik posted some interesting information that you failed to address in your attempt to be 'right'.

By the way the prophet Darwin didn't make edits to his journals many months or even years after his initial obseervations did he?

I thought it was an obvious point. Perhaps rather than claiming bias, which seems to be the result of nothing but your bias, why not actually explain what you mean and why you think Fusnik's comment remains valid after knowing that the PoGP version came after the accounts mentioning only 1 personage?

As a matter of fact, Darwin didn't make edits to his journals, at least not in the way you're thinking. That wouldn't have made any sense. He spent the rest of his life interpreting his data, not changing his data to fit his interpretations. Also, category error.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by woot

I thought it was an obvious point. Perhaps rather than claiming bias, which seems to be the result of nothing but your bias, why not actually explain what you mean and why you think Fusnik's comment remains valid after knowing that the PoGP version came after the accounts mentioning only 1 personage?

As a matter of fact, Darwin didn't make edits to his journals, at least not in the way you're thinking. That wouldn't have made any sense. He spent the rest of his life interpreting his data, not changing his data to fit his interpretations. Also, category error.

Does only mentioning one personage mean that he only claimed to see just Christ, but didn't see the Father? Yes, the omission may be a little puzzling, but is it really that significant?

Frankly, this early account is very rough, even a bit rambling, like it was done in a hurry.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Does only mentioning one personage mean that he only claimed to see just Christ, but didn't see the Father? Yes, the omission may be a little puzzling, but is it really that significant?

Frankly, this early account is very rough, even a bit rambling, like it was done in a hurry.

Oh I actually don't find it terribly significant, and my "apologist version" would probably be satisfactory were I looking to actually explain it.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by woot

I thought it was an obvious point. Perhaps rather than claiming bias, which seems to be the result of nothing but your bias, why not actually explain what you mean and why you think Fusnik's comment remains valid after knowing that the PoGP version came after the accounts mentioning only 1 personage?

As a matter of fact, Darwin didn't make edits to his journals, at least not in the way you're thinking. That wouldn't have made any sense. He spent the rest of his life interpreting his data, not changing his data to fit his interpretations. Also, category error.

This is a forum for discussion. fusnik offers an interesting perspective and you gloss over it in favor of juvenile assertions that you are right. It's obvious you cannot see the connection of his thoughts to the subject of the initial post, therefore I tried to place it in context to a subject you now hold dear -Darwinism.

Now extropolate a little and perhaps you will be able to figure out why fusniks comments are relevant and interesting, and form your own opinion that is based upon the examination of many points of view and not merely the simplicity of your obvious truths.

[woot]

Originally Posted by tooblue

This is a forum for discussion. fusnik offers an interesting perspective and you gloss over it in favor of juvenile assertions that you are right. It's obvious you cannot see the connection of his thoughts to the subject of the initial post, therefore I tried to place it in context to a subject you now hold dear -Darwinism.

Now extropolate a little and perhaps you will be able to figure out why fusniks comments are relevant and interesting, and form your own opinion that is based upon the examination of many points of view and not merely the simplicity of your obvious truths.

No seriously. Please explain the point rather than explaining everything but. Why are you so averse to discussion of issues without making things personal?

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by woot

No seriously. Please explain the point rather than explaining everything but. Why are you so averse to discussion of issues without making things personal?

You made it personal, you chose to denegrate in place of exchange. Now you wish to deflect in the hopes that you will not have to consider my challenge and answer for your actions.

[woot]

Originally Posted by tooblue

You made it personal, you chose to denegrate in place of exchange. Now you wish to deflect in the hopes that you will not have to consider my challenge and answer for your actions.

Scroll up a bit. I engaged Fusnik's argument, you attacked me personally. As usual, you're projecting.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by woot

Scroll up a bit. I engaged Fusnik's argument, you attacked me personally. As usual, you're projecting.

LOL NOW you engage fusnik! I responded to your actions -you reap what you sow.

lol

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

Oh I actually don't find it terribly significant, and my "apologist version" would probably be satisfactory were I looking to actually explain it.

I don't understand how antis decide only one possible interpretation flows from an ambiguous set of data points.

It is perplexing a bit why Joseph firstly only mentions one personage. And it is certainly possible one could conclude that he saw only one and only made it up. However, if one is in the business of visions and believes in them, do you believe that person would go about changing the vision? Now, of course you could argue he never had a vision.

However, it seems clear that JS did proclaim he had seen two personages and the fusnik material shows a lot of rambling and confusion.