Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Modern Day Miracle Man - Establishes the Supernatural Realm
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 297 (525782)
09-24-2009 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by slevesque
09-24-2009 3:29 PM


Re: Re:Thankyou slevesque
You also have to keep in mind that any evidence for miracles will be eye-witness accounts and testimonies. And so if I want to invesitigate a particular 'miracle claim' all I will have to work with will be testimonies. To go beyond that, I will have to myself be subject to said 'miracle claim' so to have a personnal experience of it. But this of course, will become only be an eye-witness account for everybody else. It's sort of a viscious circle.
That's what double blind tests are for...
No miracle has ever passed a double blind test.
It could be a problem with the method, or a property of miracles, or it could just be that miracles don't exist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by slevesque, posted 09-24-2009 3:29 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by slevesque, posted 09-24-2009 4:12 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 62 of 297 (525783)
09-24-2009 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by New Cat's Eye
09-24-2009 3:58 PM


Re: Re:Thankyou slevesque
I'm not familiar with this tests and how it can be applied to a miraculous phenomenon.
Would you care to explain ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-24-2009 3:58 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-24-2009 5:45 PM slevesque has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 63 of 297 (525785)
09-24-2009 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Cedre
09-24-2009 5:09 AM


Jet 'plane?
Cedre writes:
Below I give a semi-detailed analysis of one of his many predictions. The amazing thing is his predictions are televised live to many parts of the world before they actualize. I think this is ingenious on the part of the prophet so as to ward off claims that he made the predictions after the event in question.
A Family plane crash
On Sunday 19th April, 2009, Prophet TB Joshua prophesied about a family travelling by plane. This is what he said:
On Friday, remember putting it in prayer. A situation where families will be inside a plane - when I say family, like husband and wife, children and others - and something happens inside the air. Friday of the month - put it in prayer and fast. Please fast and pray. Pray for the family. Where are these family going? Where are they going? I’m seeing crash. So, all over the world, if you are moving with family, your children, yourself, please read Psalm 91:7-end. Jesus will be with you.
Prophet T.B. Joshua again made reference to the prophecy regarding the family on the following Sunday, the 26th April 2009, saying:
Last time I told you about a family that entered the plane. I said the whole family, I saw the whole family -they entered the private jet and the plane crashed. The whole family — what happened? I’m praying, I’m praying that, what would make the family ... if it’s just one person that would go but all the family, they just entered the plane. Where? What happened?
On Friday 22nd May, 2009, the tragic news came that a British born Brazilian businessman and nine members of his family died when their plane crashed in Trancoso, north eastern Brazil. All 14 people on board were killed.
Recall the words of the prophet, A situation where families will be inside a plane - when I say family, like husband and wife, children and others - and something happens inside the air.
Roger Ian Wright, a leading British born Brazilian financier, a founding partner at Sao Paulo financial consulting firm Arsenal Investimentos and ex-director of Banco Garantia, his wife Lucila Lins, and eight family members died instantly when their twin-engine aircraft ditched just short of the runway. Lucila and Wright were travelling to their holiday home at the plush Terravista golf resort in the town of Trancoso in his personal plane, Brazilian officials said.
With them were Wright’s two children from his first marriage, Veronica and Philip, their spouses Rodrigo and Heloisa, his three grandchildren Victoria, Gabriel and six-month-old son Francisco, and his aunt Vera Lucia Mercio. Lucila’s granddaughter Nina Pinheiro was also on the flight. All died tragically.
I saw the whole family -they entered the private jet and the plane crashed.
The King Air B350 model plane, which Wright owned, left Sao Paulo at 6:31 p.m. and crashed at 9:13 p.m, said an air force spokesman. Moments before hitting the ground, the pilot reported that "visual and landing conditions were normal," according to a statement issued by the airport. The cause of the crash was not known.
Wow! Amazing! A prophecy of the inevitable! How does he do it?
What the prophecy says is that a family will be in a crash in a private jet on an unspecified Friday in an unspecified month in an unspecified year. It doesn't even say whether or not they will die.
Yes. It's going to happen. About one in seven crashes take place on a Friday, and it's common for families to travel together.
But the Brazilian crash doesn't fit the bill, Cedre.
That's a King Air 350. Funny looking jet plane.
But never mind. It won't be long before a family is involved in a private jet crash on a Friday. I'm a prophet, too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Cedre, posted 09-24-2009 5:09 AM Cedre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Coragyps, posted 09-24-2009 6:38 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 64 of 297 (525788)
09-24-2009 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by slevesque
09-24-2009 2:41 PM


Re: (insert mockery of Cedre here)
I don't want to jump into this discussion, but I'll coment a bit on the HIV tests and things.
The window of 3 to 6 months were you test negative is after infection, not detection. In other words, if I catch AIDS tomorrow, there will be this timespan were no test will detect it, yet I will be able to transmit it to other people. This is the very reason why you have the whole questionnaire when you go and give blood, because there tests aren't 100% because of this time period.
But note that as soon as it becomes 'detectable' in you, than you have passed this window and it will always be detectable. It doesn't fluctuate from positive t negative after that. (Or else doing AIDS tests on blood sample during blood donation would be almost useless)
HIV tests typically begin with an antibody test. After an antibody test comes up positive, a followup Western Blot test is typically performed (in the US anyway - I have no idea of the testing methods used elsewhere, particularly in the Third World).
An antibody test will always come up as positive after you've been exposed to the virus. The antibodies don't go away.
The Western Blot test measures viral load. This can come up as "undetectable, which simply means no viral particles were found in teh sample,. This doesn't mean a person has been "cured," but it can be interpreted as a "negative" result.
This is probably what happened - a person tested positive on an antibody test, and came up with an undetectable viral load on the Western Blot. It's not uncommon. Once a person is on medication, it's much more common to test as undetectable.
A person can only really be said to be "cured" of HIV if their viral load is still undetectable after a significant amount of time without drug therapy - obviously, that's rather risky to test. But "a few weeks" is nowhere near long enough to verify that a person is HIV-free, as Cedre's proposed.
The point is that "I tested positive, and now I test negative" is both woefully oversimplified as far as what tests are performed, and completely irrelevant if insufficient time has passed. We don;t even know if the individuals in question were taking medication, the tests done initially and after their supposed "cure," the lab that performed the test...
There's a reason the medical community is not endorsing "Faith healing" as a cure for HIV.
All this is to say that if you are tested positive at an AIDS test, you can't possibly test negative again, you're done, Unless a miracle, or a very very very very improbable event (I remember this guy down in ontario who was cured of AIDS after he had the flu.)
I'd like to see a source for that.
I know that there are some people who have a genetic resistance to HIV and will test positive on an antibody test (showing that they've definitely been exposed), but will never display a detectable viral load, never show a drop in T-cells, and generally will be like someone exposed to any other disease but didn't get sick.
Thanks for that insight slevesque it cleared up a lot. I guess then that these people really were cured of Aids.
Isn't it fun how Cedre doesn't verify, doesn't really read anything, and just takes something that he thinks agrees with his point and then declares victory?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by slevesque, posted 09-24-2009 2:41 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by slevesque, posted 09-24-2009 11:46 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 297 (525805)
09-24-2009 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by slevesque
09-24-2009 4:12 PM


Re: Re:Thankyou slevesque
I'm not familiar with this tests and how it can be applied to a miraculous phenomenon.
Would you care to explain ?
LINK

thanks to Modulus for exposing that website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by slevesque, posted 09-24-2009 4:12 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by slevesque, posted 09-24-2009 11:36 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 66 of 297 (525809)
09-24-2009 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by bluegenes
09-24-2009 4:22 PM


Re: Jet 'plane?
That is very odd-looking for a jet, bluegenes! Nice catch!
Prophet, indeed. This cat is as good as Nostradamus, at least. Or as the folks that write the horoscopes for the newspaper.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by bluegenes, posted 09-24-2009 4:22 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 67 of 297 (525851)
09-24-2009 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by New Cat's Eye
09-24-2009 5:45 PM


Re: Re:Thankyou slevesque
WTF ?
Was that serious, like I'm a retard or something ?
A google search will not tell me how a double blinded test can be applied to miracle claims. I DId go on wikipedia to see what it was though, but since I'm not familiar with it, I didn't see how it could be used. THUS THE QUESTION I ASKED.
Presuming I'm a moron will not get the discussion to advance, and if you could read and comprehend the question I asked, it would help also. Because note that I didn't ask what a double blinded test was. I said I wasn't familiar with it and asked how it could be applied to a miraculous phenomenon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-24-2009 5:45 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-25-2009 8:36 AM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 68 of 297 (525853)
09-24-2009 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Rahvin
09-24-2009 4:26 PM


Re: (insert mockery of Cedre here)
HIV tests typically begin with an antibody test. After an antibody test comes up positive, a followup Western Blot test is typically performed (in the US anyway - I have no idea of the testing methods used elsewhere, particularly in the Third World).
An antibody test will always come up as positive after you've been exposed to the virus. The antibodies don't go away.
The Western Blot test measures viral load. This can come up as "undetectable, which simply means no viral particles were found in teh sample,. This doesn't mean a person has been "cured," but it can be interpreted as a "negative" result.
This is probably what happened - a person tested positive on an antibody test, and came up with an undetectable viral load on the Western Blot. It's not uncommon. Once a person is on medication, it's much more common to test as undetectable.
A person can only really be said to be "cured" of HIV if their viral load is still undetectable after a significant amount of time without drug therapy - obviously, that's rather risky to test. But "a few weeks" is nowhere near long enough to verify that a person is HIV-free, as Cedre's proposed.
The point is that "I tested positive, and now I test negative" is both woefully oversimplified as far as what tests are performed, and completely irrelevant if insufficient time has passed. We don;t even know if the individuals in question were taking medication, the tests done initially and after their supposed "cure," the lab that performed the test...
There's a reason the medical community is not endorsing "Faith healing" as a cure for HIV
Yeah that seems like it, although it would be good to know the tests used in Africa.
I'd like to see a source for that.
I know that there are some people who have a genetic resistance to HIV and will test positive on an antibody test (showing that they've definitely been exposed), but will never display a detectable viral load, never show a drop in T-cells, and generally will be like someone exposed to any other disease but didn't get sick.
Made the news here in Canada maybe two years ago, tried to find an article about it. I remember it was a person who was diagnosed with type1 AIDS (or however they rank it, it was still in its initial stages) and then had the flu (or some other thing, I'm not 100% sure) and his doctor realized he didn't have AIDS anymore.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Rahvin, posted 09-24-2009 4:26 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 69 of 297 (525864)
09-25-2009 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by PaulK
09-24-2009 3:19 PM


Re: An honest look at the evidence
Why I am not allowed to suggest that the missing word is "last" ? That is all that I did, and I had good reasons for doing it. Reasons which you have not refuted.
Because they are your words not TB Joshua's words, your twisting a man's words to get him to agree with your theory. again I ask, why am I wrong when that phrase has been deliberately added to TB Joshua's original statement. And why isn't my criticism valid?
It is apparently not YOUR way if speaking either, since you offer no viable alternative
I will re offer my previous alternative. an Alternative that rhymes better with the known facts and does justice to the prophecy:
Last time I told you about a family that entered the plane.
If the prophet was reciting his vision then the tense that was used here still makes perfect sense, because in his vision he did to be sure see the family enter the plane as if it had already happened, the next line bears this point out further;
I said the whole family, I saw the whole family -they entered the private jet and the plane crashed.
Make a note of especially the phrase "I saw" a sound indication that he was reciting his vision.
The whole family — what happened? I’m praying, I’m praying that, what would make the family
Note the phrase "I’m praying that, what would make the family" Note the phrase what would another clue that suggests the family was still alive at the moment.
... if it’s just one person that would go but all the family,
This is another interesting line, his use of the word if suggests that the family was still alive.
So far all of these lines are compatible with someone reciting a vision.
they just entered the plane. Where? What happened?
Nothing here suggests that TB Joshua wasn't reciting what he had seen in his vision. And finally the fact that he uses past tense here could mean that he felt like using past tense on this occasion and not in the other occasion, your unnecessarily reading too much into this.
What about the phrase "Friday of the Month", what could it mean?
I dislike speculating, but I will do it anyway to appease you. To begin, this phrase could have no words missing more especially when TB Joshua used a similar phrase in another one of his prophecies only on that occasion he replaced month with week, it doesn’t seem very likely that he would repeat the same mistake like that, it is more plausible that he did it on purpose. Therefore the possibility is there that the phrase is complete as it is and has got no missing parts. Or it was supposed to read as you have suggested or as the 22th day of the May month, note that we are both speculating here, we can be equally wrong, if you want to reduce this to speculation then my alternative carries the same merit as yours , seeing that neither of us has proof for our respective guesses at least in the written form, that is the original phrase bears neither your additions or mine.
If my alternative is correct then TB Joshua’s prophecy was incredibly on the dot.
The fact that there was no plane crash reported between, 19 April and 26 April, further weakens your rendition, the first plane crash in that period of time took place on a Friday as TB Joshua said the next month and this agrees with my rendition. Furthermore Tb Joshua was right about the type of aircraft, the type of family, not it could have been any kind of family, as I stated in an earlier post, but Tb Joshua specifically mentioned a heterosexual couple with their children and others, he was right about the day and lastly the small amount of time that elapsed between the prophecy and its fulfillment makes this prophecy all the more incredible and reduces the chances that it was some wild guess.
The reason for why you so adamantly want to deny this prophecy is that you never viewed it with an open-heart, you will claim you have but you and I both know you didn’t, it is because you have a prior-commitment to naturalism and you don’t want to nullify that commitment. Unlike you I did look at this prophecy your way, in fact many times but I just cannot ignore all the points I have mentioned above that make it impossible for this to have been a wild guess.
To bluegenes:
I don’t know what your point is with that photograph, are you trying to suggest that that isn’t a private jet? Here is the link to your photograph and another link to a photograph of a very-similar looking plane identified as a private jet.
Wikimedia Error
And
http://i.ehow.com/...to/Articles/4644445/82549-main_Full.jpg
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by PaulK, posted 09-24-2009 3:19 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Huntard, posted 09-25-2009 3:11 AM Cedre has replied
 Message 73 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2009 4:30 AM Cedre has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 70 of 297 (525865)
09-25-2009 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Cedre
09-25-2009 2:58 AM


Re: An honest look at the evidence
Cedre writes:
I don’t know what your point is with that photograph, are you trying to suggest that that isn’t a private jet? Here is the link to your photograph and another link to a photograph of a very-similar looking plane identified as a private jet.
http://upload.wi.../800px-Kingair_350-N113GF-KBFL-070207.jpg
And
http://i.ehow.com/images/GlobalPhoto/.../82549-main_Full.jpg
See those thins in fornt of the wings? THose are called propellers, and they're indicative of planes that are NOT jets. Your "miracle man" got this one wrong, Cedre.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Cedre, posted 09-25-2009 2:58 AM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Cedre, posted 09-25-2009 4:27 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 71 of 297 (525867)
09-25-2009 3:17 AM


My Assessment
My conclusions were spot on, from the very first word.
post 1:
There is evidence for the supernatural realm all-around, the thing is when such evidence comes the skeptics’ way the skeptic, which encloses th
So far this has been demonstrated by the atheists, at the outset they jeered at the evidence and poked fun at it, a little later they appeared to simmer down a little and started looking for loopholes in the evidence, which they have failed to do, I have presented ample evidence concerning the prophecies, Wikipedia supplied original sources like newspaper articles concerning the miracles and the atheists despite go on claiming that the miracles and prophecies are genuine without providing a shred of evidence of their own. They make claims and somehow think that those claims count as proof for their their theories. so far I'm not impressed with their efforts to falsify the man TB Joshua.
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 72 of 297 (525869)
09-25-2009 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Huntard
09-25-2009 3:11 AM


Re: An honest look at the evidence
See those thins in fornt of the wings? THose are called propellers, and they're indicative of planes that are NOT jets. Your "miracle man" got this one wrong, Cedre.
Turbo-props are actually a development of the jet engine. And the plane in question is a turbo-prop, turbo-props are basically referred to as jets with propellers. The link in my previous post calls this aircraft a private jet. turbo-props are also now and then referred to as Turbo Props-Jets AIRCRAFT WHOLESALE: Wholesale Airplane, Multi Engine Aircraft, Turbo Props-Jets, Turbo Prop Jets, turbo prop jet, turbo prop planes for sale, turbo prop aircraft, turbo prop plane, turbo prop aircraft for sale, turbo prop airplanes for sale, plane for sal, http://www.avolaraviation.com/aircraft/turbo_prop.shtml, heres an image of a turbo-prop jet: http://www.avolaraviation.com/images/aircraft_kingair.jpg, even Time Magazine calls it a turbo-prop jet here: Page not found | TIME.
see also: http://www.jetcharter.com/articles/02/private-jets
So the prophet wasn't wrong afterall.
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Huntard, posted 09-25-2009 3:11 AM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Theodoric, posted 09-25-2009 11:23 AM Cedre has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 73 of 297 (525870)
09-25-2009 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Cedre
09-25-2009 2:58 AM


Re: An honest look at the evidence
quote:
Because they are your words not TB Joshua's words, your twisting a man's words to get him to agree with your theory.
No I am not. YOU are makign false accusations as an excuse to avoid the evidence.
quote:
I will re offer my previous alternative. an Alternative that rhymes better with the known facts and does justice to the prophecy:
You can't reoffer your alternative for the missing word, because you haven't offered one.
quote:
If the prophet was reciting his vision then the tense that was used here still makes perfect sense, because in his vision he did to be sure see the family enter the plane as if it had already happened, the next line bears this point out further;
If the best you can do is argue that one line of evidnece is inconclusive - and that is all you are doing here - you have not got much of a case.
quote:
What about the phrase "Friday of the Month", what could it mean?
I dislike speculating, but I will do it anyway to appease you.
You seem very happy to speculate that the only reaosn he sued the past tense on the 26th was that he was reciting his vision - when he did not do so on the 19th.
quote:
To begin, this phrase could have no words missing more especially when TB Joshua used a similar phrase in another one of his prophecies only on that occasion he replaced month with week, it doesn’t seem very likely that he would repeat the same mistake like that, it is more plausible that he did it on purpose. Therefore the possibility is there that the phrase is complete as it is and has got no missing parts.
Yet - so far as either of us knows - the phrase is meaningless. Thus it is more plausible that he missed a word. (And of course "the month" would be April, and the only Friday left in April would be the 24th...)
quote:
Or it was supposed to read as you have suggested or as the 22th day of the May month,
I have not suggested any such thing. It is far more likely that only one word was missing, and the assumption that he meant to give that specific date begs the question.
quote:
note that we are both speculating here, we can be equally wrong, if you want to reduce this to speculation then my alternative carries the same merit as yours , seeing that neither of us has proof for our respective guesses at least in the written form, that is the original phrase bears neither your additions or mine.
Except for the fact that my suggestions involve no implausibilities, and both of yours do.
quote:
If my alternative is correct then TB Joshua’s prophecy was incredibly on the dot.
Because that alternative ASSUMES that he got it on the dot.
quote:
The fact that there was no plane crash reported between, 19 April and 26 April, further weakens your rendition,
How could it ?
(Indeed it is entirely possible that TB Joshua introduced the idea of it being a private jet on the 26th BECAUSE he had not heard of a crash on the 24th - the quote on the 19th says no such thing. Reports of the crash of a private jet somewhere overseas might well not have reached him in time).
quote:
The reason for why you so adamantly want to deny this prophecy is that you never viewed it with an open-heart, you will claim you have but you and I both know you didn’t, it is because you have a prior-commitment to naturalism and you don’t want to nullify that commitment. Unlike you I did look at this prophecy your way, in fact many times but I just cannot ignore all the points I have mentioned above that make it impossible for this to have been a wild guess.
I am not the one making false accusations, ignoring evidence or begging the question. You are doing all of these. A quote about motes and beams comes to mind
As for your response to bluegenes the photographs clearly show that the plane in question uses propellors, rather than jets. Did you not see that ? They are clearly visible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Cedre, posted 09-25-2009 2:58 AM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Cedre, posted 09-25-2009 4:58 AM PaulK has replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 74 of 297 (525875)
09-25-2009 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by PaulK
09-25-2009 4:30 AM


Re: An honest look at the evidence
My quote:
Because they are your words not TB Joshua's words, your twisting a man's words to get him to agree with your theory.
No I am not. YOU are makign false accusations as an excuse to avoid the evidence.
You sure have by adding your own thought to the phrase. I'm not making any false accusation, where did I make one please be specific. Is pointing out that you blatantly added your own word to a the phrase a false accusation, my gosh, anyone with eyes can see that you have added a word to the phrase.
You can't reoffer your alternative for the missing word, because you haven't offered one.
I can my alternative was that he was reciting his vision, and you have yet to show that this isn't possible.
If the best you can do is argue that one line of evidnece is inconclusive - and that is all you are doing here - you have not got much of a case.
what one line? The whole passage fits into the idea that the prophet was reciting his vision, I broke down the entire passage not just one line. If he felt like using past tense this time, it was his choice, the use of past tense doesn't always mean that something had already happened and you for some reason is unwilling or fail to see this. for example I can have a vision of my dog jumping over a fence and I can phrase it in two different ways; the first way is, My dog will jump over the fence, the second way is I saw my dog jump over the fence, and TB Joshua originally uses the the first way and employs the second way on the second occasion.
You seem very happy to speculate that the only reaosn he sued the past tense on the 26th was that he was reciting his vision - when he did not do so on the 19th.
This fits the evidence, are you forgetting a private plane did crash on the 22th of May a Friday, that matches the prophets description, the passengers also match his description. so May alternative seems more likely than yours, you don't want to see this because it throws your entire world view out of whack.
Yet - so far as either of us knows - the phrase is meaningless. Thus it is more plausible that he missed a word. (And of course "the month" would be April, and the only Friday left in April would be the 24th...)
Exactly as either of us knows, not as TB Joshua knows, since he uses the same phrase elsewhere only replacing "month" with "week" So the phrase is most likely deliberate, and not a mistake.
Or it was supposed to read as you have suggested or as the 22th Friday of the May month,
I have not suggested any such thing. It is far more likely that only one word was missing, and the assumption that he meant to give that specific date begs the question.
I'm sorry it doesn't if you feel like you can add the word last to the phrase I am at liberty to also add what I want as long as the phrase is still meaningful.
note that we are both speculating here, we can be equally wrong, if you want to reduce this to speculation then my alternative carries the same merit as yours , seeing that neither of us has proof for our respective guesses at least in the written form, that is the original phrase bears neither your additions or mine.
Except for the fact that my suggestions involve no implausibilities, and both of yours do.
What implausibilities does my suggestion involve? Neither of us have evidence for our additions, not you not me, all we have is guesswork as far as our additions are concerned. furthermore when considering that TB Joshua, guessed right the type of plain, type of passengers and the day (Friday) my rendition seems more likely. In fact on his website they accept my rendition because its the one they present. Yours only rides on your own understanding of what the Prophet meant not on any real proof, you have to add words and twists meanings in order for your interpretation to work.
It is far more likely that only one word was missing,
How did you determine this?
I am not the one making false accusations, ignoring evidence or begging the question. You are doing all of these. A quote about motes and beams comes to mind
You sure have as this post demonstrates.
As for your response to bluegenes the photographs clearly show that the plane in question uses propellors, rather than jets. Did you not see that ? They are clearly visible.
i deal with this in a previous post.
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2009 4:30 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2009 5:19 AM Cedre has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 75 of 297 (525879)
09-25-2009 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Cedre
09-25-2009 4:58 AM


Re: An honest look at the evidence
quote:
You sure have by adding your own thought to the phrase.
As I sated, all I did was offer an entirely reasonable idea of what Joshua meant. I did not use quote marks, and the words that YOU attributed to Joshua were clearly distinguished form the rest.
quote:
I'm not making any false accusation, where did I make one please be specific.
You are falsely accusing me of twisting Joshua's words.
Be truly honest - you just don't like the idea that Joshua meant the 24th April, because that makes the prophecy a failure. That is the ONLY reason for your accusation.
quote:
Is pointing out that you blatantly added your own word to a the phrase a false accusation, my gosh, anyone with eyes can see that you have added a word to the phrase.
And anybody with eyes could see that I used bolding to distinguish MY word from Joshua's. Thus your accusation is false.
quote:
I can my alternative was that he was reciting his vision, and you have yet to show that this isn't possible.
So, when, on the 119th Joshua said "Firday of the month" he was "reciting his vision" - how is THAT an alternative meaning of the phrase ? You need to pay attention to the context.
quote:
what one line?
A line of evidence, not a line of text. The exclsuive use of past tense on the 26th is one line of evidence.
quote:
This fits the evidence, are you forgetting a private plane did crash on the 22th of May a Friday, that matches the prophets description, the passengers also match his description. so May alternative seems more likely than yours, you don't want to see this because it throws your entire world view out of whack.
Only if you assume in advance that the "prophecy" is likely genuine. However to do so, begs the question. Since I am taking an honest, unbiased look at the evidence I cannot make that assumption.
quote:
Exactly as either of us knows, not as TB Joshua knows, since he uses the same phrase elsewhere only replacing "month" with "week" So the phrase is most likely deliberate, and not a mistake.
That is not a rational argument. It is just speculation.
quote:
I'm sorry it doesn't if you feel like you can add the word last to the phrase I am at liberty to also add what I want as long as the phrase is still meaningful.
That is obviously wrong. Just because I can make an entirely plausible suggestion as to what Joshua likely meant does not give you license to put up any change you like as if it were equally plausible. If you can offer evidence - real evidence that does not rely on begging the question, that Joshua DID mean 22nd May, now would be a good time to do it.
quote:
What implausibilities does my suggestion involve?
The idea that the phrase is complete - when you have absolutely no evidence of that is implausible. The idea that Joshua meant to give a specific date rather than something like "last" or "fourth" is implausible.
quote:
How did you determine this?
Because missing one word out is very easy. Missing out the whole date is more difficult.
quote:
You sure have as this post demonstrates.
Again you make a compeltely false accusation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Cedre, posted 09-25-2009 4:58 AM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Cedre, posted 09-25-2009 6:05 AM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024