A Bible Puzzle
SJAB1958
waters above from the waters below and that the stars, the sun, and
the moon are set in this firmament, which God called heaven.
In Genesis chapter seven we are told that the windows of heaven were
opened and that the rain fell for forty days and forty nights.
But surely this can't be right, because if you take this literally it
is suggesting that the rain fell from above the location of the stars,
the sun, and the moon.
Now some people tell us that the Bible is the inerrant 'Word of God'
that it should be interpreted literally and that there is nothing in
it that conflicts with science.
However, the way I see it is if you take the Bible literally it is not
error free and it does contain much that conflicts with science.
Can anyone prove otherwise?
teaf...@bellsouth.net
There is no way to avoid a conflict in the citations that you have
given us. That is, if you choose to make an attempt to take the Bible
literally.
The only way to do this is to recognize that the Bible is composed of
a variety of forms of literature.
You are dealing with a particular myth which expresses the Biblical
writers understanding of the way in which God's presence has been with
us since the very beginning of
time. It was never intended to be an account that would meet
contemporary scientific understandings.
Of course, the people who claim to take the Bible literally do not
really do that. Let's use Matthew 18:9 as an example: "And if your
eye causes you to stumble, tear it out and throw it
away; it is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two
eyes and to be thrown into the hell of fire." I don't know anyone who
takes that literally. Mistake, I did encounter one
such person on the psychiatric ward of a hospital in which my wife was
working. If people really took the Bible literally was you define it,
we would have psychiatric words filled to over-flowing.
SJAB1958
And those people who insist that it be taken literally also insist
that there is nothing scientifically wrong with the Bible. One such
person being the infamous Dr Dino (aka Kent Hovind) who is currently
incarcerated for non-payment of taxes. Perhaps he forgot to take
literally the bit about rendering unto Caesar.
duke
>However, the way I see it is if you take the Bible literally it is not
>error free and it does contain much that conflicts with science.
>Can anyone prove otherwise?
The bible is the revealed Word of God but written in the hand of man. Man used
many of his own stories to present the revelations. God's word is inerrant, not
man's attempt to present it.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
jcon
For the most part, those that claim to take the Bible
literally haven't read it, which makes the whole thing
much easier.
I do recall a book once that tried to go through the
Bible pretty much line by line and *prove* there were
no inconsistencies. I can't remember the title, but in
the end it only proved that with enough practice
someone can twist their own brain like a clown
making balloon animals. Remarkable,
really.
-jc
snex
> On Apr 26, 4:23 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> There is no way to avoid a conflict in the citations that you have
> given us. That is, if you choose to make an attempt to take the Bible
> literally.
>
> The only way to do this is to recognize that the Bible is composed of
> a variety of forms of literature.
wrong! there is another way to do it, and that is to admit that the
stories are false. this is how we treat the creation myths of every
other religion, why not do it for the bible too?
SJAB1958
> On 26 Apr 2007 01:23:44 -0700, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >However, the way I see it is if you take the Bible literally it is not
> >error free and it does contain much that conflicts with science.
> >Can anyone prove otherwise?
>
> The bible is the revealed Word of God but written in the hand of man. Man used
> many of his own stories to present the revelations. God's word is inerrant, not
> man's attempt to present it.
So the Bible is wrong is what you are suggesting, yes?
teaf...@bellsouth.net
stories are false. this is how we treat the creation myths of every
other religion, why not do it for the bible too?
That is one way, I admit. It is a way to narrow the understanding
of truth and falsity to fit the convenience of dismissing any
religious
understanding. The falsity of myths means what? That they are
not scientific data. Of course, they are not. But does that mean that
\
they have no "truth." No, it requires someone to use a bit more of
their mental faculties and expand an understanding of truth/falsity
and where meaning resides and in what forms.
Of course it is much easier to simply lop off understandings as false
and not have to deal with them. I choose to find other ways to deal
with the relationship between religious understandings and scientific
explanations.
snex
and yet, you dont give the same privilege to religions other than your
own.
Ian Chua
> waters above from the waters below and that the stars, the sun, and
> the moon are set in this firmament, which God called heaven.
>
> In Genesis chapter seven we are told that the windows of heaven were
> opened and that the rain fell for forty days and forty nights.
>
> But surely this can't be right, because if you take this literally it
> is suggesting that the rain fell from above the location of the stars,
> the sun, and the moon.
The "windows of heaven" mean the sky.
snex
> On Apr 26, 4:23 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In Genesis chapter one we are told that the firmament separated the
> > waters above from the waters below and that the stars, the sun, and
> > the moon are set in this firmament, which God called heaven.
>
> > In Genesis chapter seven we are told that the windows of heaven were
> > opened and that the rain fell for forty days and forty nights.
>
> > But surely this can't be right, because if you take this literally it
> > is suggesting that the rain fell from above the location of the stars,
> > the sun, and the moon.
>
> The "windows of heaven" mean the sky.
no, thats not what it means. it is quite clear from the original
hebrew that they meant a solid object.
josepphus
MYTH as abstractions about GODS and since we are not GODS we must find
TRUTH in the FALSE stories of GODS. ie. NARCISSUS aor PYRAMUS and THISBE..
Then the real problem is application of this definition of MYTH to the
BIBLE. Unfortunately people who claim in errancy, as was noted, DO NOT
READ THE BIBLE or anything else. IGNORANCE IS BLISS.
josephus
Harry K
Well, I guess that is one way to avoid admitting the obvious errors in
the bible.
Harry K
SJAB1958
> On Apr 26, 4:23 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In Genesis chapter one we are told that the firmament separated the
> > waters above from the waters below and that the stars, the sun, and
> > the moon are set in this firmament, which God called heaven.
>
> > In Genesis chapter seven we are told that the windows of heaven were
> > opened and that the rain fell for forty days and forty nights.
>
> > But surely this can't be right, because if you take this literally it
> > is suggesting that the rain fell from above the location of the stars,
> > the sun, and the moon.
>
> The "windows of heaven" mean the sky.
I respectfully suggest that you go look at those chapters again, which
if as most Biblical Literalists usually claim were all written by
Moses, this being so the meaning of the word heaven is the label given
to the firmament in which the stars, the sun, and the moon were set,
so the windows of heaven must also be set in the firmament, logical
conclusion being - if one takes the Bible literally - the waters above
the firmanent are above the stars, the sun, and the moon.
> > Now some people tell us that the Bible is the inerrant 'Word of God'
> > that it should be interpreted literally and that there is nothing in
> > it that conflicts with science.
>
> > However, the way I see it is if you take the Bible literally it is not
> > error free and it does contain much that conflicts with science.
>
> > Can anyone prove otherwise?
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ian Chua
> On 27 Apr, 04:21, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 26, 4:23 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > In Genesis chapter one we are told that the firmament separated the
> > > waters above from the waters below and that the stars, the sun, and
> > > the moon are set in this firmament, which God called heaven.
>
> > > In Genesis chapter seven we are told that the windows of heaven were
> > > opened and that the rain fell for forty days and forty nights.
>
> > > But surely this can't be right, because if you take this literally it
> > > is suggesting that the rain fell from above the location of the stars,
> > > the sun, and the moon.
>
> > The "windows of heaven" mean the sky.
>
> I respectfully suggest that you go look at those chapters again, which
> if as most Biblical Literalists usually claim were all written by
> Moses, this being so the meaning of the word heaven is the label given
> to the firmament in which the stars, the sun, and the moon were set,
> so the windows of heaven must also be set in the firmament, logical
> conclusion being - if one takes the Bible literally - the waters above
> the firmanent are above the stars, the sun, and the moon.
>
Where does rain come from?
snex
> On Apr 27, 12:55 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 27 Apr, 04:21, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 26, 4:23 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In Genesis chapter one we are told that the firmament separated the
> > > > waters above from the waters below and that the stars, the sun, and
> > > > the moon are set in this firmament, which God called heaven.
>
> > > > In Genesis chapter seven we are told that the windows of heaven were
> > > > opened and that the rain fell for forty days and forty nights.
>
> > > > But surely this can't be right, because if you take this literally it
> > > > is suggesting that the rain fell from above the location of the stars,
> > > > the sun, and the moon.
>
> > > The "windows of heaven" mean the sky.
>
> > I respectfully suggest that you go look at those chapters again, which
> > if as most Biblical Literalists usually claim were all written by
> > Moses, this being so the meaning of the word heaven is the label given
> > to the firmament in which the stars, the sun, and the moon were set,
> > so the windows of heaven must also be set in the firmament, logical
> > conclusion being - if one takes the Bible literally - the waters above
> > the firmanent are above the stars, the sun, and the moon.
>
> Nope - common sense tells us it refers to the sky.
> Where does rain come from?
who do you trust, god, or common sense?
SJAB1958
> On Apr 27, 12:55 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 27 Apr, 04:21, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 26, 4:23 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In Genesis chapter one we are told that the firmament separated the
> > > > waters above from the waters below and that the stars, the sun, and
> > > > the moon are set in this firmament, which God called heaven.
>
> > > > In Genesis chapter seven we are told that the windows of heaven were
> > > > opened and that the rain fell for forty days and forty nights.
>
> > > > But surely this can't be right, because if you take this literally it
> > > > is suggesting that the rain fell from above the location of the stars,
> > > > the sun, and the moon.
>
> > > The "windows of heaven" mean the sky.
>
> > I respectfully suggest that you go look at those chapters again, which
> > if as most Biblical Literalists usually claim were all written by
> > Moses, this being so the meaning of the word heaven is the label given
> > to the firmament in which the stars, the sun, and the moon were set,
> > so the windows of heaven must also be set in the firmament, logical
> > conclusion being - if one takes the Bible literally - the waters above
> > the firmanent are above the stars, the sun, and the moon.
>
> Nope - common sense tells us it refers to the sky.
> Where does rain come from?
May I ask where you stand on Biblical Interpretation? Are you in
favour of a literal or allegorical one?
>
> > > > Now some people tell us that the Bible is the inerrant 'Word of God'
> > > > that it should be interpreted literally and that there is nothing in
> > > > it that conflicts with science.
>
> > > > However, the way I see it is if you take the Bible literally it is not
> > > > error free and it does contain much that conflicts with science.
>
> > > > Can anyone prove otherwise?
> > > - Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Harry K
> On Apr 27, 12:55 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 27 Apr, 04:21, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 26, 4:23 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In Genesis chapter one we are told that the firmament separated the
> > > > waters above from the waters below and that the stars, the sun, and
> > > > the moon are set in this firmament, which God called heaven.
>
> > > > In Genesis chapter seven we are told that the windows of heaven were
> > > > opened and that the rain fell for forty days and forty nights.
>
> > > > But surely this can't be right, because if you take this literally it
> > > > is suggesting that the rain fell from above the location of the stars,
> > > > the sun, and the moon.
>
> > > The "windows of heaven" mean the sky.
>
> > I respectfully suggest that you go look at those chapters again, which
> > if as most Biblical Literalists usually claim were all written by
> > Moses, this being so the meaning of the word heaven is the label given
> > to the firmament in which the stars, the sun, and the moon were set,
> > so the windows of heaven must also be set in the firmament, logical
> > conclusion being - if one takes the Bible literally - the waters above
> > the firmanent are above the stars, the sun, and the moon.
>
> Nope - common sense tells us it refers to the sky.
> Where does rain come from?
>
>
Common sense should tell any thinking person that the bible is full of
BS.
Harry K
SJAB1958
Hmmm, does BS equal Biblical Scripture? ;)
>
> Harry K
Kleuskes & Moos
> On Apr 26, 8:36 am, teafo...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > On Apr 26, 4:23 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > There is no way to avoid a conflict in the citations that you have
> > given us. That is, if you choose to make an attempt to take the Bible
> > literally.
>
> > The only way to do this is to recognize that the Bible is composed of
> > a variety of forms of literature.
>
> wrong! there is another way to do it, and that is to admit that the
> stories are false.
Much of literature is... Don Quijote never existed, nor did Frodo
Beggings, Oliver Twist or Tom Sawyer (to name but a few). So maybe
your point isn't as brilliant as it seems? A story does not need to be
"true" in order to be valuable.
It's still strange to me that an atheist like you demands those
stories to be "true" like the book-worshippers we know as literalists.
snex
> On 26 apr, 22:46, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 26, 8:36 am, teafo...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 26, 4:23 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > There is no way to avoid a conflict in the citations that you have
> > > given us. That is, if you choose to make an attempt to take the Bible
> > > literally.
>
> > > The only way to do this is to recognize that the Bible is composed of
> > > a variety of forms of literature.
>
> > wrong! there is another way to do it, and that is to admit that the
> > stories are false.
>
> Much of literature is... Don Quijote never existed, nor did Frodo
> Beggings, Oliver Twist or Tom Sawyer (to name but a few). So maybe
> your point isn't as brilliant as it seems? A story does not need to be
> "true" in order to be valuable.
i agree. but even "rational" theists like francis collins or dana
tweedy assert that the resurrection story is "true."
>
> It's still strange to me that an atheist like you demands those
> stories to be "true" like the book-worshippers we know as literalists.
i dont "demand" anything. if people were going around asserting that
frodo baggins really existed and really threw the ring of power into
mt doom, i would be challenging them just as vigorously.
Woland
> On Apr 27, 12:55 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 27 Apr, 04:21, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 26, 4:23 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In Genesis chapter one we are told that the firmament separated the
> > > > waters above from the waters below and that the stars, the sun, and
> > > > the moon are set in this firmament, which God called heaven.
>
> > > > In Genesis chapter seven we are told that the windows of heaven were
> > > > opened and that the rain fell for forty days and forty nights.
>
> > > > But surely this can't be right, because if you take this literally it
> > > > is suggesting that the rain fell from above the location of the stars,
> > > > the sun, and the moon.
>
> > > The "windows of heaven" mean the sky.
>
> > I respectfully suggest that you go look at those chapters again, which
> > if as most Biblical Literalists usually claim were all written by
> > Moses, this being so the meaning of the word heaven is the label given
> > to the firmament in which the stars, the sun, and the moon were set,
> > so the windows of heaven must also be set in the firmament, logical
> > conclusion being - if one takes the Bible literally - the waters above
> > the firmanent are above the stars, the sun, and the moon.
>
> Nope - common sense tells us it refers to the sky.
> Where does rain come from?
>
Well, modern common sense tells us that but not to the Sumerians,
Babylonians or early semetic tribes. We have a pretty good idea of how
the ancient middle eastern peoples viewed the world. This includes,
basically, a giant dome that covered the earth, hence the need for
windows lest it get too stuffy down here.
TomS
<1177650229....@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Ian Chua stated..."
>
>On Apr 27, 12:55 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 27 Apr, 04:21, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 26, 4:23 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > In Genesis chapter one we are told that the firmament separated the
>> > > waters above from the waters below and that the stars, the sun, and
>> > > the moon are set in this firmament, which God called heaven.
>>
>> > > In Genesis chapter seven we are told that the windows of heaven were
>> > > opened and that the rain fell for forty days and forty nights.
>>
>> > > But surely this can't be right, because if you take this literally it
>> > > is suggesting that the rain fell from above the location of the stars,
>> > > the sun, and the moon.
>>
>> > The "windows of heaven" mean the sky.
>>
>> I respectfully suggest that you go look at those chapters again, which
>> if as most Biblical Literalists usually claim were all written by
>> Moses, this being so the meaning of the word heaven is the label given
>> to the firmament in which the stars, the sun, and the moon were set,
>> so the windows of heaven must also be set in the firmament, logical
>> conclusion being - if one takes the Bible literally - the waters above
>> the firmanent are above the stars, the sun, and the moon.
>>
>Nope - common sense tells us it refers to the sky.
>Where does rain come from?
Check out some of the references in the Bible to "dew".
Clearly, the authors believed that dew fell from heaven,
rather like rain.
--
---Tom S.
"When people use the X is not a fact or Y is not proven gambits it is a tacit
admission that they have lost the science argument and they are just trying to
downplay the significance of that failing."
BK Jennings, "On the Nature of Science", Physics in Canada 63(1)
Desertphile
> On Apr 26, 10:21 pm, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
> > On Apr 26, 4:23 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In Genesis chapter one we are told that the firmament separated the
> > > waters above from the waters below and that the stars, the sun, and
> > > the moon are set in this firmament, which God called heaven.
> >
> > > In Genesis chapter seven we are told that the windows of heaven were
> > > opened and that the rain fell for forty days and forty nights.
> >
> > > But surely this can't be right, because if you take this literally it
> > > is suggesting that the rain fell from above the location of the stars,
> > > the sun, and the moon.
> >
> > The "windows of heaven" mean the sky.
> no, thats not what it means. it is quite clear from the original
> hebrew that they meant a solid object.
Yes, very much so. The sky was a brass dome with gates in it to
let out rain; the stars were fixed to the brass dome.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
noctiluca
How do you know this? Maybe he/she picks and chooses from the ideas
offered by many religions.
In any case, isn't the more important behavior not that we privilege
all religions with the same "truth" evaluation, but that we privilege
all people with the opportunity to make their own decision on that
score?
RLC
snex
people can decide whatever they want. other people can decide to
ridicule them if their decisions are faulty and they refuse education.
thats what you do to creationists, isnt it?
>
> RLC
edwar...@verizon.net
>
>
> Nope - common sense tells us it refers to the sky.
> Where does rain come from?
Once again Ray tries to lie his way out of it and gets caught.
Strongs Hebrew Lexicon:
7549 raqiya` raw-kee'-ah from 7554; properly, an expanse, i.e. the
firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky:--firmament.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7554 raqa` raw-kah' a primitive root; to pound the earth (as a sign of
passion); by analogy to expand (by hammering); by implication, to
overlay (with thin sheets of metal):--beat, make broad, spread abroad
(forth, over, out, into plates), stamp, stretch.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7555 riqqua` rik-koo'-ah from 7554; beaten out, i.e. a (metallic)
plate:--broad.
noctiluca
It is. And for good reason: we have empirical evidence that falsifies
their claims.
However, I'm aware of no empirical evidence that falsifies claims that
there are "truths" to be found in non-material philosophies. What am I
missing?
RLC
> > RLC
snex
> On Apr 27, 1:03 am, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> >> > > The "windows of heaven" mean the sky.
>
> > Nope - common sense tells us it refers to the sky.
> > Where does rain come from?
>
> Once again Ray tries to lie his way out of it and gets caught.
> Strongs Hebrew Lexicon:
that isnt ray.
snex
you are missing the concept of burden of proof. it is incumbent upon
those *making* the claim to provide evidence for it before a
reasonable person believes, not for skeptics to *disprove* the claim.
since, in the entire history of it, nobody has ever provided a single
shred of evidence that non-material philosophies lead to truth, i feel
quite confident in dismissing it. if some evidence suddenly pops up in
the future, however, i will give it a fair hearing.
>
> RLC
>
> > > RLC
noctiluca
As a matter of fact I'm not missing the burden of proof concept, I'm
applying it as warranted.
If this were a case of a theist asserting the verity of their religion
you would be correct. But it appears here that we have an individual
who is making rather measured and reasonable claims, e.g. that "the
Bible is composed of a variety of forms of literature," and "If people
really took the Bible literally as you [SJAB1958] define it, we would
have psychiatric words filled to over-flowing" who is then summarily
challenged to "admit that the stories are false."
The claim that the stories are false is yours. The burden of proof is
yours as well.
> since, in the entire history of it, nobody has ever provided a single
> shred of evidence that non-material philosophies lead to truth, i feel
> quite confident in dismissing it. if some evidence suddenly pops up in
> the future, however, i will give it a fair hearing.
I agree that no one has provided the evidence you suggest. However,
dismissal on the basis of a lack empirical evidence is not equivalent
with proof of non-existence. There are those who believe they have
experienced something spiritual that goes beyond current scientific
methodology. I believe they are mistaken, you believe they are
mistaken, but neither of us *knows* this to be factual. To claim this
is to go beyond empirically demonstrable "is"es and indulge in
"oughts." To me this kind of certainty is uncomfortably similar to
theistic absolutes, and betrays one of the guiding concepts of
science: that what we know is always subject to revision.
RLC
snex
actually i was presenting an alternate possibility on how to interpret
the stories which was ignored - and i pointed out that this is how we
examine every other mythological story, so why not treat the christian
one equally?
>
> > since, in the entire history of it, nobody has ever provided a single
> > shred of evidence that non-material philosophies lead to truth, i feel
> > quite confident in dismissing it. if some evidence suddenly pops up in
> > the future, however, i will give it a fair hearing.
>
> I agree that no one has provided the evidence you suggest. However,
> dismissal on the basis of a lack empirical evidence is not equivalent
> with proof of non-existence. There are those who believe they have
> experienced something spiritual that goes beyond current scientific
> methodology. I believe they are mistaken, you believe they are
> mistaken, but neither of us *knows* this to be factual. To claim this
> is to go beyond empirically demonstrable "is"es and indulge in
> "oughts." To me this kind of certainty is uncomfortably similar to
> theistic absolutes, and betrays one of the guiding concepts of
> science: that what we know is always subject to revision.
where did i ever mention proof?
>
> RLC
noctiluca
Except for in the context of "burden of proof" I don't think you did,
nor did I suggest it.
RLC
snex
>
> RLC
Tom McDonald
It's also what we are trying to do to you.
You appear to be too entrenched in your own fundamentalism to learn, though.
snex
where did i claim otherwise?
>
> You appear to be too entrenched in your own fundamentalism to learn, though.
please learn the definition of "fundamentalism."
edwar...@verizon.net
>
Rats--mistaking one lying fundy for another. They all sound the same
to me. Minimal difference.
noctiluca
This is a statement that is intended as a premise for the points which
follow. It is not attributed to you or your position.
However, it is plainly clear that you believe the concept of "proof"
does enter this discussion as you are the one who suggested the
obligation of its burden. I merely moved it to its proper location.
That would have been a more pressing subject for your response, don't
you think, than the evasion you offered?
RLC
snex
since your response is built upon the idea that i claimed anything
whatsoever about proof, there is no need to respond to it. my original
statement already addressed it. here it is, again:
since, in the entire history of it, nobody has ever provided a single
shred of evidence that non-material philosophies lead to truth, i feel
quite confident in dismissing it. *if some evidence suddenly pops up
in the future, however, i will give it a fair hearing.* (emphasis
added)
>
> RLC
noctiluca
Of course you claimed something about proof, you claimed that some
sort of proof-burden lay with the individual you challenged. If
nothing else (and there certainly is something else - the fact that
you were wrong in your claim) it demonstrates that you believed it a
necessary condition for this individual to be able to regard religious
ideas as having truth value.
> my original
> statement already addressed it. here it is, again:
This refusal of a second opportunity to address the salient point -
the burden of proof question - of our discussion looks a lot like a
nolo contendere plea to me.
> since, in the entire history of it, nobody has ever provided a single
> shred of evidence that non-material philosophies lead to truth, i feel
> quite confident in dismissing it. *if some evidence suddenly pops up
> in the future, however, i will give it a fair hearing.* (emphasis
> added)
I don't recall disagreeing with this, apart from trying to make clear
the logical friction between calling ideas false and suggesting that
one intends to give them a fair hearing.
RLC
snex
"burden of proof" is a phrase, one whose meaning i would expect you to
understand. nobody anywhere says the phrase "burden of evidence."
>
> > my original
> > statement already addressed it. here it is, again:
>
> This refusal of a second opportunity to address the salient point -
> the burden of proof question - of our discussion looks a lot like a
> nolo contendere plea to me.
you did not make a point, you issued a strawman.
>
> > since, in the entire history of it, nobody has ever provided a single
> > shred of evidence that non-material philosophies lead to truth, i feel
> > quite confident in dismissing it. *if some evidence suddenly pops up
> > in the future, however, i will give it a fair hearing.* (emphasis
> > added)
>
> I don't recall disagreeing with this, apart from trying to make clear
> the logical friction between calling ideas false and suggesting that
> one intends to give them a fair hearing.
some ideas have already been falsified, or dont you agree?
>
> RLC
noctiluca
So what? I don't know why this is causing you so much difficulty. I
used it exactly as you used it. You're the one who's insisting he
never mentioned proof. Stop standing on this as a point of argument if
you're going to back away from it as soon it's pointed out that you
did indeed mention it.
> > > my original
> > > statement already addressed it. here it is, again:
>
> > This refusal of a second opportunity to address the salient point -
> > the burden of proof question - of our discussion looks a lot like a
> > nolo contendere plea to me.
>
> you did not make a point, you issued a strawman.
Really? Let's see: You called him on his fealty to "false" claims - I
asked you to provide evidence that the claims were false - you said
the burden of proof was his - I suggested it was yours and provided
appropriate quotes - you have so far demurred from addressing this.
Looks pretty substantive to me, but I won't belabor the point. You've
spoken your piece, I have mine.
> > > since, in the entire history of it, nobody has ever provided a single
> > > shred of evidence that non-material philosophies lead to truth, i feel
> > > quite confident in dismissing it. *if some evidence suddenly pops up
> > > in the future, however, i will give it a fair hearing.* (emphasis
> > > added)
>
> > I don't recall disagreeing with this, apart from trying to make clear
> > the logical friction between calling ideas false and suggesting that
> > one intends to give them a fair hearing.
>
> some ideas have already been falsified, or dont you agree?
In fact I do. Just not ones that haven't, and especially not those
that cannot be.
RLC
snex
its causing so much difficulty because you insist on playing
semantical games, and im not playing along.
>
> > > > my original
> > > > statement already addressed it. here it is, again:
>
> > > This refusal of a second opportunity to address the salient point -
> > > the burden of proof question - of our discussion looks a lot like a
> > > nolo contendere plea to me.
>
> > you did not make a point, you issued a strawman.
>
> Really? Let's see: You called him on his fealty to "false" claims - I
> asked you to provide evidence that the claims were false - you said
> the burden of proof was his - I suggested it was yours and provided
> appropriate quotes - you have so far demurred from addressing this.
>
> Looks pretty substantive to me, but I won't belabor the point. You've
> spoken your piece, I have mine.
you clearly did not read the thread.
>
> > > > since, in the entire history of it, nobody has ever provided a single
> > > > shred of evidence that non-material philosophies lead to truth, i feel
> > > > quite confident in dismissing it. *if some evidence suddenly pops up
> > > > in the future, however, i will give it a fair hearing.* (emphasis
> > > > added)
>
> > > I don't recall disagreeing with this, apart from trying to make clear
> > > the logical friction between calling ideas false and suggesting that
> > > one intends to give them a fair hearing.
>
> > some ideas have already been falsified, or dont you agree?
>
> In fact I do. Just not ones that haven't, and especially not those
> that cannot be.
virtually all of the major religions of the world entail falsifiable
claims that have been falsified. "reinterpreting" the claim after the
falsification is just dishonesty.
>
> RLC
noctiluca
> On Apr 27, 5:41 pm, noctiluca <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 27, 2:58 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 27, 4:49 pm, noctiluca <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 27, 2:15 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 27, 4:03 pm, noctiluca <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 27, 1:39 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Apr 27, 3:32 pm, noctiluca <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Apr 27, 1:21 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Apr 27, 3:13 pm, noctiluca <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Apr 27, 12:33 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 27, 2:16 pm, noctiluca <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 27, 12:09 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 27, 1:51 pm, noctiluca <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 6:48 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 7:02 pm, teafo...@bellsouth.net wrote:
<snip>
> > So what? I don't know why this is causing you so much difficulty. I
> > used it exactly as you used it. You're the one who's insisting he
> > never mentioned proof. Stop standing on this as a point of argument if
> > you're going to back away from it as soon it's pointed out that you
> > did indeed mention it.
>
> its causing so much difficulty because you insist on playing
> semantical games, and im not playing along.
<snip>
> > Really? Let's see: You called him on his fealty to "false" claims - I
> > asked you to provide evidence that the claims were false - you said
> > the burden of proof was his - I suggested it was yours and provided
> > appropriate quotes - you have so far demurred from addressing this.
>
> > Looks pretty substantive to me, but I won't belabor the point. You've
> > spoken your piece, I have mine.
>
> you clearly did not read the thread.
<snip>
> > > some ideas have already been falsified, or dont you agree?
>
> > In fact I do. Just not ones that haven't, and especially not those
> > that cannot be.
>
> virtually all of the major religions of the world entail falsifiable
> claims that have been falsified. "reinterpreting" the claim after the
> falsification is just dishonesty.
I'll note that you have just:
1. accused me of playing semantic games without providing a shred of
support for this
2. accused me of not having read the thread directly after I have
summarized our disagreement, and
3. ended with a statement devoid (as far as I can tell) of particular
relevance to that which has been previously discussed
Next time, when you're done with substantive discussion just say so.
RLC
SJAB1958
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sorry for intruding into the exchange that you and snex seem to have
going here, but it does seem to have drifted somewhat from my OP, I
actually was addressing the problem of the literal interpretation of
the Bible and gave a reasonable example of why at least the portions I
was referring to clearly couldnt be taken literally as this would
conflict with the scientific evidence available and I was hoping to
get someone from the literalist position to respond to my OP, and
defend their position in a constructive and rational manner.
SJAB1958
> On Apr 27, 1:03 am, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> >> > > The "windows of heaven" mean the sky.
>
> > Nope - common sense tells us it refers to the sky.
> > Where does rain come from?
>
> Once again Ray tries to lie his way out of it and gets caught.
> Strongs Hebrew Lexicon:
>
> 7549 raqiya` raw-kee'-ah from 7554; properly, an expanse, i.e. the
> firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky:--firmament.
> 7554 raqa` raw-kah' a primitive root; to pound the earth (as a sign of
> passion); by analogy to expand (by hammering); by implication, to
> overlay (with thin sheets of metal):--beat, make broad, spread abroad
> (forth, over, out, into plates), stamp, stretch.
> 7555 riqqua` rik-koo'-ah from 7554; beaten out, i.e. a (metallic)
> plate:--broad.
Is this lexicon available online at all? It looks just like the sort
of thing I need to support further contentions on the weakness of
biblical literalism.
snex
google for "strong's concordance"
snex
taking texts literally does not conflict with scientific evidence. if
the truth value of the literal claims conflicts with science, what it
means is that those texts are literally wrong. why is everybody afraid
to consider the possibility that people that wrote ancient literature
got things wrong??
SJAB1958
> On Apr 28, 12:26 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 27 Apr, 20:10, edward_...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 27, 1:03 am, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> > > >> > > The "windows of heaven" mean the sky.
>
> > > > Nope - common sense tells us it refers to the sky.
> > > > Where does rain come from?
>
> > > Once again Ray tries to lie his way out of it and gets caught.
> > > Strongs Hebrew Lexicon:
>
> > > 7549 raqiya` raw-kee'-ah from 7554; properly, an expanse, i.e. the
> > > firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky:--firmament.
> > > 7554 raqa` raw-kah' a primitive root; to pound the earth (as a sign of
> > > passion); by analogy to expand (by hammering); by implication, to
> > > overlay (with thin sheets of metal):--beat, make broad, spread abroad
> > > (forth, over, out, into plates), stamp, stretch.
> > > 7555 riqqua` rik-koo'-ah from 7554; beaten out, i.e. a (metallic)
> > > plate:--broad.
>
> > Is this lexicon available online at all? It looks just like the sort
> > of thing I need to support further contentions on the weakness of
> > biblical literalism.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thank you, I will do so.
Skitter...@yahoo.com
> On 26 Apr 2007 01:23:44 -0700, SJAB1958 <bal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >However, the way I see it is if you take the Bible literally it is not
> >error free and it does contain much that conflicts with science.
> >Can anyone prove otherwise?
>
> The bible is the revealed Word of God but written in the hand of man. Man
> used
> many of his own stories to present the revelations. God's word is
> inerrant, not
> man's attempt to present it.
Would you expand on this please. Is, or is not, that book commonly labeled
"The Bible" inerrant or not? If so, in all versions or a particular
version? Why?
Skitter the Cat
--
The Source For Premium Newsgroup Access
Great Speed, Great Retention
1 GB/Day for only $8.95
Skitter...@yahoo.com
On 27-Apr-2007, snex <sn...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Apr 27, 10:12 am, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> > On 26 apr, 22:46, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Apr 26, 8:36 am, teafo...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> >
> > > > On Apr 26, 4:23 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > There is no way to avoid a conflict in the citations that you have
> > > > given us. That is, if you choose to make an attempt to take the
> > > > Bible
> > > > literally.
> >
> > > > The only way to do this is to recognize that the Bible is composed
> > > > of
> > > > a variety of forms of literature.
> >
> > > wrong! there is another way to do it, and that is to admit that the
> > > stories are false.
> >
> > Much of literature is... Don Quijote never existed, nor did Frodo
> > Beggings, Oliver Twist or Tom Sawyer (to name but a few). So maybe
> > your point isn't as brilliant as it seems? A story does not need to be
> > "true" in order to be valuable.
>
> i agree. but even "rational" theists like francis collins or dana
> tweedy assert that the resurrection story is "true."
But not all Christians have insisted, although it is the overwhelming
dominate view today, that the Resurrection was "true" in the sense that it
was a resurrection of the physical body.
I don't make that assertion. I do understand that few Christians would
agree with me-but so what? A different point in history more would have; in
another 500 years, who knows what the dominate theology will be.
BTW: What, exactly, do you mean by "truth"? How can a myth be either true
or false? I don't see how it applies to mythology.
>
> >
> > It's still strange to me that an atheist like you demands those
> > stories to be "true" like the book-worshippers we know as literalists.
>
> i dont "demand" anything. if people were going around asserting that
> frodo baggins really existed and really threw the ring of power into
> mt doom, i would be challenging them just as vigorously.
But how would that make the Myth of the Ring of Power and the End of Third
Age any more, or less true?
Do you deny that myths have truths embedded in them? Or that the ideas
within them have real effect and social power? And that this is independent
of whether the events described in the myth every occurred?
snex
it really depends on how the authors intended it. modern fiction
authors are deliberately making up stories that are understood to be
make-believe by the readers. there is a lot of evidence that many of
the biblical stories were meant to be taken as real historical events.
>
>
>
> > > It's still strange to me that an atheist like you demands those
> > > stories to be "true" like the book-worshippers we know as literalists.
>
> > i dont "demand" anything. if people were going around asserting that
> > frodo baggins really existed and really threw the ring of power into
> > mt doom, i would be challenging them just as vigorously.
>
> But how would that make the Myth of the Ring of Power and the End of Third
> Age any more, or less true?
>
> Do you deny that myths have truths embedded in them? Or that the ideas
> within them have real effect and social power? And that this is independent
> of whether the events described in the myth every occurred?
of course myths can teach us things about life, but we cannot learn
from them when we insist on calling them "divinely inspired" or
insisting that they are literally true. in the latter case, we are
making obviously false statements about the world, and in the former
case, we are fooling ourselves into thinking that the lessons of the
myth are *good* lessons to keep in mind.
take for example the story about doubting thomas. this is a *terrible*
myth to take seriously, either literally or otherwise. the story of
doubting thomas tells us *not* to be critical, *not* to ask questions,
and to accept things merely on hearsay. no doubt "rational" christians
will cleverly reinterpret it to make it mean whatever the hell they
want it to mean, but they are doing the myth an injustice just as
great as if they were taking it as a literal historical record of
events. it is quite clear what the story intends to convey, and
rational people should discard it as faulty thinking.
when looking at the bible or any other "holy" book to determine any
value in its myths, we should treat them just as we treat any other
piece of literature. venerating one over any other is arbitrary and
silly.
duke
>On 26 Apr, 19:58, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On 26 Apr 2007 01:23:44 -0700, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >However, the way I see it is if you take the Bible literally it is not
>> >error free and it does contain much that conflicts with science.
>> >Can anyone prove otherwise?
>>
>> The bible is the revealed Word of God but written in the hand of man. Man used
>> many of his own stories to present the revelations. God's word is inerrant, not
>> man's attempt to present it.
>
>So the Bible is wrong is what you are suggesting, yes?
No, but neither is it literally true throughout. It is inerrant where it comes
to God's plan for man's redemption from sin and salvation of his soul.
And that is literally true.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
>> The bible is the revealed Word of God but written in the hand of man. Man used
>> many of his own stories to present the revelations. God's word is inerrant, not
>> man's attempt to present it.
>Well, I guess that is one way to avoid admitting the obvious errors in
>the bible.
Like what?
duke
>> The bible is the revealed Word of God but written in the hand of man. Man
>> used
>> many of his own stories to present the revelations. God's word is
>> inerrant, not
>> man's attempt to present it.
>Would you expand on this please. Is, or is not, that book commonly labeled
>"The Bible" inerrant or not? If so, in all versions or a particular
>version? Why?
1. The bible was revealed to mankind over thousands of years. God revealed
that which is germane to mankind's salvation. Man was the one doing the
writing. So the revelations of God are written down, but in stories and events
that are not necessarily literally true but are reflective of the way the writer
presented his story.
2. For instance, introductions to Genesis openly admit that the first 11
chapters are as follows:
Reference the Luke genealogy of Jesus, Catholic Study Bible, St. Jerome Edition,
the bible clearly states the following in the introduction to Genesis:
"The time period of Chapters 1 through 11 of Genesis takes us back to the very
beginnings of things. It must never be forgotten, however, that Chapters 1-11
are not a scientific account of the beginnings of the universe or of life. They
are Israel's faith statement of God's activity in the origins of the universe
and of mankind."
Google search on "prehistory of genesis 1-11"
*****
http://startthinking.homestead.com/files/Genesis_Paper.doc
So Pius XII suggests to exegetes a daring synthesis with respect to a
hermeneutic of Genesis ch. 1- 11: the first eleven chapters of the book of
Genesis employ simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of an
uncultured people to express those truths of history fundamental to our
salvation. In short, there is a solid core of history, as it were, buried under
the language and popular mentality of the ancient Hebrew.
What is that core of historical fact in Genesis 1 - 11? The Pontifical Biblical
Commission in 1909 gives the following answer, which has never been withdrawn in
any way since 1909. James Stenson says " the official document states that the
literal historical meaning of the first three chapters of Genesis could not be
doubted in regard to":
1.) the creation of all things by God at the beginning of time
2.) the special creation of man
3.) the formation of the first woman from the first man
4.) the unity of the human race
5.) the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice,
integrity, and immortality
6.) the command given by God to man to test his obedience
7.) the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil
under the form of a serpent
8.) the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence
9.) the promise of a future redeemer.
With respect to any other dimension of Genesis 1-3, the literal sense must be
examined more fully by exegetes. So 1 - 9 form the historical core of truths
fundamental to our faith expressed in Genesis ch. 1- 3, the truths around which
the ancient Hebraic authors either elaborated a story or collected a popular
tradition or recorded a primitive pre-history.
*****
http://books.google.com/books?id=WPt7NB9GFu0C&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=
prehistory+of+genesis+%221+11%22&source=web&ots=k965YPQn2A&sig=
T1YPXZ12c_rpgMLBR6EjvD6TiFk#PPA63,M1
"Genesis 1-11 is called prehistory because it predates any history of Israelite
history; it is actually a theological preface to the whole of salvation
history."
*****
Free Lunch
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
<n43a33hj5nfrjb7ql...@4ax.com>:
>On 26 Apr 2007 15:45:38 -0700, SJAB1958 <bal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 26 Apr, 19:58, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On 26 Apr 2007 01:23:44 -0700, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >However, the way I see it is if you take the Bible literally it is not
>>> >error free and it does contain much that conflicts with science.
>>> >Can anyone prove otherwise?
>>>
>>> The bible is the revealed Word of God but written in the hand of man. Man used
>>> many of his own stories to present the revelations. God's word is inerrant, not
>>> man's attempt to present it.
>>
>>So the Bible is wrong is what you are suggesting, yes?
>
>No, but neither is it literally true throughout. It is inerrant where it comes
>to God's plan for man's redemption from sin and salvation of his soul.
>
>And that is literally true.
So, why would that require you to deny the evidence for evolution?
You call God a trickster when you deny evolution.
--
"Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel
to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy
Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should
take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in
which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh
it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis
Martin Hutton
On 29-Apr-2007, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On 26 Apr 2007 15:45:38 -0700, SJAB1958 <bal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On 26 Apr, 19:58, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On 26 Apr 2007 01:23:44 -0700, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >However, the way I see it is if you take the Bible literally it is not
> >> >error free and it does contain much that conflicts with science.
> >> >Can anyone prove otherwise?
> >>
> >> The bible is the revealed Word of God but written in the hand of man.
> >> Man used
> >> many of his own stories to present the revelations. God's word is
> >> inerrant, not
> >> man's attempt to present it.
> >
> >So the Bible is wrong is what you are suggesting, yes?
>
> No, but neither is it literally true throughout. It is inerrant where it
> comes
> to God's plan for man's redemption from sin and salvation of his soul.
>
> And that is literally true.
Look you boyo, there's a piece of marvellous bullshit.
Good grief, don't you god-botherers ever THINK before
you engage your typing fingers.
WTF does an omniscient, omnipotent being need a *plan* for?
How do a men get redeemed from sin...anything like saving
miles on your credit card and redeeming them?
What's a soul and why does it need salvation?
All these assumptions and not one piece of supporting
evidence. Pah!
--
Martin Hutton
Harry K
One of just many: The nonexisant 'Ye Floode' that never happened. Or
if it did you have a problem trying to explain how the Egyptians and
the Chinese, to name just two, lived through it without noticing that
they were underwater for a year.
Harry K
Harry K
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 04:32:24 GMT, Skitter_the_...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> The bible is the revealed Word of God but written in the hand of man. Man
> >> used
> >> many of his own stories to present the revelations. God's word is
> >> inerrant, not
> >> man's attempt to present it.
> >Would you expand on this please. Is, or is not, that book commonly labeled
> >"The Bible" inerrant or not? If so, in all versions or a particular
> >version? Why?
>
> 1. The bible was revealed to mankind over thousands of years. God revealed
> that which is germane to mankind's salvation. Man was the one doing the
> writing. So the revelations of God are written down, but in stories and events
> that are not necessarily literally true but are reflective of the way the writer
> presented his story.
>
> 2. For instance, introductions to Genesis openly admit that the first 11
> chapters are as follows:
>
> Reference the Luke genealogy of Jesus, Catholic Study Bible, St. Jerome Edition,
> the bible clearly states the following in the introduction to Genesis:
>
> "The time period of Chapters 1 through 11 of Genesis takes us back to the very
> beginnings of things. It must never be forgotten, however, that Chapters 1-11
> are not a scientific account of the beginnings of the universe or of life. They
> are Israel's faith statement of God's activity in the origins of the universe
> and of mankind."
>
> Google search on "prehistory of genesis 1-11"
>
> prehistory+of+genesis+%221+11%22&source=web&ots=k965YPQn2A&sig=
> T1YPXZ12c_rpgMLBR6EjvD6TiFk#PPA63,M1
>
> "Genesis 1-11 is called prehistory because it predates any history of Israelite
> history; it is actually a theological preface to the whole of salvation
> history."
> *****
>
> duke, American-American
> *****
> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul VI
> *****
It never ceases to amaze me how the "true believers" can disconnect
their credability circuit and try to explain away the idiocies
contained in the book.
"the bible is inerrant except when it isn't" is the proper
translation of all that BS.
Harry K
Luddite
> In Genesis chapter one we are told that the firmament separated the
> waters above from the waters below and that the stars, the sun, and
> the moon are set in this firmament, which God called heaven.
>
> In Genesis chapter seven we are told that the windows of heaven were
> opened and that the rain fell for forty days and forty nights.
>
> But surely this can't be right, because if you take this literally it
> is suggesting that the rain fell from above the location of the stars,
> the sun, and the moon.
>
> Now some people tell us that the Bible is the inerrant 'Word of God'
> that it should be interpreted literally and that there is nothing in
> it that conflicts with science.
>
> However, the way I see it is if you take the Bible literally it is not
> error free and it does contain much that conflicts with science.
>
> Can anyone prove otherwise?
Why is it that NASA etc when they shoot rockets out beyond the
atmosphere, then never bang into the windows?
SJAB1958
> On 26 Apr 2007 15:45:38 -0700, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On 26 Apr, 19:58, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On 26 Apr 2007 01:23:44 -0700, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >However, the way I see it is if you take the Bible literally it is not
> >> >error free and it does contain much that conflicts with science.
> >> >Can anyone prove otherwise?
>
> >> The bible is the revealed Word of God but written in the hand of man. Man used
> >> many of his own stories to present the revelations. God's word is inerrant, not
> >> man's attempt to present it.
>
> >So the Bible is wrong is what you are suggesting, yes?
>
> No, but neither is it literally true throughout. It is inerrant where it comes
> to God's plan for man's redemption from sin and salvation of his soul.
>
> And that is literally true.
I am not the one insisting on the inerrancy of the Bible and insisting
that it must be interpreted literally, I am merely showing how such an
approach exposes much that is erroneous and in direct conflict with
the evidence available.
But if as you claim the Bible is the revealed Word of God written by
men and that God's word is inerrant, but the attempt by men to present
it isnt, then the Bible cannot be considered inerrant for as you
clearly pointed out it was written by men.
John Wilkins
Because a benevolent god opens them for our rockets, so as to not
disturb us in our Newtonism...
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
hhya...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
SJAB,
We all know that bible texts are full of shit and falsified as a
story........by the ancient Jew to con people.........
And yet, you in the modern times still think they are truth in
it......
Either you are naive, or un-educated, or brain-washed, or just like to
be conned.........
If you have time and willing to do some good deeds, use your time to
work extra hours to donate to the poverty Africans........it's more
meaningful.....
Yap
hhya...@gmail.com
> On Apr 27, 12:55 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 27 Apr, 04:21, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 26, 4:23 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In Genesis chapter one we are told that the firmament separated the
> > > > waters above from the waters below and that the stars, the sun, and
> > > > the moon are set in this firmament, which God called heaven.
>
> > > > In Genesis chapter seven we are told that the windows of heaven were
> > > > opened and that the rain fell for forty days and forty nights.
>
> > > > But surely this can't be right, because if you take this literally it
> > > > is suggesting that the rain fell from above the location of the stars,
> > > > the sun, and the moon.
>
>
> > if as most Biblical Literalists usually claim were all written by
> > Moses, this being so the meaning of the word heaven is the label given
> > to the firmament in which the stars, the sun, and the moon were set,
> > so the windows of heaven must also be set in the firmament, logical
> > conclusion being - if one takes the Bible literally - the waters above
> > the firmanent are above the stars, the sun, and the moon.
>
> Nope - common sense tells us it refers to the sky.
> Where does rain come from?
>
>
>
> > > > that it should be interpreted literally and that there is nothing in
> > > > it that conflicts with science.
>
> > > > However, the way I see it is if you take the Bible literally it is not
> > > > error free and it does contain much that conflicts with science.
>
> > > > Can anyone prove otherwise?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ian Chua,
You are such a fool............
In the ancient world of Jew, where the hell did those Jews know how
the rain can come.......it come from havean, right?
Where is the hell, the ground below you.......
Ancient Jews just write something as a story and modern "idiotic men"
just believe it to their heart........pity all of you..........
Yap
hhya...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Just ask the stupid Jews............the con-men.....
Yap
Cemtech
luddi...@gmail.com says...
The Magrathia Corporation hopes you are enjoying your planet and that
the windows were removed after completion of Earth Mark I.
Slartibartfast has some ideas to improve your feuds at not cost to our
Platnum Customers. Just email sla...@magrathia.com.
Your open tickets:
092737200: Closed - unresolved.
Summary: Not enough oil!
Root Cause: None. Earth was ordered at it's current size and only
started with a limited supply.
Tech Notes: EEUC (Equipment Exceeds Users' Capacity)
102994374333432: Work in Progress
Summary: It's getting too hot!
Root Cause: Diagnostics point to too much carbon dioxide.
Tech Notes: Looking for thermostat location in documentation.
--
Steve "Chris" Price
Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"
Cemtech
hhya...@gmail.com says...
Ask Jesus and followers, right.
--
"You don't see a rabbi interpeting the New Testament,
do you?" - Lewis Black_Red, White & Screwed
AC
That's not how I read it, or how I understand the Catholic Church's views
on this matter. What is being said is that parts of the Bible are not
*literally* true, or rather, that attempting to read them as absolute
historical and/or scientific accounts is the improper way to go about
understanding Scripture.
Take for instance the cosmology myth in Genesis. Obviously it is a
descendant (read rip-off) of the Sumero-Akkadian cosmology; a flat
Earth with a crystal dome in which are set the stars, planets, Moon
and Sun. The Jewish of the Hellenic world would have accepted that
the Earth was round, and thus even at the point, a literal reading
of Genesis would caused a serious problem. So even way back when,
the cosmology was no longer taken as a literal account of the
makeup of the Universe. The Bible may still have been viewed as
inerrant, but it would not have been viewed at every point as
being a literal account of reality or history.
Unfortunately, some Christian "theologians" (and I hesitate to use
that word to describe some of these people) abandoned a tradition
of interpretation that predates even Christ, but was most certainly
present even before Augustine, in favor of a method of interpretation
that would have been alien to Jews and Christians in the 1st century.
That's not to say Creationism didn't exist back then. I'm sure everyone
thought God created the world, and probably even believed in six literal
creative days, a global flood, and so forth. What was different was
that facts about the universe as understood by these people, even where
those facts seemed to collide with scripture, were not tossed out. Thus
the Church could accept the Ptolemaic solar system even if, on the face
of it, it seemed at odds with the way that a literal reading of Genesis
would be read. Theologians simply didn't see the need to read every
word as a literal account.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
AC
Has it ever entered your strange little brain that the *Hebrews* might
actually have believed their cosmology and creative stories every bit
as much as, say, the Norse or the Greeks would have? Why on Earth would
you think an ancient people set out to con anybody?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com