| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Vompatti 
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: October 22 2005
Location: elsewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 67407
|
 Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:52 |
I'm just saying that science as I understand it should evaluate observations and experimental results without ruling out a great deal of possible explanations in advance and without any sensible reason. Isn't that what the scientific method is all about?
|
 |
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:52 |
 Dean wrote:
p0mt3 wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ If little by little everything the bible says is meant to be read idiomatically, it's longer a religion ... it's myth. Which is exactly how I see it. |
This. The more science contradicts the Bible, the more Christians will re-interperate it as allegorical, metephorical, etc. Just so they can continue believing in it for a little while longer.
Talking snakes no longer a possiblity? All of a sudden 'the serpant' becomes a title rather than a physical form Satan took on.
|
 and Satan - a rebellious angel is not a problem?
p0mt3 wrote:
Too many species of animal discovered by this point to possibly fit in a boat? That's okay, because some bible scholars are now saying that the entire book of Gnesis is allegorical. *phew!* that was close!
|
"The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits." - Modern measurement units equate this to 133m x 22m x 13.4m - a total volume of around 39,000m³. Or 1.3mm³ for each species alive today (about this >•< much), or 1.3µm³ for each species that ever existed - which is more than enough room if they were "stored" as DNA. 
p0mt3 wrote:
Not possible to part an ocean? Cool! Because don't ya know, the ''Red Sea'' was actually mistranslated! Now they're saying Moses and crew most likely crossed the ''Reed Sea'', a very shallow river of sorts that will evaporate into mist sometimes. |
"Reed" and "Red" are English (near) homophones - it is very unlikely that they would be mistranslated from Hebrew or Greek like that, but you could be on the right track.
p0mt3 wrote:
See? It's still the infallable word of God! We just f**ked around with its meaning a lot in order to keep it making sense in modern times. No big deal.  |
(Probably for the first time) I agree with Rob here - in there is an issue of interpreting the scriptures too deeply, or in reading any level of allegorical or idiomatically meaning into the text, probably as much as an issue with taking the words as literal, especially from a Western 21st Century perspective. They are bronze age documents describing the world in bronze age terminology from a bronze age perspective - I do not doubt that to a bronze age Israelite the meanings of every phrase was obvious, but after 3000+ years whatever the original meaning was has become buried and obfuscated.
However, that does not mean that I am willing to take at face-value any interpretation made by scholars on this subject, because no matter how well educated they are on the subject, or how well versed they are in the ancient Hebrew language, they are still do not have the complete picture, and can never have because the source of their knowledge is the very documents they purport to be interpreting.
|
You're f**king with me, right? You knew I was being sarcasting in my post as well, while trying to make a point, correct? If that's the case, then yes, I agree with you completely. Except for, y'know . . . the whole agreeing with Rob thing.  (Love ya, Rob. Mean it! )
Edited by p0mt3 - November 28 2009 at 13:53
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:51 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
I created this thread, and the topic is creationism versus evolution. It is you who started to ridicule things, and drawing specious analogies. I referred to a book about evolution and the evidence that supports it - I can't make heads or tales of the two books you linked to. Are they in any way related to the topic?
|
All I said initially was something to Micah about biblical idiom, and it was really an aside. What, Mike, did I "ridicule?" As the thread shows, you felt the need to initiate dialogue with me.
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
If little by little everything the bible says is meant to be read
idiomatically, it's longer a religion ... it's myth. Which is exactly
how I see it.
|
That, Mike, is a specious statement, one which ridicules biblical narrative.If you wanted a thread where the biblical narrative (including that of creation) can be bashed without rebuttal, why didn't you just say so? I'll leave you to it.
Edited by Epignosis - November 28 2009 at 13:52
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:49 |
p0mt3 wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ If little by little everything the bible says is meant to be read idiomatically, it's longer a religion ... it's myth. Which is exactly how I see it. |
This. The more science contradicts the Bible, the more Christians will re-interperate it as allegorical, metephorical, etc. Just so they can continue believing in it for a little while longer.
Talking snakes no longer a possiblity? All of a sudden 'the serpant' becomes a title rather than a physical form Satan took on.
|
and Satan - a rebellious angel is not a problem?
p0mt3 wrote:
Too many species of animal discovered by this point to possibly fit in a boat? That's okay, because some bible scholars are now saying that the entire book of Gnesis is allegorical. *phew!* that was close!
|
"The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits." - Modern measurement units equate this to 133m x 22m x 13.4m - a total volume of around 39,000m³. Or 1.3mm³ for each species alive today (about this >•< much), or 1.3µm³ for each species that ever existed - which is more than enough room if they were "stored" as DNA.
p0mt3 wrote:
Not possible to part an ocean? Cool! Because don't ya know, the ''Red Sea'' was actually mistranslated! Now they're saying Moses and crew most likely crossed the ''Reed Sea'', a very shallow river of sorts that will evaporate into mist sometimes. |
"Reed" and "Red" are English (near) homophones - it is very unlikely that they would be mistranslated from Hebrew or Greek like that, but you could be on the right track.
p0mt3 wrote:
See? It's still the infallable word of God! We just f**ked around with its meaning a lot in order to keep it making sense in modern times. No big deal. |
(Probably for the first time) I agree with Rob here - in there is an issue of interpreting the scriptures too deeply, or in reading any level of allegorical or idiomatically meaning into the text, probably as much as an issue with taking the words as literal, especially from a Western 21st Century perspective. They are bronze age documents describing the world in bronze age terminology from a bronze age perspective - I do not doubt that to a bronze age Israelite the meanings of every phrase was obvious, but after 3000+ years whatever the original meaning was has become buried and obfuscated.
However, that does not mean that I am willing to take at face-value any interpretation made by scholars on this subject, because no matter how well educated they are on the subject, or how well versed they are in the ancient Hebrew language, they are still do not have the complete picture, and can never have because the source of their knowledge is the very documents they purport to be interpreting.
Edited by Dean - November 28 2009 at 13:50
|
|
What?
|
|
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:46 |
Epignosis wrote:
p0mt3 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
p0mt3 wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ If little by little everything the bible says is meant to be read idiomatically, it's longer a religion ... it's myth. Which is exactly how I see it. |
This. The more science contrafcts the Bible, the more Christians will re-interperate it as allegorical, metephorical, etc. Just so they can continue believing in it for a little while longer.
Talking snakes no longer a possiblity? All of a sudden 'the serpant' becomes a title rather than a physical form Satan took on.
Too many species of animal discovered by this point to possibly fit in a boat? That's okay, because some bible scholars are now saying that the entire book of Gnesis is allegorical. *phew!* that was close!
Not possible to part an ocean? Cool! Because don't ya know, the ''Red Sea'' was actually mistranslated! Now they're saying Moses and crew most likely crossed the ''Reed Sea'', a very shallow river of sorts that will evaporate into mist sometimes.
See? It's still the infallable word of God! We just f**ked around with it a lot in order to keep it making sense in modern times. No big deal.
|
But you see Micah, people go about things backwards. I'm fairly sure there wasn't a big discovery down the line that told us that serpents don't speak words.
The Bible is Middle Eastern literature. As such, it is riddled with hyperbole, heterosis, personification, etc, etc. EW Bullinger's greatest contribution to biblical study is his index of figurative language (which is over 1100 pages). But figurative language doesn't disrupt the flow, coherence, or reliability of a narrative among people sharing the same culture.
Think of how frustrating it is when someone who is not a native English speaker on the forum here becomes confused over an idiom you have used (poor Marty McFly...I really must watch myself around him ).
I've said this a hundred times...the Bible is removed from our culture by the span of centuries and many miles. If a person thinks he will understand it just by reading it through the lens of his own cultural and linguistic background, he will come away with an erroneous interpretation.
Sadly, that's what most folks do.
From time to time, people tell me that I misunderstand the tenets of evolution, and so they want to refer me to some books- I can accept that. I have not spent much time studying the subject. I have spent over a decade studying the Bible and its culture, and would appreciate that folks don't immediately "poo poo" the Bible simply because of a few difficult passages or erroneous interpretations from "scholars." I have a few books these people should read. 
And say, don't evolutionists change their opinions and beliefs all the time to reflect new discoveries? What's wrong with that?
|
Interesting. And here I thought the authors of the Bible were trying to spread the word of God. Seems to me if you're on that important of a mission, you would be very exact and straightforward so as to avoid confusion. But I guess telling the good news in a literal sense was too boring, so they riddled the infallible word of God with culture-specific hyperbole and personification.
I'll be damned.
|
I think that Jesus would say that even if God wrote the Bible in plain English and rained copies down from a fiery sky, most people would still reject what He had to say.
|
But He didn't, did He? So we'll never know.
Honestly, if you were going to share the answer to life with somebody, would you write a book full of riddles and symbolism? Or would you tell people straight out what happened?
Edited by p0mt3 - November 28 2009 at 13:49
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:43 |
p0mt3 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
p0mt3 wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ If little by little everything the bible says is meant to be read idiomatically, it's longer a religion ... it's myth. Which is exactly how I see it. |
This. The more science contrafcts the Bible, the more Christians will re-interperate it as allegorical, metephorical, etc. Just so they can continue believing in it for a little while longer.
Talking snakes no longer a possiblity? All of a sudden 'the serpant' becomes a title rather than a physical form Satan took on.
Too many species of animal discovered by this point to possibly fit in a boat? That's okay, because some bible scholars are now saying that the entire book of Gnesis is allegorical. *phew!* that was close!
Not possible to part an ocean? Cool! Because don't ya know, the ''Red Sea'' was actually mistranslated! Now they're saying Moses and crew most likely crossed the ''Reed Sea'', a very shallow river of sorts that will evaporate into mist sometimes.
See? It's still the infallable word of God! We just f**ked around with it a lot in order to keep it making sense in modern times. No big deal.
|
But you see Micah, people go about things backwards. I'm fairly sure there wasn't a big discovery down the line that told us that serpents don't speak words.
The Bible is Middle Eastern literature. As such, it is riddled with hyperbole, heterosis, personification, etc, etc. EW Bullinger's greatest contribution to biblical study is his index of figurative language (which is over 1100 pages). But figurative language doesn't disrupt the flow, coherence, or reliability of a narrative among people sharing the same culture.
Think of how frustrating it is when someone who is not a native English speaker on the forum here becomes confused over an idiom you have used (poor Marty McFly...I really must watch myself around him ).
I've said this a hundred times...the Bible is removed from our culture by the span of centuries and many miles. If a person thinks he will understand it just by reading it through the lens of his own cultural and linguistic background, he will come away with an erroneous interpretation.
Sadly, that's what most folks do.
From time to time, people tell me that I misunderstand the tenets of evolution, and so they want to refer me to some books- I can accept that. I have not spent much time studying the subject. I have spent over a decade studying the Bible and its culture, and would appreciate that folks don't immediately "poo poo" the Bible simply because of a few difficult passages or erroneous interpretations from "scholars." I have a few books these people should read.
And say, don't evolutionists change their opinions and beliefs all the time to reflect new discoveries? What's wrong with that?
|
Interesting. And here I thought the authors of the Bible were trying to spread the word of God. Seems to me if you're on that important of a mission, you would be very exact and straightforward so as to avoid confusion. But I guess telling the good news in a literal sense was too boring, so they riddled the infallible word of God with culture-specific hyperbole and personification.
I'll be damned.
|
I think that Jesus would say that even if God wrote the Bible in plain English and rained copies down from a fiery sky, most people would still reject what He had to say.
|
|
|
|
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:41 |
Vompatti wrote:
What makes you think I'm not? 
|
Because you just said science doesn't support science.  You also seem to believe that angels and rising from the dead can somehow be proven by 'real' science, since apparently the science we have now doesn't use this 'real' since you speak of.
Edited by p0mt3 - November 28 2009 at 13:44
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:41 |
I created this thread, and the topic is creationism versus evolution. It is you who started to ridicule things, and drawing specious analogies. I referred to a book about evolution and the evidence that supports it - I can't make heads or tales of the two books you linked to. Are they in any way related to the topic?
|
|
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:39 |
'opinion' and 'theory' are two different things, Robert, especially when speaking in scientific terms. Theory can be supported through scientific equations and studies; opinion can't be proven nor disproven since it requires neither to take place in order to hold its name.
|
|
Vompatti
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: October 22 2005
Location: elsewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 67407
|
Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:37 |
What makes you think I'm not?
|
|
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:37 |
Vompatti wrote:
The problem with modern science is that it accepts a materialistic view of the world without any scientific proof. It's no wonder that some of the things in the Bible seem unbelievable when people are trying to squeeze them into their narrow, "scientific" view of the world.  |
Are you for real?
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:36 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
And say, don't evolutionists change their opinions and beliefs all the time to reflect new discoveries? What's wrong with that?
|
Spoken like a true snake. For one, evolution is neither opinion nor belief. It is a theory. Which is again an ambiguous word, as explained by Richard Dawkins in the first chapter of the book I linked to. And while it is true that scientific theories sometimes need to be amended as new discoveries are made, evolution as a theory has not been changed since the days of Darwin.
|
Wait, so if I failed to understand something (even something as pedantic as saying "opinion" instead of "theory,") it's okay to recommend me a book? I'll do you one better. Here's two:
http://www.amazon.com/Social-Science-Commentary-Synoptic-Gospels-Malina/dp/0800634918
http://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Exodus-Scientists-Discovery-Extraordinary/dp/0060582731/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259436957&sr=1-1
|
|
|
|
Vompatti
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: October 22 2005
Location: elsewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 67407
|
Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:36 |
The problem with modern science is that it accepts a materialistic view of the world without any scientific proof. It's no wonder that some of the things in the Bible seem unbelievable when people are trying to squeeze them into their narrow, "scientific" view of the world.
|
|
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:35 |
Epignosis wrote:
p0mt3 wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ If little by little everything the bible says is meant to be read idiomatically, it's longer a religion ... it's myth. Which is exactly how I see it. |
This. The more science contrafcts the Bible, the more Christians will re-interperate it as allegorical, metephorical, etc. Just so they can continue believing in it for a little while longer.
Talking snakes no longer a possiblity? All of a sudden 'the serpant' becomes a title rather than a physical form Satan took on.
Too many species of animal discovered by this point to possibly fit in a boat? That's okay, because some bible scholars are now saying that the entire book of Gnesis is allegorical. *phew!* that was close!
Not possible to part an ocean? Cool! Because don't ya know, the ''Red Sea'' was actually mistranslated! Now they're saying Moses and crew most likely crossed the ''Reed Sea'', a very shallow river of sorts that will evaporate into mist sometimes.
See? It's still the infallable word of God! We just f**ked around with it a lot in order to keep it making sense in modern times. No big deal.
|
But you see Micah, people go about things backwards. I'm fairly sure there wasn't a big discovery down the line that told us that serpents don't speak words.
The Bible is Middle Eastern literature. As such, it is riddled with hyperbole, heterosis, personification, etc, etc. EW Bullinger's greatest contribution to biblical study is his index of figurative language (which is over 1100 pages). But figurative language doesn't disrupt the flow, coherence, or reliability of a narrative among people sharing the same culture.
Think of how frustrating it is when someone who is not a native English speaker on the forum here becomes confused over an idiom you have used (poor Marty McFly...I really must watch myself around him ).
I've said this a hundred times...the Bible is removed from our culture by the span of centuries and many miles. If a person thinks he will understand it just by reading it through the lens of his own cultural and linguistic background, he will come away with an erroneous interpretation.
Sadly, that's what most folks do.
From time to time, people tell me that I misunderstand the tenets of evolution, and so they want to refer me to some books- I can accept that. I have not spent much time studying the subject. I have spent over a decade studying the Bible and its culture, and would appreciate that folks don't immediately "poo poo" the Bible simply because of a few difficult passages or erroneous interpretations from "scholars." I have a few books these people should read.
And say, don't evolutionists change their opinions and beliefs all the time to reflect new discoveries? What's wrong with that?
|
Interesting. And here I thought the authors of the Bible were trying to spread the word of God. Seems to me if you're on that important of a mission, you would be very exact and straightforward so as to avoid confusion. But I guess telling the good news in a literal sense was too boring, so they riddled the infallible word of God with culture-specific hyperbole and personification.
I'll be damned.
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:34 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ If little by little everything the bible says is meant to be read idiomatically, it's longer a religion ... it's myth. Which is exactly how I see it.
|
If little by little everything in the newspaper is meant to be read idiomatically, it's not longer news.
Some things in the Bible are literal, some are figurative. Just like pretty much every piece of writing ever made.
|
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/specious
BTW: I thought the bible was more than just a "piece of writing"?
|
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/red+herringhttp://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/composition/
|
|
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:30 |
Epignosis wrote:
And say, don't evolutionists change their opinions and beliefs all the time to reflect new discoveries? What's wrong with that?
|
Spoken like a true snake . For one, evolution is neither opinion nor belief. It is a theory. Which is again an ambiguous word, as explained by Richard Dawkins in the first chapter of the book I linked to. And while it is true that scientific theories sometimes need to be amended as new discoveries are made, evolution as a theory has not been changed since the days of Darwin.
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:27 |
Epignosis wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ If little by little everything the bible says is meant to be read idiomatically, it's longer a religion ... it's myth. Which is exactly how I see it.
|
If little by little everything in the newspaper is meant to be read idiomatically, it's not longer news.
Some things in the Bible are literal, some are figurative. Just like pretty much every piece of writing ever made.
|
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/speciousBTW: I thought the bible was more than just a "piece of writing"?
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:24 |
p0mt3 wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ If little by little everything the bible says is meant to be read idiomatically, it's longer a religion ... it's myth. Which is exactly how I see it. |
This. The more science contrafcts the Bible, the more Christians will re-interperate it as allegorical, metephorical, etc. Just so they can continue believing in it for a little while longer.
Talking snakes no longer a possiblity? All of a sudden 'the serpant' becomes a title rather than a physical form Satan took on.
Too many species of animal discovered by this point to possibly fit in a boat? That's okay, because some bible scholars are now saying that the entire book of Gnesis is allegorical. *phew!* that was close!
Not possible to part an ocean? Cool! Because don't ya know, the ''Red Sea'' was actually mistranslated! Now they're saying Moses and crew most likely crossed the ''Reed Sea'', a very shallow river of sorts that will evaporate into mist sometimes.
See? It's still the infallable word of God! We just f**ked around with it a lot in order to keep it making sense in modern times. No big deal.
|
But you see Micah, people go about things backwards. I'm fairly sure there wasn't a big discovery down the line that told us that serpents don't speak words.
The Bible is Middle Eastern literature. As such, it is riddled with hyperbole, heterosis, personification, etc, etc. EW Bullinger's greatest contribution to biblical study is his index of figurative language (which is over 1100 pages). But figurative language doesn't disrupt the flow, coherence, or reliability of a narrative among people sharing the same culture.
Think of how frustrating it is when someone who is not a native English speaker on the forum here becomes confused over an idiom you have used (poor Marty McFly...I really must watch myself around him ).
I've said this a hundred times...the Bible is removed from our culture by the span of centuries and many miles. If a person thinks he will understand it just by reading it through the lens of his own cultural and linguistic background, he will come away with an erroneous interpretation.
Sadly, that's what most folks do.
From time to time, people tell me that I misunderstand the tenets of evolution, and so they want to refer me to some books- I can accept that. I have not spent much time studying the subject. I have spent over a decade studying the Bible and its culture, and would appreciate that folks don't immediately "poo poo" the Bible simply because of a few difficult passages or erroneous interpretations from "scholars." I have a few books these people should read.
And say, don't evolutionists change their opinions and beliefs all the time to reflect new discoveries? What's wrong with that?
|
|
|
|
Vibrationbaby
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 13 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 6898
|
Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:13 |
You guys are deep
|
|
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: November 28 2009 at 13:08 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ If little by little everything the bible says is meant to be read idiomatically, it's longer a religion ... it's myth. Which is exactly how I see it. |
This. The more science contradicts the Bible, the more Christians will re-interperate it as allegorical, metephorical, etc. Just so they can continue believing in it for a little while longer. Talking snakes no longer a possiblity? All of a sudden 'the serpant' becomes a title rather than a physical form Satan took on. Too many species of animal discovered by this point to possibly fit in a boat? That's okay, because some bible scholars are now saying that the entire book of Gnesis is allegorical. *phew!* that was close! Not possible to part an ocean? Cool! Because don't ya know, the ''Red Sea'' was actually mistranslated! Now they're saying Moses and crew most likely crossed the ''Reed Sea'', a very shallow river of sorts that will evaporate into mist sometimes. See? It's still the infallable word of God! We just f**ked around with its meaning a lot in order to keep it making sense in modern times. No big deal.
Edited by p0mt3 - November 28 2009 at 13:09
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Evolution vs. Creationism
