|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/10/2010 09:35:35 PM · #1026 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
What scientific, historical, or archaeological evidence is there that disproves the scientific, historical, or archaeological claims in the Bible? |
Uh, anything dated by the Carbon-14 method over 6000 years old? Trilobite fossils (none of those mentioned as being on the Ark)? Etc., etc., etc..... |
The Bible doesn't specify how old the earth is. So this evidence doesn't prove or disprove anything. There are a handful of major creation theories that are not contradictory to theology or science. You're probably thinking about Young Earth Creationism. |
I refer to the Ussher Chronology and all related estimates. The Bible specifies when the Creation occurred and lists the ages of all the descendants of Adam, so how can you say that the Bible makes no claim for how old the Earth is?
Nowhere does it refer to four billion years, blue-green algae, dinosaurs, or any of the other "evidence" for an Earth distinctly older than even the most generous Bible chronology. I don't accept a "metaphorical" interpretation as scientific evidence -- either the Bible stands as written or humans can (and have) make it mean anything they want; hardly The Word of God .... |
|
|
|
02/10/2010 11:25:24 PM · #1027 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
What scientific, historical, or archaeological evidence is there that disproves the scientific, historical, or archaeological claims in the Bible? |
Uh, anything dated by the Carbon-14 method over 6000 years old? Trilobite fossils (none of those mentioned as being on the Ark)? Etc., etc., etc..... |
The Bible doesn't specify how old the earth is. So this evidence doesn't prove or disprove anything. There are a handful of major creation theories that are not contradictory to theology or science. You're probably thinking about Young Earth Creationism. |
I refer to the Ussher Chronology and all related estimates. The Bible specifies when the Creation occurred and lists the ages of all the descendants of Adam, so how can you say that the Bible makes no claim for how old the Earth is?
Nowhere does it refer to four billion years, blue-green algae, dinosaurs, or any of the other "evidence" for an Earth distinctly older than even the most generous Bible chronology. I don't accept a "metaphorical" interpretation as scientific evidence -- either the Bible stands as written or humans can (and have) make it mean anything they want; hardly The Word of God .... |
The Ussher Chronology tells us when Adam may have been created but anything beyond that is a guess. Nobody knows how much time lapsed while God was creating the earth, or before Adam was made. There are a whole bunch of other issues with the Ussher Chronology. You can't disprove an extrabiblical source and claim that disproves the Bible.
ETA did you see this quote from William Henry Green in the Wikipedia article you linked?
"We conclude that the Scriptures furnish no data for a chronological computation prior to the life of Abraham; and that the Mosaic records do not fix and were not intended to fix the precise date either of the Flood or of the creation of the world.[ 5] precise date either of the Flood or of the creation of the world."
Hardly anyone believes the Ussher Chronology is accurate today, so why are you using it to support your argument? The creation story in Genesis is not supposed to be historically accurate, so why are you trying to claim that it is? The point of Genesis is to tell us that God created the world, not how or [i]when[\i]. Don't try to make the creation story something it was never meant to be. Weak argument...
Message edited by author 2010-02-10 23:48:18. |
|
|
|
02/10/2010 11:35:30 PM · #1028 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
... Nobody knows how much time lapsed while God was creating the earth, or before Adam was made. There are a whole bunch of other issues with the Ussher Chronology. You can't disprove an extrabiblical source and claim that disproves the Bible. |
Actually, no one knows for a fact that God created the earth, that Adam actually existed and a whole bunch of other issues that are presented as irrefutable proofs. Faith is not to be confused with facts.
I admire your devotion and tenacity, but that it itself is not enough to sway me one iota.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/10/2010 11:47:04 PM · #1029 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
... Nobody knows how much time lapsed while God was creating the earth, or before Adam was made. There are a whole bunch of other issues with the Ussher Chronology. You can't disprove an extrabiblical source and claim that disproves the Bible. |
Actually, no one knows for a fact that God created the earth, that Adam actually existed and a whole bunch of other issues that are presented as irrefutable proofs. Faith is not to be confused with facts.
I admire your devotion and tenacity, but that it itself is not enough to sway me one iota.
Ray |
Who said I'm trying to sway you? I'll gladly tell you what I believe, and I might hope tjaa you'll understand it, but whether or not you choose to believe it is not up to me. Regardless of what you might think, my goal is not to convert everyone in the whole world. I'm not some sort of internet evangelist. |
|
|
|
02/10/2010 11:54:41 PM · #1030 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
... Nobody knows how much time lapsed while God was creating the earth, or before Adam was made. There are a whole bunch of other issues with the Ussher Chronology. You can't disprove an extrabiblical source and claim that disproves the Bible. |
Actually, no one knows for a fact that God created the earth, that Adam actually existed and a whole bunch of other issues that are presented as irrefutable proofs. Faith is not to be confused with facts.
I admire your devotion and tenacity, but that it itself is not enough to sway me one iota.
Ray |
Who said I'm trying to sway you? I'll gladly tell you what I believe, and I might hope tjaa you'll understand it, but whether or not you choose to believe it is not up to me. Regardless of what you might think, my goal is not to convert everyone in the whole world. I'm not some sort of internet evangelist. |
Actually when I said "Sway" I meant it more it in regards to the credence I lend to certain biblical passages and not relative to a leap of faith. You have your beliefs and I have mine and we travel through life in different parallels. While I might comprehend your beliefs I am not apt to share them.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/11/2010 12:07:03 AM · #1031 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Actually when I said "Sway" I meant it more it in regards to the credence I lend to certain biblical passages and not relative to a leap of faith. You have your beliefs and I have mine and we travel through life in different parallels. While I might comprehend your beliefs I am not apt to share them.
Ray |
I don't expect you to share my beliefs. As for the credibility of the creation story in Genesis, don't expect too much from it. It's a very simple story that lacks detail. Too many people try to make it something its not so they can disprove it. It happens all the time with the Bible. People hold 2000 year old writings up to 21st century historical writing standards, and I'm not sure why. It would be like trying to disprove Shakespeare was a great playright because his English doesn't meet 21st century linguistic standards. Seriously?... |
|
|
|
02/11/2010 02:58:05 AM · #1032 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I don't expect you to share my beliefs. As for the credibility of the creation story in Genesis, don't expect too much from it. It's a very simple story that lacks detail. Too many people try to make it something its not so they can disprove it. It happens all the time with the Bible. People hold 2000 year old writings up to 21st century historical writing standards, and I'm not sure why. It would be like trying to disprove Shakespeare was a great playright because his English doesn't meet 21st century linguistic standards. Seriously?... |
There's a crucial difference here- we're not assuming Shakespeare is infallible. The Bible is the word of God, who is supposedly infallible. There should not be errors. |
|
|
|
02/11/2010 05:52:11 AM · #1033 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
People hold 2000 year old writings up to 21st century historical writing standards, and I'm not sure why. |
Because people such as yourself make ridiculous statements like "The Bible is The Word, and it's all true.".
Don't make statements like that and it won't happen.
|
|
|
|
02/11/2010 10:32:24 AM · #1034 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
1) "We don't know, check back later" does not satisfy me as an answer for moral questions. What do you do in the meantime?
2) hypothetical testability loses meaning to me. There are practical limitations to the scientific method and even ethical limitations (although how you would use Science to derive the ethical limitations for Science is one of those delicious questions). There also seems to be an obvious distinctions between the question, "What is my purpose?" and "Does the Higgs Boson exist?" Both may be beyond the practical application of the scientific method, but they are fundamentally different types of questions. We may merely lack the technology to answer one, but the other doesn't seem any more answerable through Science no matter our technological prowess.
3) You hit an important point in philosophy. People who disagree tend to disagree about the axioms and not the logical conclusions. SHOULD we use embryonic stem cells to cure human disease? The answer depends on your starting assumptions. BUT you can logically deduce the answer given a starting set of assumptions. |
Some return thoughts:
1) Well, if we truly don't know then that is just the way it is, whether it "satisfies" or not. You should be unsatisfied with "don't know," it is this un-satisfied state that drives human curiosity. Generally, however, it is not an unqualified "we don't know," but rather a "our knowledge is incomplete." That may be equally unsatisfying, but either way you do what humans have done since we were human - you proceed on the best available evidence. Perhaps in moral questions this means maintaining the status quo (as unsatisfying as that may be). Perhaps it means following our apparently hard-wired moral intuitions until we can obtain either validation or repudiation of those intuitions with further investigation. The specific "we don't know, what now?" answer will depend on the situation. The point is, a person or society thinking scientifically should be comfortable (if not satisfied) with uncertainty and imperfect knowledge.
2) Scientifically, the answer to "what is my purpose?" would be that there appears to be no Purpose (large P, imposed from outside/above). But our purpose (little p) is the same purpose of all living, breathing and thinking organisms - living our lives well. What that means can be informed by science, e.g., what do humans need to feel fulfilled?; what social conditions maximize individual well-being/social stability?; what does it mean to be happy?; etc. Again, if what you need in answer is a Purpose (large P), then the scientific answer may not be satisfying. However, that does not mean it is wrong.
3) Yes, if you agree on the axioms then you may be able to reach a logically deduced answer. The problem, as Bear has also stated, is determining whether or not you have the "correct" axioms. I would define "correct" as conforming to the physical reality of the world.
Message edited by author 2010-02-11 10:34:31. |
|
|
|
02/11/2010 10:38:09 AM · #1035 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I don't expect you to share my beliefs. As for the credibility of the creation story in Genesis, don't expect too much from it. It's a very simple story that lacks detail. Too many people try to make it something its not so they can disprove it. It happens all the time with the Bible. People hold 2000 year old writings up to 21st century historical writing standards, and I'm not sure why. It would be like trying to disprove Shakespeare was a great playright because his English doesn't meet 21st century linguistic standards. Seriously?... |
There's a crucial difference here- we're not assuming Shakespeare is infallible. The Bible is the word of God, who is supposedly infallible. There should not be errors. |
You're confusing "infallible" and "inerrant". Infallible (when referring to The Bible) simply means that what The Bible says true, and that it does not intentionally mislead or deceive. Inerrant is more specific and generally means that there are no errors, not even textual errors. Most Christians believe that The Bible is infallible and that it is trustworthy and not intentionally misleading. Many Christians question whether the Bible is inerrant as a result of minor textual discrepancies in translation through the centuries. But still every Bible believing Christian believes that it's trustworthy.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
People hold 2000 year old writings up to 21st century historical writing standards, and I'm not sure why. |
Because people such as yourself make ridiculous statements like "The Bible is The Word, and it's all true.".
Don't make statements like that and it won't happen. |
I'll keep believing that The Bible is true until somebody convinces me that it isn't. So far the best arguments that I've heard have been weak and easily refuted. So I'll just keep believing what I do until I don't have a good reason to anymore. |
|
|
|
02/11/2010 11:14:45 AM · #1036 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I'll keep believing that The Bible is true until somebody convinces me that it isn't. So far the best arguments that I've heard have been weak and easily refuted. So I'll just keep believing what I do until I don't have a good reason to anymore. |
They are only "weak and easily refuted," because, through your desire to believe, you have constructed (or more likely adopted from elsewhere) a semantic position on Biblical truth that is, in itself un-falsifiable. You start from the axiom that the Bible is true, and conform all evidence to this axiom.
- You have stated that the Bible is "infallible" but not "inerrant," but refuse to acknowledge the sophistry of such a distinction.
- You have argued that where the Biblical account matches known archeological or historical knowledge, this is "proof" of the Bible, but where Biblical accounts do not match or contradict archeological or historical evidence the writing is either allegorical or the error is due to mis-translation or mis-transcription.
- Where Biblical writing appears to conform to scientific knowledge, this is "proof," but where the Biblical writing clearly contradicts modern scientific understanding (e.g., evolution and the creation story), that is allegory.
- Where Biblical dictates conform to acceptable modern moral understanding and practice, that is "proof" of the moral superiority of the Bible, but where Biblical dictates do not conform, the text must be read "in context."
- Where modern Christian interpretation of the Bible conforms to historical interpretations, this consistency is "proof," but where modern Christian interpretation shows non-conformity with historical interpretations you discount the contradiction as being outside the "true" faith, or again, play the "context" card.
In sum, what you are really doing is nothing more than engaging in "special pleading," that is, you apply difference standards to evidence that should be treated the same based on whether the evidence supports or undermines the conclusion at which you have already arrived. If evidence supports your view, that is "proof." If evidence contradicts your view, you derive a reason for why the evidence must be ignored or should be treated differently from similar evidence that you want to use in support.
Doc's theology is at least informed and sophisticated. He knows enough about his faith and the arguments outside his faith, to know the weak points of each. I know you probably think you are brilliantly holding off the non-believing hordes, but you really just come across as someone who is stubbornly holding to his ignorance.
Message edited by author 2010-02-11 11:49:48. |
|
|
|
02/11/2010 12:47:07 PM · #1037 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
You're confusing "infallible" and "inerrant". |
I realize that this didn't come from the Bible, but I found this defintion just now..
inerrant - –adjective free from error; infallible.
Ray
|
|
|
|
02/11/2010 01:39:15 PM · #1038 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Doc's theology is at least informed and sophisticated. He knows enough about his faith and the arguments outside his faith, to know the weak points of each. I know you probably think you are brilliantly holding off the non-believing hordes, but you really just come across as someone who is stubbornly holding to his ignorance. |
Well aren't you just all sunshine and bubbles today! :) However, I haven't finished with you yet. I just don't have time today to further respond to our conversation.
Message edited by author 2010-02-11 13:39:23. |
|
|
|
02/11/2010 01:54:19 PM · #1039 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well aren't you just all sunshine and bubbles today! :) However, I haven't finished with you yet. I just don't have time today to further respond to our conversation. |
Sunshine, perhaps (hopefully in the sense of the "best disinfectant").
However . . . bubbles? I think not. ;)
|
|
|
|
02/11/2010 03:14:12 PM · #1040 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
They are only "weak and easily refuted," because, through your desire to believe, you have constructed (or more likely adopted from elsewhere) a semantic position on Biblical truth that is, in itself un-falsifiable. You start from the axiom that the Bible is true, and conform all evidence to this axiom. |
That's because I didn't find any of the other options convincing. It's not like I was born a Christian and never considered anything else. I thought long and hard about atheism, agnosticism, and theism before I came to the conclusion that Christianity did the best job of explaining everything. I had to work through my questions and problems just like everyone else. It just happens that I think Christianity is the best option. But that didn't happen over night.
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
- You have stated that the Bible is "infallible" but not "inerrant," but refuse to acknowledge the sophistry of such a distinction. |
That’s because there is no deception. These are not my own personal definitions. The definitions I gave above are the basic definitions as they are used in the field of Christian Theology. Go read a theology textbook if you don’t believe me. The distinction is there because it’s necessary. In order for Christian Theology to be a valid discipline we have to believe that The Bible is truthful and free of intentional deception (i.e. it’s infallible). If this is not true then there is no basis for theology to work with. However, since The Bible that we have today is a result of two thousand years of copying and translating, theologians also respect the fact that there are minor textual conflicts like grammar or punctuation errors. However, these “discrepancies” occur at the rate of about one out of 1,000 words. For this reason many theologians do not acknowledge that The Bible is inerrant, but they do hold that it is infallible.
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
- You have argued that where the Biblical account matches known archeological or historical knowledge, this is "proof" of the Bible, but where Biblical accounts do not match or contradict archeological or historical evidence the writing is either allegorical or the error is due to mis-translation or mis-transcription. |
Once again, this is not my own personal interpretation. The creation account is not allegorical just because I think it is. This is the nearly universal consensus of anyone who studies The Bible. The Bible was not written as a historical account, so every single sentence in it is not historical in nature. However, there are details throughout that are historical and can be checked against other pagan historical accounts from the time, or against archaeological evidence. Ultimately, The Bible was written to tell about God and his redemptive plan for creation, not to tell us the who, what, why, where, when, and how of every single event.
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
- Where Biblical writing appears to conform to scientific knowledge, this is "proof," but where the Biblical writing clearly contradicts modern scientific understanding (e.g., evolution and the creation story), that is allegory. |
Once again, this is a result of the genre and the purpose of The Bible, not my own personal opinion. Sure, you can say “ah! Evolution proves that the world is billions of years old! The Bible says that it’s only a few thousand years old! The Bible is wrong!” Well, in fact, The Bible makes no such claim, so nothing is disproved. However in John 5:2 we see some interesting detail that can be checked against historical evidence. John 5:2 says, “Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades.” This pool has been found in Jerusalem and archaeologists have confirmed that the pool did actually have 5 colonnades and has been found in the location described. The creation account in Genes, however, is not detailed like John’s Gospel is. You can check a biography for historical accuracy, but you can’t check a narrative.
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
- Where Biblical dictates conform to acceptable modern moral understanding and practice, that is "proof" of the moral superiority of the Bible, but where Biblical dictates do not conform, the text must be read "in context." |
The Bible must ALWAYS been read in context. Good luck finding a Christian theologian or pastor who will tell you otherwise. When it is not read in context (often by non-Christian or secular folk), it is abused and used to justify actions that contradict Biblical teaching. The Bible does not cater to one specific culture. The Bible transcends culture, which is why all cultures find something in it that is offensive. This is why becoming a Christian is so difficult for many people. It is a major sacrifice that involves giving over your opinions, beliefs, and even rights to Christ, which is why God rewards those who make that commitment with eternal life. Different cultures have different values, and different countries provide different rights. But there is always something that must be surrendered to follow Christ. Americans aren't unique in this...
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
- Where modern Christian interpretation of the Bible conforms to historical interpretations, this consistency is "proof," but where modern Christian interpretation practice shows non-conformity with historical interpretations you discount the contradiction as being outside the "true" faith, or again, play the "context" card. |
Not true. If historical evidence contradicts a claim in The Bible, Scripture is then evaluated to discover why. There is always an explanation to explain the contradiction. For example, one of the most major historical contradictions in The Bible is the Gospel of Luke. Luke 2:1-3 says, “In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2(This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3And everyone went to his own town to register.” This is a major problem because we know that Herod the Great died in 4 BC and Jesus was born before Herod’s death. The widely accepted date for Jesus’ birth is 6 BC. Herein lies the problem; Quirinius ordered the census to be taken in AD 6, twelve years after Jesus’ birth. So, is this a contradiction? Was Luke mistaken? Many historians believe that Luke was mistaken and that this was an honest mistake. However, there are other possible explanations. One possibility is a bad translation. Luke said the census was taken “while Quirinius was governor”, but another correct translation would be “before Quirinius was governor.” This slight difference in translation nullifies the contradiction. Another possibility is that we just haven’t found any historical evidence to prove that there was a census taken at that time, but this doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen. Either way, it could be an honest mistake by Luke (which in no way falsifies any Christian doctrine) or it could be that Luke was right and we are translating incorrectly or just haven’t found historical proof (obviously there were a lot of things that happened in antiquity that we have no knowledge of).
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
In sum, what you are really doing is nothing more than engaging in "special pleading," that is, you apply difference standards to evidence that should be treated the same based on whether the evidence supports or undermines the conclusion at which you have already arrived. If evidence supports your view, that is "proof." If evidence contradicts your view, you derive a reason for why the evidence must be ignored or should be treated differently from similar evidence that you want to use in support. |
Again, not true. The Bible must be held up to the standards of its own time. I would argue that you are engaging in selective criticism by choosing only the parts of Scripture that you believe are false, and then holding those selections up to 21st century historical standards. The four Gospels were revolutionary historical documents when they were written. No author had composed such a comprehensive biographical narrative before the Gospel writers. But the Gospels obviously pale in comparison to modern day historical writing in regards to their detail. The problem here is that you are trying to make The Bible something it isn’t. Just because it doesn’t meet the standards of contemporary history writing doesn’t mean that it’s incorrect. The Bible must be judged based on 1st century historical writing practices, not 21st century practices.
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Doc's theology is at least informed and sophisticated. He knows enough about his faith and the arguments outside his faith, to know the weak points of each. I know you probably think you are brilliantly holding off the non-believing hordes, but you really just come across as someone who is stubbornly holding to his ignorance. |
I’m not attempting to hold off the non-believing hordes for two reasons. I don’t feel like I’m under any pressure from the horde, and I don’t feel like I’m trying to attack the horde. However, DrAchoo is someone who has been schooled in science, so one would expect that he would have some knowledge of the scientific arguments against Christianity. I know little about science. However, I studied history and am currently studying theology, so I would expect to know at least as much about those areas as DrAchoo (or anyone else) does. You don’t think I’m informed and sophisticated because you are keeping the ball in your court. You’re only willing to discuss matters related to the natural sciences; an area which I know little about. If you had the courage to stick your neck out into the theological world you might be surprised by what I know. However, my goal is not to impress anyone or showcase my knowledge, and I don’t expect you to leave your scientific rabbit hole.
ETA to fix grammar and clarify a few things.
Message edited by author 2010-02-11 16:41:11. |
|
|
|
02/11/2010 05:08:46 PM · #1041 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
These are not my own personal definitions. The definitions I gave above are the basic definitions as they are used in the field of Christian Theology. Go read a theology textbook if you don’t believe me. The distinction is there because it’s necessary. In order for Christian Theology to be a valid discipline we have to believe that The Bible is truthful and free of intentional deception (i.e. it’s infallible). If this is not true then there is no basis for theology to work with.
|
"Truthful and free of intentional deception" may be the way infallibility is defined in "Christian Theology," but in regular parlance - and, I would argue, in regular understanding by Christians, infallibility means "without error." We need not speculate that the Biblical authors were intentionally trying to deceive with what they wrote to question whether what they wrote is true. The writers of the Bible could have written "the truth" as they knew it, but still have been wrong.
The problem is that any honestly read Biblical account demands that the world operate in ways for which there is no evidence in support. Christian Theology, at least the modern flavor, is the practice of rationalizing these discrepancies away so as to preserve faith. This may be "valid" - that is consistent with its own underlying assumptions - but it does not make it persuasive or intellectually honest.
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
- Where modern Christian interpretation of the Bible conforms to historical interpretations, this consistency is "proof," but where modern Christian interpretation practice shows non-conformity with historical interpretations you discount the contradiction as being outside the "true" faith, or again, play the "context" card. |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Not true. If historical evidence contradicts a claim in The Bible, Scripture is then evaluated to discover why. There is always an explanation to explain the contradiction. For example . . . |
I think you misconstrue my objection here. Your response is more toward what I was saying in regarding archeological contradictions as to historical claims made in the Bible. My point here is rather that you have appeared to take the stance that the current state of Christian Theology/Biblical interpretation is consistent with the historical state of Christian Theology/Biblical interpretation. E.g., Christians have always seen the Genesis creation myths (there are two, you know) as allegorical; have always understood that the Old Testament Hebraic laws did not apply after Christ (or have known which ones did and which ones did not); etc.
This is simply, and quite demonstrably false. Biblical interpretation and Christian practice has been in an almost constant state of flux from the earliest days of Christian history. See the link that Louis provided earlier in this thread or in the other in regard to some of the scholarship that is being done in regard to the heated competition between factions in early Christianity. The theology you are being taught in school now is not the theology you would have been taught even a couple of decades ago. Christian theology "evolves" in response to competition of ideas and interpretations within Christianity (Catholicism vs. Protestantism, to point to simply the most prominent modern example) and from without (other religions, the advancement of scientific knowledge, etc.)
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I know little about science. However, I studied history and am currently studying theology, so I would expect to know at least as much about those areas as DrAchoo does. You don’t think I’m informed and sophisticated because you are keeping the ball in your court. You’re only willing to discuss matters related to the natural sciences; an area which I know little about. If you had the courage to stick your neck out into the theological world you might be surprised by what I know. |
Religious claims are truth claims in the same manner that scientific claims - each are claims about the way the world works. You could have a vast and rich understanding of the mythology of Middle Earth, and such knowledge could be fascinating and provide you with a rich intellectual life. It would not, however, mean that elves, dwarves and magic actually exist.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I don’t expect you to leave your scientific rabbit hole. |
Read your Aristotle. It's a cave, and you are the one who appears unwilling to leave and is satisfied with mere shadows on the wall.
|
|
|
|
02/11/2010 05:44:02 PM · #1042 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
In order for Christian Theology to be a valid discipline we have to believe that The Bible is truthful and free of intentional deception (i.e. it’s infallible). |
This is the monumental, quintessential leap of faith you ask others to make that is just not reasonable.
There are just too many reasons that this is unacceptable, not the least of which all of the myriad ways that the hand of man has put their own spin on it every time it was interpreted and/or translated it.
Yet you insist on this as a given for Christian Theology to be a valid discipline? I just find it unbelievable that you can't see the problem with this concept.
What you're essemntially saying is that without any reasonable assurance, we're supposed to buy it, lock, stock, & barrel for Christianity to be real.
What's wrong with this picture??????
What possible reason can there be to do this with no tangible evidence whatsoever of its veracity?
|
|
|
|
02/11/2010 05:46:59 PM · #1043 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
You could have a vast and rich understanding of the mythology of Middle Earth, and such knowledge could be fascinating and provide you with a rich intellectual life. It would not, however, mean that elves, dwarves and magic actually exist. |
Sigh..... everything always comes back to sweet, endearing, codgerly old Tolkien. What would life be like without him? |
|
|
|
02/11/2010 06:30:30 PM · #1044 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
You could have a vast and rich understanding of the mythology of Middle Earth, and such knowledge could be fascinating and provide you with a rich intellectual life. It would not, however, mean that elves, dwarves and magic actually exist. |
Sigh..... everything always comes back to sweet, endearing, codgerly old Tolkien. What would life be like without him? |
Unworthy of even contemplating. And no amount of evidence will ever convince me otherwise. ;) |
|
|
|
02/11/2010 06:43:19 PM · #1045 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
You could have a vast and rich understanding of the mythology of Middle Earth, and such knowledge could be fascinating and provide you with a rich intellectual life. It would not, however, mean that elves, dwarves and magic actually exist. |
Sigh..... everything always comes back to sweet, endearing, codgerly old Tolkien. What would life be like without him? |
My next little project is to make a windchime which is tuned to a elbereth gilthoniel as done in the Fellowship when the Wood Elves are passing through the old wood and Sam and Frodo hear them.
Geek alert! |
|
|
|
02/11/2010 06:49:02 PM · #1046 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
There are just too many reasons that this is unacceptable, not the least of which all of the myriad ways that the hand of man has put their own spin on it every time it was interpreted and/or translated it. |
I have to point out (again and again) that it is also as monumental an error to assume the Bible we have today is a translation of a translation of a translation like a 2,000 year old game of telephone. This is completely, utterly, wrong. (I'll leave aside all the inerrancy parts of the argument, but we can clearly say that the modern translations of the Bible are very faithful to the original and, in fact, have become more faithful as time has passed.) |
|
|
|
02/11/2010 06:53:31 PM · #1047 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
There are just too many reasons that this is unacceptable, not the least of which all of the myriad ways that the hand of man has put their own spin on it every time it was interpreted and/or translated it. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I have to point out (again and again) that it is also as monumental an error to assume the Bible we have today is a translation of a translation of a translation like a 2,000 year old game of telephone. This is completely, utterly, wrong. (I'll leave aside all the inerrancy parts of the argument, but we can clearly say that the modern translations of the Bible are very faithful to the original and, in fact, have become more faithful as time has passed.) |
Oh, COOL!!!!
You mean there are scholars that are now more adept at the ancient Hebrew, or whatever the original Bible was written in that can look at it and translate it properly?
When was this done? And where is that original Bible housed that it can be researched?
|
|
|
|
02/11/2010 07:13:10 PM · #1048 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
There are just too many reasons that this is unacceptable, not the least of which all of the myriad ways that the hand of man has put their own spin on it every time it was interpreted and/or translated it. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I have to point out (again and again) that it is also as monumental an error to assume the Bible we have today is a translation of a translation of a translation like a 2,000 year old game of telephone. This is completely, utterly, wrong. (I'll leave aside all the inerrancy parts of the argument, but we can clearly say that the modern translations of the Bible are very faithful to the original and, in fact, have become more faithful as time has passed.) |
Oh, COOL!!!!
You mean there are scholars that are now more adept at the ancient Hebrew, or whatever the original Bible was written in that can look at it and translate it properly?
When was this done? And where is that original Bible housed that it can be researched? |
You can learn all about it on the wiki for Textual criticism. The New Testament is unique among ancient texts in that there are so many copies available that statistical analysis can be applied to show when and where errors have come into existance. This allows the errors to be removed by referring to copies which do not contain them. (That's, of course, a very very simplistic explanation.)
Message edited by author 2010-02-11 19:14:24. |
|
|
|
02/11/2010 07:18:33 PM · #1049 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
You mean there are scholars that are now more adept at the ancient Hebrew, or whatever the original Bible was written in that can look at it and translate it properly? |
This is likely true, if you are talking about English translations of the Bible. I would have no problem believing that there are more recent translations that are more accurate to the source texts - being better informed that prior translations because of ongoing scholarly research on the subject and modern archeological finds of either further source material or other illuminating texts.
(Leaving aside, as Doc did, the whole "inerrancy parts of the argument." Minor point, really.)
Message edited by author 2010-02-11 19:19:45. |
|
|
|
02/11/2010 07:34:15 PM · #1050 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You can learn all about it on the wiki for Textual criticism. |
You missed the point entirely. I'm quite well aware of the work that goes into verifying, and validating ancient works.
The problem is that there will still be errors made simply because the person who made the errors cannot be consulted to see if perhaps there were mitigating circumstances surrounding the supposed error.
And just like the original errors, there *will* be assumptions made, or conclusions reached that may very well be found in error in the future.
My point was.....where is that first Bible that it can be researched, and doublechecked by the learned translators of today.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The New Testament is unique among ancient texts in that there are so many copies available that statistical analysis can be applied to show when and where errors have come into existance. This allows the errors to be removed by referring to copies which do not contain them. (That's, of course, a very very simplistic explanation.) |
Your simplistic explanation makes my point. So many copies? Okay, copies of what?
Let's bypass the copies entirely and talk about the original since that'd be the way to go to eliminate the issues with transcription, now wouldn't it?
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/06/2025 09:46:01 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/06/2025 09:46:01 AM EDT.
|
