|
Author
|
Topic: Does the rabbit chew the cud? Bible inerrancy supported!
|
Theodoric
Member Posts: 1745 From: Cumberland, WI, USA Registered: 08-15-2005 Member Rating: 3.5
|
|
Message 55 of 89 (259788)
08-21-2005 10:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 52 by randman
08-21-2005 10:17 PM
|
|
Re: hare and cud
The original premise of the post was that the bible was not in error. That the hare, or rabbit or however you want to translate it, chews its cud. Ken was very adament in his original post. It is obvious that this is wrong. The discussion is - is the the bible accurate and inerrant?. Obviously this shows it is not. Fundies cannot have it both ways. They can not say that it is the actual word of a god and the turn around and say that back in the day the bible was written it seemed to the people that wrote the bible that the rabbit or hare or whatever it was, chewed its cud.This completely destroys the premise of inerrancy. How could a god get it wrong if that god created the animal in question. Did this god get confused? If so does that make the god non-omnipotent.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 52 by randman, posted 08-21-2005 10:17 PM | | randman has responded |
|
Theodoric
Member Posts: 1745 From: Cumberland, WI, USA Registered: 08-15-2005 Member Rating: 3.5
|
|
|
Message 57 of 89 (259790)
08-21-2005 11:14 PM
|
Reply to: Message 56 by randman
08-21-2005 10:55 PM
|
|
Re: hare and cud
| Your argument is thus absurd. It's pure semantics. Let's say the Bible says "the man acted in a queer mannner" and proceeds to detail some odd behaviour, or that "the man was gay." You come along and say, look here, the Bible is clearly wrong because everyone knows the terms, queer and gay, refer to homosexuality, and the man was a heterosexual or some such. |
What the hell does this have to do with the conversation? Your motto should be "dont confuse me witht he facts my mind is made up" Your posts have gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.
Either the bible is inerrant or not. Or are you trying to say the original is inerrant but translations are not? | My point is not even that the Bible is watering it down for people back then. On the contrary, I think it is mere arrogance for people today to redefine something according to their own standards, and then have the gall to say the Bible, based on the language and standards of that time, is wrong. |
Either it is inerrant or not. Time has nothing to do with inerrancy.
Are you saying god used the word cud, because people thought they were ruminants and just felt it was easier than try to use something that was accurate? This god purposefully said cud even though he knew it was wrong? How nice to know the motives and thought processes of god.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 56 by randman, posted 08-21-2005 10:55 PM | | randman has responded |
|
Theodoric
Member Posts: 1745 From: Cumberland, WI, USA Registered: 08-15-2005 Member Rating: 3.5
|
|
|
Message 58 of 89 (259791)
08-21-2005 11:22 PM
|
Reply to: Message 56 by randman
08-21-2005 10:55 PM
|
|
Re: hare and cud
| Your argument is thus absurd. It's pure semantics. |
You throw out semantics like it is a bad thing.
Semantics - The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form: When discussing inerrancy semantics is very important. We have to get to what the word truly means. I think posters have shown clearly what the meaning of chew cud means. You can not argue that it has a different meaning than what it meaning is. We know its meaning. Its meaning is different from what a rabbit does. That is a given.
Now you have to show justification of how this could be in the bible and still claim it is inerrant. Then again the OP was arguing that a rabbit does chew its cud, not that the bible was inerrant with this obvious error.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 56 by randman, posted 08-21-2005 10:55 PM | | randman has responded |
|
Theodoric
Member Posts: 1745 From: Cumberland, WI, USA Registered: 08-15-2005 Member Rating: 3.5
|
|
|
Message 77 of 89 (259810)
08-22-2005 7:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 67 by randman
08-22-2005 1:17 PM
|
|
Re: Circular Argument
| It's like finding an old English dictionary that says to be "gay" means to be "happy" or of a pleasant demeanor, and then trying to argue the old dictionary is wrong. It's an absurd argument on the face of it, and a waste of time. |
But gay still means happy. And no one has asserted that a dictionary is inerrant.
There fore you ar saying that chewing the cud had a differnet meaning? But you have no basis for this assertion. You expect by virtue of the fact that you are making this argument then it must be true.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 67 by randman, posted 08-22-2005 1:17 PM | | randman has not yet responded |
|
™ Version 3.0 Beta
