|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Using the Bible as fact... | |||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: My dictionary has: Interpretation: to decide what the intended meaning of something is (Cambridge International Dictionary) Let's see... you also get: Interpretation: to concieve in the light of individual belief, judgement or circumstance (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary) These come to mind long before the senses of "translation" or "transliteration" Take care. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jet:
***And that in itself is a matter of "opinion".*** [/B][/QUOTE] Yes, it is. But words carry with them more than their strict definitions. I found far more references to interpretation as an expression of opinion, than as translation. My experience as an English speaker in an English country leads me to believe that this is by far the most common association with the word. You are technically correct. I can't argue that. It just seems that you'd choose a word less likely to cause misunderstanding. Not to mention that numerous informal logical fallacies depend upon just this sort of word play-- alternate meanings... that sort of thing. Take care. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I don't see this in evolutionary science. Of course, humans being human there are going to mistakes, slips of the tongue, whatever, and there are outright deception at times. As long as these errors are corrected, no big deal. Short of our becoming infallible, this is the best we can do. What I don't see is intentional equivocation on a grand scale.
quote: Yeah, no kidding. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Sad that I can't get any of that debate out of you. Do you really think cookie-cutter quips and flippant dismissals count as discussion? ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Right... your great powers of intellect do set you apart-- as we've all seen on this forum. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I am not sure how many times I was forced to read the Bible as a kid, but since I hit adulthood I have consciously read it end to end four times. Each time it seems more absurd than the time before. I have gone to the trouble of researching the history of the text(s) and the the archeology of the surrounding area. I even taught myself a wee bit 'o Hebrew. It was in fact, an obsession with such topics that fueled my education in Anthropology and Philosophy. My observations are fine thanks. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Wowie.... down to 50% now... we are making progress... ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Are any previous versions also internally consistent? If not the Bible was created by King James. We can ditch all the rest including the originals. Eh? ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Agreed, conditionally. This is how I think about it. The Bible doesn't give a non-believer much to go on. Most of it is unsupported by external evidence whether written or archeological, and what is supported is pretty trivial-- meaning it is well within human ability to observe and record. So the only thing left is the book itself. And in the absense of external evidence all one can do is compare it to itself. While an internally inconsistent book doesn't prove anything, an internally consistent book would.
quote: Agreed, but I was raised with exactly the opposite dogma, and I cannot tell you how many times I have heard the phrase repeated "There is not one single contradiction in the entire book" In the absense of any other data, apologists tend to grasp onto the internal consistency straw. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: If you're going to be religious, might as well 'fess up to the Holy Spirit.
quote: Yeah, no kidding.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: You are beginning to sound like a Kabbalist.... ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Different books of Gospel "quote" the characters in the story as saying different things. It is minor, but it is an inconsistency.
quote: Please read: No webpage found at provided URL: http://bidstrup.com/bible.htm You have to skip three quarters to the end to get to the part about Constantine, but I suggest reading the whole essay.
quote: It wasn't just the order that was editted. Huge numbers of books were thrown out and/or altered. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: You did notice that only a handfull of those references actually dealt with the very early church? The rest deal with the history of the Waldenses, the Baptists,.... etc. This is a very lame way to add credentials to a paper or to a point.
quote: I have just reread the the site you posted with your comments in mind. The part of the online essay dealing with the early church -- 30-500ad-- lists not one traceable historical document (unless of course, you count any document published prior to today as a traceable historical document) except for verses of the Bible itself. The Bible can't verify the Bible. This is silly. Your link is a compendium of two thousand years worth of christian apologetics. This is not the same as providing historical fact. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 08-12-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: hmmm..... "Let us start with the basic premise about Baptist History: the modern Baptist denomination originated in England and Holland in the early seventeenth century"
Open main menu quote: I also have reread the portion in question and found six direct references to historical documents. They are as follows.
quote: Here is the full text, "7. Let it be remembered that changes like these here mentioned were not made in a day, nor even within a year. They came about slowly and never within all the churches. Some of the churches vigorously repudiated them. So much so that in A.D. 251, the loyal churches declared non-fellowship for those churches which accepted and practiced these errors. And thus came about the first real official separation among the churches." Where exactly is a reference to a HISTORICAL DOCUMENT?
quote: "12. Persecutions have become increasingly bitter. Near the beginning of the fourth century comes possibly the first definite government edict of persecution. The wonderful growth of Christianity has alarmed the pagan leaders of the Roman Empire. Hence Galerius, the emperor, sent out a direct edict of more savage persecution. This occurred Feb. 24, 303 A.D. Up to this time Paganism seems to have persecuted without any definite laws to that effect." How about this one? Where is the reference to a HISTORICAL DOCUMENT?
quote: ???????? Oh really? {quoteI also found several indirect references to historical documents. For instance...
quote: ][/quote] And again:"29. It was early in the period of the "dark ages" when real Popery had its definite beginnings. This was by Leo II, A.D. 440 to 461. This, however, was not the first time the title was ever used. This title, similar to the Catholic church itself, was largely a development. The name appears, as first applied to the Bishop of Rome 296-304. It was formally adopted by Siricius, Bishop of Rome 384-398. Then officially adopted by Leo II, 440-461. Then claimed to be universal, 707. Then some centuries later declared by Gregory VII to be the exclusive right of the papacy." Where is the citation? Naming dates is not enough.
quote: ummm.... so if I use the word "appears" a lot you'll believe me cause it will mean I have actual historical documents at my disposal? ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024