Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-15-2017 12:52 PM
332 online now:
DrJones*, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo, Stile (6 members, 326 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,248 Year: 28,854/21,208 Month: 920/1,847 Week: 295/475 Day: 60/82 Hour: 4/15

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
5678Next
Author Topic:   Using the Bible as fact...
Jet
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 113 (11590)
06-14-2002 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Percy
06-13-2002 3:28 PM


Sure, no problem.

Shalom

Jet

------------------
“As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”

Prof. George Greenstei


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 06-13-2002 3:28 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
Jet
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 113 (11591)
06-14-2002 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by John
06-13-2002 5:05 PM


I suppose that would depend upon the intellectual level of the person that I am responding to.

Shalom

Jet

------------------
“As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”

Prof. George Greenstei


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by John, posted 06-13-2002 5:05 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by John, posted 06-14-2002 1:01 PM Jet has responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 113 (11594)
06-14-2002 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Jet
06-14-2002 12:26 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
I suppose that would depend upon the intellectual level of the person that I am responding to.

Shalom

Jet


Right... your great powers of intellect do set you apart-- as we've all seen on this forum.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Jet, posted 06-14-2002 12:26 PM Jet has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Jet, posted 06-14-2002 2:23 PM John has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16320
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 50 of 113 (11595)
06-14-2002 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Jet
06-14-2002 12:20 PM


Jet writes:

You seem to have a fondness for putting words into peoples' mouths.

Really? You responded to Peter with, "I admit to the expectation of reason and understanding within those to whom I may choose to reply. This, unfortunately, is not always the case." And so forth. Pretty clear writing. Very unambiguous.

Why don't you just answer Peter's rebuttal? Or anyone's rebuttal? This is supposed to be discussion and debate about evolution and creation, something you seem to have forgotten.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Jet, posted 06-14-2002 12:20 PM Jet has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Jet, posted 06-14-2002 2:45 PM Percy has responded

    
Jet
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 113 (11597)
06-14-2002 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by John
06-14-2002 1:01 PM


And thanks for your support!

Shalom

Jet

------------------
“As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”

Prof. George Greenstei


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by John, posted 06-14-2002 1:01 PM John has not yet responded

  
Jet
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 113 (11600)
06-14-2002 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Percy
06-14-2002 1:49 PM


Originally posted by Percipient:
This is supposed to be discussion and debate about evolution and creation, something you seem to have forgotten.

--Percy[/B][/QUOTE]

It seems that it is not I who have forgotten. It is you, Peter, and others who have insisted that this thread go wandering off into endless clarifications and sub-clarifications of word definitions that have little to do with the overall topic of discussion. It seems some have not yet learned how to "agree to disagree". If you people dislike, or disagree with, my responses, you should learn to simply say so, state your reason, and move on. Continuous belabouring of any single issue, contentious or otherwise, is fruitless. Turn The Page!

Shalom

Jet

------------------
“As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”

Prof. George Greenstei


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Percy, posted 06-14-2002 1:49 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 06-14-2002 3:24 PM Jet has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16320
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 53 of 113 (11601)
06-14-2002 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Jet
06-14-2002 2:45 PM


Jet writes:

It seems some have not yet learned how to "agree to disagree".

You made one post of substance to this thread in Message 30 making the point that the differences between YEC and OEC viewpoints is one of opinion and not interpretation. Peter asked for clarification, given the similar meanings of opinion and interpretation in this context, and you provided a definition of interpretation that included translation, and that's simply confused everyone.

So we don't know whether we disagree or not because we're still trying to figure out what you meant. You're the only one who knows, and apparently you're not telling.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Jet, posted 06-14-2002 2:45 PM Jet has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Jet, posted 06-14-2002 4:25 PM Percy has not yet responded

    
Peter
Member (Idle past 1538 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 54 of 113 (11602)
06-14-2002 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Jet
06-13-2002 3:14 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
Peter says:
In the context within which you used them, I cannot see any different
content ... and asked you to elaborate that difference.

You haven't ... you have provided isolated dictionary defintions ...
selected out of the large number of possible definitions for each
word.

This leads me back to the topic of this thread.

You have found debate and differing opinions over two, very simple
looking phrases.

How then can you claim the Bible as fact, when it contains much more
complex textual content, which itself has been translated across
many languages (not to mention blatantly changed for
political ends).



***Aside from simply stating your personal opinion on specific matters, matters with which I happen to disagree, you simply recycle an already answered question,

Funny I thought debating was about a reasoned discusion of different
viewpoints aimed at increasing ones understanding of an issue
from a different perspective.

As such, should an answer to a question be insufficient, in the
opinion of the debaters, further discussion in order to elaborate
shoudl ensue.

ISn't that the basis of debate ?

quote:
Originally posted by Jet:

the answer to which, you either did not, or could not understand and/or accept.

Yes ... I do not accept your response as answering my question,
and have said so in the hopes that you might try to elaborate
your position, so that my poor little brain can cope with
the answer

quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
So allow me to clarify my position as to my expectations when discussing and debating with others. For your convienence, I have chosen to cut-n-paste rather than refer you to the post in which this statement originates.

"I admit to the expectation of reason and understanding within those to whom I may choose to reply. This, unfortunately, is not always the case. As a youth, one of the many principles greatly impressed upon me was the necessity of developing a great power of reason. I can thank my father, and my grandfather, for that. Perhaps, at times, I require and expect too much from some individuals. The power of reason is not an automatic consequence of physical maturity. Some, like myself, have worked at truly developing the power of reason, and others have not. Mores the pity!"


So did you develop a great power of reason ?

In what ways did you seek to develop this ?

Why do you appear to be not putting that reasoning ability into
practice here ?

Forgive the style of the above ... it was an attempt to illustrate
the nature of your current debating tactic.

'Undermine the arguments against you rather than address them.'

This appears to be a tactic of evasion to me. Any thoughts on that ?

quote:
Originally posted by Jet:

If the reply that I gave was not satisfactory for you, then I am sorry. The above statement is a reasonable expectation. For those who cannot meet that expectation, I suggest they refrain from responding to my posts with the expectation of receiving a reply. TURN THE PAGE!

Shalom

Jet


So effectively you are saying, despite my rejection of your answer,
that you HAVE answered the question and I am too dim witted to
understand your response.

Even should that be the case (I am aware that my own intellect
has limits) is that a reasoned response ?

What started this off was :-

quote:
Originally posted by Jet:

I realize that EVOs are fond of using the argument that YECs and OECs apparently interpret certain scriptures differently. I see it differently. I accept it as a difference of opinion and not interpretation. I believe the Bible interprets itself without any help from men.

Starting from the back :-

Interpretation requires an intelligent actor ... the Bible (seeing as
it is a book) cannot interpret anything ... only people can.

In the context of the above I did not understand the difference
between having a 'different opinion of the meaning of a passage
in the bible' and 'having a different interpretation of a passage
in the bible.'

If I present you (or anyone) with a passage from the Bible, and
say what does that mean ... I am asking for your interpretation
of that passage (not a translation into another language).

I am saying 'In your opinion, what does that mean?'

The point, while agree it is a little belaboured, is that if it is
possible to hold different opinions of the meaning of a passage
in the bible, then the bible cannot be held up as fact.

We are EVEN having a disagreement of these two simple phrases!!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Jet, posted 06-13-2002 3:14 PM Jet has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Jet, posted 06-14-2002 4:25 PM Peter has not yet responded

    
Jet
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 113 (11604)
06-14-2002 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Percy
06-14-2002 3:24 PM


Turn The Page!

------------------
“As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”

Prof. George Greenstei


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 06-14-2002 3:24 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
Jet
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 113 (11605)
06-14-2002 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Peter
06-14-2002 3:35 PM


Turn The Page!

------------------
“As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”

Prof. George Greenstei


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Peter, posted 06-14-2002 3:35 PM Peter has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12536
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 57 of 113 (11607)
06-14-2002 5:02 PM


All,

Jet has expressed a wish to no longer discuss this topic. Please respect his wishes and address no more posts to him on this thread.

Thank you!

------------------

--EvC Forum Administrator


Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Peter, posted 06-17-2002 9:03 AM Admin has not yet responded

    
Peter
Member (Idle past 1538 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 58 of 113 (11696)
06-17-2002 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Admin
06-14-2002 5:02 PM


OK.

I'll ask anyone who cares to comment then::

What is the significance of a disagreement over two very
simple phrases to claims that the Bible can be used as fact ?

My opinion is, due to different interpretations of passages,
that the Bible cannot be USED as fact. It is the ambiguity
that leads to this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Admin, posted 06-14-2002 5:02 PM Admin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-04-2002 1:11 AM Peter has responded

    
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 3722 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 59 of 113 (12723)
07-04-2002 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Peter
06-17-2002 9:03 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
I'll ask anyone who cares to comment then::

What is the significance of a disagreement over two very
simple phrases to claims that the Bible can be used as fact ?

My opinion is, due to different interpretations of passages,
that the Bible cannot be USED as fact. It is the ambiguity
that leads to this.


Is it also your opinion that due to different interpretations of the geologic column, the fossil record, and the cosmic microwave background radiation none of these should be used as fact either?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Peter, posted 06-17-2002 9:03 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Peter, posted 07-04-2002 10:51 AM w_fortenberry has responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1538 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 60 of 113 (12748)
07-04-2002 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by w_fortenberry
07-04-2002 1:11 AM


It's a reasonable point that you make, but I don't make any claims
that the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record is a fact.

The FACTs are the layering of fossils.

With language, due to the ambiguity, the facts are lost entirely.

The FACT of the bible is the sequence of words, as the seqeunce
of fossils in the fossil record is the FACT there.

The fossil record is not interpreted in ISOLATION, it has other
investigations which also are consistent with the evolutionary
explanation of the fossil record.

The BIBLE, on the other hand, has no compelling extra-biblical
corroboration, and so we have nothing to cross-check the differing
interpretations against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-04-2002 1:11 AM w_fortenberry has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-06-2002 2:11 PM Peter has responded

    
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 3722 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 61 of 113 (12908)
07-06-2002 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Peter
07-04-2002 10:51 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
It's a reasonable point that you make, but I don't make any claims
that the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record is a fact.

...The FACT of the bible is the sequence of words, as the seqeunce
of fossils in the fossil record is the FACT there.

...The fossil record is not interpreted in ISOLATION, it has other
investigations which also are consistent with the evolutionary
explanation of the fossil record.


Is it the sequence of the fossils that is the fact, or is it their positioning that is a fact with the sequence being your interpretation of that positioning?

Are the conclusions of these other investigations fact or opinion?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Peter, posted 07-04-2002 10:51 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by gene90, posted 07-06-2002 4:41 PM w_fortenberry has responded
 Message 64 by Peter, posted 07-08-2002 5:09 AM w_fortenberry has responded

  
Prev123
4
5678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017