|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Bible 2003 Edition by God et al. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joralex Inactive Member |
"Give me one reason why the most powerful being in existence would create such a scrappy, thrown together book comprised primarily of hearsay, then watch nearly 2000 years pass as the book gets screwed up through translation and has holes picked in it because of scientific and historical errancy, but doesn't think of updating it."
"... a scrappy, thrown together book..."? 1. Tell me, do you claim to know and understand this "scrappy, thrown together book"? 2. Do you know what God's purpose was in giving us this "scrappy, thrown together book"? 3. Do you know why He included some things while leaving others out of this "scrappy, thrown together book"? I for one would like to know the answers to these questions. "Surely it would be a piece of cake to create the new edition in every language spoken by every person on the globe. I mean, why produce a book in just one language after that Babel incident?"" Piece of cake? Yes! Fulfilling His purpose? No! "And if it were a new version, it would contain new stories of modern people doing stuff young people can relate to. And at least then it would be verifiable by all of us." New version not necessary - original version is perfectly fine for its intended purpose.As for the 'verifiable' part - what is it you want to 'verify'? When would you feel completely satisfied that you've 'verified it'? Also, tell me, do you pretend to know more than : [i][b]"... the most powerful being in existence..."[/i][/b] (your words)? "Then there's the science. As we know a lot more than we did back then, it could contain up-to-date explanations of Genesis." You are neglecting the purpose of the Book.A while back I wrote a brief book review on Ernst Mayr's What Evolution Is. In that book review I didn't include a discussion on Fermat's Last Theorem. So? "Is this a good idea, or is there some perfectly good reason against it?" The "perfectly good reason" is that these things that you would like are completely unnecessary/irrelevant/contrary towards accomplishing the objective that God intended. He had a purpose... the Bible as it is accomplishes that purpose... and that is the end of the story. Complaints against this policy may be voiced against the Author Himself on Judgment Day. In Christ,Jorge
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4987 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
quote: And that purpose is? Brian. ------------------Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joralex Inactive Member |
"The "perfectly good reason" is that these things that you would like are completely unnecessary/irrelevant/contrary towards accomplishing the objective that God intended. He had a purpose... the Bible as it is accomplishes that purpose... and that is the end of the story.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And that purpose is? Clearly the purpose is multi-faceted and no human has ever or will ever know what all of these facets are. Nonetheless, one of these facets is plainly evident : He intended to tell us "just enough" about Himself and His creation (this creation includes us, of course) for our needs and the most important of these needs is to allow us to sustain faith while not eliminating the need for faith. In Christ,Joralex
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Andya Primanda Inactive Member |
quote: Joralex, would you share it with us here?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joralex Inactive Member |
"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A while back I wrote a brief book review on Ernst Mayr's What Evolution Is. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joralex, would you share it with us here?" ... I'm not sure of copyright prohibitions. My review of May's What Evolution Is was published in the last (Jan-Feb 2003) copy of the TJ (Technical Journal of Creation - formerly Creation Magazine). In summary : the book is pretty good if you want to know about 'evolution' and terrible if you want to know the complete & true story. In this sense it was precisely what one would expect coming from a leading apostle of naturalistic evolution. In Christ,Joralex
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Andya Primanda Inactive Member |
I am closely acquainted with that book--I translated it into Indonesian last year.
quote: Well, since you seem to think that Mayr did not present the complete and true story, what do you think he's hiding from us? (btw, should we start another thread? this is off-topic.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
(btw, should we start another thread? this is off-topic.) Depends. If this is a short diversion from the main topic, say less than 10 posts or so, then don't bother. But if you'd both like to discuss Mayr's book in detail then a new topic would be best. --------------------EvC Forum Administrator
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joralex Inactive Member |
"quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In summary : the book is pretty good if you want to know about 'evolution' and terrible if you want to know the complete & true story. In this sense it was precisely what one would expect coming from a leading apostle of naturalistic evolution. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (btw, should we start another thread? this is off-topic." [Don't know... I'll let Admin decide this - Joralex.] Well, since you seem to think that Mayr did not present the complete and true story, what do you think he's hiding from us? The 'complete and true' story is simply that the real issue here isn't scientific - it is of clashing metaphysics. In the same vein, that the creation-evolution battle is a battle of 'science versus religion' is one of the biggest myths being circulated. Even many Christians and other religious folks believe this to be the case. It is also true that many people aren't even aware of this falsehood (and these people may be forgiven). Heck, I'm not even 100% certain that Mayr himself is knowledgeable of this - ignorance occurs at any level. My strong suspicion, however, is that Mayr is fully aware of the 'complete and true story' but continues to promote the party line / his worldview. I base my suspicion on the fact that Mayr is extremely well educated, has the necessary IQ points, and has been around "forever" (he's almost 100 years old). Thus, I doubt very much that he can plead 'ignorance' in this matter. In Christ,Joralex
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
If it isn't a clash between science and religion can you explain how it could be a clash between metaphysics ? Or why it is religious organisations like Answers in Genesis that push creationism ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joralex Inactive Member |
"If it isn't a clash between science and religion can you explain how it could be a clash between metaphysics ? Or why it is religious organisations like Answers in Genesis that push creationism ?"
Do you know and comprehend what a 'metaphysic' is? If you do understand then you must know that 'naturalism' is a full-fledged metaphysic. Ergo, this is a clashing of metaphysics - naturalism vs. creationism. Quite simple, actually... BTW, 'metaphysical' is another way of saying 'religious'. Thus, as an example, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) pushing naturalistic evolution is no less "religious" than is Answers in Genesis pushing creationism. Just making sure that one standard gets applied uniformly. In Christ,Joralex
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
But not all metaphysics are equally valid in all contexts. For example, naturalism would be a poor metaphysic for the study of the supernatural, and religion a poor metaphysic for the study of natural principles.
When examining a phenomena it is important to describe on what basis or for what reason the position of religion differs with the position of science. For example, does religion have a different position than science on Newton's Laws of Motion? No, of course not. But your religion *does* have a different position than science concerning evolution. Data supporting evolution was gathered using the same scientific method as data supporting Newton's Laws. What distinction do you draw between evolution and Newton that causes the religion metaphysic to interpret them differently? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Well you have not answered the question at all. Indeed you seem to like insuinuating that those who disagree with you do not comprehend the sitatution whilst displaying no understanding yourself.
However, unless you can show that your "creationism" metaphysic is non-religious it seems clear that the situation you are describing is a clash between science and religion. And, yes, I do know what a metaphysic is - it is you who does not as your equation of metaphysics with religion clearly demonstrates. What is more your attempt to label science religion presents yet more evidence that what you are talkin about is indeed a clash of science and religion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
w_fortenberry Member (Idle past 6135 days) Posts: 178 From: Birmingham, AL, USA Joined: |
An interesting set of statements, Paul...
Could you perhaps explain the difference between metaphysics and religion, and could you support that differentiation with references to reputable dictionaries?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Metaphysics is strictly speaking a branch of philosophy. While a religion may - and usually does - include metaphysical views to assume that those views are a religion would seem foolish. Equally a philosophical posiiton may include metaphysical views without being a religion. I do not see that this is in any way controversial among anybody with even a basic grasp of the subject.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joralex Inactive Member |
"But not all metaphysics are equally valid in all contexts. For example, naturalism would be a poor metaphysic for the study of the supernatural, and religion a poor metaphysic for the study of natural principles."
While a constrained metaphysic is theoretically possible, a metaphysic is generally regarded as all-encompassing. That is why a 'metaphysic' and a 'worldview' are synonymous meaning that all aspects of existence are encompassed by that particular metaphysic/worldview. Also, what you propose above is a caricature - e.g., no knowledgeable person would consider employing Maxwell's Equations to study the Bible.You've got it all wrong (as do many others). "When examining a phenomena it is important to describe on what basis or for what reason the position of religion differs with the position of science. For example, does religion have a different position than science on Newton's Laws of Motion? No, of course not. But your religion *does* have a different position than science concerning evolution." That alone ought to give you a hint. Newton's Laws of Motion make no pretense to oppose the creationist worldview so there is no 'clashing' of metaphysics. Newton's Laws of Motion aim merely to describe certain aspects of the universe and not to suggest an alternate means by which that universe may have come about. The evolutionary paradigm, on the other hand, aims to replace the creationist worldview with materialistic naturalism - an alternate and opposing worldview. Surely you can see this (very obvious) point. "Data supporting evolution was gathered using the same scientific method as data supporting Newton's Laws. What distinction do you draw between evolution and Newton that causes the religion metaphysic to interpret them differently?" I believe that I've answered this above. In Christ,Joralex
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024