Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did the sky really go dark as biblical inerrantists insist?
velcero
Inactive Junior Member


Message 76 of 113 (385379)
02-15-2007 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by LinearAq
02-12-2007 2:09 PM


Re: Land or World?
It is amazing how critics seem to want it both ways. Critics about Noah's Flood say that "all the world" (paraphrasing) simply means the local area. It was not the whole earth that was covered but only a regional flood. They contend that there would not have been enough water to cover the whole earth, including the mountains. But the Bible does say the whole earth. Regarding the darkness at the Crucifiction, the Bible mentions the whole land. My contention here is that this does not refer to the whole earth. If it did, it would have emphasized it, just as the Bible says in the Flood story.
The main point of my initial reply though was to disagree with the standpoint that someone made about the impossibility of a 3-day eclipse of the sun that would have produced the darkness. The only reasonable cause would have been dark cloud cover. Of course the author knows the difference between cloud cover and darkness. But think about it. If the weather were changing because of approaching heavy rains, one would probably remark about how dark it would be getting. He would not resort to meteorological terminology.
I do not know your moral position. I will propose to you, though, that contrary to the critics, the Bible is extremely historically accurate. Yes it is a book based in theism. However, it is also a witness in a sense to geology, biology and other sciences. Of course it does not use scientific terminology, which had not yet even been invented. The fact is that many of the sciences, particularly archaeology and geology have supported the historicity of the Bible. That does not mean that the Bible has been "proven" accurate in every respect. But one thing is for sure - nothing has proven the Bible wrong, except for those who choose to hold that it is only a book of fairy tales.
Now I know many of you are salivating right now to come back at me with pseudo-scientific jargon about this or that or the other. I am not going to enter into an unending thread. But I challenge you to re-evaluate the data from a totally objective viewpoint. View the data only as it is, not as what can be deduced by conjecture or opinion as to what seemingly happened in the past. Read the words, and if you have a problem understanding them literally, then understand them in a colloquial sense and in the manner that the author may have used words. A modern example is the word gay. A century ago the word was used prolifically to mean happy, fun, etc. - the "gay nineties" referred to the decade of the 1890's. Today we of course know what it has come to mean. So if a future historian would be reading about John Doe who lived in the early part of the 20th century and that he was gay, you could see how controversial a discussion about him would be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by LinearAq, posted 02-12-2007 2:09 PM LinearAq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-19-2007 8:23 PM velcero has not replied

  
velcero
Inactive Junior Member


Message 77 of 113 (385384)
02-15-2007 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by LinearAq
02-12-2007 2:09 PM


Re: Land or World?
I do not know which bible your quote came from. In my Bible, the quote from Luke 23:44 is "It was now about noon and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon". There is not mention of the whole earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by LinearAq, posted 02-12-2007 2:09 PM LinearAq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by ringo, posted 02-15-2007 12:41 PM velcero has replied
 Message 79 by LinearAq, posted 02-16-2007 9:38 AM velcero has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 78 of 113 (385388)
02-15-2007 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by velcero
02-15-2007 11:51 AM


Re: Land or World?
velcero writes:
In my Bible, the quote from Luke 23:44 is "It was now about noon and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon". There is not mention of the whole earth.
The King James version says:
quote:
Luk 23:44 And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.
The real issue here is: why is the darkness important to the story?
If the authors intended to show that "the whole world weeps" for Jesus' death, then a local darkness would be meaningless. What other significance do you think the darkness might have had?
In the movies, people die in darkened rooms, funerals are cloudy and rainy.... If the darkness was a plot device, it really has no bearing on the accuracy of the Bible.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by velcero, posted 02-15-2007 11:51 AM velcero has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by velcero, posted 02-18-2007 11:15 AM ringo has replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 79 of 113 (385572)
02-16-2007 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by velcero
02-15-2007 11:51 AM


Re: Land or World?
velcero writes:
I do not know which bible your quote came from. In my Bible, the quote from Luke 23:44 is "It was now about noon and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon". There is not mention of the whole earth.
As I stated, it is the Amplified Bible. It is supposed to provide as close a translation to the original words (Hebrew, Latin...etc) as possible while also providing the meaning intended. That's the reason behind the words in brackets. Obviously, some of the "meaning" is colored by the dogma of the translators. Ringo (new better-looking version of him/her) has also shown that the King James states the whole earth was involved.
What translation of the Bible are you using?
My point is that the text does not make it clear that this was a local phenomenon and, in fact, implies that the world suffered this event. So, the issue stands, either provide some clear indication that the authors were using poetic license, or rebut the implication by others that the absence of positive evidence of darkness by other cultures is evidence that the darkness didn't occur.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by velcero, posted 02-15-2007 11:51 AM velcero has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Coragyps, posted 02-16-2007 10:11 AM LinearAq has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 80 of 113 (385575)
02-16-2007 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by LinearAq
02-16-2007 9:38 AM


Re: Land or World?
What translation of the Bible are you using?
Far more to the point, what does it say in the earliest Greek that we have? And is that even directly comparable to the Hebrew that's in the OT?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by LinearAq, posted 02-16-2007 9:38 AM LinearAq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by doctrbill, posted 02-27-2007 12:04 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
velcero
Inactive Junior Member


Message 81 of 113 (385938)
02-18-2007 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by ringo
02-15-2007 12:41 PM


Re: Land or World?
The Bible I use is the Latin Vulgate. I consider this the most accurate translation of the original books (no offense intended to anyone). I take this position because it is the original approved translation. All bibles since have put different twists on translations and have assumed certain license to interpret the books to suit the authors' own agendas.
Again, the main point of my original point was to address someone's comment about the impossibility of a 3-day eclipse of the sun. That is why I proposed the position that the sun being darkened was more probably caused by heavy cloud cover, whether it occurred locally or world-wide was not my main point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by ringo, posted 02-15-2007 12:41 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by ringo, posted 02-18-2007 11:59 AM velcero has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 82 of 113 (385941)
02-18-2007 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by velcero
02-18-2007 11:15 AM


velcero writes:
That is why I proposed the position that the sun being darkened was more probably caused by heavy cloud cover, whether it occurred locally or world-wide was not my main point.
And my point was that three cloudy days would be totally insignificant - no reason to mention it at all. It has to be a "cataclysmic" darkness or it has no meaning.
But it isn't an issue of inerrancy so much as literalism.
Could three days of darkness occur? Of course.
Did three days of darkness occur? There's no way of knowing.
Does it matter if three days of darkness occured? No.
The importance of the darkness is metaphoric - it's a darkness in the soul of the author, not a literal darkness. The only errancy involved is taking everything too @#$%ing literally.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by velcero, posted 02-18-2007 11:15 AM velcero has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by velcero, posted 02-18-2007 12:55 PM ringo has replied

  
velcero
Inactive Junior Member


Message 83 of 113 (385948)
02-18-2007 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by ringo
02-18-2007 11:59 AM


Shallow opinions are permissable, as well as graphical @&^*ing language.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by ringo, posted 02-18-2007 11:59 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by ringo, posted 02-18-2007 1:05 PM velcero has replied
 Message 88 by AdminPD, posted 02-18-2007 5:42 PM velcero has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 84 of 113 (385950)
02-18-2007 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by velcero
02-18-2007 12:55 PM


velcero writes:
Shallow opinions are permissable....
I bet people will be more impressed with your posts if you actually discuss the issue.
Dismissing a point - shallow or not - is tantamount to conceding it.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by velcero, posted 02-18-2007 12:55 PM velcero has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by velcero, posted 02-18-2007 1:35 PM ringo has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 85 of 113 (385952)
02-18-2007 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Brian
08-15-2006 11:05 AM


Re: Geesh!
Perhaps there were many dark clouds that day. I have seen it grow "dark" when thunderstorms roll through the area.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Brian, posted 08-15-2006 11:05 AM Brian has not replied

  
velcero
Inactive Junior Member


Message 86 of 113 (385955)
02-18-2007 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by ringo
02-18-2007 1:05 PM


You are right. I choose not to dignify your response with another one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by ringo, posted 02-18-2007 1:05 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by ringo, posted 02-18-2007 1:44 PM velcero has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 87 of 113 (385958)
02-18-2007 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by velcero
02-18-2007 1:35 PM


velcero writes:
I choose not to dignify your response with another one.
No problem. My responses come with their own built-in dignity (such as it is) and require no validation from you.
I'm just trying to help you get with the program.
Around here, we discuss. We don't just pontificate, dismiss and run away.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by velcero, posted 02-18-2007 1:35 PM velcero has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 88 of 113 (385980)
02-18-2007 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by velcero
02-18-2007 12:55 PM


Welcome to EvC
Welcome Velcero,
Glad you decided to add to our diversity. We have a wide variety of forums for your debating pleasure.
Per the rules: ... Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument....
As members, we are guests on this board and as guests we are asked to put forth our best behavior. Please read the Forum Guidelines carefully and understand the wishes of our host. Abide by the Forum Guidelines and you will be a welcome addition.
In the purple signature box below, you'll find some links that will help make your journey here pleasant.
Please direct any questions or comments you may have to the Moderation Thread.
Again, welcome and fruitful debating. Purple

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate

Links for comments on moderation procedures and/or responding to admin msgs:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Great Debate Proposals
    Helpful links for New Members:
    Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], and Practice Makes Perfect

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 83 by velcero, posted 02-18-2007 12:55 PM velcero has not replied

      
    Dr Adequate
    Member (Idle past 284 days)
    Posts: 16113
    Joined: 07-20-2006


    Message 89 of 113 (386127)
    02-19-2007 8:17 PM
    Reply to: Message 69 by velcero
    02-12-2007 12:31 PM


    Re: Response to Nator
    Another point about historical accuracy. The Bible is the single most criticized book in the world. Tests that would confirm authenticity to historians for other writings usually do not confirm the same authenticity for the Bible.
    Au contraire. The Bible contains, for example, totally unconfirmed and untested accounts of talking animals. Normally this would be sufficient for historians to dismiss at least these sections of the Bible as mythological. You would normally, would you not, classify a story with talking animals --- Alice in Wonderland, for example --- as fictitious. Yet there are plenty of people willing to defend Genesis as an accurate history of creation; though admittedly few of them can be professional historians these days.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 69 by velcero, posted 02-12-2007 12:31 PM velcero has not replied

      
    Dr Adequate
    Member (Idle past 284 days)
    Posts: 16113
    Joined: 07-20-2006


    Message 90 of 113 (386130)
    02-19-2007 8:23 PM
    Reply to: Message 76 by velcero
    02-15-2007 11:29 AM


    Re: Land or World?
    I will propose to you, though, that contrary to the critics, the Bible is extremely historically accurate. Yes it is a book based in theism. However, it is also a witness in a sense to geology, biology and other sciences. Of course it does not use scientific terminology, which had not yet even been invented. The fact is that many of the sciences, particularly archaeology and geology have supported the historicity of the Bible.
    Unfortunately the archaelogical evidence does not confirm the supernatural elements of the Bible; any more than the discovery of Troy confirms the supernatural fables about Greek gods to be found in the Iliad; or any more than the fact that Dick Whittington was "thrice Lord Mayor of London" confirms the supernatural aspects of that fairy story.
    As for your claims that biology and geology confirm the Bible, I can only suppose that some unkind person has been pulling your leg.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 76 by velcero, posted 02-15-2007 11:29 AM velcero has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024