|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did the sky really go dark as biblical inerrantists insist? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
velcero Inactive Junior Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
velcero Inactive Junior Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LinearAq Member (Idle past 4676 days) Posts: 598 From: Pocomoke City, MD Joined: |
velcero writes:
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. 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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 735 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
velcero Inactive Junior Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
velcero Inactive Junior Member |
Shallow opinions are permissable, as well as graphical @&^*ing language.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Perhaps there were many dark clouds that day. I have seen it grow "dark" when thunderstorms roll through the area.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
velcero Inactive Junior Member |
You are right. I choose not to dignify your response with another one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
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. 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:
Helpful links for New Members:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], and Practice Makes Perfect
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024