Tower of Babble (a bunch of baseless babble)

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
In this case divine is in the biblical sense, "Gods doing", miracles etc. There really isn't a definition problem here. If you take Gods work out of the bible, it's a story set against a historical background. So the elixir of the bible is God & his work, & this is the very bone of contention that needs evidence to make KPs bible "fact".

​

Mark

​

---

so if science cant find all the answers and the answers havent been found yet then its incorrect?------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
In this case divine is in the biblical sense, "Gods doing", miracles etc.

---

Check out some of the contexts in which this term -divine- is used:When the servants of Joseph find the royal cup hidden in the baggage of his brothers, they note that Joseph not only drinks from that cup but also "divines" with it.
Later, when Joseph confronts his brothers on the matter, he asks, "Do you not know that such a man as I can indeed divine?" Genesis 44:5,15.The king of Israel requests a spirit medium to "divine" for him the spirit of the prophet Samuel. 1 Samuel 28:8The king of Babylon uses "divination" to plan his attack on Jerusalem. Ezekiel 21:21,22."A divine sentence is in the lips of the king" Proverbs 16:10Remember, the king is himself divine; a god, and a son of god.The New Testament uses the word divine on three occasions: once descriptive of public worship, "divine service" and twice in reference to the godlike nature and power of King Jesus.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark24
"There really isn't a definition problem here."

---

There may be some confusion or misunderstanding of what the term implies in reference to the Bible. As far as I can tell, however, the scripture does not describe itself as "divine".--------------------
db

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
so if science cant find all the answers and the answers havent been found yet then its incorrect?

​

---

KP, please try to stay focussed. YOU said the bible was fact. I asked you to produce evidence. You didn't, so it isn't, OK?Stop trying to move the goalposts, & confess the supernatatural nature of the bible IS NOT FACT. (Since doctrbill objects to divine)This has NOTHING to do with science.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-17-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctrbill:
There may be some confusion or misunderstanding of what the term implies in reference to the Bible. As far as I can tell, however, the scripture does not describe itself as "divine".

​

---

For divine, read supernatural then. It doesn't matter the argument remains the same.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
For divine, read supernatural then. It doesn't matter the argument remains the same.

​

Mark

​

---

Did I miss something? Are you saying that the Bible is supernatural?Never mind. Just read your previous post. Seems I was attempting to persuade the wrong fellow. Sorry about that.--------------
db

​

[This message has been edited by doctrbill, 02-17-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctrbill:
Did I miss something? Are you saying that the Bible is supernatural?

​

Never mind. Just read your previous post. Seems I was attempting to persuade the wrong fellow. Sorry about that.

​

--------------
db

​

[This message has been edited by doctrbill, 02-17-2002]

---

db, np.Whatever word you or I end up agreeing on, it has to mean Gods work, miracles etc. I actually don't mind which word. And yes, the bible infers the supernatural, God.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-17-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:
Dr. Bill:
I note you list this in you "signature":

​

Bachelor of Arts - Loma Linda University

​

I have previously explored around the Geoscience Research Institute
website. ( http://www.grisda.org/main.html )

​

They are based at Loma Linda University.

​

I find the Adventist Churches strugle with reconciling science and the Bible to be rather fascinating.

​

Do you have any comments on that situation?

​

Still Moose

​

---

Hi Moose!Sorry I am so late in responding to your post. I spent a lot of my time in Yahoo! until they screwed up that forum. Still learning how to use this one.Yes, Seventh-day Adventists are quite challenged by the difficulty of making science and Bible agree. That problem is one of the reasons I am no longer with them. Some of my former colleagues were influential in the early days of "Creation Science", and I know of one, a paleontologist who still clings to the YEC platform (imagine that!). Well, he makes a lot of money in the profession, and gains public accolade through the church, so I can see the temptation to keep the blinders on.Anyway. They also have a problem reconciling modern geology with the writings of Ellen White (whom they consider to be a prophet on a par with Isaiah). To many SDA's her writings are as sacred as the Bible itself. Ellen has written that earthquakes are caused by God setting fire to underground coal and oil which comes into contact with underground water, resulting in steam explosions. That idea was popular in her time (circa 1880). I believe that Ellen, like Isaiah and others, made allusion to the generally accepted science of their own times. Personally, I accept the evolution of science. If I didn't, then how would I be corresponding with you now?!-----------
db

Sorry, my copy has disappeared twice because I did not put my password and username in correctly and it didn't save it in my cache when I wen't back, so I will only do breif answers.Hey percipent, could you make it so that when this happens and you come to the area where it says you did this wrong, make it display what you have written? This would be an amazing help."You wouldn't be looking for accuracy or infallibility. There are accurate books which are not divinely inspired. Infallibility - if different from accuracy - presumably means that it would be entirely internally and externally consistent."
--We would be looking for historical and scientific accuracy, but infallability is more opinionated based on its accuracy, as everything is not testable or provides potential falsification."The external consistency of the text - how it squares with the real world - is what you seem to regard as a question "that either cannot be tested or provide potential falsification."
--See above."The internal consistency of the Bible is a matter of considerable debate resting on interpretation and exegesis: human (and therefore fallible) processes. The apparent infallibility may be the result of human misinterpretation of the text, which unlike scientific experiment or observation, cannot be repeated or tested or falsified."
--There are people who will tell you that the bible is self-defining. That is, it defines itself by obvious gestures and emphesis within its text. I, however, do not agree with this at the extent of Luke defines Genesis or vice versa. This argument should be, if used, within chapter. Also it requires obvious reasoning, common sence, logic, and human understanding in analogetic phrasing and the like. Such is my definition in context of 'heart' in the bible."You are of course aware that interpretations of Biblical passages have evolved, often dramatically, over the centuries."
--Yes, even the flat earthers, or those who took it's literalism to the extream many years ago when they thought that the Heart gives function as we know the brain does."The interpretations often contradict each other and cannot all be true. So one may end up begging an important question - what objective criteria do we use to decide which interpretation we apply our criteria for infallibility to?Amusingly, I have seen some arguments along the lines of "interpretation X of this passage must be the right one because otherwise it would contradict interpretation Y of another passage." The best which can be said of such a line of reasoning is that it suggests that there are possible internally consistent interpretations - but not that these are true."
--See above."Accuracy and apparent infallibility are therefore not evidence of divine nature."
--Thats right, those who suggest there is direct evidence of divine inspiration will usually be running into a brick wall, I have yet to meet someone who can do this. What can be put to the test in scripture is accuracy according to the factors I have listed above."Finally, there can be competing and incompatible claims for infallibility. What (preferably falsifiable) criteria would you use to decide between claims of the infallibility of the Holy Qu'ran and the New Testament?"
--See above, the same criteria should be met in the same with any Holy book.------------------

"Mister Pamboli stole my thunder somewhat. A historical text could be accurate, but if it said at the end "God did miracles", I would expect evidence of it, this aspect would be unsubstantiated until evidence was provided. ONLY evidence of those miracles is evidence of those miracles. Internal consistency elsewhere is means it was proof read, nothing more.Until evidence of the bibles divinity is brought forward, it is a hopeful assumption, not fact."
--Evidence for divine or supernatural nature is not exactly something your going to be able to look for accept by faith. As the bible could be the most accurate book known to man, but that still does not say the bible was inspired by a divine nature. Evidence of miracles if supplying potential falsification along with experimental and testabillity.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-17-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Mister Pamboli stole my thunder somewhat. A historical text could be accurate, but if it said at the end "God did miracles", I would expect evidence of it, this aspect would be unsubstantiated until evidence was provided. ONLY evidence of those miracles is evidence of those miracles. Internal consistency elsewhere is means it was proof read, nothing more.

​

Until evidence of the bibles divinity is brought forward, it is a hopeful assumption, not fact."
--Evidence for divine or supernatural nature is not exactly something your going to be able to look for accept by faith. As the bible could be the most accurate book known to man, but that still does not say the bible was inspired by a divine nature. Evidence of miracles if supplying potential falsification along with experimental and testabillity.

​

---

TC,KP said the bible was fact. He can't prove it, so it isn't.Christians claim the bible was divinely inspired. Their words, not mine.The Koran COULD be the most accurate known to man. If you have no evidence of that accuracy, why believe it?Do you realise how ridiculous a claim is that something "could be the most accurate book". Meaningless.I don't unserstand your last sentence.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
I want to ask this again, what specific criteria did the people building the tower of babel transgress to incur divine intervention?

​

Must've been something.

​

Mark

---

In the bible go destroys the tower of bable because the intent is
for man to reach the heavens.He confuses their language so that they will be unable to co-operate
on such a massive engineering feat ever again.Must have worked ... look at NASA.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
In the bible go destroys the tower of bable because the intent is
for man to reach the heavens.

​

He confuses their language so that they will be unable to co-operate
on such a massive engineering feat ever again.

​

Must have worked ... look at NASA.

---

Maybe the International space station would be an even better example...After all that is a combined project by several space agencies of various cultural extractions....

If the only things you believe are those that you actually observe occuring with your own eyes, I have a question for you...Do you deny that electrons exist?------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

How do you tell the difference between a system which has been intelligently designed and a natural one?------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
In the bible go destroys the tower of bable because the intent is
for man to reach the heavens.

​

He confuses their language so that they will be unable to co-operate
on such a massive engineering feat ever again.

​

Must have worked ... look at NASA.

---

Thanks Peter,I have a proposal that would prove/disprove the existence of God once & for all. Lets build another tower, with the specific intention of reaching heaven. If God intervenes, then I eat my hat, if he doesn't christianity quietly goes away, OK?If God didn't intervene would any christians accept this as evidence of Gods non existence?C'mon, I have more to lose, if you're wrong, the bibles a book of stories, if I'm wrong I get cast into the fiery pit.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.