|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total) |
| |
The Rutificador chile | |
Total: 919,503 Year: 6,760/9,624 Month: 100/238 Week: 17/83 Day: 0/0 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10302 Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Faith writes: Except those inspired by God. It is humans who claim that writings were inspired by God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1702 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It is humans who claim that writings were inspired by God. It is humans inspired by God who claim that writings were inspired by God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9581 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 6.4
|
Of course god could have written the bloody thing himself and avoided 3,000 years of conflict and confusion.
Why didn't he?Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2341 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 7.7
|
It is humans inspired by God who claim that writings were inspired by God.
Fallible humans who claim to be inspired by God claim that the writings were inspired by God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10302 Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Faith writes: It is humans inspired by God who claim that writings were inspired by God. So claims a human.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 426 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
That's your fallible interpretation.
Might be right. Might not be right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1702 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Weird. Do you think everything everyone thinks about anything at all, including yourself, is so fallible you can never decide if you are ever right about any of it?
Of course not. I'm right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 426 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
No, of course not.
You can decide, obviously you have. You cannot prove your decision correct without more evidence. "I've decided" is not enough. "A lot of people have decided" doesn't work either. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6077 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
God arranged to have his Word recorded in written form to preserve its accuracy down through the centuries. An oral method wouldn't work as it would be very prone to mistakes when being passed from one person to the next. Plus there would be no way of checking if the contemporary version of the story is faithful to the original. The Jews went to extreme lenghts to ensure that each and every word was accurately copied from one Bible copy to the next. OK, I actually had a class in Rabbinic Literature. Yes, the standards for transcribing the Torah itself were placed extremely high, but what of the rest of Scripture? BTW, for you religious idiots, the Torah is the first five books of the Old Testatment. But then your "Bible" includes the "New Testament", which falls outside of the Jewish tradition, so you are completely and utterly screwed when you try to claim Jewish tradition in preserving the alleged integrity of your "New Testatment" passages. Do your continuous attempts to deceive really have no boundaries? Have you ever studied Greek? That is no non sequitur, because the New Testament was written in Greek, even though some of the source manuscripts were in Aramaic. I did study Greek, Koine Greek, the Greek of the New Testament. For two semesters. We used the Bruce Metzger New Testament. For each and every passage in the New Testament, all the various variations from the many source manuscripts were presented. And they showed your traditional interpretations to be a lie. There are many different manuscripts for each verse, very few of which agree with each other. Some differences, like Luke 2:14, completely change the meaning. Even Revelation 22:18-19, which promises great punishment to anyone who would add to, delete from, or change that revelation, has differences in its manuscripts (testimony to how little the early Christians cared about the Scripture they were creating?). So who decided which versions to use? Fallible Man. Furthermore, some manuscripts are in Aramaic and some in Greek, so the Aramaic manuscripts had to be translated to Greek. And then there was yet another chain of translations before it got into your own hands. Do you have any idea what's involved in translating from one language to another? You read the source language and you then try to express what you think it says in to target language. IOW, at the core of translation is the act of interpretation by a fallible human. And if that fallible human is biased by his religious beliefs, then there's the chance of even more error slipping in. Every step of the way we see fallible Man constantly poking his pudgy fingers into the Bible, injecting error at every turn. And then we have the theologians and preachers who take that finished product and twist and interpret it to mean whatever they want it to mean regardless of how far they have to stretch it. There are many aspects of Christianity that I just simply cannot believe, but the one that I really cannot believe in is their central belief in the infallibility of Man. True story; even though it's sure to go right over your head, lurkers may even get a laugh out of it. An activist creationist posted it in his newsletter.Some theologian had tried to explain away the Resurrection by claiming that Jesus had a twin brother -- ridiculous on several levels, including the fact that it's just a story so there's nothing to explain away, plus why would a Christian want to explain away the central foundational myth of his own religion? Anyway, this creationist cited the wisdom of a child who pointed out that the Bible says that Mary was "with child", not "with children." Well, first off, there's no such expression in English as "being with children" and "with child" would indeed be used properly for twins, triplets, etc. Second, that's not what the Bible says. In the Greek, it says that she "had in belly". No explicit mention of any children. Similarly, I've seen "sun" and "son" being conflated (including on Star Trek:TOS, "Bread and Circuses") and an interpretation of "atonement" as meaning "at one-ment", all of which can only possibly work in English and would be completely meaningless in the original language. From Mein Bester Feind (2011), Moritz Bleibtreu as an Austrian Jewish art dealer just before the Anschlu showing to his life-long Christian friend a Michelangelo sketch with an oddity due to a misinterpretation of the Bible (translated from memory):
quote: How very true. Edited by dwise1, : "There are many different manuscripts ... " Edited by dwise1, : Fixed a couple details in the movie reference Edited by dwise1, : Left out one letter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
HBD writes: Do you know what an internet troll is?An internet troll is someone who posts just to provoke an emotional response from other members. Is that what you are doing? If so... stop! It's nonsense, unproductive and unbecoming of a professing Christian. HBD, the party-pooper.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1702 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I don't feel any need to try to prove it. It remains a fact that if God inspired the writers the writing has no errors and should be taken as God's own communication. My opinion is irrelevant, as is yours.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Riggamortis Member (Idle past 228 days) Posts: 167 From: Australia Joined: |
Faith writes: It remains a fact that if God inspired the writers the writing has no errors and should be taken as God's own communication. Bold added, I agree 100%. It's a big if though, don't you think?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17919 Joined: Member Rating: 6.6 |
quote: That's not a fact. God doesn't have to do things the way you want. God can let the writers make errors if he chooses not to prevent it. Doesn't the fact that not one book of the Bible presents itself as a direct communication from God count for something ? Isn't it a good reason to think that the Bible is largely a human creation and fallible ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1663 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
... But using the "starting point" of a young earth is no worse than using evolution as a starting point, which is what most atheists do. Yes it is, because there is objective empirical evidence that the earth is way older than all the YECie assumption filled "calculations" combined. AND it is, because there is objective empirical evidence that evolution occurs, has occurred, and continues to occur. We can also use astro-physics to show an old world and geology to show an old world and paleontology to show evolution and chemistry to show how biology works and biology to show how evolution works -- in other words there are other fields that provide consilient evidence for both an old world and evolution. There are no other supporting systems for a young earth. Any rational open minded but skeptical unbiased person coming to the information from a state of complete ignorance of all the information, who then weighed the information before deciding which position was more valid, would choose the positions backed by evidence. Thought experiment: if you eradicated all bibles and all memories of the bible from the minds of all humans, would it be recreated by anyone interested in finding "truth" about reality? If you eradicated all science books and all memories of the science from the minds of all humans, would it be recreated by anyone interested in finding "truth" about reality? Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22953 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
CRR writes: The quote is fair. Sure it is. That's why Ruse said creationists are "more interested in using my words for their own ends rather than for understanding what I am really trying to say." Ruse's criticisms of Dawkins and Gould were used as examples of one end of the spectrum while weaving a complex story, which is why Ruse described the question as "varied, interesting and insightful." --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024