Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
24 online now:
AlexCaledin, AZPaul3, Dr Adequate, vimesey (4 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,769 Year: 16,805/19,786 Month: 930/2,598 Week: 176/251 Day: 5/59 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Using the Bible as fact...
John
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 113 (11359)
06-11-2002 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Jet
06-11-2002 6:12 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
***Sure! I would be glad to!

Interpretation: Explanation of what is obscure; A translation from one language into another. [New International Dictionary]


My dictionary has:

Interpretation: to decide what the intended meaning of something is (Cambridge International Dictionary)

Let's see... you also get:

Interpretation: to concieve in the light of individual belief, judgement or circumstance (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary)

These come to mind long before the senses of "translation" or "transliteration"

Take care.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Jet, posted 06-11-2002 6:12 PM Jet has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Jet, posted 06-12-2002 1:31 PM John has responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 113 (11403)
06-12-2002 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Jet
06-12-2002 1:31 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jet:
***And that in itself is a matter of "opinion".***
[/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, it is. But words carry with them more than their strict definitions. I found far more references to interpretation as an expression of opinion, than as translation. My experience as an English speaker in an English country leads me to believe that this is by far the most common association with the word.

You are technically correct. I can't argue that. It just seems that you'd choose a word less likely to cause misunderstanding.

Not to mention that numerous informal logical fallacies depend upon just this sort of word play-- alternate meanings... that sort of thing.

Take care.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Jet, posted 06-12-2002 1:31 PM Jet has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Jet, posted 06-13-2002 2:15 PM John has responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 113 (11487)
06-13-2002 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Jet
06-13-2002 2:15 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
***I agree! Unfortunately, many EVOs abandon this line of reasoning when it comes to "definition".***

I don't see this in evolutionary science. Of course, humans being human there are going to mistakes, slips of the tongue, whatever, and there are outright deception at times. As long as these errors are corrected, no big deal. Short of our becoming infallible, this is the best we can do. What I don't see is intentional equivocation on a grand scale.

quote:
The power of reason is not an automatic consequence of physical maturity.

Yeah, no kidding.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Jet, posted 06-13-2002 2:15 PM Jet has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Jet, posted 06-13-2002 3:21 PM John has responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 113 (11510)
06-13-2002 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Jet
06-13-2002 3:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
John says:
***Beauty, or rather in this case, Honesty, is in the eye of the beholder. Agreement to disagree is a cornerstone of debate.***

Sad that I can't get any of that debate out of you. Do you really think cookie-cutter quips and flippant dismissals count as discussion?

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Jet, posted 06-13-2002 3:21 PM Jet has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Jet, posted 06-14-2002 12:26 PM John has responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 113 (11594)
06-14-2002 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Jet
06-14-2002 12:26 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
I suppose that would depend upon the intellectual level of the person that I am responding to.

Shalom

Jet


Right... your great powers of intellect do set you apart-- as we've all seen on this forum.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Jet, posted 06-14-2002 12:26 PM Jet has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Jet, posted 06-14-2002 2:23 PM John has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 113 (13553)
07-15-2002 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by w_fortenberry
07-12-2002 2:41 PM


quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
Am I to assume then that when you claimed that the Bible can not be used as fact, you did so with limited observation?

If so, allow me to suggest that you increase your observations.


I am not sure how many times I was forced to read the Bible as a kid, but since I hit adulthood I have consciously read it end to end four times. Each time it seems more absurd than the time before. I have gone to the trouble of researching the history of the text(s) and the the archeology of the surrounding area. I even taught myself a wee bit 'o Hebrew.

It was in fact, an obsession with such topics that fueled my education in Anthropology and Philosophy.

My observations are fine thanks.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-12-2002 2:41 PM w_fortenberry has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 113 (13934)
07-22-2002 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Tranquility Base
07-22-2002 3:04 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
but about 50% was certainly.

Wowie.... down to 50% now... we are making progress...

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-22-2002 3:04 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 113 (14776)
08-03-2002 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by w_fortenberry
08-03-2002 1:52 AM


quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
My acceptance of the KJV as the Bible is based primarily on the fact that it is completely internally consistent. It does not contradict itself.

Are any previous versions also internally consistent? If not the Bible was created by King James. We can ditch all the rest including the originals. Eh?

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by w_fortenberry, posted 08-03-2002 1:52 AM w_fortenberry has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by gene90, posted 08-05-2002 9:34 PM John has responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 113 (14875)
08-05-2002 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by gene90
08-05-2002 9:34 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
It would not mean anything if the Bible were internally consistent because if the original texts are inconsistent they can always be "corrected" by editors.

Agreed, conditionally.

This is how I think about it.

The Bible doesn't give a non-believer much to go on. Most of it is unsupported by external evidence whether written or archeological, and what is supported is pretty trivial-- meaning it is well within human ability to observe and record.

So the only thing left is the book itself. And in the absense of external evidence all one can do is compare it to itself. While an internally inconsistent book doesn't prove anything, an internally consistent book would.

quote:
However the Bible is not perfectly internally consistent. It shouldn't be expected to be because it is passed down by fallible people (and fallible translators). To claim it is otherwise is to make it into a graven image.

Agreed, but I was raised with exactly the opposite dogma, and I cannot tell you how many times I have heard the phrase repeated "There is not one single contradiction in the entire book"

In the absense of any other data, apologists tend to grasp onto the internal consistency straw.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by gene90, posted 08-05-2002 9:34 PM gene90 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by gene90, posted 08-05-2002 10:19 PM John has responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 113 (14880)
08-05-2002 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by gene90
08-05-2002 10:19 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
Really the best indicator is the Holy Spirit, a highly personal form of revelation that is easily explained away by non-believers as us believers simply trying to trick ourselves into believing through wishful thinking.

If you're going to be religious, might as well 'fess up to the Holy Spirit.

quote:
When you haven't had a prophet in 2000 years and your professors of religion get their divine authority in Bible colleges, this is the result.

Yeah, no kidding.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by gene90, posted 08-05-2002 10:19 PM gene90 has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 113 (14885)
08-06-2002 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Tranquility Base
08-06-2002 12:06 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
1. 66 book Isaiah appears to be a picture of the entire word. The 40th chapter begins with 'a new coveant' as does the 40th book of the Bible (Matthew, 1st book of NT). The 66th chapter discusses the 'new heavens and the new earth' as does the 66th book of the Bible (Revelations).
2. The 7-sticked candlestick was the source of light (cf the word) in the Tabernacle. It had 66 pieces. When broken in 'half' (4/3 sticks) it breaks into 39 and 27 part components.

You are beginning to sound like a Kabbalist....

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-06-2002 12:06 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 113 (14959)
08-07-2002 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by w_fortenberry
08-07-2002 2:01 AM


quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
Please explain how your example is an proof of a lack of consistency. I am not aware of any Scripture which is contradicted by the salvation of the said thief.

Different books of Gospel "quote" the characters in the story as saying different things. It is minor, but it is an inconsistency.

quote:
That is incorrect. Constantine established what was to become known as the Catholic Church, but the teachings of Christianity were established long before his rise to power.

Please read: http://bidstrup.com/bible.htm You have to skip three quarters to the end to get to the part about Constantine, but I suggest reading the whole essay.

quote:
The order of the books of the Bible was decided by the Council of Nicea. This goes back to editing. If this is not coincidence, it is not divine either.

It wasn't just the order that was editted. Huge numbers of books were thrown out and/or altered.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by w_fortenberry, posted 08-07-2002 2:01 AM w_fortenberry has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by w_fortenberry, posted 08-12-2002 2:04 PM John has responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 113 (15326)
08-12-2002 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by w_fortenberry
08-12-2002 2:04 PM


quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
I) The site you referred to presented twelve books used in the research of the material.
In contrast the site I referenced presented a partial listing of sources which mentioned seventy-nine books.

You did notice that only a handfull of those references actually dealt with the very early church? The rest deal with the history of the Waldenses, the Baptists,.... etc. This is a very lame way to add credentials to a paper or to a point.

quote:
II) I also noticed that while the site you presented refers to historical events to support its conclusion, the other site refers to traceable historical documents to support its conclusion.

I have just reread the the site you posted with your comments in mind. The part of the online essay dealing with the early church -- 30-500ad-- lists not one traceable historical document (unless of course, you count any document published prior to today as a traceable historical document) except for verses of the Bible itself. The Bible can't verify the Bible. This is silly. Your link is a compendium of two thousand years worth of christian apologetics. This is not the same as providing historical fact.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

[This message has been edited by John, 08-12-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by w_fortenberry, posted 08-12-2002 2:04 PM w_fortenberry has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by w_fortenberry, posted 08-13-2002 2:14 AM John has responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 113 (15363)
08-13-2002 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by w_fortenberry
08-13-2002 2:14 AM


quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
Have you ever studied the histories of the Waldenses, the Baptists, or the Albigenses? All three of these groups trace their history back to the early Church.

hmmm..... "Let us start with the basic premise about Baptist History: the modern Baptist denomination originated in England and Holland in the early seventeenth century"

http://www.volstate.net/~credo/page13.html

quote:
I have just reread the the site you posted with your comments in mind. The part of the online essay dealing with the early church -- 30-500ad-- lists not one traceable historical document (unless of course, you count any document published prior to today as a traceable historical document) except for verses of the Bible itself. The Bible can't verify the Bible. This is silly. Your link is a compendium of two thousand years worth of christian apologetics. This is not the same as providing historical fact.

I also have reread the portion in question and found six direct references to historical documents. They are as follows.

quote:
in A.D. 251, the loyal churches declared non-fellowship for those churches which accepted and practiced these errors.

Here is the full text, "7. Let it be remembered that changes like these here mentioned were not made in a day, nor even within a year. They came about slowly and never within all the churches. Some of the churches vigorously repudiated them. So much so that in A.D. 251, the loyal churches declared non-fellowship for those churches which accepted and practiced these errors. And thus came about the first real official separation among the churches."

Where exactly is a reference to a HISTORICAL DOCUMENT?

quote:
Hence Galerius, the emperor, sent out a direct edict of more savage persecution. This occurred Feb. 24, 303 A.D.

"12. Persecutions have become increasingly bitter. Near the beginning of the fourth century comes possibly the first definite government edict of persecution. The wonderful growth of Christianity has alarmed the pagan leaders of the Roman Empire. Hence Galerius, the emperor, sent out a direct edict of more savage persecution. This occurred Feb. 24, 303 A.D. Up to this time Paganism seems to have persecuted without any definite laws to that effect."

How about this one? Where is the reference to a HISTORICAL DOCUMENT?

quote:
In each reference, the author presented a description of the contents of the document and the date of publication.

???????? Oh really?

{quoteI also found several indirect references to historical documents. For instance...

quote:
The name appears, as first applied to the Bishop of Rome 296-304.

][/quote]

And again:
"29. It was early in the period of the "dark ages" when real Popery had its definite beginnings. This was by Leo II, A.D. 440 to 461. This, however, was not the first time the title was ever used. This title, similar to the Catholic church itself, was largely a development. The name appears, as first applied to the Bishop of Rome 296-304. It was formally adopted by Siricius, Bishop of Rome 384-398. Then officially adopted by Leo II, 440-461. Then claimed to be universal, 707. Then some centuries later declared by Gregory VII to be the exclusive right of the papacy."

Where is the citation?

Naming dates is not enough.

quote:
The word "appears" indicates that the author is refering to an actual historical document even though he chose not to reference that document directly.

ummm.... so if I use the word "appears" a lot you'll believe me cause it will mean I have actual historical documents at my disposal?

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by w_fortenberry, posted 08-13-2002 2:14 AM w_fortenberry has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019