------------------ “As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”
I suppose that would depend upon the intellectual level of the person that I am responding to.
Shalom
Jet
------------------ “As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”
Jet writes: You seem to have a fondness for putting words into peoples' mouths.
Really? You responded to Peter with, "I admit to the expectation of reason and understanding within those to whom I may choose to reply. This, unfortunately, is not always the case." And so forth. Pretty clear writing. Very unambiguous.
Why don't you just answer Peter's rebuttal? Or anyone's rebuttal? This is supposed to be discussion and debate about evolution and creation, something you seem to have forgotten.
------------------ “As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”
Originally posted by Percipient: This is supposed to be discussion and debate about evolution and creation, something you seem to have forgotten.
--Percy[/B][/QUOTE]
It seems that it is not I who have forgotten. It is you, Peter, and others who have insisted that this thread go wandering off into endless clarifications and sub-clarifications of word definitions that have little to do with the overall topic of discussion. It seems some have not yet learned how to "agree to disagree". If you people dislike, or disagree with, my responses, you should learn to simply say so, state your reason, and move on. Continuous belabouring of any single issue, contentious or otherwise, is fruitless. Turn The Page!
Shalom
Jet
------------------ “As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”
Jet writes: It seems some have not yet learned how to "agree to disagree".
You made one post of substance to this thread in Message 30 making the point that the differences between YEC and OEC viewpoints is one of opinion and not interpretation. Peter asked for clarification, given the similar meanings of opinion and interpretation in this context, and you provided a definition of interpretation that included translation, and that's simply confused everyone.
So we don't know whether we disagree or not because we're still trying to figure out what you meant. You're the only one who knows, and apparently you're not telling.
quote:Originally posted by Jet: Peter says: In the context within which you used them, I cannot see any different content ... and asked you to elaborate that difference.
You haven't ... you have provided isolated dictionary defintions ... selected out of the large number of possible definitions for each word.
This leads me back to the topic of this thread.
You have found debate and differing opinions over two, very simple looking phrases.
How then can you claim the Bible as fact, when it contains much more complex textual content, which itself has been translated across many languages (not to mention blatantly changed for political ends).
***Aside from simply stating your personal opinion on specific matters, matters with which I happen to disagree, you simply recycle an already answered question,
Funny I thought debating was about a reasoned discusion of different viewpoints aimed at increasing ones understanding of an issue from a different perspective.
As such, should an answer to a question be insufficient, in the opinion of the debaters, further discussion in order to elaborate shoudl ensue.
ISn't that the basis of debate ?
quote:Originally posted by Jet: the answer to which, you either did not, or could not understand and/or accept.
Yes ... I do not accept your response as answering my question, and have said so in the hopes that you might try to elaborate your position, so that my poor little brain can cope with the answer
quote:Originally posted by Jet: So allow me to clarify my position as to my expectations when discussing and debating with others. For your convienence, I have chosen to cut-n-paste rather than refer you to the post in which this statement originates.
"I admit to the expectation of reason and understanding within those to whom I may choose to reply. This, unfortunately, is not always the case. As a youth, one of the many principles greatly impressed upon me was the necessity of developing a great power of reason. I can thank my father, and my grandfather, for that. Perhaps, at times, I require and expect too much from some individuals. The power of reason is not an automatic consequence of physical maturity. Some, like myself, have worked at truly developing the power of reason, and others have not. Mores the pity!"
So did you develop a great power of reason ?
In what ways did you seek to develop this ?
Why do you appear to be not putting that reasoning ability into practice here ?
Forgive the style of the above ... it was an attempt to illustrate the nature of your current debating tactic.
'Undermine the arguments against you rather than address them.'
This appears to be a tactic of evasion to me. Any thoughts on that ?
quote:Originally posted by Jet: If the reply that I gave was not satisfactory for you, then I am sorry. The above statement is a reasonable expectation. For those who cannot meet that expectation, I suggest they refrain from responding to my posts with the expectation of receiving a reply. TURN THE PAGE!
Shalom
Jet
So effectively you are saying, despite my rejection of your answer, that you HAVE answered the question and I am too dim witted to understand your response.
Even should that be the case (I am aware that my own intellect has limits) is that a reasoned response ?
What started this off was :-
quote:Originally posted by Jet: I realize that EVOs are fond of using the argument that YECs and OECs apparently interpret certain scriptures differently. I see it differently. I accept it as a difference of opinion and not interpretation. I believe the Bible interprets itself without any help from men.
Starting from the back :-
Interpretation requires an intelligent actor ... the Bible (seeing as it is a book) cannot interpret anything ... only people can.
In the context of the above I did not understand the difference between having a 'different opinion of the meaning of a passage in the bible' and 'having a different interpretation of a passage in the bible.'
If I present you (or anyone) with a passage from the Bible, and say what does that mean ... I am asking for your interpretation of that passage (not a translation into another language).
I am saying 'In your opinion, what does that mean?'
The point, while agree it is a little belaboured, is that if it is possible to hold different opinions of the meaning of a passage in the bible, then the bible cannot be held up as fact.
We are EVEN having a disagreement of these two simple phrases!!
------------------ “As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”
------------------ “As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”
quote:Originally posted by Peter: I'll ask anyone who cares to comment then::
What is the significance of a disagreement over two very simple phrases to claims that the Bible can be used as fact ?
My opinion is, due to different interpretations of passages, that the Bible cannot be USED as fact. It is the ambiguity that leads to this.
Is it also your opinion that due to different interpretations of the geologic column, the fossil record, and the cosmic microwave background radiation none of these should be used as fact either?
It's a reasonable point that you make, but I don't make any claims that the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record is a fact.
The FACTs are the layering of fossils.
With language, due to the ambiguity, the facts are lost entirely.
The FACT of the bible is the sequence of words, as the seqeunce of fossils in the fossil record is the FACT there.
The fossil record is not interpreted in ISOLATION, it has other investigations which also are consistent with the evolutionary explanation of the fossil record.
The BIBLE, on the other hand, has no compelling extra-biblical corroboration, and so we have nothing to cross-check the differing interpretations against.
quote:Originally posted by Peter: It's a reasonable point that you make, but I don't make any claims that the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record is a fact.
...The FACT of the bible is the sequence of words, as the seqeunce of fossils in the fossil record is the FACT there.
...The fossil record is not interpreted in ISOLATION, it has other investigations which also are consistent with the evolutionary explanation of the fossil record.
Is it the sequence of the fossils that is the fact, or is it their positioning that is a fact with the sequence being your interpretation of that positioning?
Are the conclusions of these other investigations fact or opinion?
And thanks for your support! 
™ Version 4.0 Beta
Shalom 
