Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8890 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-15-2019 5:04 PM
180 online now:
caffeine, DrJones*, JonF, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Theodoric (6 members, 174 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,542 Year: 2,579/19,786 Month: 661/1,918 Week: 249/266 Day: 21/92 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
345Next
Author Topic:   The Bible 2003 Edition by God et al.
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 64 (34784)
03-20-2003 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by David unfamous
02-19-2003 5:40 AM


One reason, coming right up!
"Give me one reason why the most powerful being in existence would create such a scrappy, thrown together book comprised primarily of hearsay, then watch nearly 2000 years pass as the book gets screwed up through translation and has holes picked in it because of scientific and historical errancy, but doesn't think of updating it."

"... a scrappy, thrown together book..."?

1. Tell me, do you claim to know and understand this "scrappy, thrown together book"?

2. Do you know what God's purpose was in giving us this "scrappy, thrown together book"?

3. Do you know why He included some things while leaving others out of this "scrappy, thrown together book"?

I for one would like to know the answers to these questions.

"Surely it would be a piece of cake to create the new edition in every language spoken by every person on the globe. I mean, why produce a book in just one language after that Babel incident?""

Piece of cake? Yes! Fulfilling His purpose? No!

"And if it were a new version, it would contain new stories of modern people doing stuff young people can relate to. And at least then it would be verifiable by all of us."

New version not necessary - original version is perfectly fine for its intended purpose.
As for the 'verifiable' part - what is it you want to 'verify'?
When would you feel completely satisfied that you've 'verified it'?

Also, tell me, do you pretend to know more than : [i][b]"... the most powerful being in existence..."[/i][/b] (your words)?

"Then there's the science. As we know a lot more than we did back then, it could contain up-to-date explanations of Genesis."

You are neglecting the purpose of the Book.
A while back I wrote a brief book review on Ernst Mayr's What Evolution Is. In that book review I didn't include a discussion on Fermat's Last Theorem. So?

"Is this a good idea, or is there some perfectly good reason against it?"

The "perfectly good reason" is that these things that you would like are completely unnecessary/irrelevant/contrary towards accomplishing the objective that God intended. He had a purpose... the Bible as it is accomplishes that purpose... and that is the end of the story.

Complaints against this policy may be voiced against the Author Himself on Judgment Day.

In Christ,
Jorge


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by David unfamous, posted 02-19-2003 5:40 AM David unfamous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Brian, posted 03-20-2003 3:01 PM Joralex has responded
 Message 19 by Andya Primanda, posted 03-21-2003 9:45 AM Joralex has responded
 Message 55 by David unfamous, posted 03-26-2003 11:52 AM Joralex has not yet responded
 Message 64 by doctrbill, posted 07-04-2003 12:23 AM Joralex has not yet responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 3001 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 17 of 64 (34796)
03-20-2003 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Joralex
03-20-2003 1:40 PM


Re: One reason, coming right up!
quote:
The "perfectly good reason" is that these things that you would like are completely unnecessary/irrelevant/contrary towards accomplishing the objective that God intended. He had a purpose... the Bible as it is accomplishes that purpose... and that is the end of the story.

And that purpose is?

Brian.

------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Joralex, posted 03-20-2003 1:40 PM Joralex has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Joralex, posted 03-21-2003 7:06 AM Brian has not yet responded
 Message 31 by w_fortenberry, posted 03-23-2003 4:55 PM Brian has not yet responded

    
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 64 (34869)
03-21-2003 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Brian
03-20-2003 3:01 PM


Purpose
"The "perfectly good reason" is that these things that you would like are completely unnecessary/irrelevant/contrary towards accomplishing the objective that God intended. He had a purpose... the Bible as it is accomplishes that purpose... and that is the end of the story.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And that purpose is?

Clearly the purpose is multi-faceted and no human has ever or will ever know what all of these facets are.

Nonetheless, one of these facets is plainly evident : He intended to tell us "just enough" about Himself and His creation (this creation includes us, of course) for our needs and the most important of these needs is to allow us to sustain faith while not eliminating the need for faith.

In Christ,
Joralex


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Brian, posted 03-20-2003 3:01 PM Brian has not yet responded

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 64 (34894)
03-21-2003 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Joralex
03-20-2003 1:40 PM


Re: One reason, coming right up!
quote:
A while back I wrote a brief book review on Ernst Mayr's What Evolution Is. In that book review I didn't include a discussion on Fermat's Last Theorem. So?

Joralex, would you share it with us here?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Joralex, posted 03-20-2003 1:40 PM Joralex has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Joralex, posted 03-21-2003 12:57 PM Andya Primanda has responded

  
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 64 (34922)
03-21-2003 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Andya Primanda
03-21-2003 9:45 AM


Love to, but...
"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A while back I wrote a brief book review on Ernst Mayr's What Evolution Is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joralex, would you share it with us here?"

... I'm not sure of copyright prohibitions.

My review of May's What Evolution Is was published in the last (Jan-Feb 2003) copy of the TJ (Technical Journal of Creation - formerly Creation Magazine).

In summary : the book is pretty good if you want to know about 'evolution' and terrible if you want to know the complete & true story. In this sense it was precisely what one would expect coming from a leading apostle of naturalistic evolution.

In Christ,
Joralex


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Andya Primanda, posted 03-21-2003 9:45 AM Andya Primanda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Andya Primanda, posted 03-22-2003 2:11 AM Joralex has responded

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 64 (34940)
03-22-2003 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Joralex
03-21-2003 12:57 PM


Re: Love to, but...
I am closely acquainted with that book--I translated it into Indonesian last year.

quote:
In summary : the book is pretty good if you want to know about 'evolution' and terrible if you want to know the complete & true story. In this sense it was precisely what one would expect coming from a leading apostle of naturalistic evolution.

Well, since you seem to think that Mayr did not present the complete and true story, what do you think he's hiding from us?

(btw, should we start another thread? this is off-topic.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Joralex, posted 03-21-2003 12:57 PM Joralex has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Admin, posted 03-22-2003 9:03 AM Andya Primanda has not yet responded
 Message 23 by Joralex, posted 03-22-2003 9:50 AM Andya Primanda has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12578
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 22 of 64 (34949)
03-22-2003 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Andya Primanda
03-22-2003 2:11 AM


Re: Love to, but...
(btw, should we start another thread? this is off-topic.)

Depends. If this is a short diversion from the main topic, say less than 10 posts or so, then don't bother. But if you'd both like to discuss Mayr's book in detail then a new topic would be best.

------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Andya Primanda, posted 03-22-2003 2:11 AM Andya Primanda has not yet responded

    
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 64 (34953)
03-22-2003 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Andya Primanda
03-22-2003 2:11 AM


The complete story...
"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary : the book is pretty good if you want to know about 'evolution' and terrible if you want to know the complete & true story. In this sense it was precisely what one would expect coming from a leading apostle of naturalistic evolution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(btw, should we start another thread? this is off-topic." [Don't know... I'll let Admin decide this - Joralex.]

Well, since you seem to think that Mayr did not present the complete and true story, what do you think he's hiding from us?

The 'complete and true' story is simply that the real issue here isn't scientific - it is of clashing metaphysics. In the same vein, that the creation-evolution battle is a battle of 'science versus religion' is one of the biggest myths being circulated. Even many Christians and other religious folks believe this to be the case. It is also true that many people aren't even aware of this falsehood (and these people may be forgiven). Heck, I'm not even 100% certain that Mayr himself is knowledgeable of this - ignorance occurs at any level.

My strong suspicion, however, is that Mayr is fully aware of the 'complete and true story' but continues to promote the party line / his worldview. I base my suspicion on the fact that Mayr is extremely well educated, has the necessary IQ points, and has been around "forever" (he's almost 100 years old). Thus, I doubt very much that he can plead 'ignorance' in this matter.

In Christ,
Joralex


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Andya Primanda, posted 03-22-2003 2:11 AM Andya Primanda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 03-22-2003 10:52 AM Joralex has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14715
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 24 of 64 (34955)
03-22-2003 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Joralex
03-22-2003 9:50 AM


Re: The complete story...
If it isn't a clash between science and religion can you explain how it could be a clash between metaphysics ? Or why it is religious organisations like Answers in Genesis that push creationism ?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Joralex, posted 03-22-2003 9:50 AM Joralex has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Joralex, posted 03-23-2003 9:38 AM PaulK has responded

    
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 64 (35000)
03-23-2003 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by PaulK
03-22-2003 10:52 AM


Explanation
"If it isn't a clash between science and religion can you explain how it could be a clash between metaphysics ? Or why it is religious organisations like Answers in Genesis that push creationism ?"

Do you know and comprehend what a 'metaphysic' is? If you do understand then you must know that 'naturalism' is a full-fledged metaphysic. Ergo, this is a clashing of metaphysics - naturalism vs. creationism. Quite simple, actually...

BTW, 'metaphysical' is another way of saying 'religious'. Thus, as an example, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) pushing naturalistic evolution is no less "religious" than is Answers in Genesis pushing creationism.

Just making sure that one standard gets applied uniformly.

In Christ,
Joralex


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 03-22-2003 10:52 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Percy, posted 03-23-2003 10:49 AM Joralex has responded
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 03-23-2003 2:41 PM Joralex has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18246
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 26 of 64 (35002)
03-23-2003 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Joralex
03-23-2003 9:38 AM


Re: Explanation
But not all metaphysics are equally valid in all contexts. For example, naturalism would be a poor metaphysic for the study of the supernatural, and religion a poor metaphysic for the study of natural principles.

When examining a phenomena it is important to describe on what basis or for what reason the position of religion differs with the position of science. For example, does religion have a different position than science on Newton's Laws of Motion? No, of course not. But your religion *does* have a different position than science concerning evolution. Data supporting evolution was gathered using the same scientific method as data supporting Newton's Laws. What distinction do you draw between evolution and Newton that causes the religion metaphysic to interpret them differently?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Joralex, posted 03-23-2003 9:38 AM Joralex has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Joralex, posted 03-23-2003 4:53 PM Percy has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14715
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 27 of 64 (35008)
03-23-2003 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Joralex
03-23-2003 9:38 AM


Explanation ? Should have been titled "evasion"
Well you have not answered the question at all. Indeed you seem to like insuinuating that those who disagree with you do not comprehend the sitatution whilst displaying no understanding yourself.

However, unless you can show that your "creationism" metaphysic is non-religious it seems clear that the situation you are describing is a clash between science and religion.

And, yes, I do know what a metaphysic is - it is you who does not as your equation of metaphysics with religion clearly demonstrates.

What is more your attempt to label science religion presents yet more evidence that what you are talkin about is indeed a clash of science and religion


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Joralex, posted 03-23-2003 9:38 AM Joralex has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by w_fortenberry, posted 03-23-2003 4:24 PM PaulK has responded
 Message 33 by Joralex, posted 03-23-2003 5:16 PM PaulK has responded

    
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 4149 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 28 of 64 (35012)
03-23-2003 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by PaulK
03-23-2003 2:41 PM


Metaphysics vs. Religion
An interesting set of statements, Paul...

Could you perhaps explain the difference between metaphysics and religion, and could you support that differentiation with references to reputable dictionaries?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 03-23-2003 2:41 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by PaulK, posted 03-23-2003 4:46 PM w_fortenberry has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14715
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 29 of 64 (35015)
03-23-2003 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by w_fortenberry
03-23-2003 4:24 PM


Re: Metaphysics vs. Religion
Metaphysics is strictly speaking a branch of philosophy. While a religion may - and usually does - include metaphysical views to assume that those views are a religion would seem foolish. Equally a philosophical posiiton may include metaphysical views without being a religion. I do not see that this is in any way controversial among anybody with even a basic grasp of the subject.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by w_fortenberry, posted 03-23-2003 4:24 PM w_fortenberry has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Joralex, posted 03-23-2003 5:38 PM PaulK has responded

    
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 64 (35016)
03-23-2003 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Percy
03-23-2003 10:49 AM


Then you agree.
"But not all metaphysics are equally valid in all contexts. For example, naturalism would be a poor metaphysic for the study of the supernatural, and religion a poor metaphysic for the study of natural principles."

While a constrained metaphysic is theoretically possible, a metaphysic is generally regarded as all-encompassing. That is why a 'metaphysic' and a 'worldview' are synonymous meaning that all aspects of existence are encompassed by that particular metaphysic/worldview.

Also, what you propose above is a caricature - e.g., no knowledgeable person would consider employing Maxwell's Equations to study the Bible.
You've got it all wrong (as do many others).

"When examining a phenomena it is important to describe on what basis or for what reason the position of religion differs with the position of science. For example, does religion have a different position than science on Newton's Laws of Motion? No, of course not. But your religion *does* have a different position than science concerning evolution."

That alone ought to give you a hint. Newton's Laws of Motion make no pretense to oppose the creationist worldview so there is no 'clashing' of metaphysics. Newton's Laws of Motion aim merely to describe certain aspects of the universe and not to suggest an alternate means by which that universe may have come about. The evolutionary paradigm, on the other hand, aims to replace the creationist worldview with materialistic naturalism - an alternate and opposing worldview.

Surely you can see this (very obvious) point.

"Data supporting evolution was gathered using the same scientific method as data supporting Newton's Laws. What distinction do you draw between evolution and Newton that causes the religion metaphysic to interpret them differently?"

I believe that I've answered this above.

In Christ,
Joralex


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Percy, posted 03-23-2003 10:49 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 03-23-2003 5:11 PM Joralex has responded
 Message 34 by Percy, posted 03-23-2003 5:21 PM Joralex has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
345Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019