Subject:
|
Bible as a literal source? was Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 13 Apr 2007 14:34:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4173 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Chris Phillips wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
--snip--
| |
| |
Perhaps next time you can try answering the question with something other
than a joke (hopefully). Although answering questions might show that the
majority of your argument is constructed out of
straw.
|
Actually, that was a serious response. If you believe the account in
Genesis, language was designed to keep us apart. Read the story,
comprehend what it says, and then see if it sheds any light on your
bafflement as to why “some people have a problem with the type of language
used by others.”
|
I was going to say nothing in response to your response and I will leave out
the rest of it but...
|
Convenient how you “missed these other points out.”
|
Not convenience, I’d already said I would: “PS. And in the absence of any sort of addition to the argument
from you I will let you have your last word and bow out. While trading insults
with you is amusing it’s polite to leave it off Lugnet. You’re welcome to
continue by email or on JLUG.”
The absence was there. I did respond to the point about the bible because I
misunderstood in my earlier response that it was meant seriously.
| |
| |
I just can’t believe that you seriously expect me to
take the writings in Genesis as part of a logical argument. I really can’t.
I’m not Christian, Chris. I’ve got no intention of becoming Christian and if
I ever did become Christian I still wouldn’t believe that Genesis was a
literal account of history.
|
You don’t have to be Christian to believe the Old Testament. And you don’t
have to believe that it is a literal account of history to recognize that the
books of the Bible contain certain truths.
|
I’ve no doubts they contain certain truths. I have immense doubts that they have
any bearing on linguistics or socio-linguistics.
| |
Very few people that I know
believe that the Universe was created in six days, yet the sequence described
is very likely how the process unfolded.
|
Considering that it can be interpreted in all sorts of ways I’m not surprised it
can be interpreted that way. It can also be interpreted quite differently.
Here’s the first day:
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without
form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God
was moving over the face of the waters.”
By most cosmological accounts the Earth was created an awfully long time after
the universe.
“And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.”
Here’s a problem. The stars were created before the planets and the stars are
the source of light. Bit of a mistake here.
“And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it
divide the waters from the waters.”
It seems far more likely to me (although I’m not a planetologist) that the
water formed oceans in between the continents than the other way around. It
strikes me as unlikely that the Earth was formed as a perfect spheroid.
That’s already a couple of mistakes on the first and second day. I won’t go
through the rest.
| |
Even most Darwinists are able to
reconcile their beliefs with the biblical account at some level.
|
I doubt that “most Darwinists” would bother. However I completely accept that if
they to so choose to they could easily reconcile them. It doesn’t actually mean
the Bible is true, just that it’s vague enough (if you take it as analogy) that
people can interpret it many ways.
| |
Whether you view these writings as literal truths or as fairy tales, there is
much in the old books that corresponds precisely with the little that is
known about the course of human history. I don’t believe in The Big Bad
Wolf, but I still see how that tale could be rooted in actual events. And I
can still draw useful lessons from those stories, even if I don’t take them
literally.
|
You weren’t asking me to take a lesson from Genesis, you were quoting it as a
“historical record from the early days of mankind” while allowing disbelief
(thanks for the option, I’ll happily take you up on it).
| |
But whatever. You don’t accept the Bible as a reliable reference source.
Many do not consider Wikipedia to be reliable, either. See? I can be
obtuse, too.
|
Tim
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
| (...) Convenient how you "missed these other points out." (...) You don't have to be Christian to believe the Old Testament. And you don't have to believe that it is a literal account of history to recognize that the books of the Bible contain (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
61 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
