Subject:
|
Re: Bible as a literal source?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:04:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4035 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Chris Phillips wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
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.
|
I don’t see any timeline in that quotation that precludes “the beginning”
from spanning a very, very long time.
| |
“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.
|
It doesn’t actually say there was no light anywhere, it only says that the
earth was without form and in darkness. The “mistake there” may well be your
own error of comprehension.
|
You obviously miss my point. I’m not arguing that my interpretation is the
correct interpretation, merely that I can construct an interpretation of Genesis
that disagrees with the facts as we know (insofar as we know anything) them.
| |
| |
“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.
|
Where does it say anything about a perfect spheroid?
|
If it wasn’t a perfect spheroid then the land would be there already. Although I
did make a mistake here, if the water levels were high enough to cover all land
then that bit could be construed as true. I don’t know if there was ever that
much water on the Earth.
| |
It strikes me as
unlikely that the Earth would ever be formed in the first place, whether
spheroid, cube, or mobius strip. And yet, here we are, living on a planet
which is (within a small degree of tolerance) spherical.
|
Irrelevant.
| |
According to geologists, the Earth formed as a ball of gas that was ejected
from the sun as the solar system was forming. As it cooled, it would have
become liquid before it became solid. So there were likely “oceans” before
there was “land.”
|
It says water, not molten metal. And yes people would have known the difference
when Genesis was written.
| |
And a “day” is defined as the time it takes for the Earth to complete one
rotation around its axis. So taken literally, before the Earth existed there
were no “days” regardless of how much time may have elapsed. Under that
interpretation, the Earth literally was created “on the first day.”
|
Again this is irrelevant and I never even said anything otherwise.
| |
The point I was making is not whether it is possible to twist the vague words
in Genesis to support an argument. It was that it is possible to be inspired
to see a truth, even from a fictional source. After all, you’ve been using
the fictional 1984 as the foundation of your arguments. That (in itself)
doesn’t invalidate your arguments, does it?
|
And I agreed with that point. I also gave an example of how it was possible to
twist them to NOT match with a fictional source. If both can be achieved then
it’s really not a strong argument for either view, just a strong argument that
humans can twist what they want to fit what they want.
| |
| |
| |
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).
|
Given that Genesis was written down by humans who presumably had no access to
satellite imagery, seismic sensors, or many other tools of modern science, I
think it’s pretty darn amazing that it is even remotely plausible.
Especially when you also consider that it was most likely passed down for
generations as a verbal (not written) account, and that it has gone through
countless translations over time.
|
I don’t think it’s particularly amazing at all. The only reason you think it’s
amazing is because you a) believe it and b) have interpreted it in such a way as
to make it seem amazing.
Let’s take as an example the
Hindu creation myth as opposed to the Christian one you quote:
“Before time began there was no heaven, no earth and no space between.”
Very accurate description. Even includes a reference to general relativistic
time dilation.
“A vast dark ocean washed upon the shores of nothingness and licked the edges of
night.”
An analogy for the potential for creation by the Big Bang.
“A giant cobra floated on the waters. Asleep within its endless coils lay the
Lord Vishnu. He was watched over by the mighty serpent. Everything was so
peaceful and silent that Vishnu slept undisturbed by dreams or motion.”
Stable anisotropy.
“From the depths a humming sound began to tremble, Om. It grew and spread,
filling the emptiness and throbbing with energy.”
According to cosmological creation theories energy did come before matter.
Shall I now conclude that Hindus seem to have an even better understanding of
creation than Christians and begin referring to Hindu scriptures?
| |
I would happily defer to any alternative historical record from that time
period. You got nothing? Yeah, I suspected as much.
|
Is this the type of critical thinking you were taught? It is not a valid
argument to say that in the absence of alternative evidence your evidence is
correct by default.
Tim
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Bible as a literal source?
|
| (...) Then perhaps we are more closely in agreement than I had realized. (...) Well now you are assuming that I literally believe the Genesis account of creation, which would be a stretch. Given that Western cultures still believed that the Earth (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
