Subject:
|
Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Apr 2001 18:55:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
629 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
For centuries the "literal
> truth" of The Bible stated that the Earth was the center of the Universe.
> This was conclusively disproven, and The Bible (or, more accurately, the
> assessment of the literal word) was proven incorrect. The problem is that
> any "correct" literal interpretation can be dismissed--after it's shown to
> be false--simply by saying "Well, they didn't really interpret it
> correctly." Such a position is circular and self-fulfilling.
One nitpick(1): I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the Bible never says
that the earth is the center of the universe. I think that, at best, this idea
is probably inferred. In truth, I'm not sure that there is any Biblical passage
that renders explicit the ideas of new earth/center-of-universe-earth, etc.,
etc. A lot of people say that the earth is 6 thousand years old because Genesis
says that God created the Earth in six days, and on the 7th day He rested. The
Bible also says elsewhere that a day to God is like a thousand years to us.
Thus, you have a six-thousand-years interpretation. That is a reasonable
exegesis from a literal standpoint, but I prefer to take an equally reasonable
position: that these passages are metaphorical; they merely refer to the act of
creation, and not its particulars with literal accuracy. We are meant to view
the act of creation reverently, and with awe for God's power and timelessness.
(1) A number of Biblical straw-men have become persistent targets of attack by
critics; these stories are merely a wild mis-reading and mis-interpretation of
scripture. For example: The old tired idea that God cursed Ham with
"blackness", and thus black people are inferior. In fact, all the Bible says
about the Ham incident is that Noah cursed his son Ham, and thus, Ham was
"marked." Marked. That's all. The inference that it is a reference to race is
non-sequiter. There is so little to go by, why even speculate?
james
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)
|
| (...) That's not a nitpick at all, and I think you're right. My point is that according to the then-current "literal" interpretation (and, admittedly, the teachings of Aristotle), the Earth was the center. Maybe my beef should be with Aristotle, (...) (24 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)
|
| (...) That's not a nitpick at all, and I think you're right. My point is that according to the then-current "literal" interpretation (and, admittedly, the teachings of Aristotle), the Earth was the center. Maybe my beef should be with Aristotle, (...) (24 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)
|
| (...) Ryan, I don't presume to question your Faith, but for a number of reasons your position on the nature of text isn't entirely supportable. If, for instance, even a single snippet of The Bible is found to be not literally true, then the literal (...) (24 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
126 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
