Subject:
|
Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Apr 2001 18:55:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
541 times
|
| |
|
|
Dave Schuler wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ryan Farrington writes:
> > The thing is, I believe the Bible to be literal truth about the universe!
> > So in that case, I never will stop believing the Bible.
>
> 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 interpretion of the whole work falls. For that
> matter, as I've asked elsewhere, if we are to interpret The Bible literally,
> are we all literally and in fact mustard seeds? If we are not, then The
> Bible by definition cannot be taken literally. Further, every parable,
> symbol, and metaphor must be taken literally, and Christ will appear as
> predicted in Revelations with a literal sword in his literal mouth. If not,
> we must be provided with an index of when scripture is to be read as written
> and when it is to be interpreted as metaphor.
A few other basic problems with the literality of the Bible:
- Which translation?
- How do you reconcile the apparent contradictions? Would someone care
to list them (I'm affraid I'm not a student of the Bible and therefore
can't list them all though I have heard them stated)?
- I seem to remember that there are Bible passages which would seem to
imply that the value of Pi is 3 or some other number other than what
modern mathematics understand it to be. Assuming I'm not totally wacko
on this, how does one reconcile that if you draw a circle, and then
multiply the measured diameter by 3 and compare that to the measured
circumfrence that the two values are different without punching a hole
in your faith that the Bible is absolutely literally true.
Of course honestly I almost don't care about the answers because to the
thought processes which allow absolute literal interpretation of the
Bible are so far removed from my own that I don't see how we could ever
possibly have any sort of productive discussion of the topic.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)
|
| (...) IMO, the issue of interpretation and translations and so forth is, at a fundamental level, very simple: Reasonable, well-intentioned, well-informed, open-minded inquiry is a root necessity of any fruitful scholarly, literary, scientific, (...) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Science and beliefs
|
| (...) That would be a long list. Just for starters: King James Version New King James Version Aramaic Bible Revised Standard Version The Book of the Law of the Lord, 1856 Edition The Douay-Rheims Bible New International Version New American Standard (...) (23 years ago, 6-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 (...) (23 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
|
|
|
|
