Subject:
|
Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Apr 2001 19:44:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1745 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes:
> 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.
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, rather than Genesis! 8^)
> 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.
But that's the whole point, isn't it? The passages *are* metaphorical
rather than literal. The problems arise when one group starts declaring
with alleged certainty (which you are not doing, I hasten to assert!) that
one passage is literal-as-written and another passage is
literal-as-interpreted (an oxymoron?).
> (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?
Yeah, there are some hairs better left un-split!
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: For centuries the "literal (...) 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 (...) (25 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
|
|
|
|
