09-03-2006, 10:31 PM | #641 | ||||||||||||||||
Dread Mothy Lord and Halfwitted Apprentice Loremaster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Thomas Aquinas College, Santa Paula, CA
Posts: 10,820
|
Quote:
But see below: http://www.padfield.com/acrobat/gree...IV%20errors%22 http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nivmusli.htm http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/bacon-niv1.html http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/ar...=13%7C18%7C219 http://www.agetwoage.org/NIV.htm I also cited the ancient view that the soul is the principle of life in the organism; it is quite likely that it is from this that they say that "soul" means the same as "life". These come from a very brief search. There's a lot more where that came from. I was serious when I said that the NIV was known for being a bad translation. I see no reason why I should believe them, if they say "soul" does not mean "soul". The trend of expert-worship in modernism, and very much in modernist theology is the only reason, that view that only experts and people who devote their lives to studying biblical languages, cultures, etc. are qualified to say what means what. I reject that view. Quote:
Quote:
One cannot say, "This speaks of the death of Israel. Over here, we see Israelites A, B, and C died. Therefore, Israel died". Quote:
Quote:
Is Christianity just? By no means; St. Paul calls it the foolishness of God. Is it anarchical? No, clearly not. Quote:
Quote:
(NIV) "6For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit." Quote:
Syllogism: Just desserts would be brutal and cruel, something like drawing and quartering. You believe it is good that we use relatively humane means of execution (such as melting a person), instead of above. Therefore, you believe it is good that people do not get their just desserts. This follows logically in the absolutely strictest, most perfect sense. How do you reconcile this with your statement that it is "naturally right" that everyone should get their just desserts? Further, it may be naturally right, I won't argue that. But I believe that the only way that any civilisation or state can be good is if it is authentically endowed with the Gospel of Christ, so that the only good state must be in some way supernatural. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But seriously, while I agree with that (although I don't think it's as instantaneous as you seem to indicate), you wrote of people being "completely good", which I wouldn't imagine you really think is theologically sound. But anyway, that is a different topic... Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I call your attention to a parable; the servant forgiven the ten thousand talents. He, like us, had committed grievous offenses against his Lord and Master. Like Christ, the Master had mercy on him, and forgave him his debt, cancelling any justice. But the servant then went out to find a man who owed him a hundred denarii (if I recall), and proceeded to throttle him and threaten him, and throw him into debtor's prison, until he should pay back what he owed. Was he just in doing so? Of course. But you know how it ends.
__________________
Crux fidelis, inter omnes arbor una nobilis. Nulla talem silva profert, fronde, flore, germine. Dulce lignum, dulce clavo, dulce pondus sustinens. 'With a melon?' - Eric Idle |
||||||||||||||||
09-07-2006, 09:12 PM | #642 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
But I do think it's stupid to say that because there are different faults with the NIV translation, different problems that can be pointed to here and there, this particular word choice is unreliable. I think that's absurd. The NIV is overall very reliable. You'll find an occasional error here and there, but never big swaths of faulty text. I challenge you to provide evidence that the translation of this particular verse is faulty. This article doesn't look reliable. It asserts that 2% of the NIV translation may be faulty, but this is a blind assertion without evidence, made out of anger over disagreement about there being a sinful nature, and disagreement with supposed imposition of Calvinism into the text. The author loves the King James Version, but frankly I've had a worse experience with finding faults in the King James Version than I have in the NIV. This guy is being silly. He's not bringing up any specific complaints about the NIV, but rather is complaining about the text because his Muslim friend knew more about arguing than he did. This seems more valid than the other two articles. They actually cite specific examples and provide evidence. I don't know what counter-arguments can be made in any of these cases, so I won't just assume that the arguments are all valid. But this complaint isn't claiming anywhere near the 2% level of error that the first article randomly picks out of the air, and they seem to know what they're talking about. This link looks more interesting to me by far than the previous ones. I don't have time to examine the other two links you cited as well. Yet it's clear that the NIV translation isn't so bad that you can just pick a verse you theologically disagree with and say with more than a remote chance of being correct, "you know how bad the NIV translation is, so this is probably wrong." That's gross generalization. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
We are to follow the example of Jesus. When he criticized the authorities for not showing justice, that proves that the authorities should show justice. When he demanded that they show mercy, it becomes apparent that they should also show mercy. Hence we can conclude that our nations should show both justice and mercy. But the passages applauding justice are all over the scripture. Justice is clearly a major element of God's character, and one that throughout the Bible he has also demanded his followers to display in themselves. Quote:
But murderers do get out of prison early. Often appeals or lack of space in prisons cause high level prisoners to have to spend far less prison time than was originally determined. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But I say the Law of Moses is Christian. The Lord made it. The Lord did not abolish it. He set out what his justice is in the Law, and the nations would do best to follow his will. He set out what his mercy is in the New Testament as well, and the nations would do best to follow it too. Both justice and mercy are parts of God's nature, and God's nature should also be our nature, as he lives in us. Hence we should be concerned about the fulfillment of both justice and mercy. Quote:
Quote:
But as a general rule, when one seeks to take an innocent life, one forfeits one's life. "An eye for an eye" is just and right. Quote:
Quote:
As individuals, we should also sometimes show mercy and other times bring justice. This applies to a parent with a child. This applies to me. If my brother knocked my laptop onto the floor, breaking it, he would be sorry and I sincerely hope that I would forgive him for that. But if I see someone stealing money from other people, I will turn the person in rather than show mercy. Some circumstances demand taking a stand for justice, and others demand that we show mercy. For myself, I tend to make it easy on myself by trying to forgive anything bad that's done to me, but taking a stand whenever I see bad done to others.
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
09-07-2006, 09:16 PM | #643 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Just to let you know, Gwaimir, the above was my last post of this debate. It takes too long, and I don't think we'll end up getting anywhere.
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." |
09-07-2006, 10:22 PM | #644 | |||||||||||||||||||
Dread Mothy Lord and Halfwitted Apprentice Loremaster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Thomas Aquinas College, Santa Paula, CA
Posts: 10,820
|
All right, then, Lief, I'll only reply at brief to a few points:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
"Acts 8:16 But when the Jews opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, "Your blood be on your own heads! I am clear of my responsibility. From now on I will go to the Gentiles."" Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
[quote=Acts] When the islanders saw the snake hanging from his hand, they said to each other, "This man must be a murderer; for though he escaped from the sea, Justice has not allowed him to live." Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Crux fidelis, inter omnes arbor una nobilis. Nulla talem silva profert, fronde, flore, germine. Dulce lignum, dulce clavo, dulce pondus sustinens. 'With a melon?' - Eric Idle |
|||||||||||||||||||
11-20-2006, 05:20 AM | #645 | |
Hobbit
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: currently, College Park, MD
Posts: 18
|
Quote:
I don't know what things are like with you/your situation, but in my experience my areligious/mildly religious friends are much more civil and much more "enlightened". It is that group of people that tends to ask questions, tries to find out about the world, and doesn't just accept doctrine from a book (no matter which book it is) that people wrote and people interpret. I don't know if there is a God, I don't know if there is a correct religion, but in my mind it is pretentious to assume that religion is the answer (I prefer economic and social stability myself). To answer the question posed in this thread, banning books is not only wrong, but criminal, according to the Bill of Rights. Any citizen is allowed to print/say whatever they want to, so long as it's not copyrighted, libelous, or detrimental to the public peace (i.e. fire in a movie theater). I posted this on TWC (if any of you have heard of it) a while back, but I think I should paraphrase the idea in this case again. If I want to write something like "I am a bloody murdering Nazi, and I think every American should be a bloody murdering Nazi too" (not my actual belief, which I hope was obvious) and threw in some hateful, racist crap for good measure, there's not any restriction on me if I can find a publisher and a place to sell it. Nobody can, or should do anything about it, because it's free speech. Mein Kampf was being sold in the Towson Waldenbooks last time I walked in there, which I think is quite admirable. I haven't read it, but one day I'd like to, because that is the way people and societies learn (from mistakes as well as triumphs). Hitler did terrible things, but if we banned his book and tried to suppress the insights he left behind, we risk his atrocities happening again. Evolution is another example. Secular schools, sanctioned by a secular government, are now being forced by faith-based ideological groups to put stickers on biology textbooks and ban/restrict evolution teaching. The reason for this (I've been very close to or part of at least 3 of these types of families in 3 different states) is because what is being taught in the churches and at home is being undermined by the secular school system's teaching. Thus, these people want to try to restrict free flow of knowledge so their children "won't be confused". Personally, when I have children and take them to the public library to do some research or to introduce them to reading, I'd much rather have to explain why the penguin has a boyfriend instead of a girlfriend. The alternative? Explaining to my child why the government thought it was ok to restrict what my son or daughter could or could not read. Sorry, I get to choose that, not you, Pastor/School Board Rep/Library Superintendent Smith. Which group is insane, again?
__________________
University of Maryland Class of 2007 |
|
11-20-2006, 10:43 PM | #646 | ||||
Master of Orchestration President Emeritus of Entmoot 2004-2008
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lost in the Opera House
Posts: 9,328
|
Quote:
Quote:
I prefer to say much more "brainwashed"...not into learning stuff-which is not har anyways-, but into learning it THE way, which is ironically, what christians are accused of themselves. Quote:
As for asking questions, that is just a silly allegation against religious people. Religious people ask questions all the time, or they would not have developed (I prefer "discover") the theology that is IN THOSE BOOKS. Quote:
__________________
ACALEWIA- President of Entmoot hectorberlioz- Vice President of Entmoot Acaly und Hektor fur Presidants fur EntMut fur life! Join the discussion at Entmoot Election 2010. "Stupidissimo!"~Toscanini The Da CINDY Code The Epic Poem Of The Balrog of Entmoot: Here ~NEW! ~ Thinking of summer vacation? AboutNewJersey.com - NJ Travel & Tourism Guide |
||||
11-20-2006, 10:51 PM | #647 | |
Entmoot Secretary of the Treasury
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Campsite-by-Giraffe
Posts: 5,408
|
Quote:
Dr. Pangloss: Of what religion are you? Dr. Geldhoff: I'm a Industrial Capitalist of Adam Smith.
__________________
KI6PFA Amateur Radio Operator
|
|
11-21-2006, 05:33 AM | #648 | ||||
Hobbit
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: currently, College Park, MD
Posts: 18
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Secularism existed right alongside religion. It might not have been a movement, but if you believe in one religion, someone had to "make up" a few thousand other ones, right? I think secularism came first, with religion coming later as an "identity" emerged. The guys back then were ignorant of what we know today. They just were. The Romans didn't have fuel-injected cars or laptop computers, so we must have "discovered" some way to do that. It isn't a bad thing- I'm totally ignorant of the technology we'll have in 3000, and I'm sure they'll call us that, truthfully. Knowledge builds upon knowledge, though. The Romans were ignorant of today and today's technology, but they helped us discover what we know today by laying foundations. We too are laying foundations and building upon them, and it's all a process. Christians do ask questions, but they ask them based on the assumption that the books are infallible words of God. The entire goal of such an exercise is to make sure that they have an answer to any question regarding an imperfect book, written by many different people over a long period of time, to protect the faith. If I asked a fundamentalist to analyze the theology based on Noah's faith in God and the way he was able to save the faithful from drowning, he'd be right on that with a 5-page essay. If I asked the same fundamentalist to write the same essay on how such a vessel could have fit countless millions of animals with provisions and space for almost three months, I think he would have a much harder time answering that. I don't dispute that they ask, I just dispute their motives. Quote:
Edit- The answer to societal problems like poverty and crime.
__________________
University of Maryland Class of 2007 Last edited by Aquilonis : 11-21-2006 at 05:37 AM. |
||||
11-21-2006, 07:32 PM | #649 | ||||||||
Master of Orchestration President Emeritus of Entmoot 2004-2008
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lost in the Opera House
Posts: 9,328
|
Quote:
Quote:
Open mindedness, yes, but then to chew on the info, and spit it out if it is harmful. Quote:
So I really don't see nay special reason for religious people to oblige. It's kinda like the dentist's chair. "Let's see what YOU'VE been chewin' on!" Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
[quote]The entire goal of such an exercise is to make sure that they have an answer to any question regarding an imperfect book, written by many different people over a long period of time, to protect the faith. If I asked a fundamentalist to analyze the theology based on Noah's faith in God and the way he was able to save the faithful from drowning, he'd be right on that with a 5-page essay. If I asked the same fundamentalist to write the same essay on how such a vessel could have fit countless millions of animals with provisions and space for almost three months, I think he would have a much harder time answering that. I don't dispute that they ask, I just dispute their motives. [quote] Millions? I've never heard that. I heard two of each, upon which you have to consider: where did all those "millions" of species come from? Most of them are probably bacteria, or some other miniscule creatures. Besides, couldn't the unbathed animals have carried some of these chaps opn their selves? As for questioning their motives...that's fine to do, but of course only religious people (meaning mainly fundamentalist christians) are picked on, since they're seen as so simple minded.
__________________
ACALEWIA- President of Entmoot hectorberlioz- Vice President of Entmoot Acaly und Hektor fur Presidants fur EntMut fur life! Join the discussion at Entmoot Election 2010. "Stupidissimo!"~Toscanini The Da CINDY Code The Epic Poem Of The Balrog of Entmoot: Here ~NEW! ~ Thinking of summer vacation? AboutNewJersey.com - NJ Travel & Tourism Guide |
||||||||
11-22-2006, 02:43 AM | #650 | ||||||||||
Hobbit
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: currently, College Park, MD
Posts: 18
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Many of the underlying problems, though, do still exist- poverty, crime, war. They will always exist, because no matter how technological a society becomes, people will have more than others. Finally, you don't have to know what particles make up a blanket to let it keep you warm, no. However, you do have to know that if you're going to mass produce a couple tens of millions of them to keep half the country warm cheaply. The alternative is having slaves do it by hand, which takes way longer and is a lot less efficient. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So, let's all suspend bigtime disbelief for a second and say that two representatives per family (my bio teacher is dying somewhere) were on this ark and that insects could all magically somehow survive outside of it. How will you supply these animals taking up a quarter of your space? The African Elephant (avg. weight 4,000-13,000 lb) consumes one percent body weight per day. I'm going to take the absolute lowest numbers and say 400 pounds of food per day * 80 days = 32,000 pounds of plant matter per elephant (the other one would eat another 32,000 minimum). In this case, you're looking at hundreds of thousands of pounds of food for all of your animals, minimum, which is roughly five times the weight of your ship, minimum, in food alone (I'm going to assume every one of them had a system in which they did their business over the side). Also, carnivores? What would they eat? And finally, what about the plants? Nobody mentions them, but if drowned in a flood they'd be dead. Bear in mind, I'm taking their measurements, which I considered a joke before I even started messing with them, and they still can't explain that, I'm sure. Quote:
__________________
University of Maryland Class of 2007 |
||||||||||
11-22-2006, 02:55 AM | #651 |
Entmoot Secretary of the Treasury
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Campsite-by-Giraffe
Posts: 5,408
|
Love all the math you used there!
__________________
KI6PFA Amateur Radio Operator
|
11-22-2006, 05:43 PM | #652 | ||||||||||||||||||
Master of Orchestration President Emeritus of Entmoot 2004-2008
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lost in the Opera House
Posts: 9,328
|
Quote:
As for the weighing, I suppose you could say they did make an independent decision, which is a very good thing. I only disagree that independent decisions always lead to the right conclusions. Quote:
I think you have a point to a certain extent: many christian door-to-door evangelists (more often Jehovah's Witnesses) can't really do much beyond telling you what they read in a pamphlet. I suppose they don't really expect everyone to know their stuff better. Quote:
Quote:
Well, we've already gone over the bad guys, the good guys can only show up and show that they're there. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Well, I do see your point, machinery replaced the slaves/workers, and thats a very nice thing. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But you are of course coming from a point where you believe the bible to be a nice put-together at best, and we're just going to disagree, so we may as well not try. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
[quote]I'm using the fundamentalist religious numbers, here, which say that the MOST conservative estimate (using one vertebrate per family, every biologist knows this isn't happening without evolution, but let's suspend disbelief here) only puts 2000 sheep-sized animals on the ark. This makes 22,250 ft^3 or, according to them, only 1.4 percent of the ark's space. I beg to differ. They assume all of these not-really-evolving vertebrates that can't die can fly continuously without stopping. I say that they'll have to land at some point, and thus that 22,250 ft^3 will result in living biomass on about 22 percent of the ark's floor at any given time. There are three other possibilities, 16,000 animals, 35,000 animals, and 40,000 animals, all of which take up more deck space than the ark had (even packed like sardines). Also, this site says insects could survive outside the ark, which is dead wrong, they'd drown, plus they'd have to be supplied with food. [quote] I say let's assume God told Noah to forget about the bugs, there were enough on the animals already Quote:
Quote:
__________________
ACALEWIA- President of Entmoot hectorberlioz- Vice President of Entmoot Acaly und Hektor fur Presidants fur EntMut fur life! Join the discussion at Entmoot Election 2010. "Stupidissimo!"~Toscanini The Da CINDY Code The Epic Poem Of The Balrog of Entmoot: Here ~NEW! ~ Thinking of summer vacation? AboutNewJersey.com - NJ Travel & Tourism Guide |
||||||||||||||||||
11-22-2006, 06:55 PM | #653 |
The Chocoholic Sea Elf Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: N?n in Eilph (Belgium)
Posts: 14,363
|
The side-discussion in the thread 'Banned books' has been merged into this thread.
__________________
We are not things. Last edited by Earniel : 11-23-2006 at 09:18 AM. |
11-23-2006, 10:52 AM | #654 | ||
Elven Warrior
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 301
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
11-23-2006, 11:00 AM | #655 | |
Elven Warrior
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 301
|
Quote:
|
|
11-23-2006, 03:16 PM | #656 | ||
Hobbit
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: currently, College Park, MD
Posts: 18
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
University of Maryland Class of 2007 |
||
11-23-2006, 04:04 PM | #657 | ||||||||||||||
Hobbit
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: currently, College Park, MD
Posts: 18
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Also, again, would you rather live 35 years or 80? That's a result of technology too. It's not just warfare (though that helps), it's medicine, computers, space travel, genetics, etc, etc....civil stuff that makes life easier. I'm sure you like your air-conditioned (and in this time of year, heated) house, or even the computer that you're having our discussion on...all products of technology. The dissemination of information with this type of thing is endless, and it's only going to make that part of life better. I do think we have to be careful about how we use it, but I wouldn't say that it's as bad as you're making it seem. Quote:
However, obviously it has helped with production, and no, while we don't need to put them together particle-by-particle, we can figure out what aspect of a blanket is most efficient at holding heat and mass produce that. Further, knowing how heat is held/transferred allows us to create materials that channel/hold/reflect heat more efficiently, all of which is researched, at least, on the particle level. Quote:
Quote:
You're right, though, that's only one part. The literature analysis goes into it as well, which we'd do differently I'm sure, you're right. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
University of Maryland Class of 2007 |
||||||||||||||
11-26-2006, 09:33 PM | #658 | |||
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
*returns from a week-long trip to Arizona and jumps in *
Hi Aquilonis! Welcome to Entmoot! Quote:
Just off the top of my head re the ark - why do the elephants have to be full-grown adults? Re the carnivores - eat them rabbits that are multiplying like rabbits! (and again, why not juveniles who require less food?) Re plants - how about seeds? (which are often carried in animal poop, anyway!) The fresh water thing is a good question - I've heard some discussion but can't recall the details now, but frankly, I think the idea is at least as feasible as the idea of humans and everything else coming from a one-celled prototype thing. *shrug* Quote:
Quote:
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç å ™ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! Last edited by Rían : 11-26-2006 at 09:42 PM. |
|||
11-27-2006, 05:01 AM | #659 | ||||
Hobbit
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: currently, College Park, MD
Posts: 18
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
With regard to the carnivores, yes, that can occur for a while, but you have to think- at every level energy is lost, and you have to feed the rabbits ten times the energy that they'll wind up transferring to the carnivores who then eat them (trophic levels). Thus, you'll end up having to supply the grain for ten rabbits. Even if the "family rule" is correct (and I don't think it is), you have a quarter of the ship packed like sardines with animals. If they're reproducing constantly, getting killed, and consuming the food and water of ten animals (and you'd have to continually replenish your fresh water stores for the forty days it wasn't raining). Even in the absolute most religion-friendly argument, it is still a major stretch to believe that the logistics could work. With regard to the plants, you'd need them to feed the herbivores. You could do it with seeds too, which is definitely a very good point, but you'd have to have a hugely significant biomass of plants to feed the huge amount of herbivores. Ironically, you want herbivores over carnivores, because they conserve trophic energy, but I don't know...that's a lot of potential consumption and not a lot of potential space....also refer to the fresh water issue for a thousand animals (if you added plants, then that's it, there's no way). The best I can think of for consumption is to bring in massive stores of grain and store the seeds in cargo, but still, I'm trying to bend my mind around this and it looks like it's impossible. I still note- chimpanzees and humans being of the same line is a huge bone of contention in these types of arguments, but to accept Noah's Ark, you would have to accept the family theory, which means accepting chimpanzees, which in turn requires the acceptance of evolution. Even if you do accept that, the space in the ark still appears too small to me. Quote:
__________________
University of Maryland Class of 2007 |
||||
11-27-2006, 01:23 PM | #660 | |||||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
I hope you don't mind, R*an, but I'd really like to respond to the following. Please add to it, of course, by all means, if there are things I left out. Quote:
Also, you talk about the possibility of inaccuracy and error. But there are many, many early texts, particularly from the 4th century AD. In these vast numbers of texts, which are more numerous than that supporting just about any other ancient historical text, there is only a small degree of error and deviation from one to another. No major doctrine is different between one text and another. If one expected there to be mistakes and changes over time, you would expect a far higher degree of error between different texts. The degree of accuracy between texts sets the New Testament a long way ahead of other historical texts from around the same time period, and it, just as does the very small 30 year gap between the time the manuscripts were written and the events that they described. Remember also, there are other aspects to the 30 year gap issue that support the validity of the New Testament texts. The authors of those texts originally were seeking to convert the Jews. They were trying to do this a mere 30 years after those events, so if they had made untrue claims, they would have been making those untrue claims in the presence of people who knew firsthand that they weren't telling the truth. Historians from the time period such as Josephus do corroborate the New Testament claim that Jesus attracted large crowds in Israel- he was a very charismatic and popular figure. There would have been a lot of Jews who knew what actually happened in his life. So these people would have invalidated what the Gospels said over and over again. Also, the Pharisees were looking for any opportunity to invalidate the message the disciples were presenting, and if the disciples were making things up, this would have provided them with ample opportunity to do so. It would have been implausible in that time period. Also, there are elements intrinsic to the Gospels that indicate validity. For one, there is the fact that women were the ones who originally discovered Jesus' resurrection, and it was a woman who first saw Jesus resurrected. Women, in the time of Jesus, were considered one of the least reliable forms of evidence, so if the disciples had been inventing things in the tale, they would have made the disciples themselves find the empty tomb. The fact that they said otherwise indicates that they were trying to stick as close to the facts as they could. So does the fact that the issue of circumcision is not raised at all in the Gospels. That was an issue that was tearing up the church's insides at the time of Jesus, and there would have been strong motive to put something in Jesus' mouth about it. But the Gospels are silent, which again indicates a strong desire to cling to accuracy. Quote:
Fundamentalist Christians are all agreed that one doesn't have to interpret dreams and visions in the scripture literally. It is well known and accepted that God presents his truth through picture imagery. Now in the book of Revelation, the number 7 is used many, many times in that great vision, and this is broadly accepted as symbolic imagery. The events of creation in the Book of Genesis had to have been related by God to man, since man was only created on the 6th day, after all the rest of creation. He could not have witnessed what happened before him firsthand. God very, very frequently speaks to mankind through dreams and visions- these are two of the most frequently used means of communication he uses in the Bible. It is completely possible that when God spoke to Adam and Eve, he used the symbolic language of a vision or dream to describe the creation process. There also is a verse in Genesis chapter 1 that says the land created the animals according to their kinds. This happened in the most literal way, according to the theory of evolution. The changing environment created the different animal species in the way they are now. I know R*an believes in the literal 7 days, so she'll give you a different answer. But my main point is that evolution should not be a major bone of contention as regards Noah's ark. It shouldn't be raised as a matter of religious debate at all, at least for Christianity. If the Bible clearly intended a literal 7 days, then it would be an issue worth a religious debate. But as the Bible didn't, as it may very easily have been through a dream or vision that the Lord spoke, it really should be an issue left solely to scientific debate and not forced into the fake position of being a huge confrontation issue between science and the Bible. Quote:
Quote:
1) She always has given him food. She can be trusted to give him food again, because she has provided for him so consistently in the past. 2) He has a loving relationship with his mother, and as he knows her love and has experienced a relationship with her in many ways, he knows her and hence can reasonably expect her to give him food. In the same way, a Christian who knows the Lord, and I mean really knows the Lord in experience and interaction, has the same kind of reasonable faith. It isn't blind faith. I suspect you've read the Book of Acts. Then you know what the relationship with God can be, according to the Bible, and to a large extent what it should be. And you also have an insight into what a large Christian population still experience in their lives. But there are more reasons for believing than experience, though experience will prove the strongest to any who seek the Lord, for when they experience themselves a real interaction with God, and God gives them the evidence that they need, they will then know the Person for themselves, and that will prove solid enough evidence. There are many other evidences supporting Christianity and the validity of the scriptures, though. One is the fact that the disciples claimed to have seen Jesus resurrected from the dead and had many experiences with him, and then the disciples died for their beliefs. Many people die for their beliefs, but people don't die for things they know aren't true. If the disciples claimed to have interacted with the resurrected Lord, then they knew whether what they were saying was true or not. And if it wasn't, then one can't explain in any plausible way why they were willing to lay down their lives for that lie, and why none of the twelve deviated from their story, in spite of ferocious persecution. There are other evidences too . . . the prophecies of the Old Testament are a key one, but I'm running out of time now.
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." Last edited by Lief Erikson : 11-27-2006 at 01:28 PM. |
|||||
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
LOTR Discussion: Appendix A, Part 1 | Valandil | LOTR Discussion Project | 26 | 12-28-2007 06:36 AM |
Rotk - Trivia - Part 3 | Spock | Lord of the Rings Books | 277 | 12-05-2006 11:01 AM |
LotR Films in Retrospect and Changed Opinions | bropous | Lord of the Rings Movies | 41 | 07-14-2006 10:14 AM |
Were the Nazgul free from Sauron for the most part of the Third Age? | Gordis | Middle Earth | 141 | 07-09-2006 07:16 PM |
Theological Opinions | Nurvingiel | General Messages | 992 | 02-10-2006 04:15 PM |