...Do you even believe in Evolution in the first palce? (2)

[AV1611VET]

If you're going to use the Bible as your bludgeon, expect to be called out when you bungle it... even in Physical and Life Sciences.

In Physical & Life Sciences ???

 

[TLK Valentine]

In Physical & Life Sciences ???

Someone give AV's record player a shove -- his needle is skipping.

But yes, AV... anywhere you make the Bible look idiotic, you will be called on it... although, sadly, the Bible will usually end up taking the blame for your actions.

 

[AV1611VET]

Someone give AV's record player a shove -- his needle is skipping.

But yes, AV... anywhere you make the Bible look idiotic, you will be called on it... although, sadly, the Bible will usually end up taking the blame for your actions.

I'll just go ahead and take Via's post with a grain of salt.

Thanks for the help.

 

[Astrid]

.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'll just go ahead and take Via's post with a grain of salt.

Thanks for the help.

If you think that's the best way you can mitigate the damage you do to the Bible's reputation, be our guest.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you think that's the best way you can mitigate the damage you do to the Bible's reputation, be our guest.

Would you know it, if I did?

 

[Opdrey]

Would you know it, if I did?

Why is it your assumption that only you have read the Bible?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why is it your assumption that only you have read the Bible?

???

 

[TLK Valentine]

Would you know it, if I did?

As hypotheticals go, that one is pretty far out in left field... but try it sometime and we'll see.

 

[Opdrey]

???

You challenged TLK whether they would know. That seems to be a challenge to whether TLK is as familiar with the Bible as you are.

 

[Astrid]

.

 

[AV1611VET]

You challenged TLK whether they would know. That seems to be a challenge to whether TLK is as familiar with the Bible as you are.

TLK thinks I damage the Bible's reputation with my standards:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

In my opinion, he wouldn't know.

Even I wouldn't know if I did, unless God told me.

 

[Opdrey]

TLK thinks I damage the Bible's reputation with my standards:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

In my opinion, he wouldn't know.

Even I wouldn't know if I did, unless God told me.

I, personally, don't think you do any damage to the Bible with your made up stuff like the Jacobean English thing or the Embedded Age thing.

The Embedded Age thing is actually pretty clever. Especially if one likes that sort of God.

 

[Astrid]

I, personally, don't think you do any damage to the Bible with your made up stuff like the Jacobean English thing or the Embedded Age thing.

The Embedded Age thing is actually pretty clever. Especially if one likes that sort of God.

Id say Last Thursdayism is more like
"Too clever by one half".

Nobody btw in my estimation has
the capacity to enhance or damage the
bible tho many do succeed in presenting
themselves as being, shall we say, unsuitable
for any position of responsibility.

 

[Opdrey]

Id say Last Thursdayism is more like
"Too clever by one half".

The thing I like about "Embedded Age" is it's a wonderful word game that is effectively "unfalsifiable". It's best not to look too closely at it because to most people with the exception of a small handful it amounts to a God who makes things that aren't really like they are while simultaneously making them like they are.

It's a great rhetorical gambit because it assigns to God an action that only God could undertake (to make something old that didn't experience any aging) and that's fair enough as it goes. But it begs the question why God would want to do something like that given that He has access to INFINITE TIME. The only reason it is even a thought to be had is if one must make Genesis literally true.

Of course Genesis doesn't say anything about embedding age or any such stuff, in fact it is quite clear how short a time it took to make the earth. But science clearly has a problem with that literal interpretation so this allows the literalist to accept science while basically creating a version of God that plays this sort of game.

 

[sjastro]

TLK thinks I damage the Bible's reputation with my standards:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

In my opinion, he wouldn't know.

Even I wouldn't know if I did, unless God told me.

Let's use an example from your KJV of the Bible.
Deuteronomy 22:23

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

So according to the Bible the rape victim should also be put to death with her attacker because she didn't cry out indicating the sex was consensual.
The rights for women was given a kick start through the social sciences particularly the development of feminism in the 19th century.

Based on your 'heuristics' a woman who doesn't scream rape should therefore be stoned to death since the Bible cannot be contradicted by social science.

 

[Opdrey]

Let's use an example from your KJV of the Bible.
Deuteronomy 22:23

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

So according to the Bible the rape victim should also be put to death with her attacker because she didn't cry out indicating the sex was consensual.
The rights for women was given a kick start through the social sciences particularly the development of feminism in the 19th century.

Based on your 'heuristics' a woman who doesn't scream rape should therefore be stoned to death since the Bible cannot be contradicted by social science.

While it's unclear why the City-Field designation makes a difference the next verse is actually a bit more onpoint:


25But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.

26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:


So in this case it is clearly a case of rape and the woman is not held accountable for this. It is unclear (at least to me) in the verses you quoted as to whether it was a rape or a consensual affair between the betrothed virgin and the man in the city since it doesn't say "force her" as it does in the following verses.

 

[sjastro]

While it's unclear why the City-Field designation makes a difference the next verse is actually a bit more onpoint:


25But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.

26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:


So in this case it is clearly a case of rape and the woman is not held accountable for this. It is unclear (at least to me) in the verses you quoted as to whether it was a rape or a consensual affair between the betrothed virgin and the man in the city since it doesn't say "force her" as it does in the following verses.

In the city if the women screams she can be heard, in a field where there is no one, her screams are not heard and she is not held accountable.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You challenged TLK whether they would know. That seems to be a challenge to whether TLK is as familiar with the Bible as you are.

It's an apples to oranges comparison:

I choose to analyze; he prefers to idolize.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Even I wouldn't know if I did, unless God told me.

If God told you in such a way that disagreed with your understanding of the Bible, you'd tell Him to take a hike.