A Pondering of the Peculiar

[AV1611VET]

Well, I think that God has revealed Himself to mankind, and the bible is man's record of those revelatory events. However, man can understand in error. Man can transmit these events through story or literary genres we don't understand or use anymore, and in a way that is steeped in the culture of the writer.

The Bible is written using the most basic terminology.

That way, It can speak to every generation throughout the ages.

Imagine the Bible discussing vehicular transportation.

It could use the term "automobile," but that would only make sense in modern times.

Using the term "horseless carriage" or "horseless coach" would be more appropriate.

By the same token, using the term "light" for "electromagnetic spectrum" would be more appropriate.

 

[Sayre]

The Bible is written using the most basic terminology.

That way, It can speak to every generation throughout the ages.

Imagine the Bible discussing vehicular transportation.

It could use the term "automobile," but that would only make sense in modern times.

Using the term "horseless carriage" or "horseless coach" would be more appropriate.

By the same token, using the term "light" for "electromagnetic spectrum" would be more appropriate.

Ya know, I don't agree.

The bible has some pretty amazing poetic devices and structures. Hebrew is a fascinating language. I think it would have been simple for those who are aware of Hebrew idioms and literary structures, but difficult for those of us steeped in the greek mindset and post enlightenment.

 

[46AND2]

Well, I think that God has revealed Himself to mankind, and the bible is man's record of those revelatory events. However, man can understand in error. Man can transmit these events through story or literary genres we don't understand or use anymore, and in a way that is steeped in the culture of the writer. It is an interesting book even if you only read it as a secular piece of literature helpful for informing us about society and culture in times past.

Ok, but what makes you think that there is truth to it at all? How do you determine that man did not understand in error purely natural things?

sorry I'm disjoint tonight ... my children are sick and I only get a minute here or there to piece ideas together and post.

No worries. I'm waiting for my ibuprofen to kick in, so I can get to sleep. ;-)

 

[Sayre]

Ok, but what makes you think that there is truth to it at all? How do you determine that man did not understand in error purely natural things?

sorry I'm disjoint tonight ... my children are sick and I only get a minute here or there to piece ideas together and post.

No worries. I'm waiting for my ibuprofen to kick in, so I can get to sleep. ;-)

Bummer - hope you feel better tomorrow.

I don't think they were wrong about everything, because I recognise their experiences to have something in common with my experiences.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

The Bible is written using the most basic terminology.

That way, It can speak to every generation throughout the ages.

Imagine the Bible discussing vehicular transportation.

It could use the term "automobile," but that would only make sense in modern times.

Using the term "horseless carriage" or "horseless coach" would be more appropriate.

By the same token, using the term "light" for "electromagnetic spectrum" would be more appropriate.

You don't suppose "the most basic terminology" was their best shot at description with the vocabulary they had available at the time?

 

[46AND2]

Ya know, I don't agree.

The bible has some pretty amazing poetic devices and structures. Hebrew is a fascinating language. I think it would have been simple for those who are aware of Hebrew idioms and literary structures, but difficult for those of us steeped in the greek mindset and post enlightenment.

And therein lies the difference between YEC and the rest of Christianity.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

And therein lies the difference between YEC and the rest of Christianity.

Well, to be fair, The King James Version is regarded pretty universally as superb English literature. Even I can acknowledge that I've heard passages that are pretty remarkable poetry. But I don't know how much of that is a result of the translation and how much preserved from the original.

 

[46AND2]

Well, to be fair, The King James Version is regarded pretty universally as superb English literature. Even I can acknowledge that I've heard passages that are pretty remarkable poetry. But I don't know how much of that is a result of the translation and how much preserved from the original.

Well sure, but my general point is that non-YEC tend to look at the bible as more complex literature, whereas YEC see it more straightforward storytelling.

 

[46AND2]

Bummer - hope you feel better tomorrow.

I don't think they were wrong about everything, because I recognise their experiences to have something in common with my experiences.

Ok, I'll take a little different approach...

Can you give me an example of one or two of places in the bible that you feel are in error, and how you came to that determination?

Is it mostly like the sections which scholars generally recognize as interpolations, or are there things you have come across on your own that you question?

 

[Sayre]

Well, to be fair, The King James Version is regarded pretty universally as superb English literature. Even I can acknowledge that I've heard passages that are pretty remarkable poetry. But I don't know how much of that is a result of the translation and how much preserved from the original.

Yeah I got some problems with English translations.

When my kids were younger they had books that explained, in baby language, Genesis 1. God made birds and then God made fish and wombats, etc.

However, when you really dig deep into Genesis 1 and see the structure inherent in it, you begin to realise that paraphrasing Genesis 1 as a rather prescriptive account of what God did... is not the intent of the text.

The same thing goes for the "baby bible" versions of the flood. The story reads nothing like what happened or what the key message was about. You may as well read kids a story of hurricane katrina.

When simplified to that point, you totally lose all textual indicators in the Hebrew text. Those "baby bibles" are rubbish.

English translations also lose the intent of the text when they remove the structure in the Hebrew. It's a real shame. Not sure how to fix that.

I have heard similar things that the KJV language is beautiful. I agree. But it isn't completely true to the text and cannot be.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Well sure, but my general point is that non-YEC tend to look at the bible as more complex literature, whereas YEC see it more straightforward storytelling.

Ah yes, I see what you mean. The YEC crowd do seem to be missing out all round.

 

[AV1611VET]

You don't suppose "the most basic terminology" was their best shot at description with the vocabulary they had available at the time?

Of course I do.

 

[juvenissun]

No...DOES not lie is an interpretation of honesty. CANNOT lie is an interpretation of a limitation.

Since omnipotence does not allow for limitations, a god who cannot lie is not omnipotent.

As long as a definition is set, you automatically put limitations to arguments outside the definition. For example, God is love (a definition), then God is not "not love". This certainly does not mean God can not hate. So far, we do not know what hate is yet.

If you defined hate, then you will see its definition contradicts to that of love. So, we should not say God "can not" hate. It is logically wrong regardless God is omnipotent of not.

Congratulation. I can see you are improving.

 

[juvenissun]

No...DOES not lie is an interpretation of honesty. CANNOT lie is an interpretation of a limitation.

Since omnipotence does not allow for limitations, a god who cannot lie is not omnipotent.

Give you one last explanation (which is beyond what you asked for):

We define God as God is this and God is that.
The consequence is that God can not be "not this" and can not be "not that" because it is the logic limitation.

Fine, you may say, that means God can not violate logic, which itself is created by God. Why can't God violates logic?

The ultimate reason is: God can not violate Himself.

If you still argue: why not? there is a "can not" in there. So God is not omnipotent.

Then the final answer is: Fine. then he is not the god we are talking about. My God does not (can not, if you wish) violate Himself. The term omnipotent needs to be defined based on this bottom-line requirement.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

As long as a definition is set, you automatically put limitations to arguments outside the definition. For example, God is love (a definition), then God is not "not love". This certainly does not mean God can not hate. So far, we do not know what hate is yet.

If you defined hate, then you will see its definition contradicts to that of love. So, we should not say God "can not" hate. It is logically wrong regardless God is omnipotent of not.

Congratulation. I can see you are improving.

Does god love those he sends to hell for eternal torment? Or would you need to hate someone to do that? (Too easy.)

I love the way juve has his error pointed out to him for the nth time and then says to his interrogator "you are improving" as if to pretend that it isn't juve's shortcomings that are the problem that needs addressing.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Give you one last explanation (which is beyond what you asked for):

What are the chances that this explanation will be incoherent drivelling nonsense?

We define God as God is this and God is that.

Off to a cracking start then, juve...

The consequence is that God can not be "not this" and can not be "not that" because it is the logic limitation.

Everybody still following juve? You all still with us?

Fine, you may say

Wasn't actually what I was thinking, but we'll push on.

, that means God can not violate logic

Perhaps god can't but I have a feeling someone closer to home whose name begins with a J doesn't suffer from such limitations.

, which itself is created by God. Why can't God violates logic?

Beats me. Perhaps because your god isn't omnipotent?

The ultimate reason is: God can not violate Himself.

Oh, if only English were your first language...

If you still argue: why not? there is a "can not" in there. So God is not omnipotent.

By George...

Yes, juve, that's about the size of it.

Then the final answer is: Fine. then he is not the god we are talking about. My God does not (can not, if you wish) violate Himself. The term omnipotent needs to be defined based on this bottom-line requirement.

Ah, but now, having realised he might be on a sticky wicket, juve wants to redefine the meaning of the word 'omnipotent' to suit his own definition of god. Sorry, chum, the English language doesn't just redefine words to suit you.

Looks like you're back where you started. Not to worry, juve, you may not have made any progress this time, but, who knows, give it another 20 or 30 attempts and you might twig that 'the omnipotence paradox' is called that for a reason.

 

[EternalDragon]

Does god love those he sends to hell for eternal torment? Or would you need to hate someone to do that? (Too easy.)

I love the way juve has his error pointed out to him for the nth time and then says to his interrogator "you are improving" as if to pretend that it isn't juve's shortcomings that are the problem that needs addressing.

God does not send anyone to hell. Where did you get that idea?

Through Adam, all people are already sinners. It is your choice
that determines if you go there.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

God does not send anyone to hell. Where did you get that idea?

I can't imagine. Must have just picked it up somewhere. Or perhaps you don't believe in hell after all.

Through Adam, all people are already sinners. It is your choice
that determines if you go there.

Yeah, we know that one, it's called a protection racket and we've been through it before. Your god runs the operation. Pay him or pay the consequences. It's old news.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Ah yes, the boss is a beautiful person.

Yeah we know you want to blame everyone else apart from Mr Big. Much too risky to name Mr Big as the bad guy. Might end up going to hell yourself.

 

[46AND2]

Give you one last explanation (which is beyond what you asked for):

We define God as God is this and God is that.
The consequence is that God can not be "not this" and can not be "not that" because it is the logic limitation.

Fine, you may say, that means God can not violate logic, which itself is created by God. Why can't God violates logic?

The ultimate reason is: God can not violate Himself.

If you still argue: why not? there is a "can not" in there. So God is not omnipotent.

Then the final answer is: Fine. then he is not the god we are talking about. My God does not (can not, if you wish) violate Himself. The term omnipotent needs to be defined based on this bottom-line requirement.

And, just like I predicted a couple hundred posts ago, you want to change the definition of omnipotent.

What are you talking about? Where do I want to change the meaning of any word?

And, you should talk to me with a little respect. It is I who am teaching you. Not the other way around. If you don't like it, we can simply quit.

Respect is earned, juve. Treat others with respect, and you'll get it in return. You hand out insults like candy. If you can't take it, don't give it.

I assumed you wanted to change the definition of omnipotent, since you didn't want to change the definition of God. In fact, I still suspect that is where you are headed...but by all means, please continue.

Thanks for playing, juve.

 

[anyathesword]

Yeah I got some problems with English translations.

When my kids were younger they had books that explained, in baby language, Genesis 1. God made birds and then God made fish and wombats, etc.

However, when you really dig deep into Genesis 1 and see the structure inherent in it, you begin to realise that paraphrasing Genesis 1 as a rather prescriptive account of what God did... is not the intent of the text.

The same thing goes for the "baby bible" versions of the flood. The story reads nothing like what happened or what the key message was about. You may as well read kids a story of hurricane katrina.

When simplified to that point, you totally lose all textual indicators in the Hebrew text. Those "baby bibles" are rubbish.

English translations also lose the intent of the text when they remove the structure in the Hebrew. It's a real shame. Not sure how to fix that.

I have heard similar things that the KJV language is beautiful. I agree. But it isn't completely true to the text and cannot be.

That's why it's great to have commentaries and dictionaries near you when you read the Bible.