Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Exactly right, ire, and of course when the bible actually has a chance to come thru with something that any tale-teller couldnt fake, like noahs flood, well, then the supporting "evidences' aint nowhere. That book cant come up with any more supporting evidence than any other so called sacred book or set of stories.
The problem is that you seem to be going along with dad's idea that the bible is actually trying to provide a 'scientific' account. Obviously it's not. Higher textual criticism has told us a lot about the nature of the bible and similar ancient texts. you should check it out if you have a genuine interest in the literature.
i'm not defending dad's position (who would) but the cultural snobbery doesn't aid discussion. The only reason we are more advanced as a society is because we stand on the shoulders of giants. If we had been born into an ancient society we'd be no different to any of those supposed ignorant primitives.
It isn't trying to do anything is it? Says who? You? or are you assuming something and then stating it as fact?No fij the problem here is you assuming something and then stating it as fact. Would not occur to me to think the bible is "trying to provide a scientific account". It isnt "trying" to do anything.
Not about our modern understanding of science is, no.Its definitely not about science.
Umm... sounds like you treating it as science again (and I didn't even mention the flood)As ror corroborating evidence, the flood has none.
"Primitives" is probably not a good word to use, I dont think anthro0polgists use it anymore. Ignorant? I guess that would be a case of ignorant of what. Say things like disease, astronomy, the existence of australia....
If the cap fits... (see above quote)As for cultural snobbery, are you saying that about me?
It isn't trying to do anything is it? Says who? You? or are you assuming something and then stating it as fact?
Not about our modern understanding of science is, no. Umm... sounds like you treating it as science again (and I didn't even mention the flood)
I'd agree although maybe a better word to use is 'nescience', it doesn't carry the same connotations as 'ignorance'.
If the cap fits... (see above quote)
It doesnt. You have the courage to say something directly, or just try to sneak it in sideways?
Yes and Beethoven's fifth is just an arrangement of a whole bunch of notes , Citizen Kane is just a load of images on celluloid, and Don Quixote is just a lot of ink on paper.A book cant try to do anything. Its just a book.
And playing the pedant is what? Please tell how you know that the bible has no authorial intent then you will be able to say that the Bible "isn't 'trying' to do anything". (ie. you seem to know better than the authors what they were trying to acheive, which was appartntly nothing) If you were seriously being pedantic and the Bible is 'just a book', well honestly why bother saying anything.Sarcasm and trying to play gotcha are not even the lowest form of debate, its not debate at all. You have an idea, express that
So back to the courage to say something insulting directly?
If you have some problem with me, or with any aspect of Asian / female / educated / atheist, work it out for yourself. Cut out the personal comments.
You still haven't answered the question:I don't know much about the book. Saw the movie. I don't care much about it.
If something is fact, and supported, we would have the records, and observations, etc. The bible is supported, we had witnesses all over the place, and confirmations, supporting evidences (such as that there really was a certain town, and king, etc).
For the premise of so called science we have nothing at all. Just belief. Just assumption. Better concentrate on proving it, rather than tossing out canards.
Yes and Beethoven's fifth is just an arrangement of a whole bunch of notes , Citizen Kane is just a load of images on celluloid, and Don Quixote is just a lot of ink on paper.
And playing the pedant is what? Please tell how you know that the bible has no authorial intent then you will be able to say that the Bible "isn't 'trying' to do anything". (ie. you seem to know better than the authors what they were trying to acheive, which was appartntly nothing) If you were seriously being pedantic and the Bible is 'just a book', well honestly why bother saying anything.
trying to play the martyr only demeans yourself. ironic that you claim I made it 'personal' when you try to play the 'persecuted minority' card. you seem to think people disagreeing with you equates with a personal attack.
Yes and Beethoven's fifth is just an arrangement of a whole bunch of notes , Citizen Kane is just a load of images on celluloid, and Don Quixote is just a lot of ink on paper.
And playing the pedant is what? Please tell how you know that the bible has no authorial intent then you will be able to say that the Bible "isn't 'trying' to do anything". (ie. you seem to know better than the authors what they were trying to acheive, which was appartntly nothing) If you were seriously being pedantic and the Bible is 'just a book', well honestly why bother saying anything.
trying to play the martyr only demeans yourself. ironic that you claim I made it 'personal' when you try to play the 'persecuted minority' card. you seem to think people disagreeing with you equates with a personal attack.
Cultural snobbery is when people look down their noses at ancient primitive cultures for their supposed 'ignorance'. this is what came across to me in your posts. Now I see that this was not your intention so I do apologise.Ok first I am a cultural snob then I am playing the persecuted minority.
Interpreting how I think , why i think it, what my "problem' is, that I am demeaning myself and a snob is making it personal. Even if they are kinda contradictory, and none of them are accurate.
If you dont have a problem with who or what I am, fine, quit making personal comments and talk about something that might be an issue.
If you are going to keep making personal remarks, make them to yourself, i will just ig it.
Pot meet kettle wise, tho..."And playing the pedant is what? Please tell how you know that the bible has no authorial intent then you will be able to say that the Bible "isn't 'trying' to do anything"
Why do you think its worth getting all pedantic about it? So some of the authors did probably intend something. A book still cant try to do anything. Is that agreeable?
The bible was mostly observed, and the records carefully kept. What you mean is that you don't want to accept the evidence.Exactly right, ire, and of course when the bible actually has a chance to come thru with something that any tale-teller couldnt fake, like noahs flood, well, then the supporting "evidences' aint nowhere. That book cant come up with any more supporting evidence than any other so called sacred book or set of stories.
I look for what something ic claimed to be. As a story, I don't see the Iliad as 'false' persay. It may be a glimpse into attitudes, and ways of an ancient people, as well as as nice bloody story.You still haven't answered the question:
HOW did you come to the conclusion that the Illiad is false?
Charles Dickens and William Shakespeare wrote fiction but their books are full of people who existed and places that still exist, does that mean their books are true? the bible mentions a few places that existed but there is no proof whatsoever that the people mentioned in the bible ever existed, (apart from the odd king, etc) just because you were told they existed or believe that they did means absolutely nothing, there are no records that a man named Robin Hood ever existed but we all like to think that he did, but as it stands just like the people in the bible Robin Hood is just another fictitious character, without corroborating evidence they are just figments of peoples imaginations, it's very sad but it's also very true.
The bible deals largely with the lands of Israel. It IS the record. You don't seem to be talking from a standpoint of knowledge. Bible archeology had uncovered many things that verify the truth and accuracy of the bible. There is no reason to doubt!! None. Got any???
I look for what something ic claimed to be. As a story, I don't see the Iliad as 'false' persay. It may be a glimpse into attitudes, and ways of an ancient people, as well as as nice bloody story.
It does not claim to be a creation account! This happens to be a creation debate, if you missed that?
So called sciencd DOES claim to deal in the creation of the universe, and life! Therefore on may look at the roots and basis of those claims here. I have, and they have been found wanting.
The bible was also weighed in the balances, and found good as gold over time.
The bible deals largely with the lands of Israel. It IS the record.
You don't seem to be talking from a standpoint of knowledge.
Bible archeology had uncovered many things that verify the truth and accuracy of the bible. There is no reason to doubt!! None. Got any???
Amd billions of people say the same thing about the Bible -- more so than those who think it's real.
Actually, there are Christians -- more knowledgable than yourself* -- who claim that Adam and Eve isn't strictly speaking, a "Creation account" -- that would be Genesis 1. Gen. 2 is more of a marriage story.
Because they refute your fables, or for some legitimate reasons?
Many people assume that Darwins theory must have shaken the foundation of the Christian faith because of the stark difference between evolution and the idea of six-day creation. In truth, the literalist six-day interpretation of Genesis 1-2 was not the only perspective espoused by Christian thinkers prior to the publication of The Origin of Species. The works of many early Christian theologians and philosophers reveal an interpretation of Genesis compatible with Darwins theory.
- The Questions | The BioLogos Foundation
Not by the majority of the planet -- including those who believe The Iliad.
Cameras at the scene of an accident prove that some people get it right and most do not.
The creation account in that opinion is that man attained the point of being able to realize God.
The Biblical account is holding its own even with scientists:
Scientific discoveries have always arrived on the shoulders of a minority opinion at first. Evidently as does becoming children of God.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?