For RichardT: why creationism is harmful

[LittleNipper]

Which is why there is only one version of the Bible and no competing religions. Wait...that's not right.

Show me where the various versions of the Bible disagree.... List the odd verse or two...

 

[LittleNipper]

Lighten up a little, kiddo. It's called a joke.

Okay punk, I'll lighten up ----- someone get me a switch.

 

[TheOutsider]

Show me where the various versions of the Bible disagree.... List the odd verse or two...

I believe that he was trying to point out that there are many many different holy books. No two seem to be able to agree on a definition of God.
Also, Aron-Ra did a good job of pointing out all of the Gnostic gospels that were cut out of the Bible for various odd reasons.

 

[LittleNipper]

Which is why there is only one version of the Bible and no competing religions. Wait...that's not right.

Unless you are speeking of Mormons or JWs, I see no real competition. The focal issue has always been BIBLICAL INERRANCY. Most denominations once held to that--------historically. Now, of course some have added value judgments of theri own. That only means that they presently disagree with their founding fathers.

 

[Split Rock]

Unless you are speeking of Mormons or JWs, I see no real competition. The focal issue has always been BIBLICAL INERRANCY. Most denominations once held to that--------historically. Now, of course some have added value judgments of theri own. That only means that they presently disagree with their founding fathers.

Why don't you prove that the "founding fathers" held to BIBLICAL INERRANCY and to literal interpretation like you do.

 

[LittleNipper]

I believe that he was trying to point out that there are many many different holy books. No two seem to be able to agree on a definition of God.
Also, Aron-Ra did a good job of pointing out all of the Gnostic gospels that were cut out of the Bible for various odd reasons.

Cheap immitations of GOD's WORD. They either have an over abundance of "thee's and thou's" or they are written in poetic nonsense for some beatniks in Greewich Village to fawn over.

Ecclesiastes 7:11

Wisdom is a shelter as is money a shelter, but the advantage of knowledge is this; that wisdom preserves the life of its possessor.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Cheap immitations of GOD's WORD. They either have an over abundance of "thee's and thou's" or they are written in poetic nonsense for some beatniks in Greewich Village to fawn over.

Ecclesiastes 7:11

Wisdom is a shelter as is money a shelter, but the advantage of knowledge is this; that wisdom preserves the life of its possessor.

Thank you for thoughtfully providing an example.

 

[LittleNipper]

Why don't you prove that the "founding fathers" held to BIBLICAL INERRANCY and to literal interpretation like you do.

Look to the writings of John Wesley and Martin Luther.

 

[Loudmouth]

Unless you are speeking of Mormons or JWs, I see no real competition.

News to me. Someone forgot to tell me that Muslims are invisible.

The focal issue has always been BIBLICAL INERRANCY. Most denominations once held to that--------historically. Now, of course some have added value judgments of theri own. That only means that they presently disagree with their founding fathers.

Speaking of founding fathers, why don't you ask the real founding fathers, the Jews, why Jesus is not the Messiah nor the son of God.

 

[LittleNipper]

Thank you for thoughtfully proving an example.

Democrats are only ever correct when they are out of office.

 

[Loudmouth]

Democrats are only ever correct when they are out of office.

Since Democrats claim that Republicans will ruin the country this seems to make sense.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Democrats are only ever correct when they are out of office.

I'm sorry, Nip, but the Foru.ms database seems to have crashed again -- the point of your post has apparantly gone missing. Can you repost it?

 

[LittleNipper]

Since Democrats claim that Republicans will ruin the country this seems to make sense.

Democrats also said that when Lincoln was elected!

 

[LittleNipper]

News to me. Someone forgot to tell me that Muslims are invisible.



Speaking of founding fathers, why don't you ask the real founding fathers, the Jews, why Jesus is not the Messiah nor the son of God.

Ask a Moslem what he reads. You might be surprised.

 

[TheOutsider]

Cheap immitations of GOD's WORD. They either have an over abundance of "thee's and thou's" or they are written in poetic nonsense for some beatniks in Greewich Village to fawn over.

That covers the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses. Now how about those Gnostic texts that were found at Nag Hammadi and were authenticated to be from the first century?

 

[Naraoia]

HERE is an oldie I used to use a lot.

Ok, I might have avoided confusion if I hadn't capitalised the Method I'm perfectly aware it's more complicated than hypothesis-experiment-conclusion. Y'know, I'm studying it at university. I've already done some Theory of Knowledge in high school. Last year I took a course called Science Methods. I'm not quite ignorant about this stuff , you see . I often think "attitude" would be a more correct term than "method", but anyway, I hope I've managed to clear the misunderstanding.

 

[Chalnoth]

Ok, I might have avoided confusion if I hadn't capitalised the Method I'm perfectly aware it's more complicated than hypothesis-experiment-conclusion. Y'know, I'm studying it at university. I've already done some Theory of Knowledge in high school. Last year I took a course called Science Methods. I'm not quite ignorant about this stuff , you see . I often think "attitude" would be a more correct term than "method", but anyway, I hope I've managed to clear the misunderstanding.

Oh, don't worry. Chances are you understand it better than he does.

 

[KCfromNC]

Unless you are speeking of Mormons or JWs, I see no real competition. The focal issue has always been BIBLICAL INERRANCY. Most denominations once held to that--------historically. Now, of course some have added value judgments of theri own. That only means that they presently disagree with their founding fathers.

That's not true. Innerancy as practiced by fundamentalist protestants is a relatively new invention. It's an artifact of the modernist scientific thinking of the time, applied to a non-modernist text. Like all people, interpretation of an ambiguous text is driven partially by their environment, and fundamentalist leaders were living in a time when science promised to solve all our problems (and actually had a decent track record with many of them). So it was only natural to try apply a successful method (scientific reading) to their pet view of the truth.

Historically, there's been as much debate about taking treating the bible as a history or science text as there is today. Even early church leaders knew that forcing people to take the bible literally where it's obviously wrong will hurt the faith, overall (some people are obvious exceptions). That's why you'll see quotes from Origen (late 2nd to early 3rd century CE) rejecting a literal interpretation of Genesis, and he didn't even have knowledge of science to go on. So claiming that blind literalism is "historical" is true only by ignoring the history of leaders who didn't share that view.

And to answer your question about differences in versions of the Bible, one major example is the ending of Mark. Different translations include varying amounts of text based on which parts of the text the translators thought authentic. This is in the earliest resurrection story in the NT, so inconsistencies here are a pretty big deal.

 

[KCfromNC]

Cheap immitations of GOD's WORD. They either have an over abundance of "thee's and thou's" or they are written in poetic nonsense for some beatniks in Greewich Village to fawn over.

Ok, I'm about this close >| |< to calling Poe. Is anyone dense enough to believe that the Gnostic gospels were written in English? Heck, English wasn't even invented for another 1000 years or so, at least the version of English that would include "thee's and thou's".

 

[AV1611VET]

In the example you described, your reason for trusting the Bible is because based on your observations of the physical world, the Bible seems to be accurately describing it. What I’m saying is that if this is your reason for trusting the Bible, then when you see an example of the Bible appearing to condtradict the physical world, then that is—by definition—something that makes your reason for trusting the Bible weaker.

Please give me an example where the Bible appears to contradict the physical world - (other than a miracle, which is a direct contradiction to the laws of nature).

Just one though, please.