My Linnaeus Challenge

[AV1611VET]

No, I don´t mean this.

In other words, it's okay to ask for clarification; but when it comes to the Bible, unbelievers will tell us what It says ... right?

 

[quatona]

In other words, it's okay to ask for clarification; but when it comes to the Bible, unbelievers will tell us what It says ... right?

I didn´t say anything about what the bible says or doesn´t.
You asked why we think you called your question a "challenge". I responded. Neither your question nor my response had anything to do with the bible.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You mean like thinking this ...

Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

... speaks of geocentrism?

And I'm the one with problems?

But it DOES speak of geocentrism. Of course, we have learned that we cannot take the literal meaning as true, so we don't, and we still trust the Bible. Now if only you would take the same step with regard to the findings about evolution and the age of the earth, you would be . . . . consistent.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

In other words, it's okay to ask for clarification; but when it comes to the Bible, unbelievers will tell us what It says ... right?

So lets be perfectly clear what you are saying here. You're telling us it doesn't matter what the words of the Bible say, it merely matters what you know the words actually mean. Got it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course, we have learned that we cannot take the literal meaning as true, so we don't, and we still trust the Bible.

Who's "we"?

Time and again I see that passage brought up as evidence that the Bible speaks of geocentrism.

 

[[serious]]

Do you treat your spouse like an animal?

Like, as opposed to a plant?

 

[durangodawood]

Like, as opposed to a plant?

Dont bother.
He wont explain what he means with "like an animal".

 

[[serious]]

Ain't that a shame such a simple question is so vague?

Evolution is confusing, isn't it?

No, not really.

What makes it weird is that treating someone "like an animal" is more commonly used as an idiom than as its literal meaning.

 

[[serious]]

I'll give an answer for you AV, I'll even give 3 for the idiomatic, colloquial, and scientific meanings
Idiomatically: No, I don't mistreat my wife.
Colloquially: No, I don't walk her on a leash and feed her from a bowl on the floor
Scientifically: Yes, I treat her as a heterotroph capable of locomotion. I do not attempt to plant her or grow her on an agar plate.

 

[[serious]]

S

Who's "we"?

Time and again I see that passage brought up as evidence that the Bible speaks of geocentrism.

Since you seem to like latin, pluralis modestiae

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Who's "we"?

Time and again I see that passage brought up as evidence that the Bible speaks of geocentrism.

That would be, in that post, you and me. You and I both realize the earth rotates as the cause of day and night, rather than the sun moving around the earth, and so we both take the Joshua passage non-literally. Isn't that true?

Who's "we"?

Time and again I see that passage brought up as evidence that the Bible speaks of geocentrism.

In this case, the "we" is YOU AND ME. YOU AND I have learned to not take the words of Joshua literally, and assert that it was the sun that stopped its movement across the sky. Haven't we?

But, literally, it does support geocentrism, which is how it was understood in literal fashion until modern science came up with a sun centered solar system.

 

[AV1611VET]

That would be, in that post, you and me. You and I both realize the earth rotates as the cause of day and night, rather than the sun moving around the earth, and so we both take the Joshua passage non-literally. Isn't that true?

Yes ... that is true.

In this case, the "we" is YOU AND ME. YOU AND I have learned to not take the words of Joshua literally, and assert that it was the sun that stopped its movement across the sky. Haven't we?

Yes.

But, literally, it does support geocentrism,

Literally, it would support geocentrism.

... which is how it was understood in literal fashion until modern science came up with a sun centered solar system.

I don't believe that.

And I also find it interesting that scientists argue that Genesis 1 is metaphorical, while Joshua 10 is literal.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Yes ... that is true.

Yes.

Literally, it would support geocentrism.

I don't believe that.

And I also find it interesting that scientists argue that Genesis 1 is metaphorical, while Joshua 10 is literal.

I'm not aware that there is a set of scientists expressing those ideas. Maybe you can provide a citation.

As for myself, I fell that just in exactly the same way we can change from viewing the Joshua passage literally, we can change from viewing the Genesis passage literally.

And I am of the opinion that expressing one may view Joshua in a non literal fashion while refusing others the right to view Genesis 1 in a non literal fashion is to be inconsistent. That's what I understand YOU to do, not scientists.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not aware that there is a set of scientists expressing those ideas.

QV please: 139

Now you are.

 

[mnorian]

Mod Hat On

As was Off-Topic for
P&L Science
To
Creation & Evolution
Carry On
​

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

QV please: 139

Now you are.

I'm not seeing there any scientist arguing that Genesis 1 is metaphorical while Joshua is literal.

 

[Kylie]

Do you treat your spouse like an animal?

Yes, I treat him like a Human animal.

 

[Kylie]

Oeps, sorry. I assumed that by "spouse" you meant "the person you are in a relationship with and deeply care for and love".

My mistake. Apparantly it is about a signature on a piece of paper rather then about love and respect.

[off topic] I've noticed that for many religious people, they don't care about the love between to people as a measure of how valid a relationship is.[/off topic]

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

QV please: 139

Now you are.

Can you read for comprehension? The poster there is arguing that the Bible supports geo centrism, that the earth is stationary and the sun moves around it. But . . . where is he arguing that the Bible supports a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis 1?

So it remains perfectly true, as I said before, you don't really find scientists arguing that Genesis 1 is metaphorical while Joshua is literal, the thing you accused scientists of doing . . . . wrongly, once again.