Science and Art

[River Jordan]

Is that because you don't have one?

And rather than being asked what it is, you'll critique anyone who dares to have one?

Academia can tell us what limestone is made of, but read a verse of Scripture that says "brass" and you'd better interpret it as "bronze," or you're full of pride.

I'm not sure why you can't seem to grasp the pretty simple point I've been making.

We all have our own interpretations of various scriptures, including both you and me. The difference between us is I don't assume my interpretation is infallible and everyone who disagrees has to be wrong, whereas you do.

Maybe you should think about adding another component to your formula, one that says something like "If science disagrees with my interpretation, consider that my interpretation might be wrong".

 

[AV1611VET]

From AI Overview:

Brass can be a good material for certain types of tools, particularly where corrosion resistance, good machinability, and low friction are important, but due to its relatively softer nature, it's not ideal for tools that require high strength or sharpness, like chisels or blades; most commonly brass is used in tool components like gears, bearings, and fittings due to its excellent wear resistance and ability to resist corrosion in many environments.

Hence why it was called the Bronze Age, not the Brass Age.

What's your point?

That I'm wrong?

Does the Bible say Tubalcain instructed artificers in working with brass or bronze?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What's your point?

That I'm wrong?

Does the Bible say Tubalcain instructed artificers in working with brass or bronze?

*shrug*

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe you should think about adding another component to your formula, one that says something like "If science disagrees with my interpretation, consider that my interpretation might be wrong".

That's for academia to do.

And they do it well.

That's why we have atheists and Heinz-57 bibles and Heinz 57 religions.

 

[AV1611VET]

*shrug*

Can't answer that simple reading comprehension question?

Uh-huh.

And I'm the one skating on pride!?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Can't answer that simple reading comprehension question?

Uh-huh.

And I'm the one skating on pride!?

I didn't have a point, except pointing out that you'll blame academia for anything and everything, and anything that isn't academia will eventually be folded into academia by whatever logic you use to do so.

The point was itself.

And I have no pride in interacting with you. Humour, maybe, but definitely not pride.

 

[AV1611VET]

I didn't have a point, except pointing out that you'll blame academia for anything and everything, and anything that isn't academia will eventually be folded into academia by whatever logic you use to do so.

Ya -- it was entry-level janitors and taxi drivers and cooks who wrote all those other translations, wasn't it?

 

[River Jordan]

That's for academia to do.

And they do it well.

That's why we have atheists and Heinz-57 bibles and Heinz 57 religions.

Well if you want to continue in your refusal to consider that you might be wrong sometimes, that's your choice.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ya -- it was entry-level janitors and taxi drivers and cooks who wrote all those other translations, wasn't it?

Biblical scholars, is their name.

Though thanks for the QED on supporting my claim that you consider anyone and everyone who does not agree with you as 'academia'.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well if you want to continue in your refusal to consider that you might be wrong sometimes, that's your choice.

Then show me exactly where I'm wrong.

Don't just give me some vague line like, "You can't assume you're right," then leave me on my own to wonder what to do.

Do you ever consider you may be wrong as well?

And, if so, what do you do to correct it?

And, having corrected it, do you instruct others, so they can have the correct interpretation as well?

It's ironic that I can get credit for memorizing the formula for gravity (Gm₁m₂/r²), but get accused of exhibiting pride for not reading "brass" and thinking it should be "bronze."

 

[AV1611VET]

Biblical scholars, is their name.

"Scholars" doesn't tip you off to the notion that "academia" was involved?

 

[River Jordan]

Then show me exactly where I'm wrong.

Don't just give me some vague line like, "You can't assume you're right," then leave me on my own to wonder what to do.

Do you ever consider you may be wrong as well?

And, if so, what do you do to correct it?

And, having corrected it, do you instruct others, so they can have the correct interpretation as well?

It's ironic that I can get credit for memorizing the formula for gravity (Gm₁m₂/r²), but get accused of exhibiting pride for not reading "brass" and thinking it should be "bronze."

Wow. I never thought the simple concept of "maybe consider that you're not infallible" would lead to such confusion and push back.

I'll try one more time. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying you should allow for the possibility (in your formula) that you could be wrong.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

"Scholars" doesn't tip you off to the notion that "academia" was involved?

And I'd have thought that you'd consider anything related to the study of the Bible to be wholly separate to your view of 'academia', but I guess I was wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wow. I never thought the simple concept of "maybe consider that you're not infallible" would lead to such confusion and push back.

I'll try one more time. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying you should allow for the possibility (in your formula) that you could be wrong.

Well I'm not omniscient by a long shot.

I'm just willing to take the consequences for any mistakes I made.

And I don't mind putting what I believe up in the storefront window for others to see.

But what I'm not going to do is incorporate an "I'm not infallible" clause into my standards, since it's obvious that I am.

In other words, I'm not going to say stuff like:

"Jesus walked on water, but I could be wrong."

"Jesus was born of a virgin, but I could be wrong."

"Jesus died on the Cross and rose the third day, but I could be wrong."

"Murder is a sin, but I could be wrong."

Et cetera.

 

[River Jordan]

Well I'm not omniscient by a long shot.

I'm just willing to take the consequences for any mistakes I made.

And I don't mind putting what I believe up in the storefront window for others to see.

But what I'm not going to do is incorporate an "I'm not infallible" clause into my standards, since it's obvious that I am.

In other words, I'm not going to say stuff like:

"Jesus walked on water, but I could be wrong."

"Jesus was born of a virgin, but I could be wrong."

"Jesus died on the Cross and rose the third day, but I could be wrong."

"Murder is a sin, but I could be wrong."

Et cetera.

Then you might want to find a way to incorporate "I might be wrong" into your formula.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then you might want to find a way to incorporate "I might be wrong" into your formula.

Nope.

Not gonna happen.

If I need to advertise that, something's wrong in Hong Kong.

 

[River Jordan]

Nope.

Not gonna happen.

If I need to advertise that, something's wrong in Hong Kong.

So if science disagrees with your interpretation of scripture, is science always wrong?

 

[AV1611VET]

So if science disagrees with your interpretation of scripture, is science always wrong?

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.

What do you think?

What if science agrees with my interpretation of the Bible?

Will science always be right?

I'll give you a good example of this.

I agree with the late Dr Henry Morris, in his Defender's Study Bible, that Job speaks of electronic communication when he says:

Job 38:35 Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?

I say the Bible speaks of electronic communications, from the wireless telegraph to the Internet.

And to back it up, I use the inventions of science to support my belief.

Is my interpretation of that passage wrong, and science is right?

Or is my interpretation of that passage right, and science is right as well?

In other words, in what standard should I file this under?

This one?

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x

Or this one?

4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x

 

[River Jordan]

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.

What do you think?

I think you've equated "Bible says x" with "I interpret the Bible as saying x". Those aren't the same.

What if science agrees with my interpretation of the Bible?

I guess that's up to you

Will science always be right?

Of course not.

I'll give you a good example of this.

I agree with the late Dr Henry Morris, in his Defender's Study Bible, that Job speaks of electronic communication when he says:

Job 38:35 Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?

I say the Bible speaks of electronic communications, from the wireless telegraph to the Internet.

And to back it up, I use the inventions of science to support my belief.

Is my interpretation of that passage wrong, and science is right?

Or is my interpretation of that passage right, and science is right as well?

In other words, in what standard should I file this under?

This one?

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x

Or this one?

4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x

That's up to you. Again the point isn't about science and scripture, the point is about having humility and not assuming that anyone and anything that disagrees with you is automatically wrong.