Science and Logic

[gluadys]

It seems you have no problem to accept, or are not so picky on, these many versions of translation (they ARE different from each other). To me, in particular, regards to all this type of hard-to-understand verses, I do not like any of them. To be fair, in your perception, my interpretation should be at least as good as their translations, if not better.

Where did you learn Hebrew?

 

[juvenissun]

Where did you learn Hebrew?

http://lexicon.scripturetext.com/job/36-30.htm

Modern IT is amazing. I couldn't imagine this is possible when I "tried" to learn Hebrew about 30 years ago (alphabets and a few words were the farthest place I ever went).

 

[gluadys]

http://lexicon.scripturetext.com/job/36-30.htm

Modern IT is amazing. I couldn't imagine this is possible when I "tried" to learn Hebrew about 30 years ago (alphabets and a few words were the farthest place I ever went).

Sorry, juvenissun. Access to a dictionary does not qualify as learning a language. I have a Japanese-English dictionary on my shelf. That does not qualify me to translate Japanese documents into English.

I have learned languages (though not Hebrew yet) and taught languages. So don't try to kid me on this.

There is a huge difference between a dictionary and language.

So, in fact, your knowledge of Hebrew is still what it was 30 years ago, except that you have increased somewhat the number of words you think you know.

P.S. Knowing the dictionary definition of a word is not the same as knowing the word.

Now, why should I give your interpretation the same consideration as that of translators who do know Hebrew?

 

[shernren]

The feeding of the five thousand
left the effect of several baskets of leftovers.

Now, my question is: can a scientific investigator verify, at a point historically close to the event (say a few hours later), that there were indeed several baskets of leftovers at the site?

The implicit heart of the question is this: would the belief system of the investigator affect the outcome of the investigation?
Suppose someone believed completely that miracles were not possible.
Would not s/he still detect that several baskets of leftovers were present at the site?

You stated that post #70 contained the answer:

... Problem is, those consequences won't tell an accurate story if viewed through the prism of science and all its necessary assumptions.

Think of the baskets of fish and bread left over from Jesus feeding the 5,000. The post-event observer would think they were the result of a normal feast that started out with several thousand fish and bread loafs. (let's assume there were fish skeletons left over that could be quantified.)

Ah, but what if a disciple eyewitness came to them and told them of the miraculous story?? We now have the addition of testimonial evidence. Well, some may choose to believe the testomony and see the evidence matches that scenario as well.

Others may choose to disbelieve it as they can't allow supernatural stories to enter into their scientific evaluation of evidence.

But then, there's a third group, the theistic naturalists (also known as TEs). This group claims to believe in Jesus (and many certainly do), but since the evidence shows a greater starting number than the story reveals, they refuse to believe that God would deceive them with faulty evidence. Now they have a dilemma. Do they believe the story or the evidence? The solution then comes to them. They choose to believe the story but reinterpret it as allegory. Problem solved!

So, what you are saying is that:

- The person who believed that a miracle occurred would observe that several baskets of leftovers were present, and
- The person who believed that a miracle could not have occurred would also still have observed that several baskets of leftovers were present.

Am I correct?

Would there be any class of observers (with the assumption that all observers have complete basic sensory functions i.e. we exclude the blind, the deaf, etc.) which would not observe that several baskets of leftovers had been present, while other observers did? Is it possible for one observer to say "Look, several baskets of leftovers!" while another observer says "There aren't any baskets. What are you talking about?"?

 

[Calminian]

Would there be any class of observers (with the assumption that all observers have complete basic sensory functions i.e. we exclude the blind, the deaf, etc.) which would not observe that several baskets of leftovers had been present, while other observers did? Is it possible for one observer to say "Look, several baskets of leftovers!" while another observer says "There aren't any baskets. What are you talking about?"?

Dude, you lost me.

 

[juvenissun]

So, in fact, your knowledge of Hebrew is still what it was 30 years ago, except that you have increased somewhat the number of words you think you know.

P.S. Knowing the dictionary definition of a word is not the same as knowing the word.

Now, why should I give your interpretation the same consideration as that of translators who do know Hebrew?

No. I am worse than I was. I don't even remember all the alphabets any more.

If you want to teach me language, I am listening, and most likely, I will thank you.

But, I dare to challenge those Hebrew language experts in that I don't think they know enough science to oppose what I can see. If any one can refute what I said based on language, I am humbly listening. I won't hesitate to accept new light and to admit wrong thought.

If you have something, please do try.

 

[shernren]

Dude, you lost me.

Can we go back to this, then?

So, what you are saying is that:

- The person who believed that a miracle occurred would observe that several baskets of leftovers were present, and
- The person who believed that a miracle could not have occurred would also still have observed that several baskets of leftovers were present.

Am I correct?

And can I amplify the second statement? Do you agree that:

The person who believed that a miracle could not have occurred would also still have observed that several baskets of leftovers were present, even if s/he cannot logically attribute those leftovers to a miraculous occurrence within his/her worldview.

 

[Calminian]

Can we go back to this, then?



And can I amplify the second statement? Do you agree that:

The person who believed that a miracle could not have occurred would also still have observed that several baskets of leftovers were present, even if s/he cannot logically attribute those leftovers to a miraculous occurrence within his/her worldview.

Agreed and still lost about the conclusion you are drawing. The one who embraces the miracle explanation must set aside inductive scientific reasoning. The one embracing the natural explanation will embrace an argument similar to Hume's that natural explanations should always be preferred over supernatural ones. Sorry, just not getting your argument.

 

[shernren]

Agreed and still lost about the conclusion you are drawing. The one who embraces the miracle explanation must set aside inductive scientific reasoning. The one embracing the natural explanation will embrace an argument similar to Hume's that natural explanations should always be preferred over supernatural ones. Sorry, just not getting your argument.

Patience, mon frere. You are not getting my argument because it hasn't been fully stated yet. In complicated and contentious discussions like this it is best to tread slowly, and make sure every inch of ground covered is well covered indeed.

That the leftovers were present, was a logical consequence of the miracle happening as described in Luke (??). The miracle as described led to the existence of leftovers, which could be verified by an observer of any bias present at the event.

You agreed (and I belabor the point) that the leftovers would have been observed by any reasonable observer (whether or not they accept that a miracle happened) present within a reasonable time after the event. That is to say that they were physically real, and hence scientifically testable. In other words - any scientific test that would give a positive result if the leftovers had been present, and negative if the leftovers had not been, would give a positive result in this case. The process of visual observation (where photons bounce off the leftovers into an observer's retina, whose brain then accordingly translates the visual signal into an image) is just one such test. Am I not correct?