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.
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.
http://lexicon.scripturetext.com/job/36-30.htmWhere 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).
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?
... 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!
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?"?
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?
Dude, you lost me.
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?
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.
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?