Wisdom of Solomon 19:19

[juvenissun]

That's sad. There is much to the world outside of science, and one should be able to appreciate the humanities without holding them to the rigor of science.

Much of the beauty of art is in its "flaws."

Agree. I do can appreciate art. For example, the horrible image posted by shernren is, in fact, a very very good, and inspiring one.

The problem is the style of the painting. If it meant to describe something faithfully, then there should be no error in it.

Get back to the poem of Solomon. A wise king as he is, he would and should not say anything wrong, even as a poem.

 

[juvenissun]

What geological errors do you see in that painting, juvie?

The river (valley) morphology described in the painting could not be real. Do you see the floodplain in the painting? It should not be there.

A more common mistake for artist is to paint the strike-dip wrong when they try to describe mountain or hill.

 

[Mallon]

The river (valley) morphology described in the painting could not be real. Do you see the floodplain in the painting? It should not be there.

A more common mistake for artist is to paint the strike-dip wrong when they try to describe mountain or hill.

I still don't see what you're talking about. Are you saying the stream to the right should not be higher than the lowland to the left?

 

[champuru]

Get back to the poem of Solomon. A wise king as he is, he would and should not say anything wrong, even as a poem.

You obviously do not understand poetry or wisdom. Wisdom is not the same as scientific intelligence. Wisdom is knowledge of what is right (morally) coupled with just judgment as to action.

 

[juvenissun]

You obviously do not understand poetry or wisdom. Wisdom is not the same as scientific intelligence. Wisdom is knowledge of what is right (morally) coupled with just judgment as to action.

The knowledge included in wisdom has to be correct no matter what.

 

[juvenissun]

I still don't see what you're talking about. Are you saying the stream to the right should not be higher than the lowland to the left?

The creek is obviously a young creek. It is erosional in function. So there should not be any dry and stable flat ground (in other words, flood plain) on its side which is where the gazebo sits. The building could be built on hill slope by the creek, but not at the same level as the creek. Otherwise, it will be flushed away in no time.

It would be indeed beautiful to put some nice building in that environment. However, it is not practical. And most critically, the landform described simply does not exist on the earth.

Uhh.... (wait a minute..) Except ONE situation. OK, this landform could be real only under one situation, which is in a low elevation glacial valley such as the Yosemite. But my comment above is valid over 99% of the land surface.

 

[champuru]

The knowledge included in wisdom has to be correct no matter what.

not exactly, if he was the wisest man, he'd always know what is right, but not be all knowing. If solomon was all knowing that would equate him to god-like status.

 

[juvenissun]

no exactly, if he was the wisest man, he'd always know what is right, but not be all knowing. If solomon was all knowing that would equate him to god-like status.

Agree. Solomon is not all-knowing. But, somehow the description he made does convey the correct knowledge even he had not that knowledge. On the other hand, it does not matter if he knew or not, what he said could not be wrong. Otherwise, he has no wisdom.

 

[gluadys]

Agree. Solomon is not all-knowing. But, somehow the description he made does convey the correct knowledge even he had not that knowledge. On the other hand, it does not matter if he knew or not, what he said could not be wrong. Otherwise, he has no wisdom.

The wisest of men can be wrong. If he could not be wrong, he would not be Solomon. He would be God.

And he was wrong. He allowed his foreign wives to bring idol worship into Israel. He set up systems of social oppression to build his palace and sustain his army. That is why God raised up adversaries against Solomon, like Jeroboam. That is why the people revolted when his son Rehoboam promised more of the same and turned to Jereboam, thus splitting the nation.

So Solomon was not free of error in his thinking and actions. Yet we do not dispute that he was wise above most other men.

You set an unrealistic standard when you ask human wisdom to be entirely devoid of error.

 

[Jig]

Solomon didn't even write the book of Wisdom. No Orthodox church, who holds this book to be inspiried, still believes this. Plus, we know that Ecclesiastes was written by Solomon and the beliefs on the afterlife in that book are significantly different then in Wisdom.

Wiki:
However, the traditional attribution of The Book of Wisdom to Solomon has been soundly rejected in modern times. Says the Catholic Encyclopedia: "at the present day, it is freely admitted that Solomon is not the writer of the Book of Wisdom, which has been ascribed to him because its author, through a literary fiction, speaks as if he were the Son of David." Although the book of Wisdom is also called the Wisdom of Solomon, it was most likely composed centuries after the death of King Solomon.

 

[gluadys]

Solomon didn't even write the book of Wisdom.

Point taken. In fact, it is not certain that Solomon wrote anything attributed to him. But that doesn't alter the gist of my message to juvie.

 

[juvenissun]

Wisdom of Solomon 19:19 (NRSV)
For land animals were transformed into water creatures,
and creatures that swim moved over to the land.

I don't care who wrote what. What's said in this verse has no error, poem or not, and literally or not.

 

[Mallon]

I don't care who wrote what. What's said in this verse has no error, poem or not, and literally or not.

First time I've ever heard a YECist admit that a story can be both entirely non-literal and true!

 

[_visionary_]

Wisdom of Solomon 19:19 (NRSV)
For land animals were transformed into water creatures,
and creatures that swim moved over to the land.

I don't care who wrote what. What's said in this verse has no error, poem or not, and literally or not.

I haven't been following the argument, but here's my take on the matter :

For land animals were transformed into water creatures -- evolution
and creatures that swim moved over to the land -- devolution

But it doesn't necessarily have to be viewed as devolution. It could be the other way. Considering that a fern is the most evolved organism on earth, not a hume.

 

[juvenissun]

:o

 

[Mallon]

Freudian slip.

 

[champuru]

Wisdom of Solomon 19:19 (NRSV)
For land animals were transformed into water creatures,
and creatures that swim moved over to the land.

I don't care who wrote what. What's said in this verse has no error, poem or not, and literally or not.

what do you think it means then?