Radrook, we are still hoping for your reply [Archive]

Rodibidably

7th October 2008, 09:15 PM

Radrook,

Obviously you missed this the first TWO times (previous post).
I KNOW that you would not just ignore comments directed towards you that question some of your prior statements...

So to help you out, here it is once again:

-----

First of all, how is one to know how to take each book? Is there a glossary that I missed when I read the bible that says how each part is to be taken (literal, allegory, poetry, etc)?
If there is nothing in the book itself, then who is the authority on this subject? Different branches of christianity take each part different. For instance those christians who are Young-Earthers take Genesis to be LITERAL (i.e. over the course of 144 hours as we know of an hour today god created everything in the universe) while catholics accept the age of the universe as 13.7 billion years old, and evolution as a fact, and claim that Genesis is NOT a literal account, but allegory. Who's interpriation should one accept, and how does one know they have chosen the correct one?

Also, I can't help but notice you left Genesis out of your groupings there...
I'll assume it was an honest mistake, an oversight perhaps. I mean just because the entire purpose of this thread is ABOUT Genesis, it doesn't mean that when listing various books of the bible that one would think to include Genesis. I can see how that might happen. Really, it's totally understandable... I was responding to somebody recently about the DaVinci Code, and despite rambling on for about an hour, I never once mentioned the book, although I went on forever about each of his other books. It's toally understandable that somebody might answer a question about one subject (in this case Genesis) by never mentioning the subject itself, and instead refering to other works that are not related to the topic at hand.

So, I'll put this a tad more directly...
Is Genesis a LITERAL account of history?
If so, how long a period of time is a "yom"?
Also, how would you explain the ORDER of creation not being consistent with what we know of the formation of the universe?
Also, how would you explain two different orders of creation between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?
Also, from Robert Oz:
If the answer to the first question is "Yes, it's literal" and the answer to the second question is anything other than a 24 hour day, what does "the evening and the morning" mean in the same Genesis verses where we find "yom"?

As a small aside, if you agree that Genesis is NOT a literal account of the formation of the universe, could you go back to the other thread (A few questions for creationists) and answers the remaining questions? Previously you said you were not answering them because I said that old-earth creationists do not consider Genesis to be a literal account. If you now accept that Genesis is in fact not a literal account, and you consider your self an old-earth creationist, there is nothing stopping you from answering the remaining questions...

Kthulhut Fhtagn

8th October 2008, 06:22 PM

I too am interested in seeing what he has to say.

Marquis de Carabas

8th October 2008, 06:28 PM

"Hope is the denial of reality." - Raistlin

Radrook

8th October 2008, 08:47 PM

"Hope is the denial of reality." - Raistlin

It can be but it doesn't have to be.

Kthulhut Fhtagn

8th October 2008, 08:50 PM

It can be but it doesn't have to be.

You can prove your statement rather easily by answering Rodibidably's questions. :)

Marquis de Carabas

8th October 2008, 08:51 PM

It can be but it doesn't have to be.
Well, now, that's all up to you.

Radrook

8th October 2008, 09:09 PM

Well, now, that's all up to you.

It depends what it is that one is hoping for or expecting. Not all expectations or hopes are unrealistic. Your premise seems to require that. Was that unintentional?

Marquis de Carabas

8th October 2008, 09:11 PM

Was that unintentional?
Let's just say its intent is lost on the hopeless.

Robert Oz

8th October 2008, 09:18 PM

"Hope is the denial of reality." - Raistlin

It can be but it doesn't have to be.

Radrook,

Why did you reply to Marquis de Carabas' post (which wasn't asking a question at all) and ignore the OP (which directly asked you a list of questions)?

Do you have answers to Rodibidably's questions?

Radrook

8th October 2008, 11:01 PM

Radrook[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana],

Obviously you missed this the first TWO times (previous post).
I KNOW that you would not just ignore comments directed towards you that question some of your prior statements...

So to help you out, here it is once again:

First of all, how is one to know how to take each book? Is there a glossary that I missed when I read the bible that says how each part is to be taken (literal, allegory, poetry, etc)?If there is nothing in the book itself, then who is the authority on this subject?

Glossary isn't necessary. The books have introductions which tell us what they are going to be about. When the prophet goes into the symbolic mode it is easily recognizable because he introduces these utterances as visions. Then he proceeds to explain the visions or tells us their interpretation. Jesus used parables and then explained their meaning. In short, he tells us that they were symbolic. Daniel has visions and explains their meaning. So we know they are symbolic. Joseph Jacob's son had visions involving symbols and their meaning are explained. The Apostle John tells us in the introduction that what he is about to describe is both prophetic and symbolic and meant to be fulfilled in the future during the time of the end. The Apostle Peter has a vision involving animals and we are told the meaning.

All good poetry uses metaphor and simile. Biblical poetry is no exception.

The same applies to proverbs Ecclesiasties and Song of Solomon. When Solomon tells us that the Shumanite Maiden has towers for breasts, he expects us to understand he is being figurative because no woman has two literal towers for breasts. Or when he describes an aged man in Ecclesastes chapter 12. The same rule applies. He is speaking symbolically since no man becomes a grasshopper simply because he grows old.

If we insist that he speaks literally then there is something wrong with us not the author. That applies to any other literature that uses symbols and we insist on taking it literally when it's obviously symbolic. Such an insistance would tend to put us in a bad light.

BTW
When biblical books are classified it is a generalization since elements of all the other genres might be present. For example a historical book might contain prophecy. Or prophecy might refer to history. A literal account could have scattered elements symbolic language. idiomatic expressions peculiar to the language used which if taken word for word might not make literal sense but would make perfect sense to the writer and those who spoke that language. English is chock full of such idiomatic expressions and it poses difficulty for those unfamiliar with it. The books are classified that way by scholars who understand what constitutes the different literary genres.

Different branches of Christianity take each part different. For instance those Christians who are Young-Earthers take Genesis to be LITERAL (i.e. over the course of 144 hours as we know of an hour today god created everything in the universe) while Catholics accept the age of the universe as 13.7 billion years old, and evolution as a fact, and claim that Genesis is NOT a literal account, but allegory. [/quoter]

Catholics also once claimed that God roasted people alive forever and proceeded to follow suit by roasting people alive themselves. Now after all the roasting, they claim it was a mistake and that hell is simply a distancing from God and all the people that were skinned alive, had the tongues ripped out in the name of their god didn't deserve it. So what Catholics or any other misguided denomination for that matter accept or reject can be totally irrelevant or in outright opposition to what the Bible actually teaches. And no, it's not impossible to tell who is and who isn't twisting the Bible into pretzel shapes. It's very easy. The idea that its difficult to tell is a myth propagated by those who are confused or else are hell bent on misrepresenting the Bible that way for their own private reasons.

Who's interpretation should one accept, and how does one know they have chosen the correct one?

Here are a few simple guidlelines:

If the interpretation goes contrary to the books' purpose as stated within the books' themselves, then it should be rejected, If the interpretation generates a host of internal contradictions,
it should be rejected. If it calls into question the author's honesty by placing more value on what atheistic science claims, and proceeds to twist meaning in order to accommodate atheist ideas, then it should be rejected.

For example if the interpretation claims that Adam descended from animal ancestors, and that Genesis teaches this, then it should be rejected because that's clearly not what Genesis teaches.

Radrook

8th October 2008, 11:10 PM

Radrook,

Why did you reply to Marquis de Carabas' post (which wasn't asking a question at all) and ignore the OP (which directly asked you a list of questions)?

Do you have answers to Rodibidably's questions?

One I could answer quickly. The other demanded more time.

Robert Oz

8th October 2008, 11:22 PM

Catholics also once claimed that God roasted people alive forever and proceeded to follow suit by roasting people alive themselves. Now after all the roasting, they claim it was a mistake and that hell is simply a distancing from God and all the people that were skinned alive, had the tongues ripped out in the name of their god didn't deserve it. So what Catholics or any other misguided denomination for that matter accept or reject can be totally irrelevant or in outright opposition to what the Bible actually teaches. And no, it's not impossible to tell who is and who isn't twisting the Bible into pretzel shapes. It's very easy. The idea that its difficult to tell is a myth propagated by those who are confused or else are hell bent on misrepresenting the Bible that way for their own private reasons.

(emphasis mine)

Since misinterpretations of the Bible only occur in misguided denominations, and I assume you believe Jehovah's Witnesses are not a misguided denomination, how do you account for the following:

Predictions such as the following have appeared in various Watchtower publications:[30]

1907: Armageddon will culminate in the year 1914.[31]
1917: In 1918, God would begin to destroy churches "wholesale" and church members by the millions.[32]
1922-1923: The resurrection of the dead would occur in 1925.[33] In preparation for the 1925 date, the Watchtower Society acquired a property in California and built a mansion they called Beth Sarim. The property was to house people such as Abraham, Moses, David, and Samuel, whom they thought would be resurrected to life in 1925. When they failed to resurrect, their leader, Joseph Rutherford moved in.[citation needed]
1938: In 1938, Armaggedon was too close for marriage or child bearing.[34]
1941: There were only "months" remaining until Armageddon.[35]
1942: Armageddon was "immediately before us."[36]
1969: Human existence would not last long enough for young people to grow old; the world system would end "in a few years". Young Witnesses were encouraged not to bother pursuing tertiary education for this reason.[37]
1969: Christ's thousand-year reign would begin in 1975.[38] There was a considerable amount of related speculation in Watchtower publications in the years leading up to 1975.[39]
1984: There were "many indications" that "the end" was closer than the end of the 20th century.[40]
1914 (generation): It was taught that Armageddon would take place before the death of those who were alive in 1914. This teaching was abandoned in 1996. Jehovah's Witnesses currently believe that no certain year can be established for Armageddon to occur.[41][42]

<snip>

More recently they have defended themselves against claims of "false prophesying", by saying that they do not claim to be inspired prophets,[50] and that their predictions have never been made "in the name of Jehovah" but rather are given only as an interpretation of Scripture.[51]

(emphasis mine)

Robert Oz

8th October 2008, 11:26 PM

Also, I can't help but notice you left Genesis out of your groupings there...
I'll assume it was an honest mistake, an oversight perhaps.

<snip>

So, I'll put this a tad more directly...
Is Genesis a LITERAL account of history?
If so, how long a period of time is a "yom"?
Also, how would you explain the ORDER of creation not being consistent with what we know of the formation of the universe?
Also, how would you explain two different orders of creation between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?[/FONT][/COLOR]
Also, from Robert Oz:
If the answer to the first question is "Yes, it's literal" and the answer to the second question is anything other than a 24 hour day, what does "the evening and the morning" mean in the same Genesis verses where we find "yom"?

As a small aside, if you agree that Genesis is NOT a literal account of the formation of the universe, could you go back to the other thread (A few questions for creationists) and answers the remaining questions? Previously you said you were not answering them because I said that old-earth creationists do not consider Genesis to be a literal account. If you now accept that Genesis is in fact not a literal account, and you consider your self an old-earth creationist, there is nothing stopping you from answering the remaining questions...

Radrook,

The above questions still remain unanswered.

RandFan

8th October 2008, 11:36 PM

SezMe

8th October 2008, 11:55 PM

Radrook, I wrote a work of fiction you'll enjoy:

Chapter 1.
The story I'm about to tell you is true. <snip rest of story>

The End.

So, by your reasoning, the story I've told is true.

Rodibidably

9th October 2008, 07:19 AM

First of all I'd like to thank you for finally beginning to answer these questions I originally posed on October 2nd...

Secondly, I'd like to ask that if you're only going to answer part of this post, PLEASE scroll down to the end of this post, and answer the final set of questions (below the last time i quote you).

Third, [please do not take this as an attack, but take it as an objective view of your "actions" regarding these questions] you have posted on two separate threads containing these questions (the ones at the end of this post) over the last week and yet so far have avoided answering them. Now I try to think the best of people until given evidence otherwise, but it certainly SEEMS as if you're intentionally avoiding these questions.
If that is the case, please let me know, and I'll stop wasting time trying ot get them answered.
If it is an honest mistake, then I do hope that this can help clear up any issues, so that I can better understand your perspective.
If it is that you need more time to write an appropriate response, just let me know, I can wait if that is all that is needed (although, you have written some rather lengthy comments on other subjects in the last 6 days, so I woudl be skeptical of that being the reason for this oversight).

Glossary isn't necessary. The books have introductions which tell us what they are going to be about. When the prophet goes into the symbolic mode it is easily recognizable because he introduces these utterances as visions. Then he proceeds to explain the visions or tells us their interpretation. Jesus used parables and then explained their meaning. In short, he tells us that they were symbolic. Daniel has visions and explains their meaning. So we know they are symbolic. Joseph Jacob's son had visions involving symbols and their meaning are explained. The Apostle John tells us in the introduction that what he is about to describe is both prophetic and symbolic and meant to be fulfilled in the future during the time of the end. The Apostle Peter has a vision involving animals and we are told the meaning.
Two points...
#1) This means Genesis is a literal account or not?
#2) If it's supposed to be so easy to understand how to interpret each part of the bible, then how is it that 2000 years after the death of the founder of the faith (and at least 1500 years after the compilation of the book itself), we still don't have agreement on how to take it (literal, allegory, etc). We have people who consider themselves to be biblical scholars who read Genesis to say the universe is 6,000-12,000 years old, while the catholic church and many others read the bible and still say the earth is 13.7 BILLION years old.
I can understand some discrepancies due to human fallibility, but a 1,141,666% difference in the age of the universe seems a TAD high for a book that should be clear to understand.

If the interpretation goes contrary to the books' purpose as stated within the books' themselves, then it should be rejected, If the interpretation generates a host of internal contradictions,
it should be rejected. If it calls into question the author's honesty by placing more value on what atheistic science claims, and proceeds to twist meaning in order to accommodate atheist ideas, then it should be rejected.

For example if the interpretation claims that Adam descended from animal ancestors, and that Genesis teaches this, then it should be rejected because that's clearly not what Genesis teaches.
But who is to descide what is "clear" and what is not? Many people claim the bible CLEARLY states the universe is between 6,000 and 12,000 years old. You claim to have a firm grasp on the bible and you claim the earth is more in the range of 13,7 billion years old. This is more than a 1 million percent difference (as a small aside, the catholic church agrees with YOU on this, and as a layman myself, I'd have to assume the catholic church has sdtudied the bible a bit more than I have personally). This is not an issue of somebody not carrying a zero in their math, this is a fundamental difference that can not be reconciled without one side being totally and completly WRONG.
Simple things like in the OT god says not to eat shellfish. In the NT jesus says that we must all continue to live up to the mosaic law, so why are christians today allowed to enjoy shrimp, lobster, etc?
Obviously I'm not an expert on the subject, but this seems like a DIRECT contradiction of what your god has told you.

All good poetry uses metaphor and simile. Biblical poetry is no exception.

<snip>

If we insist that he speaks literally then there is something wrong with us not the author. That applies to any other literature that uses symbols and we insist on taking it literally when it's obviously symbolic. Such an insistance would tend to put us in a bad light.
I'll agree that literature can take many forms, and not all of it is ment to be taken literally. However in the thread (A few questions for creationists (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=123206)) you took offense at my claim that old-earthers do not take Genesis literally. You refused to answer the questions for old-earthers on this basis.
The logical conclusion then is that you consider yourself to be an old-earther AND you believe Genesis to be a LITERAL account of history.

So once again, i'll ask you to clear a few things up for me:

Is Genesis a LITERAL account of history?
If so, how long a period of time is a "yom"?
Also, how would you explain the ORDER of creation not being consistent with what we know of the formation of the universe?
Also, how would you explain two different orders of creation between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?
Also, from Robert Oz:
If the answer to the first question is "Yes, it's literal" and the answer to the second question is anything other than a 24 hour day, what does "the evening and the morning" mean in the same Genesis verses where we find "yom"?

As a small aside, if you agree that Genesis is NOT a literal account of the formation of the universe, could you go back to the other thread (A few questions for creationists) and answers the remaining questions? Previously you said you were not answering them because I said that old-earth creationists do not consider Genesis to be a literal account. If you now accept that Genesis is in fact not a literal account, and you consider your self an old-earth creationist, there is nothing stopping you from answering the remaining questions...

Radrook

9th October 2008, 11:14 AM

Since misinterpretations of the Bible only occur in misguided denominations, and I assume you believe Jehovah's Witnesses are not a misguided denomination, how do you account for the following:

First, thanx for your calm decent response. Second, I don't claim to represent any specific denomination on this forum. In fact, I haven't been abvle to attend church regularly for approx. thirty years.

Neither do I believe that God's church is denominationally circumscribed. God's church is made of living stones, people whom God chooses to compose it based on his reading of their hearts where he finds the necessary qualifications to call it his church.

1 Cor. 3:16—"Don’t you know that you (plural) yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you?"

Eph. 2:22—"And in him you (plural) too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit."

Neither do I believe that accurate knowledge is the litmus test for one's qualification to be included as part of God's church.

1 Corinthians 13:2
And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

In short, there are a host of people who are bursting at the seams with accurate knowledge but who will gladly cut your throat either symbolically and even literally if given the opportunity to do so without getting caught. These type of people are found in ALL denominations. Some might even hold pastorial positions.

Luke 16:15
And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts:....

Do I believe that some denominations are closer to original Christianity than others? Of course I do. Just like every member of his denomination believes the same in reference to his. The only difference is that I don't believe salvation is contingent on denominational membership. As I said previously, it is contingent on God's evaluation of our heart.

Matthew 5:8
Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God

How do I account for denominational mistakes? The same way account for any other human mistake. People make mistakes.

Romans 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Do I feel people are to be destroyed for their mistakes? I leave that up to God to decide on an individual basis. The important point is that we can be foirgiven on the basis of Jesus' Ransom Sacrifice.

Colossians 1:14
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

Do I believe that those who presently reject Christ willl be destroyed in Armageddon? Again that is in God's hands. However, I believe that God will grant an opportunity to learn the right approach to those whose hearts are right regardless of their beliefs when that time comes.

Habakkuk 2:14
For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

It all depends on motives, reasons why beliefs are adhered to. Many factors beyond human ability to accurately evaluate and which disqualifies us from making all-incompassing judegemental pronouncements against our fellow man simply based on present denominatinal membership.

<< 1 Samuel 16:7 >>
....for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart

BTW
Not preaching, merely anticipating possible further questions and taking the opportunity to answer them now. Those chagrined by the biblical quotations can feel free to skip them. They are provided to prevent accusations that I am pulling ideas out of my hat without regards for scriptural support.

Rodibidably

9th October 2008, 11:37 AM

*sigh*:gasp:
You ever have the feeling that somebody is intentionally avoiding you (or your questions)? Or is it just me?

Radrook

9th October 2008, 11:50 AM

*sigh*:gasp:
You ever have the feeling that somebody is intentionally avoiding you (or your questions)? Or is it just me?

As I previously explained, some questions lend themselves to rapid responses. Others require more deliberation. The questions that weren't answered last night were due to a computer frozen screen folllowed by a crash which erased them. Previous to that they had been truncated when I copied, cut, and pasted from spell checker to this forum. When I realized it I used the undo option on the spellchecker to recover them. Then I copied and pasted them over here for inclusion. That's when the above freeze and crash occurred which completely obliterated them. Since it was late and I was sleepy, I opted to answer them sometime today. Hope that clears things up a bit. : )

Tanstaafl

9th October 2008, 11:53 AM

*sigh*:gasp:
You ever have the feeling that somebody is intentionally avoiding you (or your questions)? Or is it just me?

Now you know how Gwen Ifill feels...

Rodibidably

9th October 2008, 11:56 AM

As I previously explained, some questions lend themselves to rapid responses. Others require more deliberation.
I totally understand this. On my own blog I have put off giving replies until I had time to give the subject the time and effort it deserved.

The questions that weren't answered last night were due to a computer frozen screen flowed by a crash which erased them. Previous to that they had been truncated when I copied and cut and pasted from spell checker to this forum. When I realized it and copied them over for inclusion the above freeze and crash occurred which completely obliterated them. Since it was late and I was sleepy I opted to answer them sometime today. Hope that clears things up a bit. : )
If I missed where you said you were going to get to my questions I apologize. I have not seen any statement by you that I can recall, but that is neither here nor there.

I'm happy that you'll be able to get to my questions, and I am not trying to rush you, I just wanted to make sure that you did not overlook or forget about them.

Now that it seems you've acknowledged the questions, I'm content to sit back and wait.

I hope that once these questions are clarified that you'll be willing ot go back to the previous thread and answer the remaining "Old Earth Creationist" questions.

FYI, these questions are not intended to be "gotcha's" or anything of that sort, but based on the previous discussions, and your various replies, they are things that I just do not understand, and am hoping you can clarify.

Thanks, and I look forward to your reply later.

Radrook

9th October 2008, 12:37 PM

If so, how long a period of time is a "yom"?

Also, how would you explain the ORDER of creation not being consistent with what we know of the formation of the universe?

"Yom" can vary in its meaning depending on context. For example, the whole process of creation or the whole creation weak is covered by the word "yom' in Genesis 2:4.
for "era" or 'generations'.

Genesis 2:4-40
4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Notice that the word "day" is used to refer to the full creation period and not just a 24- hour day. It's like when we say " In our forefathers' day such and such happened." So even the word "day" itself can vary in meaning.

Here is a website that attempts to respond to the Yom issue more comprehensively. It takes the side of considering the days longer than 24 hours which is the side I take.

Genesis clearly teaches that the days were not 24 hours
http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geunf_MO5I6.kAcRNrCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGl xBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=128rj4t64/EXP=1223656063/**http%3a//www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis.html

Below is another site which takes the opposite view.

The days of creation: A semantic approach
www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i1/days.asp

I find the first more convincing because the rest of the Bible strongly supports it. For example. The Bible speaks repeatedly about the seventh day of rest still going on up to the first century CE. That makes the other days obligatorily of longer duration as will, Otherwise we'd have an inordinately long seventh day preceded by ridiculously short twenty-four hour ones.

Heb 4:3, 4 Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said, "So I declared on oath in my anger, 'They shall never enter my rest.'" And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world. For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: "And on the seventh day God rested from all his work."

The statement that God's work is finished corresponds to His seventh day of rest. This means that just as His work of creating is finished, so His seventh day of rest continues. As a result of this, the word day in Genesis 2:2 can't be used as evidence that days one through six were 24 hour days.

http://www.northforest.org/ScienceAndCreationism/daysofcreation.html

Also, how would you explain two different orders of creation between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2? Also, from Robert Oz:

I would explain them by saying that the first is a short general statement and the second is a more detailed account. The following website gives the answers I would provide for all other objections.

Critical Theory Attacks Genesis 1 and 2
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/162-critical-theory-attacks-genesis-1-and-2

BTW
If I missed anything I will get to it later today.

Robert Oz

9th October 2008, 04:41 PM

Radrook, I'm finding it difficult to reconcile these two statements:

So what Catholics or any other misguided denomination for that matter accept or reject can be totally irrelevant or in outright opposition to what the Bible actually teaches. And no, it's not impossible to tell who is and who isn't twisting the Bible into pretzel shapes. It's very easy. The idea that its difficult to tell is a myth propagated by those who are confused or else are hell bent on misrepresenting the Bible that way for their own private reasons.

<emphasis mine>

How do I account for denominational mistakes? The same way account for any other human mistake. People make mistakes.

The mistakes by the Catholic Church and Jehovah's Witnesses are attributed to misinterpretations of scripture. Isn't it possible that your own interpretation (as with anyone's interpretation) can also be a misinterpretation. If the Catholic Church misinterpreted scripture resulting in the torture and deaths of innocent people and Jehovah's Witnesses misinterpreted scripture resulting in making false predictions, why isn't it possible that a misinterpretation of scripture could result in a false view of how the universe was created?

In short, do you accept the possibility that your interpretation of scripture may be wrong?

I find the first more convincing because the rest of the Bible strongly supports it. For example. The Bible speaks repeatedly about the seventh day of rest still going on up to the first century CE. That makes the other days obligatorily of longer duration as will, Otherwise we'd have an inordinately long seventh day preceded by ridiculously short twenty-four hour ones.

How do you account for the phrase "the evening and the morning" in the same Genesis verses where we find "yom"?

Silentknight

9th October 2008, 08:19 PM

And Genesis? Is it literal or allegorical?

BTW, IMO, it is an amazing and beautiful allegory. Humans did something no other animal had, or at least to the extent that humans did.

But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. --Genesis 3:3

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. --Genesis 3:5

We comprehended our own mortality. We came to understand that we would die. We also came to understand the difference between right and wrong in a way that no other animals seems to. Humans create and change the world to our whim. We have become as the god.

It's unfortunate that religion has to tart up the Bible. It's truly an incredible collection of literature. But, we really do owe religion a debt of gratitude for preserving it for us. I guess you have to take the bad with the good.

I explained why the creation account in Genesis is a very obvious poem that uses symbolic imagery:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4093138#post4093138

However this went completely unaddressed and is not likely to change the minds of creationists, who still believe in spite of this that it's some kind of science textbook. I'd ask for a testable prediction that Genesis makes, but that would be flogging a dead horse.

Radrook

10th October 2008, 12:06 PM

Radrook, I'm finding it difficult to reconcile these two statements:

The mistakes by the Catholic Church and Jehovah's Witnesses are attributed to misinterpretations of scripture. Isn't it possible that your own interpretation (as with anyone's interpretation) can also be a misinterpretation. If the Catholic Church misinterpreted scripture resulting in the torture and deaths of innocent people and Jehovah's Witnesses misinterpreted scripture resulting in making false predictions, why isn't it possible that a misinterpretation of scripture could result in a false view of how the universe was created?

First, the Bible has a theme. It's theme is the fall of man and how God provided a reconciliation through a savior. This theme comes through loud and clear and is unaffected by any denominational misinterpretations. So the Bible succeeds beautifully in its intended purpose and makes these other things merely quibblings unless they directly or indirectly challenge biblical veracity. Then the quibblings became life threatening to the ones who might stubbornly choose to believe them. But of course that is an individual choice which from a Christian and biblical viewpoint doesn't interfere in the least with God's ultimate plan for the earth or his universe. So with that in mind let me address your concerns.

Fact: There are individuals and organizations which might misinterpret what the Bible tells them.

False conclusion based on that fact: The Bible isn't clear on anything and is open to all and any interpretation.

False conclusion: All interpretations based misunderstandings are equally justifiable.

False conclusion: The Bible has no clearly identifiable unified purpose or theme.

In short, do you accept the possibility that your interpretation of scripture may be wrong?

None of my conclusions are wrong because they are based on clear biblical statements written in understandable English. If the English were written in pig Latin, misspelled, or garbled in a nonsensical way. then I might have a justifiable reason to misunderstand. But since I can't avail myself of that excuse or even of the excuse of feeblemindedness, or unfamiliarity with English grammar or syntax then my misunderstanding of the scripture in question is actually inexcusable.

For example, if under law I am told not to eat pork and I choose to say that God meant venison, or that it meant that I can't even touch a pig to get it off my property, or if I'm told not to commit adultery and I interpret that as meaning that I can if I'm under the influence of alcohol, or if I'm told not to accuse innocent people of murder and I choose to understand that I can do so if I hate their guts, then obviously it's not the book that's misleading or turgid, it's the reader that's going off the deep end.

The same applies to setting spoecific dates for Armageddon when Jesus clearly said that only the Father is in possesion of that information:

Matthew 24:36
36But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

Sure, one might speculate as long as one recognizes that it's mere speculation. But no one is authorized to attempt to say for certain which year or specific day. Only that we are living during end times. Anything more than that contradicts Jesus' clear words.
But then again someone might come along and claim that the words are unclear anmd that jesus didn't mean wha he clearly said. Then that's when misinterpretations come in and people begin doing carthweels.

How do you account for the phrase "the evening and the morning" in the same Genesis verses where we find "yom"?

Well, my friend, I provided my reasons and the links which go into fine detail in explaining that point. If indeed you have read the explanations there and still find it unacceptable-then I guess that constitutes your choice. It's different choice than mine but it is your choice nevertheless to which you are of course entitled. In short, if the article was unable to clarify it for you then it would be presumptuous of me to think that I can. Unless you didn't read the article In which case I suggest that you do and if you have trouble understanding a particular explanation then I will be glad to go over it with you vo pm if you wish.

BTW

Please tell me which of my explanations in my previous post backed by scriptures you consider open to many interpretations and what these interpretations might chance to be.

Radrook

10th October 2008, 12:45 PM

Let's just say its intent is lost on the hopeless.

Wow! I almost missed your pathetic attempt at a snide remark my friend! Let's just say that from this point on you will hopelessly attempt to engage me in discussion or have your remarks appear on my screen to no avail.

How's that for a rejoinder Mr. Marquis de las Caras de Bacas? : )

Foster Zygote

10th October 2008, 01:00 PM

How's that for a rejoinder Mr. Marquis de las Caras de Bacas? : )

Not nearly as memorable as "Slurp it up, queer". Now that was a classic.

Lanzy

10th October 2008, 01:34 PM

None of my conclusions are wrong because they are based on clear biblical statements written in understandable English.

But wasn't this interpeted into understandable English? It didn't start out that way and I have read that parts of the original language are hotly debated as to the correct interpertation.

I know I know, irrelevant

carry on.

SezMe

10th October 2008, 01:38 PM

None of my conclusions are wrong because they are based on clear biblical statements written in understandable English.
Thanks for providing clear evidence to support the accusation that Christians can be arrogant. Was it that arrogance that allowed you to ignore my #15?

plumjam

10th October 2008, 01:53 PM

Yeah, let's all start a-hating on Radrook... because... err... because errr.. well.. y'know.. because he's a bit different and all. He doesn't believe the same ***t we believe, so let's punish him for it. Let's ask him a load of difficult questions from all sides, and when he has the good grace to put the time and effort into replying at length let's all be unimpressed/sarcastic and act like he already owed us in the first place.
YEAH *Beavis and Butthead snigger*.

Marquis de Carabas

10th October 2008, 01:53 PM

How's that for a rejoinder Mr. Marquis de las Caras de Bacas? : )
Too wordy, not at all witty, and precisely what I expected.

Macoy

10th October 2008, 01:57 PM

None of my conclusions are wrong...

Incidentally, is there any biblical evidence of a mistake being made by the "savior"?

Silentknight

10th October 2008, 06:05 PM

Wow! I almost missed your pathetic attempt at a snide remark my friend! Let's just say that from this point on you will hopelessly attempt to engage me in discussion or have your remarks appear on my screen to no avail.

How's that for a rejoinder Mr. Marquis de las Caras de Bacas? : )
"Marquis of the Luggage Rack Faces"? Even your ad hominem attacks don't make any sense. It's a good thing you understand plain English, as you so often brag about, because it doesn't look like other languages would be a good place to start. (I had to go with Spanish, because there aren't any French words like that.)

Unless you were referring to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Academy_Council_of_Applied_Sciences).
Yeah, let's all start a-hating on Radrook... because... err... because errr.. well.. y'know.. because he's a bit different and all. He doesn't believe the same ***t we believe, so let's punish him for it. Let's ask him a load of difficult questions from all sides, and when he has the good grace to put the time and effort into replying at length let's all be unimpressed/sarcastic and act like he already owed us in the first place.
YEAH *Beavis and Butthead snigger*.
Please demonstrate how the OP or any of the other questions asked were inappropriate. Please elaborate on how politely asking someone questions is the same as persecuting him for his beliefs. Also, please explain how the responses to Radrook's arrogant claim of always being right were unfair.

plumjam

10th October 2008, 06:09 PM

"
Please demonstrate how the OP or any of the other questions asked were inappropriate. Please elaborate on how politely asking someone questions is the same as persecuting him for his beliefs. Also, please explain how the responses to Radrook's arrogant claim of always being right were unfair.

Simply read the thread.
Also other threads involving the usual Radrook-baiting. It's an entirely predictable and dull pattern.

Silentknight

10th October 2008, 06:18 PM

Elizabeth I

10th October 2008, 06:22 PM

None of my conclusions are wrong because they are based on clear biblical statements written in understandable English.

ROFL! Like the original was written in understandable English? Do you not know or not care how many translations it has been through since then?

plumjam

10th October 2008, 06:33 PM

Are you implying that he should be insulated from challenges or questions to his beliefs? The last I checked, there was nothing wrong with addressing questions to specific people, provided they're relevant to the topic. I didn't see any attacks directed at Radrook personally, or at least none that weren't done in jest, as people (including Radrook) do all the time.

I fail to see how questioning someone's interpretation of scripture is the same as victimizing or persecuting him. What exactly is wrong with using someone's contrarian point of view and basing a discussion off of it? I thought that was the whole point of having different points of view.

Please get real, Silentknight.
People ask Radrook all kinds of questions. Sure, they have a right to do that. They don't really have a right to have them all answered. But in general he makes quite an effort to answer those questions fully and in a reasonably civil manner. What he gets in return is almost all negativity/sarcasm.
I can't remember anyone saying anything kind to him at all in any thread. The fact that he bothers to make an effort in the face of this, in my eyes, makes him a much bigger person than his snarky detractors.
If/when Radrook finally tires of this there'll be one less interesting 'contrarian' person at the forum to spark discussions.. and another step will be taken towards boredom/mutual back-slapping.
For this reason I reckon people should try to appreciate the value to the forum of someone like Radrook. Jerome Da Gnome sparked interest too, but for similar reasons he's no longer in the picture. If you want an interesting forum please learn to appreciate the value of the contrarians and treat them likewise.

NavyPack

10th October 2008, 07:10 PM

"if I'm told not to commit adultery and I interpret that as meaning that I can if I'm" the King of Israel, someone whom was a required ancestor of the messiah-ship.

Rook.., I do not post often, if ever. I do confess a certain fascination with your motives. To expend the effort to do, whatever it is you tell yourself it is you're doing, knowing full well the susceptibility of the KJV, or whichever permutation you prefer, can be parsed to provide logical inconsistencies.

It’s the nature of these deviations from logic that most implicates the good book as being flawed, both in clarity of thought and detail; exactly as something cobbled together through word of mouth and mistranslation.

Personally, if I were to believe a active force were to control of every quantum interaction in the universe, it would seem a colossal failure, by any objective measure, if only considering the coherence & consistency for such an important message.

paximperium

10th October 2008, 07:19 PM

People ask Radrook all kinds of questions. Sure, they have a right to do that. They don't really have a right to have them all answered.
No they actually do. This is a discussion and debate. He actually has to answer questions or he actually has to clearly state he doesn't know or he is dodging the question.

But in general he makes quite an effort to answer those questions fully and in a reasonably civil manner. What he gets in return is almost all negativity/sarcasm.
As he deserves. His inability to own up to his lack of knowledge and his arrogance at his own interpretation of subjective topics deserves derision.

I can't remember anyone saying anything kind to him at all in any thread. The fact that he bothers to make an effort in the face of this, in my eyes, makes him a much bigger person than his snarky detractors.
Really?
First of all I'd like to thank you for finally beginning to answer these questions I originally posed on October 2nd...
You must not have been reading the thread at all. Your conclusion and opinion is heavily suspect.

If/when Radrook finally tires of this there'll be one less interesting 'contrarian' person at the forum to spark discussions.. and another step will be taken towards boredom/mutual back-slapping.
For this reason I reckon people should try to appreciate the value to the forum of someone like Radrook. Jerome Da Gnome sparked interest too, but for similar reasons he's no longer in the picture. If you want an interesting forum please learn to appreciate the value of the contrarians and treat them likewise.
Projecting much Plumjam?

Contrarions who are dishonest and stupid have the value of generating conversation, nothing more. Your contribution to this thread has been to show the uselessness of ID and Creationism just as Radrock's only contribution has been to show his illogical and contradictory mindset when it comes to religion. Thanks.

Silentknight

10th October 2008, 07:47 PM

Please get real, Silentknight.
People ask Radrook all kinds of questions. Sure, they have a right to do that. They don't really have a right to have them all answered. But in general he makes quite an effort to answer those questions fully and in a reasonably civil manner. What he gets in return is almost all negativity/sarcasm.
If he demonstrated no negativity or sarcasm, if he had consistently refrained from arrogant, bigoted, or venomous remarks himself, then you would have a point. People get treated with the same civility they show others.
I can't remember anyone saying anything kind to him at all in any thread. The fact that he bothers to make an effort in the face of this, in my eyes, makes him a much bigger person than his snarky detractors.
If/when Radrook finally tires of this there'll be one less interesting 'contrarian' person at the forum to spark discussions.. and another step will be taken towards boredom/mutual back-slapping.
For this reason I reckon people should try to appreciate the value to the forum of someone like Radrook. Jerome Da Gnome sparked interest too, but for similar reasons he's no longer in the picture. If you want an interesting forum please learn to appreciate the value of the contrarians and treat them likewise.
The fact that you're still arguing this in spite of what I said indicates that you misread my post. I had just finished implying that some value could be found in a contrary point of view. Furthermore, your implication that everyone would fall into a pattern of agreeing with each other 100% if there weren't any apologists to debate with is simply wrong.

It's no secret that Radrook constantly attacks, mocks, and derides people for being uneducated, illiterate, not understanding basic English, or for disagreeing with his beliefs. Having his beliefs, arguments, and claims challenged doesn't even begin to compare, and I fail to see how that causes any harm to him. The fact that you think he's some kind of innocent victim is very telling.

Seriously, what do you make of statements like this? This isn't even the worst of them:
None of my conclusions are wrong because they are based on clear biblical statements written in understandable English.
What if a nonbeliever had said this in the other direction? Don't you think it would be reasonable to challenge it? Wouldn't you be doing just that?

SezMe

10th October 2008, 08:03 PM

Jerome Da Gnome sparked interest too, but for similar reasons he's no longer in the picture.
Keep your eye on the ball here, plumjam. JDG is no longer here for one reason and one reason only: He would not abide by the MA. Don't throw a pity party for JDG or Radrook - nobody will come.

Radrook

11th October 2008, 12:07 PM

But wasn't this interpreted into understandable English? It didn't start out that way and I have read that parts of the original language are hotly debated as to the correct interpretation.

I know I know, irrelevant

carry on.

No, it's not irrelevant. It's very relevant. There are ancient Hebrew and Greek lexicons which permit us to compare any given modern translation of these languages with their original meaning. The Lexicons are very useful precisely because their is a consensus on what those meanings were. Otherwise the Lexicons would be worthless which they aren't. Actually, what you are saying is tantamount to saying that the English dictionary definitions ar all hotly debated and therefore we can't make rhyme or reason ofd any literary work written in that language. In short, most Ancient Hebrew and 1st century Koine Greek words are easily understood. That's why translators consult them when translating,

Now, why are their differences in interpretations? There are differences for various reasons, some justifiable and others completely unwarranted. For example, take the word Gehenna.
Gehenna was an incinerator outside the walls of Jerusalem where refuse and bodies of criminals considered unworthy of a resurrection were dumped. Because of this Jesus used it as a symbol of total destruction without the hope of a resurrection. How do certain translators translate the word? They translate it as hell. Is that translation justified? Or is simply calling "Gehenna" as Jesus called it justified?

The same applies to the Hebrew word "sheol" commonly used to refer to the common grave of mankind. Since it is continuously used in that way, are we justified in translating it as hell?
Doing so causes some very ridiculous problems such as Job requesting that God hide him in hell so he could escape suffering then bringing him back via resurrection. Yet those translators hell-bent [no pun intended] on propagating their hellish ideas feel justified in using the word "hell". So again the problem isn't necessarily the original language as much as it is the irresponsible doctrinal predisposition and fanatica
presumptuousness of the unscrupulous translators.

But as I previously pointed out-that's what Lexicons are for.

BTW
If I carry on it's because I am asked direct questions.

sheol
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/hell.html

Same Subject
http://www.2001translation.com/Hell.htm

RandFan

11th October 2008, 01:02 PM

I explained why the creation account in Genesis is a very obvious poem that uses symbolic imagery:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4093138#post4093138

However this went completely unaddressed and is not likely to change the minds of creationists, who still believe in spite of this that it's some kind of science textbook. I'd ask for a testable prediction that Genesis makes, but that would be flogging a dead horse.I missed that post. Thank you for that.

Given the context of the times and from the perspective that the Bible is man made it is beautiful if not often tragic. From the context that it is god made it is deeply troubling.

Silentknight

11th October 2008, 04:40 PM

There are a few additional points that need to be made. Actually, I'll just link back to where I said this previously so I don't repeat myself:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3960130#post3960130

If the Bible is like any other work of literature, then it should be regarded using the same standards. The fact of the matter is that what the author of any book, article, or essay originally intended is actually irrelevant. Any given phrase, be it spoken language or written word, can be twisted to mean its exact opposite. What really matters in the end is what the reader takes away from it. As any writer knows, the interpretation is entirely up to the reader. You cannot force your readers to see it exactly the same way you had it in mind, because your job is to show, not tell. An author demonstrates, not dictates.

If the work is written well enough, the readers will be lead to the same conclusions the author had in mind regardless, but even if they don't all agree, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Writing is done for the sake of the readers in your target audience. While some cynics may compare this to prostitution, that's just the way it works. If all writing were done solely for the sake of the author and what the author wants to hear himself say, then there would be no point in publishing anything at all.

In keeping with the same analogy for the Bible, there would be no point in delivering it to a large audience if it were only intended for one specific interpretation from one particular sect. What the authors may have intended would be likewise irrelevant, since that would depend on what individual readers take away. If alternate interpretations were considered wrong by default, then it would defeat the purpose of the Bible as literature. It would further defeat the purpose of preaching, quoting, or even attempting to explain the Bible to nonbelievers or those with different beliefs, and all Bibles ought to be kept under lock and key by the Christian clergy rather than being sold in stores.

calebprime

11th October 2008, 04:48 PM

... For example, take the word Gehenna.
Gehenna was an incinerator outside the walls of Jerusalem where refuse and bodies of criminals considered unworthy of a resurrection were dumped. Because of this Jesus used it as a symbol of total destruction without the hope of a resurrection. How do certain translators translate the word? They translate it as hell. Is that translation justified? Or is simply calling "Gehenna" as Jesus called it justified?

The same applies to the Hebrew word "sheol" commonly used to refer to the common grave of mankind. Since it is continuously used in that way, are we justified in translating it as hell?
Doing so causes some very ridiculous problems such as Job requesting that God hide him in hell so he could escape suffering then bringing him back via resurrection. Yet those translators hell-bent [no pun intended] on propagating their hellish ideas feel justified in using the word "hell". So again the problem isn't necessarily the original language as much as it is the irresponsible doctrinal predisposition and fanatica
presumptuousness of the unscrupulous translators.

...

I think he has me on ignore but this is quite interesting. Dare I ask if it is true? eta: I mean the whole thing, not the part that he bolded in particular.

Anyway, if R. could just post stuff like this all the time, he'd be one of my favorite posters...

RandFan

11th October 2008, 05:00 PM

The fact of the matter is that what the author of any book, article, or essay originally intended is actually irrelevant. Any given phrase, be it spoken language or written word, can be twisted to mean its exact opposite. What really matters in the end is what the reader takes away from it. I can't agree. Intent is, IMO, often paramount. I think many if not most writers wouldn't bother writing if they knew that there was a strong likelihood that there message would be obscured or misinterpreted. Further, many if not most writers go to great pains to avoid misinterpretation. Often rewriting many times to avoid ambiguity.

I'll concede that it depends of course on the individual who is creating the work. Some want the reader to take away his or her own message regardless of what that message was. Bruce Springsteen on the other hand was quite adamant to let his listeners know that the purpose of Born in the USA wasn't a pro-American song and it didn't reflect the values of Ronald Reagan and forbade him from using it as such. He wasn't simply upset that his words were being used for a cause he disagreed with but the message was being misconstrued.

Silentknight

11th October 2008, 05:11 PM

I know that, but the point I was trying to make is that a misaimed fandom is a risk every writer or artist takes. You can always go out and yell at people for misinterpreting what your intent was, however you can't really blame them for seeing it a different way than what you intended. In other words, you can no more ensure that your audience interprets it the same way you did than you can go out and force people to think the same way you do. If the material is out there, it's out there, and people are going to think for themselves. This is why it's futile to assert that one's particular interpretation is correct at the expense of all others. Mind you, it's a slightly different matter when the authors are not only dead, but no one is quite sure who they even were to begin with.

For more examples of misaimed fandoms, check out these (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MisaimedFandom) examples. Bruce Springsteen's song is on there. :)

RandFan

11th October 2008, 05:23 PM

plumjam

11th October 2008, 05:23 PM

I think he has me on ignore but this is quite interesting. Dare I ask if it is true? eta: I mean the whole thing, not the part that he bolded in particular.

Anyway, if R. could just post stuff like this all the time, he'd be one of my favorite posters...

Good post, Calebprime. This, probably unintentionally, supports my posts arguing that those here who dogmatically and knee-jerkingly slate anyone with a different worldview would be well advised to hold off.
They may actually learn something.

What of great significance are they going to learn from people with the same outlook as themselves?

Silentknight

11th October 2008, 05:42 PM

TinfoilCat

11th October 2008, 06:27 PM

That works both ways. If Radrook could hold off from dogmatically asserting the truth, insulting people's education or literacy, knee-jerk blocking everyone who remotely disagrees with his opinions, or saying psychopathic trollish things like slaughtered children were merely put to sleep until the resurrection (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3907386#post3907386), then most people would have no trouble getting along with him. Keep in mind the difference between attacking someone's beliefs and attacking the person directly. I did not see anyone here attack him directly, at least not any worse than he's done to others himself.

Also, there are other believers here, ranging from conservative to liberal, who are a lot more civil than that. So no, there is no one individual who is the exclusive spokesperson for a particular point of view.

Are you talking about the doctrine of "soul sleep", which states that all souls go into a temporary resting state until Armageddon where they are resurrected into new bodies for judgment?

That hypothetical concept is applied to everyone babies, adults, Christians, non-believers alike.

Also Radrook, how come you are so hostile to other non-believers? It seems very hypocritical to act in such a rude way. No need for snide comments or jeers. :)

Radrook

12th October 2008, 02:40 AM

[quote]Also Radrook, how come you are so hostile to other non-believers? It seems very hypocritical to act in such a rude way. No need for snide comments or jeers. :)

Response number one:

Well, I guess it has to do with that part of me which is human. You know,the part of me that if you cut it it bleeds? I guess that's the part that makes me come accross in the way you describe. I really don't feel hostile unless people begin jeering, misinterpreting on purpose, or going out of the or way to try and get a rise. Then I might feel hostile. Not because they are non-believers. Simply because they are pests just llike a believer would be a pest if he acted that way. In fact, during my short life on this earth half of the pests I have met have been so-called believers.

BTW

I apologize to those whom I may have offended. Will try to be more patient. Thanx for bringing it to my attention.

Radrook

12th October 2008, 03:07 AM

Originally Posted by Silentknight
That works both ways. If Radrook could hold off from dogmatically asserting the truth,

Hold off? You mean agree with things I disagree with? Wouldn't that be hipocritical.
Does a person have to concede another viewpoint as valid in order not to be dogmatic?
Are all the atheists on this forum dogmatic because they refuse to concede any possibility of ID?

insulting people's education or literacy, ,

Well, if a person demonstrates that he really doesn't know Adam from Sadam, or the garden snake from Robert Blake, or the devil from a bo-wievel, then what would you call it? Being slightly unfamiliar?

knee-jerk blocking everyone who remotely disagrees with his opinions

That's a lie and you know it. If the person disagrees that's his privilege, In fact, I wouldn't last on this forum if I blocked everyone who disagreed with me. The ones I block are those who chorttle with others about me, make snide remarks like the one you just made about my being a psychopath and troll, and otherwise go out of their way to vent emotional steam because they can't tolerate opinions which differ from their own. True, they don't block the target. Otherwise they wouldn't have one. They only complain when the target blocks them in order to avoid their missiles. Then the intended target is accused of blocking unnecessarily. Actually, I used to regularly take people off the blocked list. But every single time I did the person began the same routine. In fact, some even said that they can't help themselves and must do it.

or saying psychopathic trollish things like slaughtered children were merely put to sleep until the resurrection, then most people would have no trouble getting along with him.

I have been at websites which most people got along with me just fine.

Keep in mind the difference between attacking someone's beliefs and attacking the person directly. I did not see anyone here attack him directly, at least not any worse than he's done to others himself.

Directlly indirectly there is nothing that says I have to allow it on my screen is there? There is also a difference between imnititating an insult and responding to one.

Also, there are other believers here, ranging from conservative to liberal, who are a lot more civil than that.

For a person who likes to hurl insults that comes accross as rather quaint.

So no, there is no one individual who is the exclusive spokesperson for a particular point of view.

Why anyone would reach the conclusion that I am claiming exclusive representastion of any viewpoint on this public forum is beyond me.

Foster Zygote

12th October 2008, 07:30 AM

Response number one:

Well, I guess it has to do with that part of me which is human. You know,the part of me that if you cut it it bleeds? I guess that's the part that makes me come accross in the way you describe. I really don't feel hostile unless people begin jeering, misinterpreting on purpose, or going out of the or way to try and get a rise. Then I might feel hostile. Not because they are non-believers. Simply because they are pests just llike a believer would be a pest if he acted that way. In fact, during my short life on this earth half of the pests I have met have been so-called believers.

You have also shown hostility to those who have simply pointed out the errors in your arguments. In fact, you were quite hostile to people who exposed a lie you told.

Macoy

12th October 2008, 07:36 AM

...There are ancient Hebrew and Greek lexicons which permit us to compare any given modern translation of these languages with their original meaning. The Lexicons are very useful precisely because their is a consensus on what those meanings were. Otherwise the Lexicons would be worthless which they aren't. Actually, what you are saying is tantamount to saying that the English dictionary definitions ar all hotly debated and therefore we can't make rhyme or reason ofd any literary work written in that language. In short, most Ancient Hebrew and 1st century Koine Greek words are easily understood. That's why translators consult them when translating,

When Jesus turns water into wine at a wedding where all the alcohol has run out (John 2:1-11), he produces a jolly wonderful quantity of (in the region) 150 gallons. This at a party where there is already evidence of drunkenness (John 2:9).

Some people find that Jesus' actions in this instance questionable, sending out the wrong signals at a social gathering where there are inevitably large numbers of teenagers and young people of both sexes. (Many churches offer moral guidance on these important matters).

Could the ancient texts be better interpreted or are they implying fallibility on the part of Jesus?

Elizabeth I

12th October 2008, 09:48 AM

There is no denying that much of what is described in the Bible, and especially the Old Testament, is repugnant. You can't say, "Well, that's the Old Testament, and the New Testament sets that aside," because you insist on sticking with the Ten Commandments, and because Jesus said he came to preserve the laws, not to destroy them. You also can't just arbitrarily set aside half the word of God because it contains ugly stories.

Radrook, and others who share his point of view, in my opinion, the only possible intellectually honest stance is, "I believe this, this, and this about God. The fact that the book which I also believe is the literal and inerrant word of God says that, that, and that about Him, which, if any one of those stories were true, would completely destroy the possibility that my beliefs are true, is something that I just can't explain right now, and I must trust to my faith to sustain me until I can learn the truth."

However much that sort of statement may give rationalists the itch, it's unarguable. The inside of someone's own head is completely private real estate.

calebprime

12th October 2008, 10:32 AM

my private real-estate includes this from Love and Death:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny-hYMO6Ssk

Radrook

12th October 2008, 12:03 PM

When Jesus turns water into wine at a wedding where all the alcohol has run out (John 2:1-11), he produces a jolly wonderful quantity of (in the region) 150 gallons. This at a party where there is already evidence of drunkenness (John 2:9).

Some people find that Jesus' actions in this instance questionable, sending out the wrong signals at a social gathering where there are inevitably large numbers of teenagers and young people of both sexes. (Many churches offer moral guidance on these important matters).

Could the ancient texts be better interpreted or are they implying fallibility on the part of Jesus?

Good question. The answer, though, if one is dead set on seeing it the way you descrbe will almost certainly leave you unconvinced. In any case, the following website gives an exccellent explanation for your concerns. Here is a small part:

excerpt

c) John 2:11 tells us that the object of this miracle was to manifest Jesus’ glory.

(1) Do we really believe that Jesus manifested his glory by providing 150 gallons of intoxicating wine to guests at a wedding who had already had their fill of drink?

(2) And what type of wine would we have expected Jesus to create to manifest his glory? Fresh, new wine or decayed, intoxicating wine?

(3) R. A. Torrey: “There is not a hint that the wine He made was intoxicating. It was fresh-made wine. New-made wine is never intoxicating. It is not intoxicating until some time after the process of fermentation has set in. Fermentation is a process of decay. There is not a hint that our Lord produced alcohol, which is a product of decay and death. He produced a living wine uncontaminated by
fermentation.”http://www.thywordistruth.com/Questions_Class/tpq/Lesson_7_Notes.html

BTW

Jesus was familiar with such suspicions:

Luke 7:33-35

33For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil.

34The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!

Ichneumonwasp

12th October 2008, 12:31 PM

c) John 2:11 tells us that the object of this miracle was to manifest Jesus’ glory.

(1) Do we really believe that Jesus manifested his glory by providing 150 gallons of intoxicating wine to guests at a wedding who had already had their fill of drink?

(2) And what type of wine would we have expected Jesus to create to manifest his glory? Fresh, new wine or decayed, intoxicating wine?

(3) R. A. Torrey: “There is not a hint that the wine He made was intoxicating. It was fresh-made wine. New-made wine is never intoxicating. It is not intoxicating until some time after the process of fermentation has set in. Fermentation is a process of decay. There is not a hint that our Lord produced alcohol, which is a product of decay and death. He produced a living wine uncontaminated by
fermentation.”http://www.thywordistruth.com/Questi...n_7_Notes.html

Wine is not wine without the fermentation process, so I don't think that is very convincing argument. This wine was also specifically noted to be the best wine in the house -- hardly likely if it had no alcohol content.

Has it never struck you that the miracles in John's gospel serve illustrative purposes -- specifically that they are literary in their use? Cure of a blind man associated with "I am the light of the world"; resurrection of Lazarus associated with "I am the resurrection and the life"?

The structure of the gospel is that of a Eucharist service. In the beginning was the word .... and the word became flesh .........

The first miracle is water into wine. Water wine and blood are the final thing we see of Jesus at his death (before the resurrection); and the miracle of the loaves in this gospel follows the same pattern it does in the synoptics (one of the few places where there is concordance) in the pairing of Jesus walking on water -- a symbol of the Spirit in Mark -- with the multiplication of the loaves, bread being a symbol of life.

I don't think you need to go to the lengths of supposing something unlikely -- sure it was a bunch of wine but no one could have gotten drunk off it -- when there is a clear literary interpretation ripe for the plucking, and one that actually promotes the central message of the text.

RandFan

12th October 2008, 12:31 PM

(3) R. A. Torrey: “There is not a hint that the wine He made was intoxicating. It was fresh-made wine. New-made wine is never intoxicating. It is not intoxicating until some time after the process of fermentation has set in. Fermentation is a process of decay. There is not a hint that our Lord produced alcohol, which is a product of decay and death. He produced a living wine uncontaminated by fermentation.:rolleyes:

Wine had an interesting side benifit. It was an anti-biotic. Standing water in those days was very subject to disease causing bacteria. Alcohol in small quatities in these conditions was very favorable to human life.

Knowing what I know now, if I were in similar situations, I would pro-actively choose to make wine for this very reason.

Macoy

12th October 2008, 12:52 PM

Good question. The answer, though, if one is dead set on seeing it the way you descrbe will almost certainly leave you unconvinced. In any case, the following website gives an exccellent explanation for your concerns. Here is a small part:

excerpt c) John 2:11 tells us that the object of this miracle was to manifest Jesus’ glory.

(1) Do we really believe that Jesus manifested his glory by providing 150 gallons of intoxicating wine to guests at a wedding who had already had their fill of drink?

(2) And what type of wine would we have expected Jesus to create to manifest his glory? Fresh, new wine or decayed, intoxicating wine?

(3) R. A. Torrey: “There is not a hint that the wine He made was intoxicating. It was fresh-made wine. New-made wine is never intoxicating. It is not intoxicating until some time after the process of fermentation has set in. Fermentation is a process of decay. There is not a hint that our Lord produced alcohol, which is a product of decay and death. He produced a living wine uncontaminated by
fermentation.”http://www.thywordistruth.com/Questi...n_7_Notes.html (http://www.thywordistruth.com/Questions_Class/tpq/Lesson_7_Notes.html)

BTW

Jesus was familiar with such suspicions:

Luke 7:33-35

33For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil.

34The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!I'm not sure that R. A. Torrey has necessarily got his facts right here. Fermentation is a form of metabolism, not really decay. It is a sign of life and growth, rather than death. Young wine of low alcoholic strength is that way because the metabolic process has been stopped at an early stage, and it usually tastes pretty awful. (Eg Beaujolais nouveau). To be wine, there must have been alcohol in it at some point. Wine with no alcohol must have had the alcohol removed after it became wine. Otherwise it is just a juice drink. (Like grape juice).

John 2:9 expressly states that the master of ceremonies on this occasion considered Jesus' wine to be the best of the day.

Silentknight

12th October 2008, 03:02 PM

Hold off? You mean agree with things I disagree with? Wouldn't that be hipocritical.
Does a person have to concede another viewpoint as valid in order not to be dogmatic?
Are all the atheists on this forum dogmatic because they refuse to concede any possibility of ID?
The problem is that you're seeing things in terms of black or white, right or wrong, agree or disagree. For one to admit one might be wrong or that one does not know something with 100% certainty is not the same as agreeing with the opposite viewpoint. Nobody is infallible and even self-proclaimed experts make mistakes. There's an additional problem with what you said. If someone asserts ID, the burden is on that person to provide the evidence and argue his/her point of view. While there is nothing technically wrong with resorting to a blanket dismissal, such as accusing "evolutionists" of believing in "happy accidents" or "hocus pocus abiogenesis," it fails to provide evidence to support the argument and amounts to nothing more than an assertion of truth.

Yes, arguing one's position is time consuming and can be repetitive, but practically every other member of the forum has the same burden to bear. Note the "E" in the forum name? If something has already been said, simply link back to it. Saying, "I've already been over this, you're ignorant and a waste of time," doesn't do anyone any favors, including the one who says it.
Well, if a person demonstrates that he really doesn't know Adam from Sadam, or the garden snake from Robert Blake, or the devil from a bo-wievel, then what would you call it? Being slightly unfamiliar?
I have yet to see you provide any quotes or examples of such ridiculous claims or interpretations, which I wouldn't disagree are ridiculous. Throughout the Scriptural Illiteracy thread, you used the pejoratives "illiterate" and "uneducated" to offhandedly dismiss anyone who came to a different interpretation from the one you were taught, while clinging to the position that there's only one right way to do it. But that's just an opinion, because religious beliefs are ideologies rooted in cultural relativity. Switch perspectives to a different Christian sect, and they would say that your interpretation is "uneducated and illiterate."

Any given opinion someone states, regardless of which side, is fair game for debate around here. It's not personal. This standard applies to everyone.
That's a lie and you know it. If the person disagrees that's his privilege, In fact, I wouldn't last on this forum if I blocked everyone who disagreed with me. The ones I block are those who chorttle with others about me, make snide remarks like the one you just made about my being a psychopath and troll, and otherwise go out of their way to vent emotional steam because they can't tolerate opinions which differ from their own. True, they don't block the target. Otherwise they wouldn't have one. They only complain when the target blocks them in order to avoid their missiles. Then the intended target is accused of blocking unnecessarily. Actually, I used to regularly take people off the blocked list. But every single time I did the person began the same routine. In fact, some even said that they can't help themselves and must do it.
First, I attacked your statements as psychopathic and trollish. Statements, ideas, opinions, arguments and beliefs are a separate entity from the arguer making them. It's not the same as insulting the arguer. Secondly, you have frequently announced that you were blocking people, sometimes over minor disagreements. If this was not intended to lead people to the assumption that you block those who disagree with you, then what was it supposed to mean?

Granted, it's any member's right to ignore others, but announcing it seems counterproductive to the ends of breaking off conflict.
For a person who likes to hurl insults that comes accross as rather quaint.
Last I checked, beliefs are ideas, therefore mocking someone's beliefs is not the same as directing an insult at that person. A set or system of beliefs represents an ideology that's far broader than an individual. Attacking the groups that hold certain beliefs or viewpoints is also valid, as is challenging someone's credibility or expressing contempt for his/her tactics. None of these are personal attacks. I actually couldn't care less about the individuals behind the arguments I'm addressing.
Why anyone would reach the conclusion that I am claiming exclusive representastion of any viewpoint on this public forum is beyond me.
That was not directed at you.

Elizabeth I

12th October 2008, 03:38 PM

p.s. It's boll weevil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boll_weevil), so called because it destroys the bolls of the cotton plant, not "bo weivil."

Robert Oz

12th October 2008, 04:57 PM

First, the Bible has a theme. It's theme is the fall of man and how God provided a reconciliation through a savior. This theme comes through loud and clear and is unaffected by any denominational misinterpretations.

But, why is a literal interpretation of Genesis necessary to maintain the theme? If the Genesis account of the universe were merely allegory, it would not impact on the theme whatsoever. You could still argue that the Genesis story of the creation and subsequent fall of Adam and Eve is a symbol of God's creation descending into sin. I can't see how the literal interpretation is crucial to the story.

Fact: There are individuals and organizations which might misinterpret what the Bible tells them.

False conclusion based on that fact: The Bible isn't clear on anything and is open to all and any interpretation.

False conclusion: All interpretations based misunderstandings are equally justifiable.

False conclusion: The Bible has no clearly identifiable unified purpose or theme.

You acknowledged the fact that individuals and organisations might misinterpret the Bible and yet are adamant that this same human fallibility cannot apply to you. Remember, I didn't ask you to admit you have misinterpreted the Bible, but merely asked you whether it is possible that you might misinterpret the Bible.

Neither did I say the Bible isn't clear on anything, but I do argue that the Genesis account of the creation can be interpreted in more than one way (and would not affect the theme of the Bible in any way).

None of my conclusions are wrong because they are based on clear biblical statements written in understandable English. If the English were written in pig Latin, misspelled, or garbled in a nonsensical way. then I might have a justifiable reason to misunderstand. But since I can't avail myself of that excuse or even of the excuse of feeblemindedness, or unfamiliarity with English grammar or syntax then my misunderstanding of the scripture in question is actually inexcusable.

<emphasis mine>

How is your Bible different from the other Bibles that resulted in misinterpretations by so many individuals and denominations? According to you, a clear understanding of the language being read is all that is needed to avoid error. Does that mean the Catholic Church and Jehovah's Witnesses did not understand the language being read?

Please tell me which of my explanations in my previous post backed by scriptures you consider open to many interpretations and what these interpretations might chance to be.

The Genesis account of the creation.

Seeing that others who have understood the language being read have misinterpreted the Bible many times through history, how can you be 100% certain that your interpretation of every single passage in the Bible is incapable of being incorrect?

Secondly, you mentioned in another post that your beliefs have changed from what your parents handed down to you. Does that mean your interpretations of certain Bible passages has changed over time? If so, isn't it possible that they will change in the future?

Robert Oz

12th October 2008, 08:34 PM

None of my conclusions are wrong because they are based on clear biblical statements written in understandable English. If the English were written in pig Latin, misspelled, or garbled in a nonsensical way. then I might have a justifiable reason to misunderstand. But since I can't avail myself of that excuse or even of the excuse of feeblemindedness, or unfamiliarity with English grammar or syntax then my misunderstanding of the scripture in question is actually inexcusable.

<snip>

Well, my friend, I provided my reasons and the links which go into fine detail in explaining that point.

From the link you provided: http://www.northforest.org/ScienceAndCreationism/daysofcreation.html#a3

Evening and morning
Gen 1:8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning--the second day.

It is tempting to assume that the word day in this passage is a 24 hour day. But we need to be cautious because as the examples in the previous section show, the only times the word day clearly and unambiguously means a 24 hour day are (1) when it is in the context of other days, or (2) when referring to a particular day of the week. Whenever the word day is being referred to in the context of parts of a day such as morning, evening, light, cool of the day, darkness and nighttime, a 24 hour day is not what is in mind.

The usual assumption is that the formula

...there was evening, and there was morning -- the XYZ day

can only mean that the days were 24 hour days, and at first sight this seems to be the logical conclusion. But there is something very peculiar about this formula which suggests that the common conclusion is not the correct one.

If this formula had instead been

...God did these things on day XYZ and it took a whole day and a whole night

then it would have been clear that the day was a 24 hour day.

If this formula had instead been

...there was daytime, and there was nighttime -- the XYZ day

then it probably would have been referring to a 24 hour day because the daytime and the nighttime are the two parts of the day which together make up a 24 hour day. However, even then, there would still be some uncertainty.

The formula

...there was evening, and there was morning -- the XYZ day

is simply not literal <emphasis mine>. This is a result of the use of the words evening and morning since evening and morning together do not make up a complete day; there is also midday, afternoon and nighttime. There is ambiguity in the phrase.

We should also notice that the words evening and morning in the order they are given correspond with the starting and ending points for that part of a 24 hour day called night. Let's look at the words evening and morning a bit further:

Evening

The end of the daylight part of the day
The beginning of the nighttime part of the day

Morning

The beginning of the daylight part of the day
The ending of the nighttime part of the day

The site then goes on to discuss alternative interpretations for the use of the words 'evening' and 'morning'. And even here, the website goes into several alternative interpretations.

Here are some possible ways in which this formula could be interpreted <emphasis mine>. I'm not going to address the creation models suggested by these.

24 hour day
Certainly we could interpret the phrase evening and morning to mean a 24 hour day. In fact, that is a perfectly acceptable way of interpreting it.

Six ages of creation in which God is active in the day and sleeps at night
We could interpret the phrase evening and morning to mean nighttime since the evening and the morning define the boundaries of nighttime. We could then interpret the passage describing the creative works of God on a particular day as the daytime and then the nighttime would be a time during that day in which God sleeps by not intervening supernaturally. He would then begin His supernatural intervention again at the start of the next day, in the morning.

Ages of creation
We could interpret the phrase evening and morning to mean that during the long time within a day-age of God's creation, the normal cycle of day and night continues uninterrupted as it does now.

Day-age theory
The phrase evening and morning would correspond to the idea of beginning and ending. Each age of creation would have a beginning and ending.

We are given four alternative interpretations of one sentence in the Bible.

Again from Radrook:

But since I can't avail myself of that excuse or even of the excuse of feeblemindedness, or unfamiliarity with English grammar or syntax then my misunderstanding of the scripture in question is actually inexcusable

So, I take it three of the four alternatives in the link you provided to support your argument are inexcusable.

Radrook

12th October 2008, 10:04 PM

So, I take it three of the four alternatives in the link you provided to support your argument are inexcusable.

Obviously I provided those opposing view links to give you an opportunity to decide for yourself and not as a support for my argument.

Inexcusability is based on the criteria I previously explained.

BTW
I deleted my first response because it was based on a misunderstanding.

Radrook

12th October 2008, 10:10 PM

p.s. It's boll weevil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boll_weevil), so called because it destroys the bolls of the cotton plant, not "bo weivil."

I knew the spelling was wrong when I used it but was too tired to look it up. I probably misspelled that stuntman's name as well. However, I meant to write "bol" not "bo" that was a typo. But thanx for keeping me on my toes! : )

Robert Oz

12th October 2008, 10:15 PM

Are you sure you know what my argument is? I doubt it since
interpretations if you did you wouldn't be saying that I think all these support it. Obviouslly that proposition is ridiculous. Like saying that four or five explanations of the same phenomenon are all equally true.

BTW

I provided the two sides of the argument so that those who examine the evidence can make up their own minds which one they believe is the accurate one. I did not say that all the interpretations are equally acceptable and gave the reasons why all of them are not equally acceptable.

Radrook, I was not arguing that more than one interpretation is "true". I'm examining your argument that interpretation of the Bible is "easy" and that your own misinterpretation is "impossible" and "inexcusable". You are correct... the truth is the truth, independent of belief. But you have been arguing that your interpretation of Biblical passages cannot be wrong. That is where I disagree. As you said in an earlier post, we are humans and, therefore, fallible.

I admit that I can and might be wrong about many things. Once we both admit that we are capable of error (even in our interpretations of the Bible) then we can rationally discuss the differences in our opinions and possibly even (shock horror) change our opinions.

However, so far, your argument seems to be the following:

"Although every individual and denomination in the world can misinterpret scripture, it is impossible for my own interpretation to be incorrect, because I understand the language it is written in."

Can you honestly not see the issue I am taking with the above position?

Radrook

12th October 2008, 10:28 PM

I'm not sure that R. A. Torrey has necessarily got his facts right here. Fermentation is a form of metabolism, not really decay. It is a sign of life and growth, rather than death. Young wine of low alcoholic strength is that way because the metabolic process has been stopped at an early stage, and it usually tastes pretty awful. (Eg Beaujolais nouveau). To be wine, there must have been alcohol in it at some point. Wine with no alcohol must have had the alcohol removed after it became wine. Otherwise it is just a juice drink. (Like grape juice).

John 2:9 expressly states that the master of ceremonies on this occasion considered Jesus' wine to be the best of the day.

Well, I guess here is another excerpt from the same website you can disagree with:

Excerpt

7. The belief that Christ created alcoholic wine rests on five assumptions.

a) First, it is assumed that the Greek word oinos used in John 2 for "wine" always means fermented wine.

b) Second, it is assumed that since the same Greek word is used both for the wine that Jesus made and the wine that ran out, both must have been the same type of wine, either alcoholic or non-alcoholic.

c) Third, it is assumed that the Jews did not know how to prevent the fermentation of grape juice and since John 2:13 indicates that the wedding was just before the Spring Passover, six months after the grape harvest, the wine must have become fermented.

d) Fourth, it is assumed that the description by the master of the banquet that the wine created by Jesus was "the good wine" means it must have been alcoholic wine.

e) Fifth, it is assumed that the expression "well drunk" in John 2:10 indicates that the guests were intoxicated.

8. Each of these assumptions is flawed.
a) The first assumption that the Greek word for wine always meant fermented wine is false.

(1) There are numerous examples from both pagan and Christian authors that show the Greek word "oinos" can apply to either fermented or unfermented wine.

(2) In fact, that same Greek word is used in the Septuagint at least 33 times to translate the Hebrew word for grape juice (tirosh).

(3) The Greek word "oinos" was a generic term[b] that included both fermented and unfermented wine.

b) The second assumption that the first wine and the latter wine must be the same type is also false.

(1) Whether "oinos" is fermented or unfermented must be determined by the context.

(2) When the words are used this close together, one might expect them to have the same meaning unless there is some indication that they were different.

(3) In John 2, there is precisely such an indication. The wine created by Jesus is called "the good wine," which tells us that the two wines were different in some way.

c) The third assumption that the Jews did not know how to prevent fermentation is false.

(1) We have already shown that the ancients were able to prevent grape juice from fermenting, and so the wine served first could easily have been non-intoxicating.

(2) This assumption proves nothing with regard to the wine created by Jesus. He, of course, could have created any type of wine.

d) The fourth assumption that [b]good wine must have been intoxicating wine is also false.

(1) This assumption is based on current tastes under which the goodness of a wine is proportional to the strength of the wine and its power to intoxicate.

(2) In ancient times, the best wines were those whose alcoholic potency had been removed by boiling or filtration.

(3) Pliny (pronounced Plenny) expressly states that good wine was one that was destitute of spirit. Horace and Plutarch make similar statements that good wine is wine that is innocent or harmless.

(4) Thus, the phrase "good wine" in the first century should cause us to assume it was milder rather than stronger than what had come before.

(5) It is also worth noting that the Greek word used for "good" here is not agathos (meaning good) but kalos (meaning morally excellent or befitting).http://www.thywordistruth.com/Questions_Class/tpq/Lesson_7_Notes.html

Robert Oz

12th October 2008, 11:10 PM

I deleted my first response because it was based on a misunderstanding.

Thank you for reviewing your answer to my earlier post. I have left my subsequent reply unedited, purely because it addressed my concern with anyone taking an "infallibility" stance in relation to any topic (including religion). I believe it throws the opportunity for rational discussion out the window and my objection to it still stands.

Going back to an earlier post of mine, could you address the following:

...[W]hy is a literal interpretation of Genesis necessary to maintain the theme [of the Bible]? If the Genesis account of the universe were merely allegory, it would not impact on the theme whatsoever. You could still argue that the Genesis story of the creation and subsequent fall of Adam and Eve is a symbol of God's creation descending into sin. I can't see how the literal interpretation is crucial to the story.

<snip>

Neither did I say the Bible isn't clear on anything, but I do argue that the Genesis account of the creation can be interpreted in more than one way (and would not affect the theme of the Bible in any way).

Do you think a symbolic or allegory interpretation of the Genesis account of creation would change the theme of the Bible?

And finally:

...[Y]ou mentioned in another post that your beliefs have changed from what your parents handed down to you. Does that mean your interpretations of certain Bible passages has changed over time? If so, isn't it possible that they will change in the future?

Ichneumonwasp

13th October 2008, 07:26 AM

I suspect that Radrook has me on ignore now, so perhaps someone else can follow this up...............

That oinos was used in many contexts cannot be doubted, but that wine was considered good if free of alcohol sounds very fishy to me, so I tried to check the sources.

The quote from that site refers back to a book that cites book 4 chapter 13 of Pliny's Natural History. Yet, book 4, chapter 13 says absolutely nothing about wine being preferred if it is free of alcohol. In fact, it never mentions wine once. I can't even find a mention of wine in any of the surrounding chapters. That particular book is devoted to "BOOK IV. AN ACCOUNT OF COUNTRIES, NATIONS, SEAS, TOWNS, HAVENS, MOUNTAINS, RIVERS, DISTANCES, AND PEOPLES WHO NOW EXIST OR FORMERLY EXISTED."

He does devote an entire chapter of Book 14 to a discussion of various types of wine -- chapter 4 -- in which he never once mentions that the best wine is free of alcohol content. He does mention that some varieties might "go straight to your head".

I've read many of Horace's odes and ars poetica as well as much of Plutarch's lives and his other essays on morality and nowhere can I recall any mention of the best wine being that without alcohol. Horace mentions wine several times from what I recall, but never devoid of alcohol.

Plutarch does mention drunkeness as to be avoided, of course, because he was one of the premier moralists of his age.

Perhaps someone can find what the actual reference is in Pliny? The book quoted seems to be a prohibition tract from what I can tell -- meaning the book that the website quote was taken from.

Macoy

13th October 2008, 08:20 AM

Well, I guess here is another excerpt from the same website you can disagree with:

Excerpt

Well, yes, I can disagree with most of it, but what would be the point if you are not clear on whether you agree with it or not?

For example, there is what Ichneumonwasp posted above, to which I would add that it appears that Horace was an enthusiastic partaker of different wines, drinking particular ones on particular occasions as well as using them as devices in his odes. Apparently, one of his favourites to drink with friends came from the Mons Massicus area of Italy. Now, it may be that ancient vintners boiled their fermented, matured wine, but if they did, then alcohol would not be the only substance driven off or denatured.

It is unlikely that this would be considered economic.

Henners

13th October 2008, 08:46 AM

Well, I guess it has to do with that part of me which is human.

There are far too many cyborgs on this board for my liking.

Radrook

13th October 2008, 09:52 AM

Do you think a symbolic or allegory interpretation of the Genesis account of creation would change the theme of the Bible?

The theme might remain but it would be made worthless.

The Genesis account mentions a seed that would result in the restoration of a paradise lost. That seen from a Christian viewpoint was Jesus Christ and from a Jewish viewpoint is still to come. If indeed the Genesis account is allegorical them both these beliefs are based on delusions. In short Jesus was not the Messiah, the Jews should not be expecting a Messiah,
the promises to Abraham that his descendants would ultimately result in the blessing of all nations via that messiah are all meaningless.

Genesis 22:18
And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

So if Genesis is merely allegorical, then all the Jewish prophets who wrote about it as a historical fact were liars or deluded, all the Rabbis who spoke and speak of the a coming Messiah are deluded and Jesus who also referred to it that way a charlatan. So classifying it that way isn't insignificant.

BTW
If indeed the Biblical writers weree such good habitual pathological liars, why didn't they paint a rosy picture of their own history? The Jews wrote of their repeatred defeats and deportations, the character flaws of their kings, and their repeated sins against God as a nation. The Christian writers depicted the Apostles as prone to make mistakes, such as denying Christ, giving bad advise, bigotry, and doubt. Other people such, such as the Egyptians are notorious for avoiding that kind of honesty. In view of this the constant accusations of dishonesty come accross as rather unwarranted.

Radrook

13th October 2008, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Oz
...[Y]ou mentioned in another post that your beliefs have changed from what your parents handed down to you. Does that mean your interpretations of certain Bible passages has changed over time?

My parents only handed down to me the belief in an immortal soul and the existence of God. Nothing more. So I really didn't have that much to modify. They didn't provide a scriptural support or logical suypport for thesde beliefs. So they were based more on trust.

The beliefs I now hold have a much sturdier foundation.

If so, isn't it possible that they will change in the future?

I will gain deeper knowledge leading to a better understanding but the basics will remain intact. I think that there is a fine line separating a deeper understanding and a total
acceptance of n completely different interpretation. For example, many scriptures tell us of coming events but don't go specifically into detail and neither should well If we do, we should declare it as speculation and not indisputable fact. I find that it;s that propensity to go beyond what was written which gives the impression that the Bible is open to many and all interpretations, But actually they are mere speculations which should never have been characterized as biblically supported fact. It's that human tendency which is at fault-not the Bible. If one avoids speculation or admits that one simply doesn't know at present, then one can safely avoid that pitfall.

Henners

13th October 2008, 10:30 AM

My parents only handed down to me the belief in an immortal soul and the existence of God. Nothing more. So I really didn't have that much to modify. They didn't provide a scriptural support or logical suypport for thesde beliefs. So they were based more on trust.

The beliefs I now hold have a much sturdier foundation.

In the end, it always comes down to the the age old question of whether the movie was better than the book.

(See the Harry Potter thread for deeper analysis.)

Silentknight

13th October 2008, 03:21 PM

The theme might remain but it would be made worthless.

The Genesis account mentions a seed that would result in the restoration of a paradise lost. That seen from a Christian viewpoint was Jesus Christ and from a Jewish viewpoint is still to come. If indeed the Genesis account is allegorical them both these beliefs are based on delusions. In short Jesus was not the Messiah, the Jews should not be expecting a Messiah,
the promises to Abraham that his descendants would ultimately result in the blessing of all nations via that messiah are all meaningless.
Please explain how the use of allegory renders the morals or message of a work of literature meaningless. Jesus spoke in parables all the time, using metaphors and fictional situations to demonstrate very real moral lessons that were meant to be applied to everyday life. Look at other works of literature. Look at something as simple as Aesop's Fables. There's absolutely no need to believe that talking animals really existed or that the events literally occurred in the story of the lion and the mouse in order to see the relevance of the lesson, "Even the weak and small may be of help to those much mightier than themselves."

Beliefs based on morals conveyed through allegory are not necessarily delusions. I don't see how it diminishes the theme or renders anything meaningless, unless contingency on the strict literalism of Genesis was the only way one was ever taught to look at it. You might consider this blasphemy, but it's quite possible that "Messiah" was a title, like "Pope," and not a name that referred to a single individual. Christ was a title or role designation, not a surname.

The Israelites, constantly being conquered and enslaved by more powerful civilizations, and usually deprived of a homeland or national boundaries to preserve their cultural identity, would obviously have been looking forward to the promise of better times to come. The story describes a struggle against despair and a hope against all odds as it relates to the human condition. It's not irrelevant.

So if Genesis is merely allegorical, then all the Jewish prophets who wrote about it as a historical fact were liars or deluded, all the Rabbis who spoke and speak of the a coming Messiah are deluded and Jesus who also referred to it that way a charlatan. So classifying it that way isn't insignificant.
False dichotomy. Just because something wasn't meant to be taken at face value does not make it a lie or delusion.

If indeed the Biblical writers weree such good habitual pathological liars, why didn't they paint a rosy picture of their own history? The Jews wrote of their repeatred defeats and deportations, the character flaws of their kings, and their repeated sins against God as a nation. The Christian writers depicted the Apostles as prone to make mistakes, such as denying Christ, giving bad advise, bigotry, and doubt. Other people such, such as the Egyptians are notorious for avoiding that kind of honesty. In view of this the constant accusations of dishonesty come accross as rather unwarranted.
This is a red herring. You're basing this conclusion off the assumption that the use of allegory makes someone a liar. On a slightly related topic, particularly this one that DOC started (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=124603) writers give characters flaws all the time in order to add depth and tell a more convincing story. If anything, it makes them better writers, not worse. A story with a cast of Mary Sues (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_sue), while being much easier to write, would be shallow, predictable, and uninteresting.

Macoy

13th October 2008, 04:36 PM

And, an interpretation of John 2:1 might lead one to believe that the water to wine miracle occurred merely because one of Jesus' disciples had access to the backdoor-key to the off-license.

Robert Oz

13th October 2008, 04:48 PM

Ichneumonwasp

14th October 2008, 05:41 AM

Robert Oz

14th October 2008, 04:33 PM

Because allegory would tend to deny the necessary ontology. Religions (for the most part) are driven by ontological claims that reinforce ethical claims. In Christianity, original sin becomes a necessary component of the world through Paul's arguments. An allegorical fall would not necessitate a universal savior, since one could (theoretically) live a pure life in accordance with the Law and thereby establish a right relationship with God; or one would necessarily conclude that God's work was not good since it introduced evil into the world (if all is merely allegorical, then sin is a component of man, and a component of the world, of creation). Paul denies that possibility.

How does this reconcile with the official Roman Catholic position that belief in evolution is permitted?

Excerpts from a speech by Pope John Paul II on October 22, 1996:

In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points… Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory.

And this, endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger in July 2004 (before he was the Pope):

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favourable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution."

And after he became the Pope:

… [The Pope] does not endorse creationism or intelligent design. He defends theistic evolution, the reconciliation between science and religion already held by Catholics. In discussing evolution, he writes that "The process itself is rational despite the mistakes and confusion as it goes through a narrow corridor choosing a few positive mutations and using low probability....This....inevitably leads to a question that goes beyond science....where did this rationality come from?" to which he answers that it comes from the "creative reason" of God.

Granted, the Pope still holds onto a puppet master of evolution, but nevertheless, sees no issue in treating the Genesis account as allegorical.

Ichneumonwasp

14th October 2008, 07:51 PM

How does this reconcile with the official Roman Catholic position that belief in evolution is permitted?

Excerpts from a speech by Pope John Paul II on October 22, 1996:

And this, endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger in July 2004 (before he was the Pope):

And after he became the Pope:

Granted, the Pope still holds onto a puppet master of evolution, but nevertheless, sees no issue in treating the Genesis account as allegorical.

Easy. It doesn't. Radrook isn't approaching from that tradition, though. That is why I specifically phrased it in terms of "certain forms of Christianity". Evangelical Christianity requires a literalist account because it is primarily based on Pauline traditions -- a gift from the Reformation. The Catholic Church has taken a different approach and has a different history.

The problem is that I'm not convinced that one can make ontological sense of the Catholic position, if one wants to maintain Paul in all his purity. Many Evangelicals do not consider Catholics to be Christian.

Robert Oz

14th October 2008, 08:01 PM

Easy. It doesn't. Radrook isn't approaching from that tradition, though. That is why I specifically phrased it in terms of "certain forms of Christianity". Evangelical Christianity requires a literalist account because it is primarily based on Pauline traditions -- a gift from the Reformation. The Catholic Church has taken a different approach and has a different history.

The problem is that I'm not convinced that one can make ontological sense of the Catholic position, if one wants to maintain Paul in all his purity. Many Evangelicals do not consider Catholics to be Christian.

I'm convinced that no one can make any logical sense of any Christian position. Whichever road one goes down, it gives rise to contradictions that can't reasonably be reconciled with the position being held.

Ichneumonwasp

15th October 2008, 06:42 AM

I hear ya', man, I hear ya'.

Macoy

15th October 2008, 10:18 AM

Best to break out the 150 gallons of top quality duty-free vino and take the rest of the day off.

tsig

15th October 2008, 07:24 PM

No, it's not irrelevant. It's very relevant. There are ancient Hebrew and Greek lexicons which permit us to compare any given modern translation of these languages with their original meaning. The Lexicons are very useful precisely because their is a consensus on what those meanings were. Otherwise the Lexicons would be worthless which they aren't. Actually, what you are saying is tantamount to saying that the English dictionary definitions ar all hotly debated and therefore we can't make rhyme or reason ofd any literary work written in that language. In short, most Ancient Hebrew and 1st century Koine Greek words are easily understood. That's why translators consult them when translating,

Now, why are their differences in interpretations? There are differences for various reasons, some justifiable and others completely unwarranted. For example, take the word Gehenna.
Gehenna was an incinerator outside the walls of Jerusalem where refuse and bodies of criminals considered unworthy of a resurrection were dumped. Because of this Jesus used it as a symbol of total destruction without the hope of a resurrection. How do certain translators translate the word? They translate it as hell. Is that translation justified? Or is simply calling "Gehenna" as Jesus called it justified?

The same applies to the Hebrew word "sheol" commonly used to refer to the common grave of mankind. Since it is continuously used in that way, are we justified in translating it as hell?
Doing so causes some very ridiculous problems such as Job requesting that God hide him in hell so he could escape suffering then bringing him back via resurrection. Yet those translators hell-bent [no pun intended] on propagating their hellish ideas feel justified in using the word "hell". So again the problem isn't necessarily the original language as much as it is the irresponsible doctrinal predisposition and fanatica
presumptuousness of the unscrupulous translators.

But as I previously pointed out-that's what Lexicons are for.

BTW
If I carry on it's because I am asked direct questions.

sheol
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/hell.html

Same Subject
http://www.2001translation.com/Hell.htm

Are these Hebrew and Greek lexicons the inspired word of god? If not then you would seem to be using the word of man to understand the word of god.

jmercer

16th October 2008, 04:09 AM

Folks, stick to the topic, and lay off the personal attacks.

Radrook

16th October 2008, 09:05 AM

How does this reconcile with the official Roman Catholic position that belief in evolution is permitted?

Excerpts from a speech by Pope John Paul II on October 22, 1996:

And this, endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger in July 2004 (before he was the Pope):

And after he became the Pope:

Granted, the Pope still holds onto a puppet master of evolution, but nevertheless, sees no issue in treating the Genesis account as allegorical.

Sees no issue? That's laughable considering that they saw no issue in fleecing the flocks of their property by scaring the beJesus out of them via threats of eternal torture. Saw no issue in instigating slaughter and saw no issue in using torture when they deemed it expedient to their welfare.

In short, or let me phrase it differently just for the heck of it:

Since when have the popes been paragons of accurate biblical interpretation?-since they stopped interpreting Jesus as approving torture whenever someone disagreed with them? Or since they stopped saying that God sends people to be roasted alive forever? Or was it since they stopped using scripture to encourage Christians to mercilessly slaughter one another?

Take your pick.

BTW
Seems like the Popes enjoy doing what's expedient at the time-just like they are doing now. Perhaps you need to cite another example since this one just doesn't cut the mustard.

Radrook

16th October 2008, 09:46 AM

I completely disagree. How is it worthless if the Genesis account allegorically simplifies the long story of the creation of the universe, mankind's fall into sin and the promise of a seed that will bless all nations? Thematically, the universe is still created, mankind still falls into sin and a savior is still warranted.

It wouldn't make anyone a liar in the same way that it wouldn't make Jesus a liar by speaking in parables.

No, Jesus wasn't lying when he spoke in parables since the parables were meant to be taken as parables. He would have been lying though if he began introducing the Genesis accounts as parables-something that he never did.

The problem is one of justifiability. Are we justified in taking
the whole book of Genesis as allegorical? You see despite the popular insistence to the contrary, the Bible regularly indicates when it's using allegory or symbolic speech via the way it is presented. Most of these passages are immediately identified as dreams, and visions, such as the dreams Joseph the son of Jacob had concerning the skinny and fat cows, or the visions Daniel had of a great image being struck by a rock from heaven, Or the vision he had of beasts arising from a sea. Or the visions that the Apostle John had which are declared symbolic at the outset. In contrast the book of Genesis is presented in a straightforward historical account manner that goes completely contrary to the allegorical style employed on other occasions. So stylistically we have absolutely no justification for taking that kind of liberty.

Furthermore, Genesis is quoted as history by the OT prophets and the NT Apostles and disciples. Even by Jesus himself. He differentiates his references to the Genesis accounts from his parables by going out of his way to introduce his parables as stories. Whereas the Genesis quotes are straightforward just as they are throughout the Bible-straightforward references to historical events. Therefore to call the accounts merely allegorical isn't in accord with what we know of the way that these accounts were treated.

excerpt

A Literal and Historical Account

The view that the book of Genesis can be taken literally and historically can be vigorously supported and logically defended. For brevity, I will only list what I believe are two of the best reasons:

The Natural Rendering

The natural rendering of Genesis does not support and allegorical interpretation. The normal literary devices used in the Bible to indicate symbolism or a story-like narrative simply is not present in the book of Genesis. In fact, there are literary devices in the original Hebrew that seem to indicate the author was attempting to circumvent allegorical interpretations. We will look at some of these in the study verses.

http://home.cfl.rr.com/thesarge/08.htm

bolding mine

Clarification:

I am not saying that the Genesis account is totally devoid of prophetic symbolism such as Abraham's offering up of his son Issac. What I am saying is that the whole Genesis account should not and cannot be dismissed as merely symbolic and its details as figments of the imagination. If we did then whole geneological records would be worthless since they would be nothing but fancy.

Foster Zygote

16th October 2008, 11:38 AM

I am not saying that the Genesis account is totally devoid of prophetic symbolism such as Abraham's offering up of his son Issac. What I am saying is that the whole Genesis account should not and cannot be dismissed as merely symbolic and its details as figments of the imagination. If we did then whole geneological records would be worthless since they would be nothing but fancy.

What if those genealogical records are fabricated?

Robert Oz

16th October 2008, 05:00 PM

Sees no issue? That's laughable considering that they saw no issue in fleecing the flocks of their property by scaring the beJesus out of them via threats of eternal torture. Saw no issue in instigating slaughter and saw no issue in using torture when they deemed it expedient to their welfare.

I was merely highlighting an example of one denomination reconciling evolution with an allegorical view of the Genesis account without giving up their faith or the Bible. This was to counter the view that a religious person cannot interpret Genesis as allegorical. Whether the Catholics are right or wrong is another issue, but they are a religious denomination that views Genesis as allegorical.

Secondly, if making errors in interpretation in the past is a sign to disregard the whole denomination, then every denomination and individual must be disregarded, because as we have both argued before, humans make mistakes. This includes Jehovah's Witnesses.

In short, or let me phrase it differently just for the heck of it:

Since when have the popes been paragons of accurate biblical interpretation?-since they stopped interpreting Jesus as approving torture whenever someone disagreed with them? Or since they stopped saying that God sends people to be roasted alive forever? Or was it since they stopped using scripture to encourage Christians to mercilessly slaughter one another?

Take your pick.

Who is a paragon of accurate biblical interpretation?

Seems like the Popes enjoy doing what's expedient at the time-just like they are doing now. Perhaps you need to cite another example since this one just doesn't cut the mustard.

The example achieves its purpose. Again, I am not saying the Pope's interpretation is correct, I am saying it is possible to view the Genesis account of the creation as allegorical and not have one's faith crumble to dust around them.

Furthermore, Genesis is quoted as history by the OT prophets and the NT Apostles and disciples. Even by Jesus himself. He differentiates his references to the Genesis accounts from his parables by going out of his way to introduce his parables as stories. Whereas the Genesis quotes are straightforward just as they are throughout the Bible-straightforward references to historical events. Therefore to call the accounts merely allegorical isn't in accord with what we know of the way that these accounts were treated.

<snip>

Clarification:

I am not saying that the Genesis account is totally devoid of prophetic symbolism such as Abraham's offering up of his son Issac. What I am saying is that the whole Genesis account should not and cannot be dismissed as merely symbolic and its details as figments of the imagination.

Firstly, I said nothing of treating the whole Genesis account as symbolic. Only the story of creation, since I don't believe a literal interpretation of it can be reconciled with what we now know of the universe.

If we did then whole geneological records would be worthless since they would be nothing but fancy.

Radrook, how do you reconcile the geneological records with your belief that the universe is over 13 billion years old?

calebprime

16th October 2008, 05:37 PM

Folks, stick to the topic, and lay off the personal attacks.

???

Did some posts get deleted?

Radrook

17th October 2008, 01:51 AM

I was merely highlighting an example of one denomination reconciling evolution with an allegorical view of the Genesis account without giving up their faith or the Bible. This was to counter the view that a religious person cannot interpret Genesis as allegorical. Whether the Catholics are right or wrong is another issue, but they are a religious denomination that views Genesis as allegorical.

Anyone can interpret the Bible in any way he might imagine it to be. Allegorically, totally symbolic, mythically, as legend, or as a compendium of well-crafted lies. I never denied that people lacked the ability to do that.

Secondly, if making errors in interpretation in the past is a sign to disregard the whole denomination, then every denomination and individual must be disregarded, because as we have both argued before, humans make mistakes. This includes Jehovah's Witnesses.

Not all errors are of the same magnitude. The first century Christians made errors. Peter wanted to discriminate against those who refused to get circumcised and against Gentiles and had to be corrected via a dream and counsel from another Apostle. Barnabas and Paul quarreled over whether Timothy should go along on a missionary
trip. Others believed that the Apostle John would not die before the end of the world
came. There were misunderstandings based on overzealousness. Tendencies to form cliques around personalities. However, it was only after the death of the apostles that the apostasy would arrive. History bears out that it did.

To say that one should disregard everyone because they err is too drastic since erring isn't the issue. It's the degree of the error. The degree of the misrepresentation which has to be taken into account. Furthermore, I don't claim to represent any particular denomination on this or any other forum. I believe that God's church is made of living stones and those living stones can be chosen from whomever God chooses to depending on his evaluation of a person's heart. So if you are thinking that I think that one NEEDS to belong to any specific religious organization in order to have God's blessings I don't. However, I do believe that eventually there all those who gain life will need to do things in a harmonious way and that those who aren't will have to modify their thinking in order to gain the eternal blessing.
But that isn't my idea it's the Bible's.

Who is a paragon of accurate biblical interpretation?]

I'm not setting anyone up as a paragon.

The example achieves its purpose. Again, I am not saying the Pope's interpretation is correct, I am saying it is possible to view the Genesis account of the creation as allegorical and not have one's faith crumble to dust around them.

That depends on what we mean by faith. We aren't authorized to define faith as we wish. If the definition of our faith goes contrary to the biblical requirements, then from a biblical standpoint that faith is null.

Firstly, I said nothing of treating the whole Genesis account as symbolic. Only the story of creation, since I don't believe a literal interpretation of it can be reconciled with what we now know of the universe.

There is absolutely no indication that the genesis creation account is being expressed as allegorical. When the Bible expresses itself in that way it is identifiable. Furthermore, none of the other biblical writers treat it that way. Instead they treat it like regular history. Based on that alone we know it's not allegorical.

Radrook, how do you reconcile the genealogical records with your belief that the universe is over 13 billion years old?

The genealogical records don't contradict a 13 or 15 or 20 billion year old universe. Or do you mean geological? The geological records indicate a 3 billion year old earth. That also doesn't contradict the Genesis account since the period prior to the beginning of the creative days is left temporally undefined.

RandFan

17th October 2008, 02:11 AM

If we did then whole geneological records would be worthless since they would be nothing but fancy.So what? Not everything ever written is correct. So what if it is nothing but fancy? I think it is likely correct but we don't have any reason to assume that it is absolutely correct.

But even if we accept that parts of it are literal it doesn't mean that it all is as you have already agreed to. Most of it is allegorical. It's the only way it makes sense. Otherwise we must presume that what amounts to a fairytale is true. A talking "serpent" (what the hell is that?). A couple of humans who are basically children doing what god wants them to do (if you assume that god wants Eve to bear children for our benefit) but breaking his rule to do it.

It's mythology. As mythology it's beautiful. As a purely literal account it is rather bizarre and not much different from all of the other creation myths.

devnull

17th October 2008, 06:55 AM

Silentknight

17th October 2008, 05:45 PM

???

Did some posts get deleted?

No, I think that was in reference to the mess that happened on page 1.

Also, RF beat me to what I was going to say. To use another part of the Bible as an example, let's look at the message of Jesus. If we are absolutely required to take all of the events literally, then his teachings cease to be empirical statements about the connection between morality and a spiritual life, and are reduced to trite insignificant sayings that a violent and grotesque fairy tale ends up overshadowing.

Uncayimmy

18th October 2008, 12:27 AM

First, the Bible has a theme. It's theme is the fall of man and how God provided a reconciliation through a savior. This theme comes through loud and clear and is unaffected by any denominational misinterpretations. So the Bible succeeds beautifully in its intended purpose and makes these other things merely quibblings unless they directly or indirectly challenge biblical veracity.

To quote from Jesus Christ Superstar
"If you'd come to day you'd have reached a whole nation
Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication"

I don't agree that the Bible succeeds beautifully. Most of the planet was illiterate at the time, correct? And most of the planet spoke a different language, right? If God blessed us with speech, why so many different languages? It only hampers his message, what with translations never being fully accurate.

Furthermore, the majority of the planet never heard that message. I mean, how can you say the bible succeeds beautifully when it took centuries upon centuries to get the message out? In the meantime God let other "false" god get a stronghold over the rest of the planet.

Seems to me like a major screw-up. I'd like to hear your comments on this.

Radrook

18th October 2008, 02:03 PM

To quote from Jesus Christ Superstar
"If you'd come to day you'd have reached a whole nation
Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication"[quote]

Nice musical renditions. : )

[quote]I don't agree that the Bible succeeds beautifully. Most of the planet was illiterate at the time, correct? And most of the planet spoke a different language, right?

Correct.

If God blessed us with speech, why so many different languages? It only hampers his message, what with translations never being fully accurate.

Speach was a blessing. The diversification of languages however isn't described as a blessing. It's described as a preventative measure necessary due to disobedience after the Noachian flood..

Furthermore, the majority of the planet never heard that message. I mean, how can you say the bible succeeds beautifully when it took centuries upon centuries to get the message out? In the meantime God let other "false" god get a stronghold over the rest of the planet.

Seems to me like a major screw-up. I'd like to hear your comments on this.

The biblical message wasn't meant to convert everyone or to overthrow the Satanic grip over the planet imediately. It was to create a nucleus of believers around which the future restoration of all things would expand just as it was supposed to have expanded around a faithful Adam and Eve. It succeeds in laying a nucleus around which an earthwide expansion will be possible. The only time that the earth is described as fbeing religiously unified is after that restoration. Previous to that restoratrion the world continues primarily under satan's dominion. The comencement of that restoration comes after Satan is restrained and his followers are removed.

That's my explanation as requested.

RandFan

18th October 2008, 02:58 PM

The biblical message wasn't meant to convert everyone or to overthrow the Satanic grip over the planet imediately.?

What a lousy plan. Is this the best that an omnipotent and omniscient being can do?

The Bible not only doesn't succeed but it fails miserably for millions of innocent people because god can't come up with a better plan and Satan is just too powerful.

Why is it that religious explanations often seem post hoc attempts to justify what they are forced to work with (bronze age literature)? Why does it seem that the bible was the work of bronze age humans and not an omniscient deity?

Macoy

18th October 2008, 06:02 PM

The biblical message wasn't meant to convert everyone or to overthrow the Satanic grip over the planet imediately. It was to create a nucleus of believers around which the future restoration of all things would expand just as it was supposed to have expanded around a faithful Adam and Eve. It succeeds in laying a nucleus around which an earthwide expansion will be possible. The only time that the earth is described as fbeing religiously unified is after that restoration. Previous to that restoratrion the world continues primarily under satan's dominion. The comencement of that restoration comes after Satan is restrained and his followers are removed.

That's my explanation as requested.

Suppose Satan was to be discovered to be inhabiting modern banking; as an established member of the "family", would Satan be accepting a drop in his bonus remunerations? Retirement or retraining- with his restraining? Or can we expect that hell will go on much as before, just with less employees and less autodialing?

Radrook

19th October 2008, 04:31 AM

Suppose Satan was to be discovered to be inhabiting modern banking; as an established member of the "family", would Satan be accepting a drop in his bonus remunerations? Retirement or retraining- with his restraining? Or can we expect that hell will go on much as before, just with less employees and less autodialing?

If Satan would be in the banking business what would he care about a supposed hell? In any case, this concept of a torture chamber location God creates in order to send sinners to be tormented forever at the hands of even worse sinners [Satan and his demons] isn't a biblical one. It's just a Satanic effort to bring opprobrium on God by making him appear like some type of sadistic insane maniac. The penalty for sin is said to be death and death is the cessation of all bodily functions. If the penalty had been torture then Adam would have been apprised of the situation in order for him to make an informed choice as justice demands.

Genesis 2:17
....for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Ezekiel 18:4
Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death;

Skeptical Greg

19th October 2008, 01:35 PM

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is deathUnless you believe ... Right ?

RandFan

19th October 2008, 01:41 PM

Genesis 2:17
....for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Ezekiel 18:4
Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death; We are all sinners. We all fall short of the glory of god.

"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one." --Romans 3:10

plumjam

19th October 2008, 02:14 PM

"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one." --Romans 3:10

"Not even Josephus the Plumber." --Romans 3,11

Ichneumonwasp

19th October 2008, 02:29 PM

RandFan

19th October 2008, 02:32 PM

"Not even Josephus the Plumber." --Romans 3,11Conclusion?

We're all gonna die. --Country Joe McDonald

Ichneumonwasp

19th October 2008, 04:34 PM

You forgot the "Woopee!"

calebprime

19th October 2008, 04:45 PM

can't help myself:

wanted to hear this again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0jxHB3E710

Radrook

20th October 2008, 01:58 AM

Unless you believe ... Right ?

Correct!

Acceptance of the Ransom Sacrifice is necessary in order for the death sentence to be commuted.

John 1:29
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

John 6:40
And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Matthew 20:28
Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Macoy

20th October 2008, 07:48 AM

...It's just a Satanic effort to bring opprobrium on God by making him appear like some type of sadistic insane maniac...

Where is the excerpt for this?

Unlike a Bull

22nd October 2008, 11:17 AM

Radrook

22nd October 2008, 12:26 PM

Radrook,
My basic understanding of Christianity is that:
1. Everyone is a sinner, either through their own actions or through original sin.
2. God doesn't allow sinners into heaven.
3. Jesus came to earth to die for us and remove our sins so that we can go to heaven.
4. Jesus will only forgive your sins if you believe in Him and, possibly, only if you ask for forgiveness.
5. There is no sin that Jesus can't forgive so long as you don't reject Him.

If this is true, and my interpretations of Christianity are correct, then I believe this would make all sins irrelevant. If a murderer/child molester/rapist/etc. can convert to Christianity and go to heaven and a person who tries their best to live a good life and not wrong people, but doesn't believe in Jesus goes to hell, then it shouldn't matter what sins we commit, only what our beliefs are. There should be no need to define what's a sin. Why didn't God just say "Look, you're not perfect, but believe in Jesus and I'll let it slide"? Couldn't we slim the bible down to a paragraph or so?

Let me put it another way. Christianity has (at least) two distinct possibilities for what happens to us after we die. Some people go to heaven and some people go to hell.

The problem is that somewhere you have to draw a line and say "OK, you can come in and you can't". But where do you draw this line? Suppose you say all murderers can't enter heaven. Fair enough, but now you have to define murder. Is a soldier a murderer? How about a Soldier who kills a civilian? How about if the civilian is armed? How about if the enemy is unarmed? What about someone who kills to defend their home or family? If lying is a sin then how many times do you have to lie to not be let in? These are tough decisions to make. But the bible doesn't seem to draw the "hard line" that would define which sins are bad enough to keep us from heaven, or how many sins we can commit. Instead, it's all about our faith in Jesus.

Is the Christianity I've described different than your beliefs (and it very well could be as I don't claim to be a biblical scholar)? If so, then what are a couple examples of sins that couldn't (or wouldn't) be forgiven, and why not. Is there an allowable number of times you can commit each sin and still be allowed into heaven? How do you justify keeping out the person who lies 101 times, but letting in the person who lies 100 times? what if that 101st lie was "No honey, you look great in that dress"? I realize God would be making the decision and would have greater insight into the sins we commit than even ourselves, but humans range from "essentially evil" to "essentially good" with all gray areas in between. At some point, someone will get in who's only slightly better than someone who is kept out.

If what I've described fits with your beliefs then how could you justify being in heaven with people who have committed heinous crimes while people who were basically good but worshiped a different God are, at the least left out, at the worst suffering for all eternity? If someone is not exposed to Christianity then would their sins be forgiven anyway, or would they be denied heaven because of the time and place that they happened to live in? And, why does it matter what kind of life we live is all is forgiven anyway?

Thanx for the very interesting reply. First, I'd like to try to clear up one very important concept. It isn't what I choose to believe or not choose to believe. We aren't given that option. It's what we are told we should believe that's important and what we are told to believe isn't some great paradoxical unfathomable mystery open to a million individual interpretations.

For example, it's no big secret that the Bible promises a new earth in which righteousness will predominate under God's kingdom rule. It's stated repeatedly for anyone willing to read it and accept it to do so. The problem is that those reading it are either unable, or unwilling to accept a promise of a new earth where mankind will dwell in perfection and in peace forever. Instead they prefer to IGNORE those scriptures and focus on a second promise that was made, the heavenly resurrection one. Now, if a person pays attention to the promise of new earth and a restored paradise the way the Bible clearly tells to-then those who ignore that promise will say that's his interpretation. The sad truth is that the one who is interpreting the Bible his own distinctive unbiblical way is him since he would be the one totally ignoring the earthly paradise hope that runs as a theme throughout the scriptures. Let me cite some scriptures for you so you can see for yourself.

Habakkuk 2:14
For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

Isaiah 65:17
For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

Isaiah 66:22
For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.

2 Peter 3:13
Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Revelation 21:
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; .....

4And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

Isaiah 11
6The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

7And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

8And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.

9They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

Therefore, someone who chooses to IGNORE these promises and prefers to see the heavenly promise as the only one is making up his own version-a version unjustified by the biblical context. So isn't the way I might choose to think or what anyone else so happens to choose to think that's really important. Theimporetant thing is whether the Bible really supports what we think or whether what we think is unjustified by biblical context. The reason I point this out before considering the other points is because otherwise it would seem to be a matter of opinion which it really isn't.

BTW
Since I'm pressed for time I'll have to address all the other points later today.
Thanx for the questions. : )

Macoy

22nd October 2008, 03:24 PM

Isaiah 11

...and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. (...)

Isaiah obviously knew no vegan cat "owners", because if he did, then he would have noticed that cats forced onto a vegetarian diet, die. (Or leave. If they can.)

Are you arguing for a form of godly evolution?

Gurdur

22nd October 2008, 03:40 PM

I think C.S. Lewis did it far better in his The Great Divide, nonetheless it's all very irrelevant to actual life, and nonetheless, hi Radrook, haven't seen you for ages, I remember you from IIDB, nice to see you again, even if we agree about nothing at all.

Macoy

22nd October 2008, 04:13 PM

Robert Oz

22nd October 2008, 05:03 PM

The genealogical records don't contradict a 13 or 15 or 20 billion year old universe. Or do you mean geological? The geological records indicate a 3 billion year old earth. That also doesn't contradict the Genesis account since the period prior to the beginning of the creative days is left temporally undefined.

I meant genealogical records. Regardless of the period prior to the creative days, by tracing the genealogical records back, it becomes clear that Adam and Eve were supposedly the only humans to exist six to ten thousand years ago, and yet we have archealogical evidence that dates existing humans much earlier than this.

Sorry to sound like a fundy, but do you have sources for this stuff?

You can find the sources in wikipedia under "Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church.

Some of the speeches referred to have also been discussed in Michael Shermer's "How We Believe".

Radrook

22nd October 2008, 10:35 PM

Radrook,
My basic understanding of Christianity is that:

1. Everyone is a sinner, either through their own actions or through original sin.

2. God doesn't allow sinners into heaven.

3. Jesus came to earth to die for us and remove our sins so that we can go to heaven.

4. Jesus will only forgive your sins if you believe in Him and, possibly, only if you ask for forgiveness.

is no sin that Jesus can't forgive so long as you don't reject Him.

If this is true, and my interpretations of Christianity are correct, then I believe this would make all sins irrelevant. If a murderer/child molester/rapist/etc. can convert to Christianity and go to heaven and a person who tries their best to live a good life and not wrong people, but doesn't believe in Jesus goes to hell, then it shouldn't matter what sins we commit, only what our beliefs are.

Jesus tells us that sins are very relevant to our eternal welfare.
He did so during his pre-ressurection and post-ressurection ministry. So there is actually no basis to think otherwise.

About the ignorant people, God doesn't destroy based on ignorance. That's why he will bring back the wicked in order to provide a chance for an informed decision. If Jesus is rejected AFTER that informed decision is made available then eternal death will have been his choice.

There should be no need to define what's a sin. Why didn't God just say "Look, you're not perfect, but believe in Jesus and I'll let it slide"? Couldn't we slim the bible down to a paragraph or so?

Because that's not what Jesus taught. He taught that if we don't behave ourselves when offered eternal life based on his sacrifice then we will have chosen death over life. Not once did he teach that our behavior is unimportant to salvation. Instead he constantly emphasized our responsibility to behave ourselves to qualify for the gift of salvation.

Let me put it another way. Christianity has (at least) two distinct possibilities for what happens to us after we die. Some people go to heaven and some people go to hell. The problem is that somewhere you have to draw a line and say "OK, you can come in and you can't"But where do you draw this line?

Well, we as Christians are expected to do our best not to habitually practice things we know are sinful. That's where we draw the line.
Sins committed because of inherited weakness, duress, bad judgment based on insufficient knowledge, are covered by the ransom sacrifice. Sins committed purposefully because we willfully prefer sin and willfully reject the ransom sacrifice are not.

Suppose you say all murderers can't enter heaven. Fair enough, but now you have to define murder. Is a soldier a murderer? How about a Soldier who kills a civilian? How about if the civilian is armed? How about if the enemy is unarmed? What about someone who kills to defend their home or family? If lying is a sin then how many times do you have to lie to not be let in? These are tough decisions to make. But the bible doesn't seem to draw the "hard line" that would define which sins are bad enough to keep us from heaven, or how many sins we can commit.

That's why the decisions are left in God's hands because they are beyond our capability to judge. The reason they are is because we lack the omniscience and infinite wisdom necessary to unravel all the intricacies.

, it's all about our faith in Jesus.

Not quite! A proclaimed faith without being backed up by good behavior is worthless.

FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD (JAMES 2:14-26)

So if indeed we go about murdering or living like devils while proclaiming ourselves to be Christians then we are
wasting our time.

Is the Christianity I've described different from your beliefs (and it very well could be as I don't claim to be a biblical scholar)? If so, then what are a couple examples of sins that couldn't (or wouldn't) be forgiven, and why not. Is there an allowable number of times you can commit each sin and still be allowed into heaven? How do you justify keeping out the person who lies 101 times, but letting in the person who lies 100 times? what if that 101st lie was "No honey, you look great in that dress"? I realize God would be making the decision and would have greater insight into the sins we commit than even ourselves, but humans range from "essentially evil" to "essentially good" with all gray areas in between. At some point, someone will get in who's only slightly better than someone who is kept out.

That's why we are unqualified for the task-it's too complex.
Actually, there is far more to it than mere repetition-it has to do with motives. Or better yet, culpability.

If what I've described fits with your beliefs then how could you justify being in heaven with people who have committed heinous crimes

If a person has committed heinous crimes repents sincerely,
then his former crimes cannot be held against him. He is
viewed on how he is now, not on how he was then.

"Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his way and live? For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God: wherefore, turn yourselves, and live ye."--Ezek. 18:23, 32.

"Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live:....Ezek. 33:11.

while people who were basically good but worshiped a different God are, at the least left out, at the worst suffering for all eternity?

That's not going to happen because God evaluates the heart and takes all relevant matters into consideration just as you are doing right now. The differences that we can do so in a very limited way while he delves far more deeply into the matter.

"Man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord on the heart." - 1 Samuel 16:7.

"Keep thy heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life" (Prov. 4:23);

If someone is not exposed to Christianity then would their sins be forgiven anyway, or would they be denied heaven because of the time and place that they happened to live in?

Jesus said that those who crucified him should be forgiven because they didn't know what they were doing.

Luke 23:34
Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.

The same applies to people who might think they are doing things the right way but are not due to ignorance.
The resurrection of the dead provides a time to be informed. If after being properly informed the person then chooses to persist-then their is a legitimate basis for a negative judicial decision to be passed.

And, why does it matter what kind of life we live is all is forgiven anyway?

All is not forgiven anyway. There is habitual willful disobedience which disqualifies us from life regardless of what we might be claiming to be.

Mattew 7:

21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity

Here are some specific things we are expected to try to avoid.

Revelation 22
14Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life,....
15For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

Silentknight

23rd October 2008, 07:35 PM

It isn't what I choose to believe or not choose to believe. We aren't given that option. It's what we are told we should believe that's important and what we are told to believe isn't some great paradoxical unfathomable mystery open to a million individual interpretations.

For example, it's no big secret that the Bible promises... (snip)

One of the disadvantages to having a mindset that treats beliefs as chiseled commandments in stone is that, well, people can be wrong.

Elizabeth I

23rd October 2008, 08:01 PM

I would suggest that you learn how to correctly spell what happened to your redeemer. He was resurrected, not "ressurected."

Radrook

24th October 2008, 10:09 AM

Isaiah obviously knew no vegan cat "owners", because if he did, then he would have noticed that cats forced onto a vegetarian diet, die. (Or leave. If they can.)

Isaiah isn't considered the source of that information but merely a conduit. Isaiah was probably as surprised as you are since he knew of lions which were present in the Middle east at that time. There are Assyrian friezes depicting lion hunts and Samson met a lion in Caanan during the time of Judges.

Judges 14:5

Then Samson went down to Timnah…and behold, a young lion came roaring toward him. And the Spirit of the Lord came upon him mightily, so that he tore him as one tears a kid though he had nothing in his hand…

excerpt

Lions were once the most widespread mammal on Earth. More than 10,000 years ago they lived across Africa, Europe, the Middle East, in Asia south of Siberia, and even in North America from Alaska to Peru.

http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geunlH9AFJ5UYABGRrCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGl xBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=12t906ica/EXP=1224951239/**http%3a//www.globio.org/glossopedia/article.aspx%3fart_id=61%26art_nm=Lions

So it wasn't due to ignorance that he wrote what he did.
The prophecy is given as a contrast to how things are now where predation is considered normal.

Are you arguing for a form of godly evolution?

Not at all.

BTW
Thanx for the feedback.

Radrook

24th October 2008, 10:35 AM

I would suggest that you learn how to correctly spell what happened to your redeemer. He was resurrected, not "ressurected."

Is that all you have to offer. A spelling correction? How peevish! But hey! You proved your point. I'm human and make spelling mistakes due to haste fatigue, illness absent-mindedness, or some other human propensity sometimes. Congrats!

Actually, and please don't take offense, I consider the unnecessary letters in English a ridiculous illogical waste of valuable time and space. It makes the language unnecessarily hard to learn for those not born in English-speaking countries. It also makes it difficult for those born in the language by forcing them to try to remember the inclusion of letters having no other function but decorative. So if there is a spelling-error propensity among even those practically born into the language-such as myself-then it's not due to any intellectual deficiency but due to the inherent absurd, illogical nature of the spelling and [b]inconsistency of the required pronunciations of the language itself. : ) Hope that helps.

BTW
If it were up to me I'd trash all the useless surplus. I can give you a plethora of poignant examples if you wish. However, that would deviate the thread. Something I'm sure you wouldn't enjoy.

Radrook

24th October 2008, 10:58 AM

I meant genealogical records. Regardless of the period prior to the creative days, by tracing the genealogical records back, it becomes clear that Adam and Eve were supposedly the only humans to exist six to ten thousand years ago, and yet we have archealogical evidence that dates existing humans much earlier than this.

The methodology is extremely biased. The article below goes into detail.

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT I -
http://www.ummah.net/harunyahya/evol/ebk1-3.html

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT II -
http://www.ummah.net/harunyahya/evol/evdintro.html

Foster Zygote

24th October 2008, 12:47 PM

The methodology is extremely biased. The article below goes into detail.

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT I -
http://www.ummah.net/harunyahya/evol/ebk1-3.html

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT II -
http://www.ummah.net/harunyahya/evol/evdintro.html

I don't know which is more amusing, Radrook linking to yet more creationist sites filled with all the same discredited, erroneous and deceitful crap, or the fact that the sites linked above are Muslim, a religion that Radrook believes to be false. In fact, Adnan Oktar, a.k.a. Harun Yahya, published a book entitled Soykirim Yalani (The Holocaust Lie) in which he argues that “what is presented as Holocaust is the death of some Jews due to the typhus plague during the war and the famine toward the end of the war caused by the defeat of the Germans.”

But then this is pretty typical of Radrook to cite some source after a cursory search for something that agrees with his position, but without deeper investigation to determine its actual merits.

Silentknight

24th October 2008, 05:47 PM

Then again, the best way to make your own bigoted, arrogant, and scientifically ignorant beliefs look better by comparison is to stand next to someone whose beliefs are worse. A creationist and a Holocaust denier? I guess certain types of stupidity go hand in hand. All it took was 2 seconds to plug the author's name into a google search.

Oh yeah:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Oktar :whistling

Radrook

25th October 2008, 09:59 AM

Incidentally, is there any biblical evidence of a mistake being made by the "savior"?

What percieved supposed mistake do you have in mind?

Radrook

25th October 2008, 10:04 AM

Where is the excerpt for this?

I already provided the scriptural support. That's the standard acceptable procedure.
Do you have another?

Radrook

25th October 2008, 10:11 AM

And, an interpretation of John 2:1 might lead one to believe that the water to wine miracle occurred merely because one of Jesus' disciples had access to the backdoor-key to the off-license.

Jesus could come and turn you into a mule for a week and you'd say you dreamed it. Or God could juggle the stars in such a way as to spell his name and you'd say it was a graviational fluke. Or he could appear before millions in different locations at the same time and you'd say it was mass hallucination. So you see, it's very easy isn't it?

Radrook

25th October 2008, 10:32 AM

ROFL! Like the original was written in understandable English? Do you not know or not care how many translations it has been through since then?

Please try not to waste time with strawman arguments of this nature. You know full-well that I don't believe the Bible was original written in English or that I don't know or care how many ways it's been translated. Please try to directly state your point and we can proceed from there. Thanx.

BTW
Actually, I did mention that Hebrew and Greek lexicons allow us to compare and contrast any given translation with the ancient manuscripts upon which it is based. That's why we know that the kJ version is wrong when it translates the original words referring to goats as unicorns. So there really isn't a need to be "duped" unless one conveniently cooperates.

Radrook

25th October 2008, 10:51 AM

"if I'm told not to commit adultery and I interpret that as meaning that I can if I'm" the King of Israel, someone whom was a required ancestor of the messiah-ship.

True, king David did do that. True, king David was an ancestor of Jesus. There are other ancestors of Jesus who also had faults, not just king David. Maybe because they were sinners in need of redemption?

Rook.., I do not post often, if ever. I do confess a certain fascination with your motives. To expend the effort to do, whatever it is you tell yourself it is you're doing,

I'm doing exactly what everyone else on this forum is doing. Expressing my views. What is it that you suspect that I believe I am doing?

knowing full well the susceptibility of the KJV, or whichever permutation you prefer, can be parsed to provide logical inconsistencies.It’s the nature of these deviations from logic that most implicates the good book as being flawed, both in clarity of thought and detail; exactly as something cobbled together through word of mouth and mistranslation.

First, the KJV is not my favored translation for the very same reason you just mentioned.
However, I am forced to use it because all other translations have copyright limitations which I am trying to respect.

As for inconsistencies, they can be and have been logically explained away as misunderstandings. Of course, some refuse to accept those explanations. Others like myself accept them. It's called freedom of choice I suppose. : )

Mistranslations, contrary to popular opinion, can be detected via the usage of lexicons.
That's why we can find lists of mistranslations of the KJ version and other versions on the Internet. If they weren't identifiable then the lists would be absent.

Personally, if I were to believe a active force were to control of every quantum interaction in the universe,
The Bible doesn't claim that the present universe's behavior is under God's total supervision. That will come about via the restoration of all things to their original condition.

....it would seem a colossal failure, by any objective measure, if only considering the coherence & consistency for such an important message.

The message is sufficiently coherent for our salvation. If that's not enough for some people then I guess that isn't enough for them. For me and millions of others it works just fine.

Silentknight

25th October 2008, 04:02 PM

Jesus could come and turn you into a mule for a week and you'd say you dreamed it.

On a completely unrelated note, how many times has Jesus visited you this month?

Macoy

25th October 2008, 04:10 PM

What percieved supposed mistake do you have in mind?

I inferred that Jesus' production of 150 gallons of excellent wine at a wedding where all the alcohol had run out could be seen as encouraging overindulgence, especially at a function involving young people. (We did not discuss the matter of any tax or duty payable and avoided.)

I already provided the scriptural support. That's the standard acceptable procedure.
Do you have another?

Is this god quoting satan, or is the prophet making it up?

There are often at least two sides to every story. Shouldn't we at least read satan's book for a rounder picture?

Jesus could come and turn you into a mule for a week and you'd say you dreamed it. Or God could juggle the stars in such a way as to spell his name and you'd say it was a graviational fluke. Or he could appear before millions in different locations at the same time and you'd say it was mass hallucination. So you see, it's very easy isn't it?

Not too sure what you're getting at here. What's very easy? Self-delusion?

The Bible doesn't claim that the present universe's behavior is under God's total supervision. That will come about via the restoration of all things to their original condition.

Surely the "original condition" is nothingness?

Elizabeth I

25th October 2008, 04:24 PM

Is that all you have to offer. A spelling correction? How peevish! But hey! You proved your point. I'm human and make spelling mistakes due to haste fatigue, illness absent-mindedness, or some other human propensity sometimes. Congrats!

Actually, and please don't take offense, I consider the unnecessary letters in English a ridiculous illogical waste of valuable time and space. It makes the language unnecessarily hard to learn for those not born in English-speaking countries. It also makes it difficult for those born in the language by forcing them to try to remember the inclusion of letters having no other function but decorative. So if there is a spelling-error propensity among even those practically born into the language-such as myself-then it's not due to any intellectual deficiency but due to the inherent absurd, illogical nature of the spelling and [b]inconsistency of the required pronunciations of the language itself. : ) Hope that helps.

BTW
If it were up to me I'd trash all the useless surplus. I can give you a plethora of poignant examples if you wish. However, that would deviate the thread. Something I'm sure you wouldn't enjoy.

If English is not your first language, then I apologize. If it is, then:

No. You are wrong. Language is important. It is the only way we can communicate with each other with any precision at all. If you are careless about your use of language, it indicates that you don't much care about your message or how well you communicate it. Look at the KJV - a triumph of poetry; that is, of language. Those translators loved their message and their work, and it shows.

Additionally, in your philosophy, language is a tool given to you by your creator. Don't you think it is disrespectful of you to use it carelessly?

RandFan

25th October 2008, 05:06 PM

Jesus could come and turn you into a mule for a week and you'd say you dreamed it. Or God could juggle the stars in such a way as to spell his name and you'd say it was a graviational fluke. Or he could appear before millions in different locations at the same time and you'd say it was mass hallucination. So you see, it's very easy isn't it?Like many new scientific paradigms, red shift theory wasn't accepted when it was first introduced. Yet the compelling power of the logic has led to a consensus. Surely an omnipotent being could come up with ontollogically compelling evidence, right?

Radrook, this is more post hoc rationalization. It's BS.

Safe-Keeper

25th October 2008, 09:06 PM

Jesus could come and turn you into a mule for a week and you'd say you dreamed it. Or God could juggle the stars in such a way as to spell his name and you'd say it was a graviational fluke. Or he could appear before millions in different locations at the same time and you'd say it was mass hallucination. So you see, it's very easy isn't it? We've been through this before - an omnipotent being would be able to pull off some act that would be convincing to everyone. He'd be able to prove His existence without us being able to explain it away, the same way atoms are able to prove their existence and we all know they're real today.

Radrook

26th October 2008, 05:50 AM

If English is not your first language, then I apologize. If it is, then:

No. You are wrong. Language is important.

Please quote me where I said language is not important.

It is the only way we can communicate with each other with any precision at all

Please quote me where I said that language can be dispensed with.

If you are careless about your use of language, it indicates that you don't much care about your message or how well you communicate it.

False premise leading to a valid but wrong conclusion.

Look at the KJV - a triumph of poetry; that is, of language. Those translators loved their message and their work, and it shows.

So?

Additionally, in your philosophy, language is a tool given to you by your creator. Don't you think it is disrespectful of you to use it carelessly?

Of course, but I'm not and I don't.

Radrook

26th October 2008, 06:08 AM

I inferred that Jesus' production of 150 gallons of excellent wine at a wedding where all the alcohol had run out could be seen as encouraging overindulgence, especially at a function involving young people. (We did not discuss the matter of any tax or duty payable and avoided.)

Only if we reject all the proof which shows that the wine was very likely non-alocolic. Also, anything can be seen in any way that one wishes to imagine it. There really isn't any limit on how things can be seen. The real question or issue is are we justified in seeing things as we choose to see them.

In a court of law one has to be proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt before a sentence is passed. The articles I presented provide many reasonable doubts to your accusation-an accusation you insist is applicable despite the reasonable doubts.

About the taxes payable and avoided, I have no idea what you are referring to. When asked whether one should pay taxes, Jesus told the questioner that they should pay what was Caesar's to Caesar. In short, he did not encourage tax evasion. So it is highly unlikely that he would later turn around and encourage it.

But I suspect that this matter of tax evasion has to do with the miraculous production of the wine itself? If so, the question is whether the product was indeed taxable in view of its source and whether if it was where is the proof that no tax was ever paid.

There is often at least two sides to every story. Shouldn't we at least read Satan's book for a rounder picture?

If you know Satan's side and feel that it has merit, then why not put it forth so we can discuss it.

Not too sure what you're getting at here. What's very easy? Self-delusion?

The explaining away of anything which threatens the popular world view.

Surely the "original condition" is nothingness?

I meant the original created condition. Especially in relation to the earth and mankind.

Foster Zygote

26th October 2008, 09:21 AM

Only if we reject all the proof which shows that the wine was very likely non-alocolic.
Come on Radrook, I very much doubt that you have me on ignore. I'd love to see the "proof" that Jesus made non-alcoholic wine for the wedding.

Safe-Keeper

26th October 2008, 10:08 AM

Come on Radrook, I very much doubt that you have me on ignore. I'd love to see the "proof" that Jesus made non-alcoholic wine for the wedding.It's very simple. Christians today realize that alcohol is unhealthy and responsible for a lot of tragedies. Hence, they don't like the idea of their Holy people consuming the stuff. Hence, Jesus made non-alcoholic wine.

Or in other words,

Genocide=Totally OK. It ain't sin when the LORD does it.
Drinking wine=The LORD or Jesus would never do such a vile thing! Halt your tongue, you evil atheist!

The real question or issue is are we justified in seeing things as we choose to see them. Oh, I don't know. Are you?

Foster Zygote

26th October 2008, 10:12 AM

It's very simple. Christians today realize that alcohol is unhealthy and responsible for a lot of tragedies. Hence, they don't like the idea of their Holy people consuming the stuff. Hence, Jesus made non-alcoholic wine.

Or in other words,

Genocide=Totally OK. It ain't sin when the LORD does it.
Drinking wine=The LORD or Jesus would never do such a vile thing! Halt your tongue, you evil atheist.

So Jesus turned wine into grape juice? No wonder they crucified him.

RandFan

26th October 2008, 10:39 AM

Only if we reject all the proof which shows that the wine was very likely non-alocolic. BS.

Ichneumonwasp

26th October 2008, 11:47 AM

Come on Radrook, I very much doubt that you have me on ignore. I'd love to see the "proof" that Jesus made non-alcoholic wine for the wedding.

He already provided it in another thread (I think another thread). It basically consisted of the typical link to an apologist site that argued that the ancient Romans considered non-alcoholic wine to be the best. The citation provided was to a book that as far as I can tell was pro-prohibition. Its evidence that the Romans thought that good wine was non-alcoholic was a single "quote" from Pliny the Elder. However, it doesn't even provide an actual quote, which should have been the first clue. It did refer to book four, chapter 13 IIRC, so I looked it up. There is not only no reference to wine that is not alcoholic in that chapter, but there is no reference to wine at all. Book 14 does discuss wine in detail, and when it comes to fine wines, he devotes an entire chapter:

CHAP. 8. (6.)--FIFTY KINDS OF GENEROUS WINES.
Who can entertain a doubt that some kinds of wine are more agreeable to the palate than others, or that even out of the very same vat1 there are occasionally produced wines that are by no means of equal goodness, the one being much superior to the other, whether it is that it is owing to the cask,2 or to some other fortuitous circumstance? Let each person, therefore, constitute himself his own judge as to which kind it is that occupies the pre-eminence. Livia3 Augusta, who lived to her eighty-second year,4 attributed her longevity to the wine of Pucinum,5 as she never drank any other. This wine is grown near a bay of the Adriatic, not far from Mount Timavus, upon a piece of elevated rocky ground, where the sea-breeze ripens a few grapes, the produce of which supplies a few amphoræ: there is not a wine that is deemed superior to this for medicinal purposes. I am strongly of opinion that this is the same wine, the produce of the Adriatic Gulf, upon which the Greeks have bestowed such wonderful encomiums, under the name of Prætetianum.

The late Emperor Augustus preferred the Setinum to all others, and nearly all the emperors that have succeeded him have followed his example, having learnt from actual experience that there is no danger of indigestion and flatulence resulting from the use of this liquor: this wine is grown in the country6 that lies just above Forum Appii.7 In former times the Cæcubum enjoyed the reputation of being the most [p. 3240] generous of all the wines; it was grown in some marshy swamps, planted with poplars, in the vicinity8 of the Gulf of Amyclæ. This vineyard has, however, now disappeared, the result of the carelessness of the cultivator, combined with its own limited extent, and the works on the canal which Nero commenced, in order to provide a navigation from Lake Avernus to Ostia.

The second rank belonged to the wine of the Falernian territory, of which the Faustianum was the most choice variety; the result of the care and skill employed upon its cultivation. This, however, has also degenerated very considerably, in consequence of the growers being more solicitous about quantity9 than quality. The Falernian10 vineyards begin at the bridge of Campania, on the left-hand as you journey towards the Urbana Colonia of Sylla, which was lately a township of the city of Capua. As to the Faustian vineyards, they extend about four miles from a village near Cædicix,11 the same village being six miles from Sinuessa. There is now no wine known that ranks higher than the Falernian; it is the only one, too, among all the wines that takes fire on the application of flame.12 There are three varieties of it--the rough, the sweet, and the thin. Some persons make the following distinctions: the Caucinum, they say, grows on the summit of this range of hills, the Faustianum on the middle slopes, and the Falernum at the foot: the fact, too, should not be omitted, that none of the grapes that produce these more famous wines have by any means an agreeable flavour.

To the third13 rank belonged the various wines of Alba, in the vicinity of the City, remarkable for their sweetness, and some- [p. 3241] times, though rarely, rough14 as well: the Surrentine15 wines, also, the growth of only stayed vines, which are especially recommended to invalids for their thinness and their wholesomeness. Tiberius Cæsar used to say that the physicians had conspired thus to dignify the Surrentinum, which was, in fact, only another name for generous vinegar; while Caius Cæsar, who succeeded him, gave it the name of "noble vappa."16 Vying in reputation with these are the Massic wines, from the spots which look from Mount Gaurus towards Puteoli and Baiæ.17 As to the wines of Stata, in the vicinity of Falernum, there is no doubt that they formerly held the very highest rank, a fact which proves very clearly that every district has its own peculiar epochs, just as all other things have their rise and their decadence. The Calenian18 wines, too, from the same neighbourhood, used to be preferred to those last mentioned, as also the Fundanian,19 the produce of vines grown on stays, or else attached to shrubs. The wines, too, of Veliternum20 and Priverna,21 which were grown in the vicinity of the City, used to be highly esteemed. As to that produced at Signia,22 it is by far too rough to be used as a wine, but is very useful as an astringent, and is consequently reckoned among the medicines for that purpose.

The fourth rank, at the public banquets, was given by the late Emperor Julius-he was the first, in fact, that brought [p. 3242] them into favour, as we find stated in his Letters23 --to the Mamertine wines, the produce of the country in the vicinity of Messana,24 in Sicily. The finest of these was the Potulanum,25 so called from its original cultivator, and grown on the spots that lie nearest to the mainland of Italy. The Tauromenitanum also, a wine of Sicily, enjoys a high repute, and fiaggons26 of it are occasionally passed off for Mamertinum.

Among the other wines, we find mentioned upon the Upper Sea those of Prætutia and Ancona, as also those known as the "Palmensia,"27 not improbably because the cluster springs from a single shoot.28 In the interior we find the wines of Cæsena29 and that known as the Mæcenatian,30 while in the territory of Verona there are the Rhætian wines, only inferior, in the estimation of Virgil, to the Falernian.31 Then, too, at the bottom of the Gulf32 we find the wines of Adria.33 On the shores of the Lower Sea there are the Latiniensian34 wines, the Graviscan,35 and the Statonian:36 in Etruria, the wines of Luna bear away the palm, and those of Genua37 in Liguria. Massilia, which lies between the Pyrenees and the Alps, produces two varieties of wine, one of which is richer and thicker than the other, and is used for seasoning other wines, being generally known as "succosum."38 The repu- [p. 3243] tation of the wine of Beterræ39 does not extend beyond the Gallic territories;40 and as for the others that are produced in Gallia Narbonensis, nothing can be positively stated, for the growers of that country have absolutely established manufactories for the purposes of adulteration, where they give a dark hue to their wines by the agency of smoke; I only wish I could say, too, that they do not employ various herbs and noxious drugs for the same purpose;41 indeed, these dealers are even known to use aloes for the purpose of heightening the flavour and improving the colour of their wines.

The regions of Italy that are at a greater distance from the Ausonian Sea, are not without their wines of note, such as those of Tarentum,42 Servitia,43 and Consentia,44 and those, again, of Tempsa, Babia, and Lucania, among which the wines of Thurii hold the pre-eminence. But the most celebrated of all of them, owing to the fact that Messala45 used to drink it, and was indebted to it for his excellent health, was the wine of Lagara,46 which was grown not far from Grumentum.47 In Campania, more recently, new growths under new names have gained considerable credit, either owing to careful cultivation, or else to some other fortuitous circumstances: thus, for instance, we find four miles from Neapolis the Trebellian,48 near [p. 3244] Capua the Cauline,49 wine, and the wine of Trebula50 grown in the territory so called, though but of a common sort: Campania boasts of all these, as well as of her Trifoline51 wines. As to the wines of Pompeii,52 they have arrived at their full perfection in ten years, after which they gain nothing by age: they are found also to be productive of headache, which often lasts so long as the sixth hour53 of the next day.

These illustrations, if I am not greatly mistaken, will go far to prove that it is the land and the soil that is of primary importance, and not the grape, and that it is quite superfluous to attempt to enumerate all the varieties of every kind, seeing that the same vine, transplanted to several places, is productive of features and characteristics of quite opposite natures. The vineyards of Laletanum54 in Spain55 are remarkable for the abundance of wine they produce, while those of Tarraco56 and of Lauron57 are esteemed for the choice qualities of their wines: those, too, of the Balearic Isles58 are often put in comparison with the very choicest growths of Italy.

I am by no means unaware that most of my readers will be of opinion that I have omitted a vast number of wines, seeing that every one has his own peculiar choice; so much so, that wherever we go, we hear the same story told, to the effect that one of the freedmen of the late Emperor Augustus, who was remarkable for his judgment and his refined taste in wines, while employed in tasting for his master's table, made this observation to the master of the house where the emperor was staying, in reference to some wine the growth of that particular country: "The taste of this wine," said he, "is [p. 3245] new to me, and it is by no means of first-rate quality; the emperor, however, you will see, will drink of no other."59 Indeed I have no wish to deny that there may be other wines deserving of a very high reputation, but those which I have already enumerated are the varieties upon the excellence of which the world is at present agreed.

I am still looking through that book, but I have found no mention, whatsoever, that non-alcoholic wine was considered superior by Pliny the Elder or anyone else in ancient Rome.

ETA:

OK, here's the closest thing I can find so far that can be warped into a plea for boiling off alcohol from wine, but only if the person making the argument never read Pliny or takes an extremely "expansive" view of interpretation:

Raisins of the sun have the name of "passi," from having been submitted19 to the influence of the sun. It is not uncommon to preserve grapes in must, and so make them drunk with their own juices; while there are some that are all the sweeter for being placed in must after it has been boiled; others, again, are left to hang on the parent tree till a new crop has made its appearance, by which time they have become as clear and as transparent20 as glass. Astringent pitch, if poured upon the footstalk of the grape, will impart to it all that body and that firmness which, when placed in dolia or amphoræ, it gives to wine. More recently, too, there has been discovered a vine which produces a fruit that imparts to its wine a strong flavour of pitch: it is the famous grape that confers such celebrity on the territory of Vienne,21 and of which several varieties have recently enriched the territories of the Arverni, the Sequani, and the Helvii:22 it was unknown in the time of the poet Virgil, who has now been dead these ninety years.23

I say "expansive view" since this discussion doesn't concern wine yet. He is discussing grapes and how to maintain them through the winter.

And here, the only discussion I have found of a wine not causing intoxication -- no mention of it as the finest of wines, though:

The "albuelis"23 produces most of its fruit at the top of the tree, the visula at the bottom; hence, when planted around the same tree, in consequence of these peculiarities in their nature, they bear between them a two-fold crop. One of the black grape vines has been called the "inerticula,"24 though it might with more propriety have been styled the "sobria;"25 the wine from it is remarkably good, and more particularly when old; but though strong, it is productive of no ill effects, and, indeed, is the only wine that will not cause intoxication.

Interestingly, he calls it remarkably good wine, but only when it is old, not fresh wine (as was previously argued in another context).

joobz

26th October 2008, 01:18 PM

So Jesus turned wine into grape juice? No wonder they crucified him.
Nominated!

Silentknight

26th October 2008, 04:51 PM

Come on Radrook, I very much doubt that you have me on ignore. I'd love to see the "proof" that Jesus made non-alcoholic wine for the wedding.

You know, it's like the non-murderous slaughter of Egyptian children.

Safe-Keeper

26th October 2008, 05:26 PM

You know, it's like the non-murderous slaughter of Egyptian children.I'd nominate this if I did pith nominations:).

Macoy

26th October 2008, 06:09 PM

Only if we reject all the proof which shows that the wine was very likely non-alocolic. Also, anything can be seen in any way that one wishes to imagine it. There really isn't any limit on how things can be seen. The real question or issue is are we justified in seeing things as we choose to see them.

First, I do not accept that there has been any proof revealed on this thread of the non-nonalcoholic condition of the miracle wine. Secondly, "anything can be seen in any way that one wishes to imagine it" can be very easily applied to the act of enjoying a segue of Sarah Palin clips on YouTube.

In a court of law one has to be proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt before a sentence is passed. The articles I presented provide many reasonable doubts to your accusation-an accusation you insist is applicable despite the reasonable doubts.

About the taxes payable and avoided, I have no idea what you are referring to. When asked whether one should pay taxes, Jesus told the questioner that they should pay what was Caesar's to Caesar. In short, he did not encourage tax evasion. So it is highly unlikely that he would later turn around and encourage it.

But I suspect that this matter of tax evasion has to do with the miraculous production of the wine itself? If so, the question is whether the product was indeed taxable in view of its source and whether if it was where is the proof that no tax was ever paid.

I'm sure that once the Roman fiscal authorities were informed that the 150 gallons of top quality wine were produced miraculously from washing-up water, then all their concerns were put to rest.

If you know Satan's side and feel that it has merit, then why not put it forth so we can discuss it.

I do not know satan's side, only someone else's view of it. Might be god's view, but it's still at least third hand, isn't it? Same as my knowledge of god's side, really. Is there a book of satan, apart from the bible?

The explaining away of anything which threatens the popular world view.

I regret that the popular world view is not necessarily mine.

I meant the original created condition. Especially in relation to the earth and mankind.

Static, then?

Radrook

28th October 2008, 11:51 PM

First, I do not accept that there has been any proof revealed on this thread of the non-nonalcoholic condition of the miracle wine.

Of course you don't.

Secondly, "anything can be seen in any way that one wishes to imagine it" can be very easily applied to the act of enjoying a segue of Sarah Palin clips on YouTube.

Yep!

I'm sure that once the Roman fiscal authorities were informed that the 150 gallons of top quality wine were produced miraculously from washing-up water, then all their concerns were put to rest.

There is nothing to indicate that the authorities complained. There were other complaints registered against Jesus. But not the one you want to imagine.

I do not know satan's side, only someone else's view of it. Might be god's view, but it's still at least third hand, isn't it? Same as my knowledge of god's side, really. Is there a book of satan, apart from the bible?

Well, there's a Satanist Bible you might want to consult in attempting to a defense. But you might consider that second-hand view as well since people wrote it. Actually, I heard it just goes about contradicting the biblical moral principles agains murder, adultery, theft,
dishonesty, and so forth.

I regret that the popular world view is not necessarily mine.

Why regret it?

Static, then?

Not at all. What gives you that idea?

uruk

29th October 2008, 10:59 AM

Wow. I'm interested in where the evidence is for the wine being non-alcholic.
Care to show me Radrook?

edge

29th October 2008, 12:00 PM

Wow. I'm interested in where the evidence is for the wine being non-alcholic.
Care to show me Radrook?

Never knew there where so many smart/dumb people in the world! :)

It's in the processing of the juice....

You go Rad you Go!

Hey Plumjam!

Foster Zygote

29th October 2008, 01:17 PM

Wow. I'm interested in where the evidence is for the wine being non-alcholic.
Care to show me Radrook?

This reminds me of another claim I've encountered. A friend's sister was a member of a Christian denomination that insisted that Jesus had short hair, was clean shaved, and wore trousers.

Silentknight

29th October 2008, 02:05 PM

There is in fact one Biblical passage that refers specifically to non-alcoholic wine. From Revelation(s) 14:19-20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2014:19-20;&version=31;). :D

19The angel swung his sickle on the earth, gathered its grapes and threw them into the great winepress of God's wrath. 20They were trampled in the winepress outside the city, and blood flowed out of the press, rising as high as the horses' bridles for a distance of 1,600 stadia.

See? No alcohol in that kind of wine. Though it is a little lumpy and metallic tasting...

Darth Rotor

30th October 2008, 07:41 AM

So Jesus turned wine into grape juice? No wonder they crucified him.
Alcohol abuse as a capital crime?

Bloody pagans, those Romans.
(Then again, maybe they were proto-Muslims, or proto-Puritans? Didn't John Calvin write some of his arguments in Latin? JAQ, of course. :) )

Darth Rotor

30th October 2008, 07:46 AM

No. You are wrong. Language is important. It is the only way we can communicate with each other with any precision at all. If you are careless about your use of language, it indicates that you don't much care about your message or how well you communicate it. Look at the KJV - a triumph of poetry; that is, of language. Those translators loved their message and their work, and it shows.

Additionally, in your philosophy, language is a tool given to you by your creator. Don't you think it is disrespectful of you to use it carelessly?

Nommed. The Language award is about language. What you wrote there has applicability throughout the internet, the media, in political discourse, and in education. (More generic with the last paragraph omitted of course, but I actually find that last paragraph key. Let's look at St Augustine: he used language expertly, and in service of the philosophy he preferred. )

DR

Elizabeth I

31st October 2008, 09:00 AM

Nommed. The Language award is about language. What you wrote there has applicability throughout the internet, the media, in political discourse, and in education. (More generic with the last paragraph omitted of course, but I actually find that last paragraph key. Let's look at St Augustine: he used language expertly, and in service of the philosophy he preferred. )

DR

Why, thank you, sir. :o

Macoy

31st October 2008, 05:30 PM

Of course you don't.

What I meant to type was "non-alcoholic". Would you have given the same answer?

There is nothing to indicate that the authorities complained. There were other complaints registered against Jesus. But not the one you want to imagine.

Perhaps this was the event that initially brought him to their attention?

Well, there's a Satanist Bible you might want to consult in attempting to a defense. But you might consider that second-hand view as well since people wrote it. Actually, I heard it just goes about contradicting the biblical moral principles agains murder, adultery, theft,
dishonesty, and so forth.

What book is that?
Have you any excerpts from it that you would consider rational?

Why regret it?

You seemed to be suggesting that using a popular world view could be a viable defense.

Not at all. What gives you that idea?

Well, you will not actually state as to whether you really believe the wine was alcoholic or not.

Safe-Keeper

31st October 2008, 06:31 PM

Actually, I heard it just goes about contradicting the biblical moral principles agains murder, adultery, theft, dishonesty, and so forth.That's... not the Satanic Bible. That's the Old Testament. You really should read it some day.

The irony slays me.

Radrook

31st October 2008, 09:15 PM

What I meant to type was "nonalcoholic." Would you have given the same answer?

Yes, because I understood your original answer as "nonalcoholic". It's only now that I review it that I see the extra "non."

Perhaps this was the event that initially brought him to their attention?

Actually, what brought Jesus to the Roman's negative attention was the accusation that he was making himself a king in opposition to Caesar. Prior to that there s no record that Pilate took interest in him.

Luke 23:2
And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King

There is mention of Herod but his concern was that Jesus might be John the Baptist in disguise. Something that should have been considered ridiculous since it was John the Baptist who had identified Jesus as the Messiah and Jesus himself had visited John the Baptist in prison prior to his execution by Herod himself.

Mark 6:14
And king Herod heard of him; (for his name was spread abroad:) and he said, That John the Baptist was risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him...

16
But when Herod heard thereof, he said, It is John, whom I beheaded: he is risen from the dead.

What book is that?
Have you any excerpts from it that you would consider rational?

They call it the Satanic Bible. I haven't delved into it because the little I've heard of it comes across as irrational to me.

Additionally, Satan's argument is found within the pages of the Bible itself. It's made known to us by his word in Genesis, and the book of Job.

Genesis 3
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Job 1

9Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?

10Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.

11But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.

Jesus tagged all his statements as lies. Tagged him as a murderer because he knew that death would be a result of following the advice he gave yet he gave it anyway.

John 8:44
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

You seemed to be suggesting that using a popular world view could be a viable defense.

That would be fallacious reasoning.

Well, you will not actually state as to whether you really believe the wine was alcoholic or not.

If indeed the wine being alcoholic would have caused any physical or psychological harm to anyone present then the wine was not alcoholic.

Luke 17
1Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!

2It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones

Romans 14:21
It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

Safe-Keeper

1st November 2008, 09:44 AM

They call it the Satanic Bible. I haven't delved into it because the little I've heard of it comes across as irrational to me.Now, there's an open-minded worldview.

Radrook

1st November 2008, 10:12 AM

Never knew there where so many smart/dumb people in the world! :)

It's in the processing of the juice....

You go Rad you Go!

Hey Plumjam!

Hi Edge.

Glad to have you back on the forum.

I provided a link a while back on this thread that goes into detailed specifics bout the alcohol nonalcoholic issue. The problem is that we are speaking from two entirely different premises. On the one hand we have [people who consider Jesus just another man capable of irresponsibly harming those present at that wedding. On the other we have Christians who consider him the Son of God and who study his teachings meticulously and see clearly that such an action was completely contrary to his teachings. So obviously we will differ. What I find inappropriate in the proposed arguments is that those who are proposing them proceed without taking into account Jesus' teachings.

Would they do the same in reference to Buddha. Aristotle, Socrates, or any other historical person? If they did then they could be accused of poor scholarship since they would be attributing behavior to the person completely out of character. It also smacks of inconsistency since they constantly use the term "highly unlikely" when striving to find faults in the Bible but cease to apply the "highly-unlikely" reasoning when it proves inconvenient. That in itself reduces the convincing power of their arguments considerablysince it smacks of biased mentality. A fair consistent policy does wonders for credibility. But that seems beyond the capability of most the godless anti-biblicists I have met on this forum.

Ichneumonwasp

1st November 2008, 10:59 AM

Hi Edge.

Glad to have you back on the forum.

I provided a link a while back on this thread that goes into detailed specifics bout the alcohol nonalcoholic issue. The problem is that we are speaking from two entirely different premises. On the one hand we have [people who consider Jesus just another man capable of irresponsibly harming those present at that wedding. On the other we have Christians who consider him the Son of God and who study his teachings meticulously and see clearly that such an action was completely contrary to his teachings. So obviously we will differ. What I find inappropriate in the proposed arguments is that those who are proposing them proceed without taking into account Jesus' teachings.

Would they do the same in reference to Buddha. Aristotle, Socrates, or any other historical person? If they did then they could be accused of poor scholarship since they would be attributing behavior to the person completely out of character. It also smacks of inconsistency since they constantly use the term "highly unlikely" when striving to find faults in the Bible but cease to apply the "highly-unlikely" reasoning when it proves inconvenient. That in itself reduces the convincing power of their arguments considerablysince it smacks of biased mentality. A fair consistent policy does wonders for credibility. But that seems beyond the capability of most the godless anti-biblicists I have met on this forum.

That's not the issue at all. The issue is that your link that was supposed to show that the Romans considered non-alcoholic wine superior was bogus. It referred to a work that does not say that. In essence, the link you provided cited a source that I assume they thought trustworthy. That original source lied about what Pliny said about wine.

Safe-Keeper

1st November 2008, 11:02 AM

Oh, and Radrook? How comes you attack people here who have read the Bible of being unable to judge it because they're 'Biblically illiterate'... for then to just disregard the Satanic Bible, etc. without even touching them?

Surely if we are 'Biblically illiterate' then every one in here, including you, is also Satanic Biblically Illiterate?

Lonewulf

1st November 2008, 11:09 AM

Safe-Keeper

1st November 2008, 12:04 PM

Glad to see his dishonest thinking has been pointed out. Since when's that stopped him? We pointed out how the forged fossils aren't used as evidence, and yet he still brings them up.

The problem is that we are speaking from two entirely different premises. On the one hand we have [people who consider Jesus just another man capable of irresponsibly harming those present at that wedding. On the other we have Christians who consider him the Son of God and who study his teachings meticulously and see clearly that such an action was completely contrary to his teachings. So obviously we will differ. What I find inappropriate in the proposed arguments is that those who are proposing them proceed without taking into account Jesus' teachings.

Would they do the same in reference to Buddha. Aristotle, Socrates, or any other historical person? If they did then they could be accused of poor scholarship since they would be attributing behavior to the person completely out of character. It also smacks of inconsistency since they constantly use the term "highly unlikely" when striving to find faults in the Bible but cease to apply the "highly-unlikely" reasoning when it proves inconvenient.That's not even approaching logic. You not only presuppose that a given person is perfect, you also turn down any and all evidence to the contrary solely on the grounds that it'd go against your presupposition. Do you apply your fallacious reasoning on people, Radrook?

And yes, I would apply the same reasoning to Buddha, Martin Luther King Jr or Mazu: I look at the facts, and if I find that, for example, MLK said something racist, I accept it as a fact if the evidence supports it.

blobru

1st November 2008, 01:09 PM

So Jesus turned wine into grape juice? No wonder they crucified him.

Also explains biblical antisemitism (the juice killed Christ).

:boxedin:sorry

zooterkin

1st November 2008, 02:33 PM

This reminds me of another claim I've encountered. A friend's sister was a member of a Christian denomination that insisted that Jesus had short hair, was clean shaved, and wore trousers.
Why would an English gentleman dress any other way?

Radrook

2nd November 2008, 04:24 AM

Didn't Radrook bring up the Satanic Bible as a point that "there was no other side to things", and criticized us, saying that we can't read it?

This is all so hilarious.

Glad to see his dishonest thinking has been pointed out. As far as I'm done, this fish has been gutted.

I brought it up as an answer to a question. I gave a general idea of what it contained as part of the same response to the same question. The part about there not being any other side to things and prohibiting anyone from reading it is entirely yours. I really don't see what benefit there is to these strawman arguments since anyone reading what I wrote can readily see through your deception. Care to explain why you make these things up?

Radrook

2nd November 2008, 04:34 AM

If my claim, whatever it is this fellow says I'm claiming, reminds him of that ridiculous Jesus scenario then that only shows just how confused people can become when they encounter basic biblical information. Their own personal interpretations are so far off-center that the true meaning appears alien or hideously garbled.

Foster Zygote

2nd November 2008, 07:34 AM

Macoy

3rd November 2008, 10:00 AM

Actually, what brought Jesus to the Roman's negative attention was the accusation that he was making himself a king in opposition to Caesar. Prior to that there s no record that Pilate took interest in him.

And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King

About the taxes payable and avoided, I have no idea what you are referring to. When asked whether one should pay taxes, Jesus told the questioner that they should pay what was Caesar's to Caesar. In short, he did not encourage tax evasion. So it is highly unlikely that he would later turn around and encourage it.

Wouldn't there seem to be a bit of a contradiction here?

There is mention of Herod but his concern was that Jesus might be John the Baptist in disguise. Something that should have been considered ridiculous since it was John the Baptist who had identified Jesus as the Messiah and Jesus himself had visited John the Baptist in prison prior to his execution by Herod himself.

Obviously, Herod did not believe in nonalcoholic wine.

That would be fallacious reasoning.

On whose part?

If indeed the wine being alcoholic would have caused any physical or psychological harm to anyone present then the wine was not alcoholic.

Why would anyone want 150 gallons of it?

It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

Are we to assume that the wine at the last supper was nonalcoholic? If so, did jesus create it? Did he create the whole meal?

Safe-Keeper

3rd November 2008, 12:11 PM

Radrook's quote, taken in context:

1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11It is written:
" 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord,
'every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will confess to God.' "[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=14&version=31#fen-NIV-28277a)] 12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=14&version=31#fen-NIV-28280b)] is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall. 22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.Is this a matter of Radrook taking yet another quote out of context? Surely not!