Yahzi
25th August 2003, 01:26 PM
The author is defending the Bible as inerrant, and Exodus 20:4 as not outlawing photograhy.
My reply is, "What part of the definition of 'image' does Ebon not understand?" As I quite clearly stated (and explored in detail in The Mormon Defenders), "an 'image' in ancient thought is not merely something that has an appearance, like a statue or a picture, but something that serves as a focal point for the presence and power of a deity."
http://www.tektonics.org/ebon01.html
What part of "image" indeed! The Bible says "image," and the author translates it as "idol" because that's what he wants it to say.
One has to ask: what was the word in ancient thought for a mere image, a simple appearence? Or is our author asserting that Plato et. al. did not have the concept of a simple image?
Is he merely reinterpreting the word, or is he reinterpreting the entire history of philosophical thought?
Why is it people insist on making word taffy? Isn't the regular kind chewy enough?
My reply is, "What part of the definition of 'image' does Ebon not understand?" As I quite clearly stated (and explored in detail in The Mormon Defenders), "an 'image' in ancient thought is not merely something that has an appearance, like a statue or a picture, but something that serves as a focal point for the presence and power of a deity."
http://www.tektonics.org/ebon01.html
What part of "image" indeed! The Bible says "image," and the author translates it as "idol" because that's what he wants it to say.
One has to ask: what was the word in ancient thought for a mere image, a simple appearence? Or is our author asserting that Plato et. al. did not have the concept of a simple image?
Is he merely reinterpreting the word, or is he reinterpreting the entire history of philosophical thought?
Why is it people insist on making word taffy? Isn't the regular kind chewy enough?