|
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
 Posted - 02/24/2004 : 20:25:53 [Permalink]
|
Good points, good points.
Just thought I'd bring it up to see what the general concensus around here is on the verse.
quote:
(Myself)
....could mean nothing though.
Btw...
The book of Isaiah was written sometime between 731 and 639 BC. |
 |
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2004 : 21:48:23 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
What constitutes a miraculous healing? The Bible doesn't give an exact definition of miracle, it just calls certain events miracles. A miraculous healing could be where the patient was dying, then he was miraculously healed and he started to get better. I believe that for this discussion, we should define a miraculous healing as a visible healing of an obvious sickness or injury; such as instantaneous healing broken bones(just for one example). I know that pilgrim's testimony doesn't prove the existence of miracles, but it is sufficient evidence for me to believe that miracles are possible, and more than not impossible. Now, I don't think that the possibility of miracles neccessarily means that we live in a world of chaos. I have also seen enough throughout my life to believe that the universe has rules by which it exists. Please try to understand my position: I personally know a man that says he has seen physical impossibilities, and I have seen matter exist by rules throughout my entire life. Therefore, I propose that it is a viable possibility that the world around us exists in an objective form, but that planned
momentary changes to the rules of this world also occur. I do not yet claim that Jesus is responsible for these planned momentary changes.
If I were to find that a portion of the Bible was untrue, than I would have to do research to see if that portion of the Bible should be considered part of the Bible. Things I would take into account include: what texts was it found together with? Is it quoted in other sections of Scripture? Do other sections of Scripture agree with it? Now then, it would obviously be a long and tedious task to list all the passages in the Bible which I think are figurative; in the first place, I'd have to go through the Bible and make a list. It could take years. I assure you that I try to be as fair as I can, but if it's really important to you, you can ask me whether I think a particular passage is literal or figurative, and then ask me a question about it. But, I do have rules for determining whether or not I'm going to take a passage is literal or figurative. And as to the specifics, I'd be more than pleased to discuss any Scripture, as to whether it is historically or scientifically correct, but we're already discussing the 6,000 year question, in a round about way. If you wanted to tackle one of those other questions you mentioned, I might be able to answer them quicker.
My family and I believe that Christians will go through the tribulations that occur before Jesus' second coming. Therefore, we believe that we should move into the countryside so that we'll be out of the way when the fireworks start. I'll still be able to access the Web, just not as often. And if I wasn't a Christian I might be a sociopath, I don't really know. I've always been a Christian, so I can't really know what I would be if I wasn't a Christian.
You asked 'If God wasn't setting the rules what would be wrong about eating pigs...', etc.; that's kind of my point: If there is no God looking over my shoulder than what incentive do I have to do anything that doesn't benefit me or not do something that does benefit me? But anyway, that's veering of the subject. I believe that Sabbath is sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.
About prophecy: prophecy can either be interpreted literally or figuratively, if you see another way, let me know. Prophecy is often told in figurative terms, and when it's told in literal terms it's usually very obvious that it is literal. Daniel 8 is a good comparison of figurative prophecy and literal prophecy. Now, if Rev. 16:8-10 is meant to be literal, then it is obviously not talking about an EMP. If the passage is meant to be figurative, then it could mean a multitude of things, but there are some limits to what it could mean. I don't try to say that such-and-such a prophecy means this or that, and that wasn't my intention with Rev 16:8-10. I don't know if the passage is meant to be literal or figurative, and unless the prophecy is in clear terms, as shown in the latter part of Daniel 8, I can't say for sure what any prophecy is intended to mean.
jmcginn: You bring up some good points: how does one know that other creation stories weren't intended to be figurative? How do we know that the Bible's creation story wasn't supposed to be figurative? For the latter question, I believe that the Biblical creation story was intended to be literal because it was never mentioned as being figurative and it is alluded to several times in other passages throughout the Bible. Now, are other creation stories figurative? To answer that, we would have to know whether any of the other myths were ever intended to be literal at all. This question would probably be best put to someone with a degree in Mythology and who knew a lot about archeological findings. While I currently know neither, I do have a lot of books about ancient documents that were dug up, and I can research over the internet. I think that this particular line of questions should be stalled until we can do some more research on other mythologies. And yes, what I was saying earlier is that, to my knowledge, the Bible does not claim a flat earth and is therefore not incorrect on the subject.
Be back later,
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2004 : 22:11:21 [Permalink]
|
ivanisavich, a read-between-the-lines interpretation of your post about that Isaiah verse might lead one to think that you were asking if such knowledge indicates that God must have been involved with either inspiring or directing the author. I'm well aware that you didn't say or ask about that, but allow me to answer as if some hypothetical forum poster had.
One problem which I've already mentioned with such Biblical "revelations" (well, call them what you will), is that when posing relatively simple questions (like "what shape is the world?"), they require us to consider ancient people to be dullards. I believe, though I'd have to look 'em up (no time right now), that creation stories older than the Bible "theorize" that the world is a big disc, so circularity could hardly be considered "revealed knowledge."
Secondly is the amount of interpretation required to get from a fairly simple Biblical verse to some scientific factoid. Not only are there translation issues, brought up by others already, and the fact that the Bible has been edited since first written, but to get from "the circle of the earth" to "the earth is spherical" takes a leap of interpretation that is missing from a literal read. The language is rather ambiguous in that fashion.
Thirdly, so far as I know, there exist no truly "difficult" revealed facts, but only knowledge that the ancients could have had in the first place (assuming they were as intelligent as people today). There is no verse which unambiguously states (in different words, of course), "if you point a telescope at such-and-such a location in the sky on this date, you will see a planet (Pluto, for example) which can't be seen by the naked eye." Likewise, there are no clear descriptions of internal-combustion engines, nor Relativity, nor atomic structure, nor something so "simple" as the flushable toilet.
Finally, if it is true that proof denies faith, and without faith God is nothing, then attempts to prove that God exists, either through revealed knowledge or fulfilled prophecy in the Bible, are actually self-destructive. Proving that God exists would be His undoing, as written up in a delightful way by Douglas Adams, near the beginning of the book version of A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. 
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2004 : 08:42:17 [Permalink]
|
hippy4christ,
I will only reply to one point of your post as we will have to wait til other information is found on other mythologies (although I think that might not be a very fruitful search - see below) (emphasis mine)
quote:
How do we know that the Bible's creation story wasn't supposed to be figurative? For the latter question, I believe that the Biblical creation story was intended to be literal because it was never mentioned as being figurative and it is alluded to several times in other passages throughout the Bible.
Earlier you stated that you believed the verses about the pillars of the Earth and the Earth being fixed and unmoving to be figurative and metaphorical or poetic as I believe you said. Now no where does it say that these verses are supposed to be figurative and they are mentioned at least twice in the Bible.
1 Samuel 2:8
Job 9:6
In fact I think it would be hard to find any place in the Bible where it explicitly says this is literal or this is poetic. All such interpretations are left to us to decide. This is natural of all myths, as poetic language was used to explain the nature of their myth and to explain things unknown to the myth makers.
Also if the Genesis creation is literal then how do you interpret troubling verses such as Gen 1:16 Now we know that the moon is not a source of light nor a light itself but simply reflects the light of the sun, thus there is only one light source in the sky and the other is simply a reflector. Obviously this can be fixed by not interpreting it literally however.
So again you seem to be selectively picking what should be literal and what should not and it appears the only reasoning behind this, is that the selections agree with your world view.
Again we can look at other myths, but I think we will find the same circumstances there. We will find mythical stories written in poetic language with no indication of where literal vs. poetic interpretations should end nor begin. Thus if one were to have a certain world view, say believing in Ra, they could easily explain away difficult parts of the myth that do not agree with modern knowledge as metaphoric or poetic. Just as you are selectively doing now. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2004 : 11:33:28 [Permalink]
|
Hippy wrote:quote:
And if I wasn't a Christian I might be a sociopath, I don't really know. I've always been a Christian, so I can't really know what I would be if I wasn't a Christian.
Actually, it's not so simple. There are, undoubtedly, Christian sociopaths somewhere in the world.quote:
You asked 'If God wasn't setting the rules what would be wrong about eating pigs...', etc.; that's kind of my point: If there is no God looking over my shoulder than what incentive do I have to do anything that doesn't benefit me or not do something that does benefit me?
How about the rules of society? It's mostly a matter of being able to feel empathy for other human beings. "Would I enjoy it if someone did this to me?" If the answer is "no," you tend to avoid that behaviour.
And then there's the matter of effort. Is going to prison more or less effort than following society's laws? Heck, since I don't believe in an afterlife, one of my goals is to waste as little time doing things I'm forced to do, in favor of doing things I want to do. Going to prison would waste a lot of my time, so I do what I need to do to remain free. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2004 : 12:27:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Hippy wrote:quote:
And if I wasn't a Christian I might be a sociopath, I don't really know. I've always been a Christian, so I can't really know what I would be if I wasn't a Christian.
Actually, it's not so simple. There are, undoubtedly, Christian sociopaths somewhere in the world.
David Koresh, Jim Jones, and the leader of Heaven's Gate spring to mind as examples of Christian sociopaths. Hippy, Sociopathy is completely independant of religious affiliation (or lack thereof). |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2004 : 12:51:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You asked 'If God wasn't setting the rules what would be wrong about eating pigs...', etc.; that's kind of my point: If there is no God looking over my shoulder than what incentive do I have to do anything that doesn't benefit me or not do something that does benefit me?
Other than social rules and punishment how about the notion of empathy for others? Having lived through poverty I understand some of its hardships thus it makes me more empathetic of those who do suffer. Its called compassion and empathy. Plus logically I know a healthy society benefits me as well. Less crime, less government support (read my taxes spent), etc.
Thus there are factors I use to derive most decisions on this nature:
Reason
Logic
Compassion
Kind of like TLC, but instead RLC |
| Edited by - jmcginn on 02/25/2004 12:52:16 |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2004 : 19:50:15 [Permalink]
|
Dave: I only have a short time, I have with me an article from the Anchorage Daily News, dated 12-11-03. It is entitled "Team tries to crack ice ball mystery before heads cracked". Some excerpts-
BARCELONA, Spain - A Spanish-American scientific team is monitoring ice events in the United States this winter following research on a baffling phenomenon that was first detected here.
They're not watching for ordinary ice storms or slick roads, but incidents involoving 'megacryometeors," great balls of ice that fall out of the clear blue sky - possibly be ause of global warming. ...
... said Jesus Martinez-Frias of the Center for Astrobiology in Madrid. "I'm worried that great blocks of ice are forming where they shouldn't exist." ...
... Most of these ice balls weigh 25 to 35 ounds, but one whopper found in Brazil tipped the scales at 440 pounds. ...
... Frias pioneered research on megacryometeors in January 2000, after ice chunks weighing up to 6.6 pounds rained on Spapin out of cloudless skies for 10 days. ...
... Researchers had samples from the 2000 incidents to analyze, thanks to quick-thinking eyewitnesses who kept the material cold.
Martinez-Frias' team quickly ruled out obvious explanations.
The ice balls, for instance, were not frozen water from toilets flushed on jetliners. The ice contained no human waste and none of the blue disinfectrant used in airplane toilets.
Air-traffic-control records showed that no planes overflew the areas near the ice falls, so the ice was not shed from aircraft wings or fuselages.
Chunks of debris from a comet? Comets, after all, are composed partly of extraterrestrial ice. But lab tests showed that ice in megacryometeors had the distinctive chemical signature of ice in ordinary terrestrial hailstones.
When sawed in half, they also showed the physical profile of hailstones.
"These occurances are not the result of hoaxers, either," Travis said. "There are too many similarities in the atmospheric conditions associated (with) their occurrences that loaxers would have no knowledge or interest in."
That leaves monster hailstones forming in a cloudless sky, a notion that defies more than a century of research on hail formation.
"Scientists are naturally reluctant to say something never can happen," noted Charles Knight, a hail expert at the University Corp. for Atmospheric Research, a university consortium in Boulder, Colo. "But oh, dear. I would be tempted to say 'never' on this."
Knight said he has reviewed scientific papers published on megacryometeors and thinks the explanation, which involves unusual atmospheric conditions possibly linked to global warming, is wrong.
(End of Article)
Now then, this is not fullfillment of prophecy, it is a phenomenon which has no scientific explanation. I know that it hasn't been properly studied yet, but there are already indications that there may be no solution. I am not yet saying that this is an 'omen' or anything like that. I'm saying let's keep an eye on it, and if they don't come up with a solution, make sure they don't sweep it under the rug.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
| Edited by - hippy4christ on 02/25/2004 19:51:53 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2004 : 23:43:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Now then, this is not fullfillment of prophecy, it is a phenomenon which has no scientific explanation.
...yet.
quote:
I know that it hasn't been properly studied yet, but there are already indications that there may be no solution.
Of course there will eventually be a solution. It's just a matter of how much effort being put into the research. And funding. Presently, there is not much economic gain in finding an explanation to the phenomenon, so funds will be redirected to something more important, like global warming, or how to make diet coke taste better.
quote:
I am not yet saying that this is an 'omen' or anything like that.
But I can guess you really hope it to be one. I'm not really that far off, am I?
I don't know how many times religious people have proclaimed that the end of the world is coming... It's just their way to ensnare gullible people, by scaring them, then offer protection and relief.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2004 : 05:58:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Now then, this is not fullfillment of prophecy, it is a phenomenon which has no scientific explanation. I know that it hasn't been properly studied yet, but there are already indications that there may be no solution. I am not yet saying that this is an 'omen' or anything like that. I'm saying let's keep an eye on it, and if they don't come up with a solution, make sure they don't sweep it under the rug.
Hippy
Kind of reminds me of Michael Behe and his irreducible complexity argument. In my opinion, and others, Behe has put his faith ahead of doing good science. Instead of trying to find the answers to the tough question/issues he raises, he just throws up his hands and proclaims "god did it". Or he could be just lazy. Once you settle for a "god did it" answer you are no longer pursuing good science. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2004 : 07:32:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
ivanisavich, a read-between-the-lines interpretation of your post about that Isaiah verse might lead one to think that you were asking if such knowledge indicates that God must have been involved with either inspiring or directing the author.
No actually, I don't think that that verse was written because God inspired Isaiah to tell the world the earth is round. That's just silly.
I just thought it was interesting. Nothing more, nothing less. And in the end I got my explanation. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2004 : 09:25:49 [Permalink]
|
ivanisavich wrote:quote:
No actually, I don't think that that verse was written because God inspired Isaiah to tell the world the earth is round. That's just silly.
Hence the reason for the sentence I wrote after the one you quoted:quote:
I'm well aware that you didn't say or ask about that, but allow me to answer as if some hypothetical forum poster had.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2004 : 20:48:51 [Permalink]
|
jmcginn: The following is known as a 'word search' and can be done with a King James Bible and a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, two common books. First, we look up the verse in question: Genesis 1:16 "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also." Next, we go to the word in question; "ma'owr" in the Hebrew, Strong's number 3974. We find that the word encompasses both the literal and metaphoric, e.g. 'the light of the lamp', or 'her face lit up'. Now, back to the passage. It was nowhere stated that the lesser light was specifically a light source, and the word in question is not limited to being a light source. In our own language we talk about 'moonlight'. We don't mean that the moon creates the light, but the moon has taken the light and bounced it back to us. We wouldn't have had the light if the moon hadn't been there. My point is twofold: one; a word can have multiple literal meanings, usage of a word is very important in determining its meaning. Two; I'd prefer if you'd examine arguements of this nature before presenting them. I know that in the past I've thrown things onto the floor to examine them when I should have examined them beforehand, and I'll try to read up on my own stuff.
Dave: I was wondering if we could wrap up a few points.
1) The definition of reasonable; is my definition acceptable, and if not, how would you change it and why?
2) Do you say that since the Bible speaks of miracles, such as the raising of the dead, as real, that that alone is reason enough to say the Bible's claim for and view of the spirit world is untrue? I do not think the Bible's claims of miracles disqualifies it.
I'm sorry if I confused you, but I'm trying to be very specific.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2004 : 22:15:13 [Permalink]
|
Hippy wrote:quote:
Dave: I was wondering if we could wrap up a few points.
1) The definition of reasonable; is my definition acceptable, and if not, how would you change it and why?
I would remove the word "conclusive," and substitute something less concrete. "Reasonable" comes to mind first, but it makes the definition circular. How about "substantial"?quote:
2) Do you say that since the Bible speaks of miracles, such as the raising of the dead, as real, that that alone is reason enough to say the Bible's claim for and view of the spirit world is untrue? I do not think the Bible's claims of miracles disqualifies it.
I would never claim that the Bible's accounts of miracles are sufficient to say that its "claim for and view of the spirit world" is false, simply because the claims and views of the spirit world presented are unfalsifiable. However, just because the commonly-held concept of a spirit world is unfalsifiable, that doesn't mean that the views and claims about it in the Bible are necessarily correct, either. They are possibly correct, but it's also possible that a mouse could survive on the surface of the Sun for a week, and I cannot determine which possibility is more (or less) likely.
We are again drifting back to jmcginn's main point, which was this: what makes the Bible more likely to be correct about things that are both unproveable and unfalsifiable than any other religious document that's ever existed, or might ever exist? At this point in time, I would have to consider the claims and views about the spirit world expressed by all religions (past, present, and future) to have about an equal chance of being correct.
However, just to answer your question as written: no, the fact that the Bible mentions miracles does not "disqualify" it from being correct about it's claim and view of the spirit world. (But as written above, that doesn't mean much.)
Of course, when I was talking about miracles, pages ago, it was with the question: it is reasonable, because the Bible talks about miracles as if they necessarily happened, to believe that parts of the Bible are fiction? And just to clarify, I meant probably fiction, as no such belief will ever be demonstrable to certainty.
In other words, I wasn't asking about miracles as a method of "disproving" the Bible, I was asking whether or not it is reasonable to disbelieve the Bible's view of God and Jesus because of its supposedly-factual accounts of miracles.quote:
I'm sorry if I confused you, but I'm trying to be very specific.
I'm not confused, and so am I.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2004 : 09:07:53 [Permalink]
|
hippy4christ,
Gen 1:16
"And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."
First your definition doesn't agree with what I find at Crosswalk:
http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/OldTestamentHebrew/heb.cgi?number=03974
Notice that Ma'owr is listed as noun and means light or luminary. It is not used in the Bible as a verb and appears to not be used as in "lit up her face."
You will also notice that there are 16 total uses of Ma'owr in the Bible and all but 3 refer directly to a light source (oil lamps, candles, sun, etc.). The other 3 refer metaphorically to something of God as a source of light.
This however is really a side note and I do not want to distract us from the main issue, because the verse can be poetic or metaphoric and the problem goes away.
The main point of this post and our current discussion is, to make the Bible more believable by today's standards people interpret certain parts metaphorically or poetically, and people selectively pick which parts to do so. There is no hard or fast rules that let us determine what is poetic and what is not, just the whims of the reader and these whims vary from person to person and from denomination to denomination and from time period to time period. The same is true of other religious texts.
The fact that you say the verses referring to the pillars of the Earth are poetic, while the verses related to creation are not (with exception of 1:16) appears to be your personal selection and appears so far to not be based upon any rule(s) that can be consistently applied to the Bible to determine what is poetic and what is not. People used to interpret both Gen 1:16 and the verses of the pillars of the Earth as literal, now you and many others do not.
Which leads us to the overall main point of this discussion. You claimed that the Bible is special and deserves more credibility than other religious texts or even other religious oral traditions. The reason you claimed is because it more accurately depicts reality than any other religious myth. However I find certain parts of the Bible do not accurately depict reality, but you say those parts are poetic or metaphoric. You realize that they are not accurate descriptions of reality, but you say they are not to be interpreted as literal.
I then asked how does one determine what is literal and what is metaphoric? You gave me 2 rules so far 1) the Bible doesn't specifically state that the verses are metaphoric and 2) the verses are referred to in some fashion in other parts of the Bible. However the verses referring to the pillars of the Earth pass both of these rules, but yet you insist they are poetic in nature.
Now I am left to conclude that you are using the "metaphoric" explanation to explain away parts of the Bible that do not accurately depict reality. I then think that I could use this same technique for any myth, thus making it depict reality just as accurately as the Bible. Thus I am left wandering what is the special status of the Bible over other myths?
PS
As a side note I do not regaurd the Genesis account of creation as an accurate description of the reality of the past either. For instance the facts do not agree with special creation of indvidual species or kinds or instance creation from nothing of anything except for maybe the Universe itself. They do not agree with a global flood or man being created from dust and woman from his rib. Thus I am left with the conclusion that either these must be metaphoric in nature or just plain wrong.
Edited to fix a typo |
| Edited by - jmcginn on 03/03/2004 09:10:07 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
