jcd11235 0 #376 December 23, 2006 QuoteThe Bible, like the US Constitution, is open to interpretation and misinterpretation. Right. Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing who is properly interpreting and who is misinterpreting the Bible. Everyone believes their personal interpretation to be the correct one. Of course, if there is only one correct interpretation, the mathematical probability of any single person holding that proper interpretation is virtually nil.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #377 December 23, 2006 Quote Everyone believes their personal interpretation to be the correct one. Of course, if there is only one correct interpretation, the mathematical probability of any single person holding that proper interpretation is virtually nil. For me, it is easy to understand that truth is absolute, but my own, as well as others, interpretation of what is truth can be wrong. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #378 December 23, 2006 QuoteQuoteIf it was well written everyone would agree on what it means but they don't, even if it is the most read book of all time. What all do you apply that principle to? All literature, scripture? music? TV shows? Movies? All the rest aren't claimed to be the revealed truth of an omnipotent omniscient omnipresent god. A god who could easily make his truth unambiguous, could know ahead of time what misinterpretations would occur and make sure they never happen. What is the payoff for God to have an ambiguous Bible with multiple interpretations, and no-one knows which is correct? It's just absurd.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #379 December 23, 2006 QuoteQuoteIf it was well written everyone would agree on what it means Is the US Constitution well written? Not really. Take the second ammendment for instance. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. That's pretty ambiguous, the liberal use of commas casts doubt onto its grammatical accuracy and I'm not entirely convinced it's even a correct sentence. But I'm no expert. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #380 December 23, 2006 QuoteQuoteIf it was well written everyone would agree on what it means but they don't, even if it is the most read book of all time. What all do you apply that principle to? All literature, scripture? music? TV shows? Movies? Not everything. But I'd prefer some things to be well written. Laws, political policies, text books that sort of thing. Pretty much anything I'm supposed to actually understand. I'd take religion more seriously if I could at least understand it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #381 December 24, 2006 So you don't understand poetry, music and other forms of literature unless it can only be understood literally? B&W kind of a guy, eh? Or is religion the only thing that must be literally? steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #382 December 24, 2006 QuoteSo you don't understand poetry, music and other forms of literature unless it can only be understood literally? B&W kind of a guy, eh? Or is religion the only thing that must be literally? I don't remember saying that "well written" necessarily means "to be taken literally". But the bible is claiming to hold the truth about god and the universe so if it's correct, shouldn't it at least be self-consistent? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #383 December 24, 2006 Well, to me for a non-scientific people trying to write about God I think it is VERY consistent. I know, some of you fundy atheist think an omnipotent, omniscient god should supernaturally impart wisdom, such as science, to man, but IMHO God is consistent in letting man write his inspiration from God in his own terms and methods. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #384 December 24, 2006 Well if God did have any input into the Bible, as some people suggest, then it should be more consistent than it is. But if it's just the musings of neolithic tribesmen on what they considered god to be then it's about what you would expect. But shouldn't it then be open to review as god inspires (or not) man further? But if god doesn't impart wisdom and just leaves it to man to write whatever his own interpretations are, then theology becomes something of a non-subject, more akin to Middle-Earth studies or Klingon history does it not? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #385 December 24, 2006 What inconsistentcies are you imlying? Please don't list that tripe Hairy Juan lists. It could be corrected with the input from a Bible college freshman and not worth the time it would take to type the defense. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #386 December 24, 2006 And why do you and Kallend and other fundy atheist keep using the term "neolithic" whe referring to biblical writers? steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #387 December 24, 2006 QuoteWhat inconsistentcies are you imlying? Please don't list that tripe Hairy Juan lists. It could be corrected with the input from a Bible college freshman and not worth the time it would take to type the defense. Well off the top of my head, what's with god's muliple personalities between the OT and the NT? The skepticsannotedbible.com lists all of them but I'm sure Hairy Huan has posted that so I'll just raise a glass and wish you a great christmas. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #388 December 24, 2006 QuoteAnd why do you and Kallend and other fundy atheist keep using the term "neolithic" whe referring to biblical writers? The Neolithic era is a period roughly covering the time when the bible was written. Bronze age would be roughly equivalent. I find it amusing that you would use the term "fundy" regarding atheists. I don't mind but i'm not sure how anyone can fundamentally not believe something. You must be a fundy FSM-atheist and a fundy zeus-atheist. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #389 December 24, 2006 QuoteAnd why do you and Kallend and other fundy atheist keep using the term "neolithic" whe referring to biblical writers? Historical accuracy. Fundy Christians wouldn't understand.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #390 December 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteAnd why do you and Kallend and other fundy atheist keep using the term "neolithic" whe referring to biblical writers? Historical accuracy. Fundy Christians wouldn't understand. Neolithic (nē'ə-lĭth'ĭk) Pronunciation Key The period of human culture that began around 10,000 years ago in the Middle East and later in other parts of the world. It is characterized by the beginning of farming, the domestication of animals, the development of crafts such as pottery and weaving, and the making of polished stone tools. The Neolithic Period is generally considered to end for any particular region with the introduction of metalworking, writing, or other developments of urban civilization. I guess some fundy atheist don't get it either. Have a Merry Christmas guys! steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #391 December 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteAnd why do you and Kallend and other fundy atheist keep using the term "neolithic" whe referring to biblical writers? Historical accuracy. Fundy Christians wouldn't understand. Neolithic (nē'ə-lĭth'ĭk) Pronunciation Key The period of human culture that began around 10,000 years ago in the Middle East and later in other parts of the world. It is characterized by the beginning of farming, the domestication of animals, the development of crafts such as pottery and weaving, and the making of polished stone tools. The Neolithic Period is generally considered to end for any particular region with the introduction of metalworking, writing, or other developments of urban civilization. I guess some fundy atheist don't get it either. Have a Merry Christmas guys! Lithos = stone. Neolithic = new stone age. If you read I Kings 5-7 you will see that Solomon had to send to Hiram of Tyre to get a metallurgist ("Hiram the widow's son") for the metalwork at the temple. So according to the Bible the Israelites were, at that time, unable to do their own metalwork, aka neolithic. My interpretation, of course.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #392 December 24, 2006 QuoteWell, to me for a non-scientific people trying to write about God I think it is VERY consistent. I know, some of you fundy atheist think an omnipotent, omniscient god should supernaturally impart wisdom, such as science, to man, but IMHO God is consistent in letting man write his inspiration from God in his own terms and methods. No offense, but I believe you lack insight into what atheists think. You seem to believe anyone who approaches the Bible with a bit of logic is a "fundy atheist." If you don't see the many inconsistencies of the Bible, perhaps it is not the atheists who lack the insight.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #393 December 24, 2006 The NT was written between 350 -- 1000 AFTER the completion of the OT. Why do you lump those writers as "neolithic" as well? steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #394 December 24, 2006 QuoteNo offense, but I believe you lack insight into what atheists think. You seem to believe anyone who approaches the Bible with a bit of logic is a "fundy atheist." If you don't see the many inconsistencies of the Bible, perhaps it is not the atheists who lack the insight. No, I see anyone who can only interpret the Bible as literal as fundy. You fit that category as well as some Christians on these forums. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #395 December 24, 2006 QuoteNo, I see anyone who can only interpret the Bible as literal as fundy. You fit that category as well as some Christians on these forums. You are judgmental, aren't you? Personally, I see the Bible as a moral guidebook, not unlike Aesop's fables or the Chuang Tse. I merely use logic to demonstrate that the Bible can't be taken literally, due to numerous logical inconsistencies. Of course, I understand that anyone who does not interpret the Bible exactly as you do is misinterpreting it. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #396 December 24, 2006 I gott go guys -- Have a merry christmas, happy hanukah, hug a tree, solstice! steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,471 #397 December 24, 2006 >You are judgmental, aren't you? While everyone is judgemental to some degree, Steve's posts have come across as less judgemental than many of the atheist's posts attempting to prove that he's wrong. At least to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #398 December 25, 2006 QuoteThe NT was written between 350 -- 1000 AFTER the completion of the OT. Why do you lump those writers as "neolithic" as well? I don't, but it's not their creation myth, is it? The things the anti-evolutionists base their claims on are the creation myths of a neolithic people. While the Israelites were struggling to extract themselves from the Stone Age, the Greeks were busy inventing abstract mathematics, theater, and science. Things that were then systematically suppressed by the church for over 1,000 years.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #399 December 25, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe NT was written between 350 -- 1000 AFTER the completion of the OT. Why do you lump those writers as "neolithic" as well? I don't, but it's not their creation myth, is it? The things the anti-evolutionists base their claims on are the creation myths of a neolithic people. While the Israelites were struggling to extract themselves from the Stone Age, the Greeks were busy inventing abstract mathematics, theater, and science. Things that were then systematically suppressed by the church for over 1,000 years. Yes, you do. In this thread [http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1944673;search_string=neolithic;#1944673] you were referring to the NT writers as they talked about the crucifiction, not the creation. I'm sure there is more but I found that one on the first page of the search. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #400 December 25, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe NT was written between 350 -- 1000 AFTER the completion of the OT. Why do you lump those writers as "neolithic" as well? I don't, but it's not their creation myth, is it? The things the anti-evolutionists base their claims on are the creation myths of a neolithic people. While the Israelites were struggling to extract themselves from the Stone Age, the Greeks were busy inventing abstract mathematics, theater, and science. Things that were then systematically suppressed by the church for over 1,000 years. Yes, you do. In this thread [http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1944673;search_string=neolithic;#1944673] you were referring to the NT writers as they talked about the crucifiction, not the creation. I'm sure there is more but I found that one on the first page of the search. Mea culpa. I have no idea how far Israelite metallurgy had progressed by NT times. Do you? I expect they had learned it from their Roman occupiers. Does the NT stand alone? If so, why is it always accompanied by the OT as preface?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
