I thought the Bible was the inerrant, inspired word of God Almighty. Amiwrong?[/quote]
Why does every word in the Bible have to be literalisticly interpreted for it to be inerrant? Are you a fundamentalist?
I guess it’s the old observation that the English love to try and file truth down into facts.
Because that is now how the book is written.
Seeing as the Bible is a Catholic document and Sacred Tradition, formed in a Ecumenical council of Rome, then ratified in Carthage and Hippo around the year 400 AD I’ll have to say those Ecumenical councils and all the Bishops that attended…wonder what kind of bishops those were.
Well that’s a false dichotomy. You’re mistaking inerrant (having no errors) with literalist interpretation (which is different than literal, which Catholics do) and then saying you either interpret your own holy book literalist or it is errant. It is neither. It is inerrant and we interpret in the four senses:
Literal (which the other three are found in and isn’t the same as literalist)
[quote]groo wrote:
Three kinds of rocks make up most of the Earth?s crust: igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic.[/quote]
A label doesn’t add knowledge. I could as easily call it all mud and be just as correct by my oun terminology. Labels only hold value by convention. To know that you would have to prove your terminology beyond convention.
But the bases of what you are calling ingenious (all the little particles that make it up) are undefined. You cannot claim to know what a solar system is without knowing what an individual planet is. [/quote]
Um you could indeed call it all rocks (mud is just wrong) but that would be slack. The use of the terms igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary carries important information. For example about how the rocks formed. As such they hold far more value than just simple labels. In this case the terminology is describing verifiable facts.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say next to a passage “Read, but don’t take this literally” or “don’t worry about this it didn’t happen, but consider it a good lesson, as it has a good meaning behind it” or “this really did happen” or any other similar scenario.
It either has to be read as 100 percent true, or none of it can be read as true…
I despise the seeming arrogance this man portrays… but his points are pretty good. I guess it’s just his body language that bothers me, the way he always has his chin lifted and is looking down his nose.
But no, physics has not failed because a physicist was wrong. That’s just a gross misunderstanding of terminology.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< Of course you do have biblical literalists who say they believe every word of the Bible literally. >>>[/quote]I am as conservative a plenary verbal, fundamentalist whacko as anyone will ever meet and I do not believe that every word of the bible is literal. Not every word is intended to be literal.
[/quote]
GetYourHotDogs, CERTAINLY with the vast reservoir of time you make available to PWI as well as your propensity to disgorge massive amounts of text to discipline me and “toy” with Brother Chris you would HAVE to have more to say on this subject than this tiny tidbit, wouldn’t you?
I thought the Bible was the inerrant, inspired word of God Almighty. Amiwrong?[/quote]
Why does every word in the Bible have to be literalisticly interpreted for it to be inerrant? Are you a fundamentalist?
I guess it’s the old observation that the English love to try and file truth down into facts.
Because that is now how the book is written.
Seeing as the Bible is a Catholic document and Sacred Tradition, formed in a Ecumenical council of Rome, then ratified in Carthage and Hippo around the year 400 AD I’ll have to say those Ecumenical councils and all the Bishops that attended…wonder what kind of bishops those were.
Well that’s a false dichotomy. You’re mistaking inerrant (having no errors) with literalist interpretation (which is different than literal, which Catholics do) and then saying you either interpret your own holy book literalist or it is errant. It is neither. It is inerrant and we interpret in the four senses:
Literal (which the other three are found in and isn’t the same as literalist)
Allegorical
Moral
Anagogical
Have any more questions just ask. :)[/quote]
I have no questions for you. And I will not play the PWI Shuffle with you (cut and reply). Play with yourself BC - as good a euphemism for PWI as I’ve seen
Happens in PWI All The Time. Along with a legion of other fallacious arguments, self-serving logic and bias.
BC was trying to be clever when he stated that people don’t talk politics and religion in some misguided attempt to be polite. He’s wrong. They don’t talk politics and religion b/c intelligent people know that to talk such subjects with someone who does not hold their same beliefs is a dead end road.
Literal (which the other three are found in and isn’t the same as literalist)
Allegorical
Moral
Anagogical
[/quote]
Nice work there.
But all the above would require an element of the “literal”.
Literal speaks for itself. Allegorical, as the term is correctly applied, is based upon a visible fact. Moral, according to you, is never relative, so that too must be literal. Anagogical, distinguished from allegorical, still relies upon a visible fact.
I’d say based upon your explanation above, all require facts.
You may find this entertaining…but I liken it to playing a game of chess. Some people’s concentration is held by the next move, or perhaps the next few moves. I happen to see the end game. And it’s a stalemate. So you’ll have to forgive what appears to be a certain (admitted) intellectual laziness on my part when it comes to these silly religious and philosophical “debates”/discussions, but I’ll expend my energies more economically than going in circles with your kind
…You are assuming a creator couldn’t create a universe with a “memory” built in. And there is no logical reason for that assumption. In fact it goes against the very claim of a christian god.
[/quote]
For the detractors of this idea: Why couldn’t or didn’t a creator create the “appearance of (an) age(d)” universe?
It would certainly be consistent with the events described in Genesis 1 - 2. In those chapters it is explained that He created all biology in a fully developed, mature, i.e., “aged” state. Why would He not do the same with the non-biological matter in His universe?
Give me the “scientific” reasons if you will. In the absence of those, philosophical/religious ones will be accepted.
[/quote]
Please provide the scripture to support the above premise. Thanks.
…You are assuming a creator couldn’t create a universe with a “memory” built in. And there is no logical reason for that assumption. In fact it goes against the very claim of a christian god.
[/quote]
For the detractors of this idea: Why couldn’t or didn’t a creator create the “appearance of (an) age(d)” universe?
It would certainly be consistent with the events described in Genesis 1 - 2. In those chapters it is explained that He created all biology in a fully developed, mature, i.e., “aged” state. Why would He not do the same with the non-biological matter in His universe?
Give me the “scientific” reasons if you will. In the absence of those, philosophical/religious ones will be accepted.
[/quote]
Please provide the scripture to support the above premise. Thanks.[/quote]
I did. You even quoted me where I mentioned it.[/quote]
I’ll look. I was really referring specifically to your claim that all biology was created in a full developed “aged” state. Is that an interpretation or a plain reading of the scripture? I don’t have my KJV bedside right now.
Hey Chris, I do have a question after all. How shall we interpret this particular passage? I think I might could maybe possibly eventually someday soon get behind this scripture thing.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< Of course you do have biblical literalists who say they believe every word of the Bible literally. >>>[/quote]I am as conservative a plenary verbal, fundamentalist whacko as anyone will ever meet and I do not believe that every word of the bible is literal. Not every word is intended to be literal.
[/quote]
GetYourHotDogs, CERTAINLY with the vast reservoir of time you make available to PWI as well as your propensity to disgorge massive amounts of text to discipline me and “toy” with Brother Chris you would HAVE to have more to say on this subject than this tiny tidbit, wouldn’t you?
C’mon, man.[/quote]
It’s only literal if he can judge you for it.[/quote]
Fascinating topic and thread. Very interesting indeed. Maybe this’ll wind up being the flat earth joke of the 21st century. Until of course we UNdiscover the next absolutely fundamental fact of ultimate reality that we just knew was true. We sher iz jist the most comical critters ain’t we?
).