clyde, There is a logical flaw in the noah article,
you are assuming that when the bible states that the water rose fifteen cubits and the earth was covered, that it was not meaning it rose fifteen cubits above the mountains.
clyde, There is a logical flaw in the noah article,
you are assuming that when the bible states that the water rose fifteen cubits and the earth was covered, that it was not meaning it rose fifteen cubits above the mountains.
if a contradiction was contradicted would that contradition contradict the origional crontradiction?
>>Being fauna they had no choice.
LMAO! Thanks novacain. A single well put statement can speak volumes more than many poorly structured ones.
Oh, sweet. We get to assume things from the bible now. So when it says "Thou shall not kill" can we assume we're only talking about certain species of grasshopper? Thats what i love about this whole concept.you are assuming that when the bible states that the water rose fifteen cubits and the earth was covered, that it was not meaning it rose fifteen cubits above the mountains.
a) Take it literally
b) Interpet at will
>>(but our gov will not in case it becomes liable for compensation).
And thats a whole 'noth thread. One that could get quite violent.
>>if we keep arguing like this, i think we have a good chance of having the longest thread ever!
I'm pretty sure we're already there.
"There's always another way"
-lightatdawn (lightatdawn.cprogramming.com)
I'm disgusted at the people here being convinced that the website http://www.angelfire.com/mb/304654home/ark.html proves the Bible inaccurate. Perhaps you do not realize that the Old Testament was not originally written in English? And that there are just a couple difficulties in translating a 5000 year old language that is structured radically differently than English? For the record, I have come across several translations that render it "And the waters rose and covered the mountains 15 cubits" or some such. It is amusing that those espousing a nonbiased view and naturalism etc apparently take one website's view on faith without even questioning the translation problems...
>>Being fauna they had no choice.
And I wish I was kidding.
Up till the 50's Aust Aborigines were classed as fauna. When the UK did nuke tests at Woomera and Marilinga, the Aborigines killed were recorded under fauna with kangaroos ect.
"Man alone suffers so excruciatingly in the world that he was compelled to invent laughter."
Friedrich Nietzsche
"I spent a lot of my money on booze, birds and fast cars......the rest I squandered."
George Best
"If you are going through hell....keep going."
Winston Churchill
"I'm disgusted at the people here being convinced that the website http://www.angelfire.com/mb/304654home/ark.html proves the Bible inaccurate"
.........
"Perhaps you do not realize that the Old Testament was not originally written in English?"
Really?
"And that there are just a couple difficulties in translating a 5000 year old language that is structured radically differently than English"
LOL your translation argument can't save you here, translating numbers is very easy.
" I have come across several translations that render it "And the waters rose and covered the mountains 15 cubits" or some such"
That makes no sense whatsoever, it is a very simple question what do the 15 cubits refer to? I think you will find its not a difficult translation, there is no complex imagery, blah blah, all they have to translate is what the 15 cubits refer to, and guess what they already have done.
"It is amusing that those espousing a nonbiased view and naturalism etc apparently take one website's view on faith without even questioning the translation problems..."
Faith? I think not. Are you so blind that you cannot see, that whenever a problem arises with the bible you immediately put it down to "translational problems"?
Anyway you can't escape the ark problem so easily, find me a translation that makes sense (no the one you wrote above makes no sense what-so-ever), that does not pose an impossible problem. (no don't just make one up, find a REAL translation).
How can you be so blind? How? I really don't understand, there is such a huge amount wrong with the idea that the bible is literally true, such a HUGE amount. Yet you use a combination of ignorance, rhetoric, and crutches like oh it must be due to "translational problems", to convince yourself there are no problems.
I just don't understand how people can kid themselves this way.
Last edited by Clyde; 05-15-2002 at 04:43 AM.
ive just read in "The Times" today that there are 40 million people in the United States who consider themselves as " Christian conservatives". i'm not sure what this means exactly, but apparently many of them consider the word of the Bible to be literally true. many believe the September 11th murderous attacks are the beginning stages of Armageddon as proficised in the Book Of Revelation....
40 million seems a worrying amount !! i hope thats not true, thats about 1 in 6 isn't it ???? OMG
can't get my head round these people. are they brainwashed from an early age ????? why oh why are people so goddamn STUPID !!!!!!
Last edited by stevey; 05-15-2002 at 08:03 AM.
Steve
Okay, since a lot of people are mouthing off about the bible, and don't seem to know what their talking about, I have decided to give a short overview of how it came to be.
First, there were oral traditions dating back from the garden of den. Writing was not invented until a long time later, I believe in Sumeria, where they started writing on clay tablets. Therefore, pretty much all of the first chapters of Genesis were passed down from parent to child, in oral form.
By the time Moses came around, writing had started to mature, especially in Egypt, where they had discovered papyrus. Moses was the first Hebrew scribe. He wrote down all the stories that had been passed down so they could be preserved for future generations. He wrote the first five books. By the time the Hebrew nation was established in Jerusalem. For the next few hundred years, various prophets, kings, and historians continued writing, but at this point all the writings were still seperate, until the Jewish leaders (I think the Talmud) formalized them and compiled them into one book. Generally, the old testament is translated from preserved copies of these compilations, although individual books are also found and contribute to the understanding.
"...very easy to translate"
On the contrary, in Hebrew, numbers are the absolute hardest thing to translate of all! There are so many different numbers, which all look extremely alike, and moreover, can be placed in many different combinations to make up the entire number, thus ofentimes a translater will not know which number is indicated. There are no vowels in Hebrew, so the translater must guess, or figure out from the context what is meant. Usually, vowels are insignifigant, but in the case of the name God, no one knows what it is: Jehovah, Yahweh, or any other combinations of vowels. I included a small graphic to illustrate the minute differences between the letters. (Especially between waw and nun) With differences so small, imagine the difference that could be created with one slip of the pen! Since all the manuscripts were copied by hand, no wonder there are small discrepancies. However, the bulk of christian scholarship is devoted to finding earlier and/or better preserved and/or more accurate documents, because the closer we get to the original documents, the less errors there are.
This is just the O.T. since that is where the argument is mostly about, however, if anyone desire I could give a history of the new testament too.
ps: I'll try to find some pictures of the numbers, for a better comparisin.
Last edited by mike_k; 05-15-2002 at 10:35 AM.
For those who are interested, (ie, those who are calling me a JW) I have decided to contrast between the Jehovah's Witnesses and orthodox Christianity.
Christianity:
Founded by Jesus Christ
JW's
Founded by Charles Taze Russell, a proven perjurer and swindler
Christianity
Accept all of the Old Testament except the Apocrypha, which is not generally accepted by Hebrew scholars. (which was included in the Roman Catholic bible for political, not religous reasons.
JW's
Accept only the first few books, and a few prohets (especially Isaiah)
Christianity
Jesus is God
JW's
Jesus was "a" god
Christianity
The Bible is the word of God. Great translators and reformers such as Tyndale, Calvin and Luther, and Wycliffe risked their lives to make the Bible accesible to the common man.
JW's
The Bible needs to be interpreted by their writings. It is better to read only their commentary than only the Bible. The Bible needs to be "De-Mythologized" by their writings. (Wow, sounds more like LIBERALS than orthodox christians.
Christianity
The best Hebrew, Greek, and Latin scholars in the field
JW's
Not a single recognized scholar. Under oath, several members of their "translation" comittee were forced to admit that they had NO knowledge of even the most elementry Greek or Hebrew. Refuse to let competent scholars review their work. Refuse to include their names on their publications.
Last edited by mike_k; 05-15-2002 at 10:50 AM.
(In case you can't tell, I'm in the orthodox christian category)
The only thing JW's and Christians have in common is that they will both vigourously defend their faith.
the real point is just that just becos some ancient people wrote down something in a book, doesn't mean you have to believe it.
you're just looking for something to believe in.....
if you had been born in Saudia Arabia, you would be a muslim not a Christian, if you'd been born in India, you'd be a Hindu.....
you are only a Christian cos you were born in a nominally Christian country. if you'd been born in Ancient Greece, you'd have believed in all those daft gods, if you'd been born in ancient Briton you'd have sacrificed people at Stonehenge....
the Koran is believed by muslims, then youve got Buddha, Hinduism, people who worship monkeys etc etc etc etc etc
even Scientologists (aaarrrhhhhhh)......
who says you're right, everyone else is wrong ???
pointless arguing, you're crackers, i'm sane, thats it.......
Steve
"The only thing JW's and Christians have in common is that they will both vigourously defend their faith."
Err... JW's are a sect of Christianity no?
You're missing the other obvious similarity: They both have fantastically nonsensical, irrational, unintelligent, ignorant, etc. etc. views.
Err... JW's are a sect of Christianity no?
No. JW's vehemently hate christians. And they do not at all agree with orthodox theology and doctrine. However, they will claim to be christian to gain acceptance by people.
As for the fantastic claims, well, we've been arguing for 300 posts now and will probably continue forever, so regardless of you personal beliefs, at best, it's not easy to demonstrate this claim.
A christians version of "fantastic beliefs" is to believe the Bible, according to Clyde.
JW's on the other hand, belive that armaggedon happened in 1914, and that Jesus is now secretly and invisbly ruling the world. They also believe that only 144000 people will be allowed into heaven.
Last edited by mike_k; 05-15-2002 at 11:05 AM.
aren't church of England and other Protestants and Roman Catholics 'orthodox christians' ??? and they certainly DO NOT believe in the bible literally. the pope doesn't believe in the bible LITERALLY....very few Christians do (looks like a lot of American Christians do ???, but Catholics and Protestants in Europe don't)
so what religion are you MIke ???? are you a 'Christian conservative', 'Christian Scientist' ?? what are you ??? i keep asking but you won't tell me.....dunno why ????? you can't just say you're an Orthodox Christian....
Steve
I'm currently attending a Mennonite church. Oh and by the way, Christian science is also a cult.
well its about time !!! anyone would think you were ashamed of it, obviously you aren't...
ive never heard of it, how many of you are there ???? and what do you believe in, apart from the Bible as literal truth?? or is that about it??
edit ->
Men·non·ite Pronunciation Key (mn-nt)
n.
A member of an Anabaptist church characterized particularly by simplicity of life, pacifism, and nonresistance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[German Mennonit, after Menno Simons (1492-1559), Frisian religious leader.]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mennonist \Men"non*ist\, Mennonite \Men"non*ite\, n. (Eccl. Hist.) One of a small denomination of Christians, so called from Menno Simons of Friesland, their founder. They believe that the New Testament is the only rule of faith, that there is no original sin, that infants should not be baptized, and that Christians ought not to take oath, hold office, or render military service.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mennonite
n : a member of an Anabaptist movement in Holland noted for its simplicity of life [syn: Mennonite]
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
Last edited by stevey; 05-15-2002 at 11:16 AM.
Steve
