Science and the Bible

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Science and the Bible

#241  Postby Passer » Apr 06, 2017 7:06 am

I think I should clarify why I insisted the description in Job sounded like a Dinosaur/Sauropod, if only to clear up my own confusion as to how else the term 'Behold' can be used.

One rebuttal to my opinion was that 'Behold' means to look at something in the present moment as in "Hey, look at this I have in my hands." But I have always held the idea (and I could be wrong) that 'Behold' can also be used when a person wants to inform another person of something. Something that cannot be literally looked upon - but draws attention to some fact the speaker wants to impart.

Example:

"Behold! Did not the dinosaurs die out 65mya?"
"Behold! Has not the king been quick to defend your homes in the past?"
"Behold! Did not the Wright brothers build the first airplane?

In all the above examples, there is nothing to observe/look at in the present moment. In this form, 'Behold' is used to draw someone's attention to something that has happened in the past.

Hope that makes sense (even if my reasoning is incorrect).
Passer
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 642

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Science and the Bible

#242  Postby Fallible » Apr 06, 2017 7:34 am

Dark energy wrote:
Matthew Shute wrote:
Dark energy wrote:QURAN is not a book of science.it is a book of signs.

the spring stuff is just metaphor and allegory.


Did you watch the whole video? That apologetic is addressed in the video. It clearly wasn't understood as a metaphor.

Also see Quran 2:2. The Quran is supposed to be clear, unambiguous. If this were a metaphor, it should be

a) clear to all that this is a metaphor

and

b) clear what it is a metaphor about

So I ask you. What is the sun setting into a spring clearly a representing, in a way that's plain and obvious to any reader?



check this link
http://www.answering-christianity.com/s ... sunset.htm

i am not a scholar well versed with it,even though i want to learn Quran,time doesnt allow me.


Then you should shut up about it.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 48
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Science and the Bible

#243  Postby Fallible » Apr 06, 2017 7:43 am

Passer wrote:I think I should clarify why I insisted the description in Job sounded like a Dinosaur/Sauropod, if only to clear up my own confusion as to how else the term 'Behold' can be used.

One rebuttal to my opinion was that 'Behold' means to look at something in the present moment as in "Hey, look at this I have in my hands." But I have always held the idea (and I could be wrong) that 'Behold' can also be used when a person wants to inform another person of something. Something that cannot be literally looked upon - but draws attention to some fact the speaker wants to impart.

Example:

"Behold! Did not the dinosaurs die out 65mya?"
"Behold! Has not the king been quick to defend your homes in the past?"
"Behold! Did not the Wright brothers build the first airplane?

In all the above examples, there is nothing to observe/look at in the present moment. In this form, 'Behold' is used to draw someone's attention to something that has happened in the past.

Hope that makes sense (even if my reasoning is incorrect).


The main problem there is that 'behold' doesn't mean that and isn't used in that way, whatever your personal want is. It means to see, gaze upon or observe, literally. I mean sure, argue with me if you like, I did after all only check the first ten dictionary definitions on google, including the OED, Macmillan and Cambridge. This is still very much looking like you manipulating facts in order to justify your own erroneous beliefs, though.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 48
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Science and the Bible

#244  Postby Alan B » Apr 06, 2017 8:40 am

In the REB, 'behold' is replaced by 'consider'. Which makes more sense.

'Behold' in the archaic sense is used as an imperative to call attention.
I have NO BELIEF in the existence of a God or gods. I do not have to offer evidence nor do I have to determine absence of evidence because I do not ASSERT that a God does or does not or gods do or do not exist.
User avatar
Alan B
 
Posts: 9999
Age: 84
Male

Country: UK (Birmingham)
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Science and the Bible

#245  Postby Passer » Apr 06, 2017 3:00 pm

Fallible wrote:
Passer wrote:I think I should clarify why I insisted the description in Job sounded like a Dinosaur/Sauropod, if only to clear up my own confusion as to how else the term 'Behold' can be used.

One rebuttal to my opinion was that 'Behold' means to look at something in the present moment as in "Hey, look at this I have in my hands." But I have always held the idea (and I could be wrong) that 'Behold' can also be used when a person wants to inform another person of something. Something that cannot be literally looked upon - but draws attention to some fact the speaker wants to impart.

Example:

"Behold! Did not the dinosaurs die out 65mya?"
"Behold! Has not the king been quick to defend your homes in the past?"
"Behold! Did not the Wright brothers build the first airplane?

In all the above examples, there is nothing to observe/look at in the present moment. In this form, 'Behold' is used to draw someone's attention to something that has happened in the past.

Hope that makes sense (even if my reasoning is incorrect).


The main problem there is that 'behold' doesn't mean that and isn't used in that way, whatever your personal want is. It means to see, gaze upon or observe, literally. I mean sure, argue with me if you like, I did after all only check the first ten dictionary definitions on google, including the OED, Macmillan and Cambridge. This is still very much looking like you manipulating facts in order to justify your own erroneous beliefs, though.

I just gave an example of why I thought it might be a sauropod. As I said earlier, I no longer believe it is any kind of dinosaur. I'm not arguing with you or anyone.
Last edited by Passer on Apr 06, 2017 3:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Passer
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 642

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Science and the Bible

#246  Postby Passer » Apr 06, 2017 3:03 pm

Alan B wrote:In the REB, 'behold' is replaced by 'consider'. Which makes more sense.

'Behold' in the archaic sense is used as an imperative to call attention.

That makes sense. Behold is in the Hebrew too.
Passer
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 642

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Science and the Bible

#247  Postby NineBerry » Apr 06, 2017 4:13 pm

"Behold" is not a hebrew word.
User avatar
NineBerry
RS Donator
 
Posts: 6133
Age: 42
Male

Country: nSk
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Science and the Bible

#248  Postby Scot Dutchy » Apr 06, 2017 4:48 pm

Reading the bible in another language is an interesting exercise in the study of translation.

Passer the bible only refers to one planet but not as a planet but as the total universe. The same is true in the koran.

How about all the other planets and stars? How about the other planets where life exists? No great floods are mentioned or other disasters which this deity is unable to solve. All that seems to matter is this little rock orbiting (which was not known when the bible was written) a third grade star. Bugger the trillions of other heavenly bodies(!).
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43119
Age: 72
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Science and the Bible

#249  Postby Passer » Apr 06, 2017 4:51 pm

NineBerry wrote:"Behold" is not a hebrew word.

I meant the Hebrew text translates into behold.
Passer
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 642

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Science and the Bible

#250  Postby Alan B » Apr 06, 2017 5:24 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:Bugger the trillions of other heavenly bodies(!).

Yeah, but if God had his way they would all 'fall' from the sky or something...
I have NO BELIEF in the existence of a God or gods. I do not have to offer evidence nor do I have to determine absence of evidence because I do not ASSERT that a God does or does not or gods do or do not exist.
User avatar
Alan B
 
Posts: 9999
Age: 84
Male

Country: UK (Birmingham)
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Science and the Bible

#251  Postby Scot Dutchy » Apr 06, 2017 5:50 pm

Alan B wrote:
Scot Dutchy wrote:Bugger the trillions of other heavenly bodies(!).

Yeah, but if God had his way they would all 'fall' from the sky or something...

We would not last long if they did. :whistle:
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43119
Age: 72
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Science and the Bible

#252  Postby Pebble » Apr 06, 2017 5:57 pm

Passer wrote:
Pebble wrote:It is only through the lens of faith that one can construe the bible as true. This seems an odd place to come to get to the point of being comfortable with accepting the veracity of the bible. Does this mean that you want to become comfortable with the lack of veracity of the bible?

I've had my faith for as long as I can remember and I've also had doubts for as long as I can remember. Recently I decided to research what it is I think I know. What I learn might lead me away from Christianity.


Why would the lack of veracity lead you away from christianity? Many christians accept that the bible is written and copied by fallible beings and to be interpreted rather than accepted as the word of god. They treat it as inspired by god, and retain a strong faith in what they take to be its core messages.
Pebble
 
Posts: 2812

Country: UK
Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Science and the Bible

#253  Postby Scot Dutchy » Apr 06, 2017 6:01 pm

Many christians accept that the bible is written and copied by fallible
:lol:
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43119
Age: 72
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Science and the Bible

#254  Postby Shrunk » Apr 06, 2017 6:20 pm

Passer wrote:
NineBerry wrote:"Behold" is not a hebrew word.

I meant the Hebrew text translates into behold.


Or, to be more precise, has been translated into "behold." An expert in ancient Hebrew could probably opine as to how accurate that is.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Science and the Bible

#255  Postby Shrunk » Apr 06, 2017 6:21 pm

Passer wrote:"Behold! Did not the dinosaurs die out 65mya?"
"Behold! Has not the king been quick to defend your homes in the past?"
"Behold! Did not the Wright brothers build the first airplane?"


I can't recall ever seeing the word used in such a context. From where did you get those quotes?
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Science and the Bible

#256  Postby Cito di Pense » Apr 06, 2017 6:48 pm

Shrunk wrote:
Passer wrote:
NineBerry wrote:"Behold" is not a hebrew word.

I meant the Hebrew text translates into behold.


Or, to be more precise, has been translated into "behold." An expert in ancient Hebrew could probably opine as to how accurate that is.


I'm beholden to you for that observation. Now all we have to do is scout up the etymology of behold, which has more to do with holding (in the sense of maintaining or grasping) rather than simply seeing. Keep your lamp trimmed and burning, see what the Lord has done. Go find it on YouTube.

I don't have a clue about the original Hebrew that someone translated into 'behold', but behold! we're thirteen pages into this clusterfuck thread that started out asking about science and the bible, led by Passer, throwing punches at the air.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29553
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Science and the Bible

#257  Postby laklak » Apr 06, 2017 7:10 pm

Punching above his weight, is he?
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 67
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: Science and the Bible

#258  Postby tuco » Apr 06, 2017 7:18 pm

Huge success this thread is.

---
edit: punching above his weight? How could that be on round 13? lol Gimme break.
tuco
 
Posts: 15550

Print view this post

Re: Science and the Bible

#259  Postby Passer » Apr 07, 2017 4:26 am

Pebble wrote:
Passer wrote:
Pebble wrote:It is only through the lens of faith that one can construe the bible as true. This seems an odd place to come to get to the point of being comfortable with accepting the veracity of the bible. Does this mean that you want to become comfortable with the lack of veracity of the bible?

I've had my faith for as long as I can remember and I've also had doubts for as long as I can remember. Recently I decided to research what it is I think I know. What I learn might lead me away from Christianity.


Why would the lack of veracity lead you away from christianity? Many christians accept that the bible is written and copied by fallible beings and to be interpreted rather than accepted as the word of god. They treat it as inspired by god, and retain a strong faith in what they take to be its core messages.

The bible is supposed to be the word of God. So I can't help think the message should be clear with no ambiguities. After all we are talking about an omnipotent and omniscient being. If I am saying the errors are down to man, then how can I distinguish that from any other man made book? It's unfalsifiable
Passer
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 642

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Science and the Bible

#260  Postby Passer » Apr 07, 2017 4:29 am

Shrunk wrote:
Passer wrote:"Behold! Did not the dinosaurs die out 65mya?"
"Behold! Has not the king been quick to defend your homes in the past?"
"Behold! Did not the Wright brothers build the first airplane?"


I can't recall ever seeing the word used in such a context. From where did you get those quotes?

It's just something I've always considered to be the case. Guess I was wrong
Passer
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 642

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest