Page 4 of 53

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Posted: Aug 03, 2010 2:26 am
by TimONeill
rickstones";p="384970 wrote:So, when I consider the Bible, I see a collection of 66 books, written by at least 40 different people, with widely varying backgrounds and educations (kings, philosophers, poets, scholars, physicians, fishermen, shepherds…) over a period of at least 1,500 years, in three different continents, in three different languages, to address a wide variety of different and unique circumstances – and yet, when viewed together, there is a consistency of theme that is… well, miraculous and supernatural. This theme, from beginning to end, free of any contradiction (beyond the superficial), is the unthinkable and relentlessly loving plan of your maker to save you from yourself.


Or you could see it as a collection of books that were all written within closely related religious traditions at various times and so are clearly going to have a lot in common. But “free of any contradiction” is nonsense. Luke and Matthew contradict each other on the date of Jesus’ birth and tell two stories which are not only contradictory but mutually exclusive and differ by ten years. That’s not “superficial”.

When the great Isaiah scroll was discovered in Qumran, an extant document a full 1,000 years older than the oldest known Masoretic texts, there was understandable fear at the implications. A thousand year gap! What would this discovery reveal about our Bible? Would errors or inconsistencies be discovered that would invalidate significant doctrine? But, as a testimony to the generations of lives of a dedicated people, who really did know what it was to labor over a life-work, we found virtually no difference between the Qumran documents versus the Masoretic texts. Whether you know it or not, you owe these people a massive debt of gratitude.


The The Oxford Companion to Archaeology seems to consider the differences between the Masoretic texts and the Qumran material rather more marked actually:

While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100.
(Fagan, Brian M., and Charlotte Beck, The Oxford Companion to Archeology, entry on the "Dead sea scrolls", Oxford University Press, 1996)

The general consistency is about at the level we’d expect for sacred texts – they tend to get transmitted very carefully in any tradition, so your Bible is hardly unique there. But it is nowhere near as consistent over time as you’re trying to make out. The Christian canon has seen similar variants and similar changes over the years, as a check of the footnotes in any decent edition and a comparison of Catholic, Ethiopian Coptic and Protestant editions will show you.

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Posted: Aug 03, 2010 3:42 am
by Blitzkrebs
rickstone wrote:So, when I consider the Bible, I see a collection of 66 books, written by at least 40 different people, with widely varying backgrounds and educations (kings, philosophers, poets, scholars, physicians, fishermen, shepherds…) over a period of at least 1,500 years, in three different continents, in three different languages, to address a wide variety of different and unique circumstances – and yet, when viewed together, there is a consistency of theme that is… well, miraculous and supernatural.


I know it wasn't your intention, but the notion that there's anything philosophical in the Bible is an insult to that discipline. It's almost as bad as saying science exists in the Qur'an. Philosophy is about critical thinking, exposing errors in reasoning and taking a machete to even our most prized subjective considerations if need be. It's a breeding ground for new outlooks on life and the basis of Western government, and not just a collection of witty sounding proverbs that at best serve to illuminate cheap calenders.

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Posted: Aug 03, 2010 11:40 am
by DanDare
rickstone,

there is agape and eros, but what is the name of the other one for the love between friends?

Anyway, I do work hard to find common ground with people I strongly disagree with. One of the difficulties with dealing with those who are excited about creationism is that I have had to do it so many times. Each time I have to start from scratch and I know they are bringing the same stuff from the same web sites and I get a little tired and cranky. Let me breath in and out and start again.

Hi rickstone,

tell me, what is your understanding of scientific method and its role in understanding the world we inhabit? What are your standards for testing the truth of a claim about the nature of the world? How do you feel when there is no currently known answer to some aspect of reality?

cheers

that other greek word for love that I have forgotten.

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Posted: Aug 03, 2010 12:22 pm
by rickstones
DanDare";p="386229 wrote:rickstone,

there is agape and eros, but what is the name of the other one for the love between friends?

Anyway, I do work hard to find common ground with people I strongly disagree with. One of the difficulties with dealing with those who are excited about creationism is that I have had to do it so many times. Each time I have to start from scratch and I know they are bringing the same stuff from the same web sites and I get a little tired and cranky. Let me breath in and out and start again.

Hi rickstone,

tell me, what is your understanding of scientific method and its role in understanding the world we inhabit? What are your standards for testing the truth of a claim about the nature of the world? How do you feel when there is no currently known answer to some aspect of reality?

cheers

that other greek word for love that I have forgotten.


Hello DanDare. The word you are seeking is Phileo. It is easily remembered by thinking of Philadelphia, the city of brotherly love.

Christians have fallen into a trap of desperation all too often, casting about for any explanation that might help them reconcile their narrow, rather superficial interpretation of Genesis chapter 1, with new emerging discoveries of science that seemed to be irreconcilable. There was the "Gap Theory", which proposed a gap of time between the first two verses of the Bible large enough to hold all the fossil record. Thousands of desperate Christians ran to this gap and dumped all their fears and misgivings in as well. They could mix again with their scientific friends and not seem superstitious, "There is this "gap" you see..."

Now we see more ridiculous views perpetrated by well-meaning, but ultimately damaging Christians such as Ken Ham that attempt to find all manner of "evidence" for a 6,000 year old universe. If we could lock Galileo up in his room again, we might be able to hold off the inevitable a bit longer, but fortunately this is no longer an acceptable solution.

What we must do is seek truth. Science gives us the best approach for doing that - a proven method of exploring the natural world. The thing that is misunderstood, from both the theological and a scientific perspective (and I can almost feel hackenslash hammering away on his keyboard to stomp me into a gooey pulp), is that the perceived conflicts are not conflicts at all. They are simply questions awaiting answers. What biblical truth did Galileo or Copernicus violate? None! The Bible never proposes that the heavens are perfect, or that the earth is the center of the universe! And, in like manner, the things that cause such seemingly inseparable barriers between science and the Bible today are likewise rooted in perceived, rather than real distractions.

Shalom!

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Posted: Aug 03, 2010 12:25 pm
by Crocodile Gandhi
The Bible does, however, propose that bats are birds.

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Posted: Aug 03, 2010 12:52 pm
by rickstones
TimONeill";p="385713 wrote: The The Oxford Companion to Archaeology seems to consider the differences between the Masoretic texts and the Qumran material rather more marked actually:

While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100.
(Fagan, Brian M., and Charlotte Beck, The Oxford Companion to Archeology, entry on the "Dead sea scrolls", Oxford University Press, 1996)

The general consistency is about at the level we’d expect for sacred texts – they tend to get transmitted very carefully in any tradition, so your Bible is hardly unique there. But it is nowhere near as consistent over time as you’re trying to make out. The Christian canon has seen similar variants and similar changes over the years, as a check of the footnotes in any decent edition and a comparison of Catholic, Ethiopian Coptic and Protestant editions will show you.


Thank you Tim. I was aware of the differences you have noted in Torah. I was attempting to direct my observations to the Isaiah scroll in particular. There was intense interest in this document because it was such a wonderfully preserved, complete text. I understand that some of the more ultra-conservative sects of the Jewish community had taken a position that the 53rd chapter of Isaiah was not authentic, because it contains such seemingly obvious Messianic allusions, and in particular, foreshadows the events of Christ's suffering in surprising particularity of detail.

My understanding is that the Masorites were attempting to reconcile multiple variations of ancient Hebrew and therefore created more than a few differences in spelling and punctuation in their manuscripts - but beyond these variants, the Great Isaiah scroll contains very few differences. And it does indeed contain all the text of chapter 53.

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Posted: Aug 03, 2010 12:56 pm
by rickstones
Crocodile Gandhi";p="386296 wrote:The Bible does, however, propose that bats are birds.


Yes, and science gave us the Oort cloud!

I am convinced that prophetic evolution of bat-birds will be emerging any day now!

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Posted: Aug 03, 2010 2:46 pm
by GenesForLife
But if shown to be wrong the Scientific model of the Oort cloud will be retracted, but the Babble won't change regardless of having holes poked in it.

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Posted: Aug 03, 2010 3:28 pm
by Darwinsbulldog
GenesForLife";p="386490 wrote:But if shown to be wrong the Scientific model of the Oort cloud will be retracted, but the Babble won't change regardless of having holes poked in it.


I hate to disagree with you, but the second part of your comment is wrong. Religious wibble does change over time, but as it is not in the slightest based on reality, it is more like a drunkard's walk on the Yellow Brick Road. Wif fairies and fings. La, la, la.... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Posted: Aug 03, 2010 3:38 pm
by GenesForLife
Darwinsbulldog";p="386540 wrote:
GenesForLife";p="386490 wrote:But if shown to be wrong the Scientific model of the Oort cloud will be retracted, but the Babble won't change regardless of having holes poked in it.


I hate to disagree with you, but the second part of your comment is wrong. Religious wibble does change over time, but as it is not in the slightest based on reality, it is more like a drunkard's walk on the Yellow Brick Road. Wif fairies and fings. La, la, la.... :lol: :lol: :lol:


Right, no offence taken at the disagreement :thumbup: , in fact I even agree with you.

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Posted: Aug 03, 2010 3:42 pm
by Goldenmane
rickstones";p="386366 wrote:
Crocodile Gandhi";p="386296 wrote:The Bible does, however, propose that bats are birds.


Yes, and science gave us the Oort cloud!

I am convinced that prophetic evolution of bat-birds will be emerging any day now!


And I'm convinced that The Cat in the Hat... ah, fuck it. You really aren't going consider that it was basically a jingle written to support the US stance on the Cold War, are you?

I'm not even sure why I brought that up, except that Dr Seuss makes more sense than anything you've come out with.

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Posted: Aug 03, 2010 6:59 pm
by rickstones
Goldenmane";p="386553 wrote:
rickstones";p="386366 wrote:
Crocodile Gandhi";p="386296 wrote:The Bible does, however, propose that bats are birds.


Yes, and science gave us the Oort cloud!

I am convinced that prophetic evolution of bat-birds will be emerging any day now!


And I'm convinced that The Cat in the Hat... ah, fuck it. You really aren't going consider that it was basically a jingle written to support the US stance on the Cold War, are you?

I'm not even sure why I brought that up, except that Dr Seuss makes more sense than anything you've come out with.


In the spirit of concerned helpfulness, I think you may have accidentally typed in the wrong URL. When you typed, "rational skepticism", perhaps you actually intended http://www.tinyfistedfootstamping.com?

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Posted: Aug 03, 2010 7:03 pm
by GenesForLife
Well done, great argument , argumentum ad hominem alone isn't going to get you anywhere.

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Posted: Aug 03, 2010 7:22 pm
by rickstones
GenesForLife";p="386805 wrote:Well done, great argument , argumentum ad hominem alone isn't going to get you anywhere.

Are you sure this qualifies? I was under the impression that true argumentum ad hominem required a personal attack on someone's character, rather than an expressed opinion regarding a person's behavior.

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Posted: Aug 04, 2010 8:21 am
by GenesForLife
A person's behaviour is part of his character ;) , quite simply put, an instance of "attack the poster, not the content" is a case of an ad hominem argument.

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Posted: Aug 04, 2010 10:23 am
by Wuffy
Actually an ad hominem would be saying; Your argument is bullshit because you are acting like a twit.

Simply stating you are acting like a twit and handling the arguments separately, does not ad hominem make.

Edit: I'm not even sure which way the accusations are flying, decided just to clear up ad hominem

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Posted: Aug 04, 2010 10:38 am
by GenesForLife
Well, if a person ignores the argument being made and suggests that the arguer is acting like a twit, what fallacy would that be?

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Posted: Aug 04, 2010 10:41 am
by natselrox
Argumentum ad twitter? :dunno:

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Posted: Aug 04, 2010 10:53 am
by hackenslash
GenesForLife";p="387999 wrote:Well, if a person ignores the argument being made and suggests that the arguer is acting like a twit, what fallacy would that be?


Non-sequitur? Genetic fallacy? ACtually, the latter is probably the better choice, as it's still pretty close to ad hom which is a form of the genetic fallacy, i.e. dismissing the argument because of the source (or the source's behaviour not relating to the argument).

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Posted: Aug 04, 2010 1:10 pm
by rickstones
Wuffy";p="387980 wrote:Actually an ad hominem would be saying; Your argument is bullshit because you are acting like a twit.

Simply stating you are acting like a twit and handling the arguments separately, does not ad hominem make.

Edit: I'm not even sure which way the accusations are flying, decided just to clear up ad hominem

Thanks for clarifying this point. I apologize, and request an opportunity to correct my mistake. Goldenmane said this:
"Dr Seuss makes more sense than anything you've come out with."


So if you all would allow me a mulligan, I would modify my response to the following:
"Perhaps you are right. Dr. Seuss certainly is more widely published than me. But I do wish you would modify your behavior and stop acting like a tiny-fisted foot-stamper."