Wesley R. Elsberry
Unregistered
|
| Quote |
Comment #59333
Posted by limpidense on November 22, 2005 03:49 AM (e) (s)
Plenty of evidence that attempts to read the .Bible. literally lead only to bad ends. When someone introduces their .religion. w/o cause into the conversation, I balance myself on the balls of my feet, since however harmless most crazy people are, it.s best not to take chances.
(While DH is simply an obscene bore, CC should really wipe the foam off her mouth. It really is a dead giveaway. Why would any .God. want believers like them?)
|
| Quote |
Comment #59334
Posted by iskndarbey on November 22, 2005 04:18 AM (e) (s)
I know the initiator and director of the Clergy Letter Project, Dr. Michael Zimmerman, well, and have been peripherally involved with the effort to collect signatures. I would like to thank Wesley for his kind post and all the commenters for engaging in a vigorous and fascinating discussion. We are progressing rapidly toward our goal, and need only about 15 signatures to reach 10,000. Anything you can do to get the word out to American Christian clergy members would of course be much appreciated.
In response to vhutchison (comment number 59024) who asked for a search-by-state function on our website, we do have a page set up at http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/rel_clergy_by. which shows the breakdown by state. We have signatures from every state and the District of Columbia; our largest state is unsurprisingly California with 763 signatures while our smallest is Nevada with 13. At this time we do not have the capability to run an automated search for individual pastors by state or denomination, although this is something we may implement in the future. This whole process has, of course, been very time consuming and we have had to expend most of our energy towards gathering the signatures.
|
| Quote |
Comment #59336
Posted by David Heddle on November 22, 2005 05:05 AM (e) (s)
Renier,
As for Heddle, you make a statement that science proves the Bible. Any comment on the text that a bat is a bird? The Bible is after all .inerrant.. Is science wrong when it does not agree with the Bible? After all Heddle, in your little world, a Bat is a bird.
Oh, gosh, you have shattered my faith!
Really now, what.s next.will it be the rabbit chewing cud or pi equal to 3? Apart from explanations (just Google you.ll find them) it is really dumb to bring this up for many reasons. Here are a couple:
1) It.s like coming on PT and asking .what good is half and eye?. (Do you really think something so unoriginal and something that has been asked and answered a gazillion times is going to be a knockout punch?) If you.d like some biblical questions that are real conundrums for biblical inerrancy, I.ll provide you some.then at least you won.t look so silly.
2) The .bats as birds. is particularly dumb. For the bible to be consistent with science, it does not mean that the classification scheme of the ancient Jews has to agree with modern classification schemes, schemes which, even today, are not absolute laws of nature, not even close. If the ancients classified bats and owls and falcons as birds (flying things) it would reflect their classification scheme, such as it was, and it is not a violation of science. If the bible stated that the earth was the center of the cosmos, that would be a violation of science.
The Bible is not a scientific textbook. Deal with it!
Can you point out where I claimed it was? Of course it is not a science textbook. Nobody said it was a science textbook. It actually says very little about science. But if it is inerrant, then what it contains in its original form cannot be inconsistent with science.
|
| Quote |
Comment #59337
Posted by Butterfingers on November 22, 2005 05:13 AM (e) (s)
Carol:If you don.t know Hebrew, you do not know the Bible. You may know OF the Bible, or ABOUT the Bible, but you do not know THE Bible (referring to the so called old testament).
Carol, cut the bull####. I read Hebrew, and everything Mr. Heddle says holds true in tha language as well. I don.t think this interface will support Hebrew fonts, or I.d match his translated quotes with the original ones and show where and if the translation is missing something.and it really doesn.t miss - certainly it doesn.t change the meaning of all those stoning and burning instructions.
If someone can tell me how to post images here, I.ll put in JPGs of the Hebrew quotes for the delectation of Hebrew readers - and Carol.
|
| Quote |
Comment #59339
Posted by k.e. on November 22, 2005 05:34 AM (e) (s)
Heddle:said
But if it is inerrant, then what it contains in its original form cannot be inconsistent with science.
Really ?
Well then. What was Adams last name?
I.m really curious, just who were his Mom, and Pop?
And before you answer consider this.
You may have grown up in an apartment and your parents kept the bedroom door shut real tight. Which would be the only explanation if you opted for a miracle. But out on the farm the animals just get on with it.
So lets have an explanation for your literal reading of Gen1. Gen2.
|
| Quote |
Comment #59342
Posted by David Heddle on November 22, 2005 06:11 AM (e) (s)
k.e.,
I.m trying to understand the point of the .Adam.s last name. question. You do realize, of course, that even if Adam and Eve popped out of the vacuum at God.s command (that.s not my view, but let.s go to the extreme to make a point) that it would not be a violation of science?
Miracles (there are about ~100 of them in the bible) are by definition excluded. If miracles could be explained by science, they wouldn.t be miracles. That is why even Renier, above, did not bring up Jesus walking on water or feeding the 5000. Most people understand that, even if they don.t believe the miracles, they have to be exempt from this argument. If you take out the miracles.it would be maybe 15 or so pages in the typical bible, there is still plenty of text left to hunt for scientific error. (Oh, and when it talks about the sun rising and setting, that doesn.t mean it is claiming the sun rotates around the earth.)
As for Genesis 2, it does not give the creation order. It does not teach that God created the animals and then brought them to Adam. It merely says that God brought them to Adam, and reminds us that he created them. You can google for more complete explanations.as I understand it, it is even clearer in the Hebrew.maybe Carol can comment.
|
| Quote |
Comment #59343
Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on November 22, 2005 06:39 AM (e) (s)
Carol Clouser wrote:
Wesley,
I would gladly apologize, right here and right now, if I were guilty of offending anyone. But for the apology to be meaningful I need to understand the offense. At the risk of beating a dead horse, let us recapitulate. I stated that the clerics demonstrated a lack of faith in the ability of the Bible to stand the test of time (present and future conflicts with science, for example). That is why they prefer a malleable Bible that need not be taken at its word. Now, since when is lacking such faith a slur on panda.s thumb? I dare say most folks prowling the corridors of this blog take pride in their lack of such faith. They actually consider it .enlightened. (.seeing the light., Apesnake, get it?) to be lacking such faith.
I think your baseless accusations and hints of accusations are leading you to the point where you will owe me an apology.
No, I suppose that Carol will not understand after all. She apparently has lost that capacity, if she ever had a conscience. The utter brazenness with which Carol dismisses the idea that she has caused harm . obvious and intentional . is breathtaking. Let.s recap the original:
Carol Clouser wrote:
Two, this sounds like the apologetics of folks who fear contradiction by science and have invented the great excuse for all such possible contradictions in the future. The Bible meant something else! These clerics truly lack faith. Let them just give it up and be done with it!
.Now, since when is lacking such faith a slur on panda.s thumb?. This isn.t about .Panda.s Thumb.. No, Carol, this is about the nearly 10,000 clergy whose lives of faith you baselessly denigrated and cowardly fail to even recognize that you have done so. It would not change the fact that Carol was insulting those clergy if PT.s community were entirely comprised of atheists (which it is not), the accusation Carol made remains odious in form, and unsubstantiated in content. That PT provides the ability to comment to atheists who disparage faith makes no difference to the offense that Carol has offered those who have associated with the Clergy Project. How could that make any difference? Carol.s digression in that regard is premised upon moral relativism, nothing else: to an atheist, it wouldn.t be an insult. Hello? The clergy of the Clergy Project are not atheists. Carol.s only basis given for her attack on those clergy has been her prejudice, shrilly asserted. Nor does it stop with the limitation Carol asserts in her latest mealy-mouthed non-apology: .Let them just give it up and be done with it!. Carol was saying then that those nearly 10,000 clergy could all simply give up their faith and it would make no difference. In the words of Judge John E. Jones III, .Don.t insult my intelligence..
But the incident does underscore the intolerance with which certain segments of the faith community greet those of us who fall into the categories of .evolutionary creationists. or .theistic evolutionists..
|
| Quote |
Comment #59344
Posted by Wayne Francis on November 22, 2005 06:40 AM (e) (s)
Carol, so you say that you believe the days of creation in Genesis refer to era? Do I understand you correctly? How do you reconcile this with the fact that Genesis 1:5-1:23 constantly use .veyhe erev. .veyhe voker. near yom indicating that it is talking about a 24 hour cycle by refering to morning and evening?
|
| Quote |
Comment #59346
Posted by Renier on November 22, 2005 07:05 AM (e) (s)
To Heddle
In your previous post, you had a wonderful explanation with the dilemma I had with the Bat/Fowl thing. Thank you for it. Even after the explanation though, I still am not convinced that a Bat is a Bird.
Heddle wrote:
My position is: the Bible is absolutely correct and supports science.
From the above, it appeared to me as if you supported the Bible as a scientifically correct book. My apologies are in order then if I was mistaken.
Heddle wrote:
Of course it is not a science textbook. Nobody said it was a science textbook. It actually says very little about science.
Well, I must agree with you on this comment. It would be nice if you cleared this up with the Creationists, because they seem to lack the revelation that the Bible is not to be used for scientific purposes.
Heddle wrote:
If the bible stated that the earth was the centre of the cosmos, that would be a violation of science.
We know the above was the belief of every Christian for many years, at one stage, and that is was an interpretation from the Bible, until science came along. The truth is, if it was not for science, you, and everyone else here, would still have held to that belief. We would also still believe the earth was flat (four corners). Hang on here, the Bible does say the Earth has four corners.
Yet, and I know you claim this has been refuted, there is a very strange verse about 4 footed insects (Lev.11:20-21 (KJV)). This of course is fine, as long as you hold to the belief that the Bible contains very little (or none, perhaps?) science in it. I mean, it would be absurd to regard statements like in the next verse .which have legs above their feet. as any type of scientific value. For I am sure, finding a foot with no leg above it would indeed freak me out (perhaps a nasty car accident!). Unless of course the ID people think there is an intelligent designer that could attempt a foot, I mean, a feat like this.
Heddle wrote:Really now, what.s next.will it be the rabbit chewing cud
Eh, yes, if you don.t mind, I don.t understand that little problem either. I will predict that you will explain away the error in an .inerrant. book by stating mistranslation, out of context, misunderstood (my English is not all that good, I know) or some fantastic explanation that it actually means something else. Or of course, it could be symbolic.for.eh.what?
Heddle wrote :
If you.d like some biblical questions that are real conundrums for biblical inerrancy, I.ll provide you some.then at least you won.t look so silly.
I looked silly? By asking what a silly statement like what .a Bat is a bird. is doing in an .inerrant. book? If that.s a silly question and the answer was not obvious to me (should it have been?), then it.s a good thing you are not a teacher.
It.s a good thing the Bible was written for super duper almighty perceived intellectuals like you, because I with my little simplistic mind cannot understand its scientific value, but then of course, you agree with this, since you stated .Of course it is not a science textbook. Nobody said it was a science textbook. It actually says very little about science.
|
| Quote |
Comment #59349
Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 22, 2005 08:05 AM (e) (s)
The reason Lenny purposely excludes me from his favorite question (#59259) is that I actually made the effort to answer him on a different thread.
No you didn.t. You told me all about Judah.s wonderful scholarly credentials. I pointed out that other scholars with equally wonderful credentuials think Judah is full of crap. I then asked why Judah.s credentials are better than theirs.
You never answered.
But then, you.re just here to shill for Judah, not to answer any questions.
|
| Quote |
Comment #59351
Posted by David Heddle on November 22, 2005 08:16 AM (e) (s)
Renier,
We know the above was the belief (earth at the center of the cosmos)of every Christian for many years, at one stage, and that is was an interpretation from the Bible
Actually, in that case I don.t think you can attribute it to a faulty interpretation. It was a faulty assumption. The faulty assumption was that, as the pinnacle of God.s creation, surely He would place us at the center of the cosmos. It is representative of a family of theological errors of the general form: Well, if I were God, then I.d.
Yes you looked silly. Another mistake you made, a common one, was the .ancients were idiots. fallacy. If the ancients wanted to call bats .birds. (flying things, actually) well, that.s how they classified them. Is it not clear to you that, if we assume for the sake of argument, that the Hebrews had one classification for animals that flew, and they called them birds, this is not a scientific error? Not only that, but it would be an entirely reasonable and defensible schema?
then it.s a good thing you are not a teacher.
Actually I am, if college professor counts.
No, I am not going to (once again) answer the rabbit cud question, or the insects, or the pi = 3. Just google and you.ll find explanations. Or you can prefer, if you like, to maintain the fiction that the Jews were so stupid that, even though they worked the land, they never noticed an insect has six legs, and so they wrote a holy book which, while studied for millennia in the language in which it was written, was never corrected. Also, you can comfort yourself that any explanation that is in any way based upon difficulties (let alone outright errors) in translating from ancient Hebrew to English is a copout.
|
|
