Thank you again robosquirrel for your excellent comments that warrant only a responsible response, which I pray shall follow.
One can believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans and sculpted out of mud by God, but the only evidence we have of that is a book written by people and translated and reinterpreted and edited by people over the course of well over thousands of years. Does that make it fact? Some say yes; that's their opinion. I think that's a pretty shaky foundation for understanding the way the world works.
"translated and reinterpreted" (tarred): When you make comments like this, you actually insult the scientific community. The scientific community translates and reinterprets data on a continual basis. But, the Bibles we carry now are translations of the original writings that are in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Mind you, there are some Bible versions which are 'tarred' because the author of the Bible version came with presuppositions that contradict the very nature of the Bible (which can be discussed in another forum). However, you stand partially correct in you statement about its origin. It was co-written. Authored by God and written by man using his own personality.
"Does that make it fact?": How could it not? A book written over a period of 1500 years, without contradiction from not all scholars but an array of different personalities and mindsets. A book that has more ancient copies in existence than any other work of antiquity. The Bible (5000+), Homer's Illiad (500-600). Homer's Illiad is the only work that comes closest to the number of supporting manuscripts and it is touted as an authentic work, yet it pales in comparison to the Bible which offers over ten times as much supporting evidence and it is touted as fraudulent, or allegorical. Back to your statement though: Isn't the fact that all the writings we have come closest to the actual events occurring and also the fact that there are more copies (25K+) of fragments of passage with supporting evidence a scientific breakthrough? Science revels over supporting evidence and what is offered by the Bible is overwhelmingly scientifically proven and substantiated evidence. What reason could scientists not agree with this save they're negligence to embrace the super-natural (oops, I mean metaphysical)?
"that's their opinion. I think that's a pretty shaky foundation for understanding the way the world works.": You have your opinion and I can respect that. But, I believe that it is the one that's shaky when we need to address the workings of the world. Yet, forgive me, you did not explain it to me, so then I cannot really say it's shaky if it doesn't exist.
I've read both this post and your last post. I also happen to agree with you. But I must go over to Shoprat's blog before I can further comment. Be back soon! And remind me not to get into a debate with you! :)
ReplyDeleteRobosquirrel said: "I don't know how life and Earth started, and neither do you. Nor can you ever know." I like Robosquirrel and visit his blog often, but don't agree with him on this issue. I left a comment on the link you left at Shoprat's blog. Please read it and get back to me on the link thing! :)
ReplyDeleteI also want to say that I see you have only been blogging since last December. From what I've seen so far you will add much to the world of blogging. Weclome!
By the way, Happy Belated New Year!
thanks, gayle for the compliments. and Happy Belated New Year to you too. You know, it's so weird how many people would have left that alone, what robosquirrel said. But, I couldn't and actually as I was typing it up; I had this gnawing feeling that shoprat, armed-christian, crazy politico, you or lone pony was going to respond. So, I was typing as fast as I could. But, I am glad to get the feed back.
ReplyDeleteGayle, I like people and disagree with them all the time! I actually like some people I disagree with more than I like people who just tell me I'm right all the time. My best friend is a bleeding-heart, dyed-in-the-wool liberal! Feel free to post me you disagreements anytime!
ReplyDeleteNeo, for what it's worth, it gnawed at me how no one would touch the posts I've made on the subject. I appreciate you hammering out a reasoned response, honestly. I sometimes feel I'm either posting in a vacuum or an echo chamber. I knew a lot of folks, like Gayle, would disagree but might not feel like they want to respond, since we normally agree.
Just because the Bible is old and there are a lot of copies doesn't make the very magical, mythical, things that defy all reason within its pages true. What about all the gospels that didn't make into the "approved" bible? What reason would the church have to exclude them? I don't know much about them other than that they exist.
Homer's Illiad may be an authentic work by Homer, but it's hardly any more fact than the Bible is. Both have elements of truth, interpretations of actual events, perhaps, but the Greek gods no more fought the battle of Troy than Lot's wife turned to a pillar of salt. I don't know scripture, but I remember a bit of Sunday school.
I realize science supports things like the great flood, but I'd love some references on science having proven that the Bible is word-for-word fact. I'm no biblical scholar, and could stand to read a little more.
As I said, I'm not trying to explain life or the beginning of Earth, but to implore people to use their inherent ability to reason.