homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Does Creation Science Give Comfort to the Enemy? (Page 4)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Does Creation Science Give Comfort to the Enemy?
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
Jamat, Velikovsky is as lunatic fringe as you can _get_. Come on now. The man had no scientific credentials, and he changed his hypothesis book-to-book. The man was a whack job, a nut case.

So what if he didn't have the 'high priest' status you obviously afford 'scientists'. Are we into junking personalities now? Bet you haven't read him.

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28

 - Posted      Profile for Nicolemr   Author's homepage   Email Nicolemr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
"High priest status"????? The man was a charalatan!

And btw, I have read one of his books, a long time ago. I forget which one. I was young, but even then I could tell it was a crackpot theory. It doesn't take much.

--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!

Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I simply think the events happened and were recorded. Chronology does not necessarily matter

If you're going to say you're taking the Bible at face value, then chronology does matter. Because if taking the Bible at face value doesn't mean that you believe the events occurred in the same order as they're described then it begins to look like it doesn't mean anything.
If you're going to say that accepting the Bible means rejecting evolution, then chronology does matter. If you take the chronology out of the Bible account, what are you left with that contradicts evolution? Pretty much nothing.

You still haven't told Croesos or the rest of us why you don't believe there are windows above the earth holding the rain in even though Genesis repeatedly says they're there and there is no "clear editorial or contextual reason not to" take it at face value.

Well to ancient Jewish writers, Chronological order was frequently scrambled. The Gospel of John is a case in point. It is the writer's agenda that dictates the order. The Bible is a collection of books, a library within itself. Each of the 40 writers makes selective and editorial decisions. As a discerning reader, one needs to be as aware of them as possible. For instance, genealogies often have holes. A man's son may in fact be his grandson. When I said chronology was unimportant, I was suggesting that facts are still facts even if scrambled somewhat. Sometimes, of course, it is important. Many written texts these days are similar in that they are chronologically skewed..not linnear narratives in other words.

I have never denied metaphor. Above, I affirmed it. The concept of the 'floodgates' or 'windows' of heaven is clearly a metaphor to describe what was probably a vapour canopy. The point is that scripture states that waters existed above the earth. That is what I think is true.

Incidentally, do we really have to revisit the moon thing? I mentioned nit-picky.. perhaps pedantic would be better.

[ 10. April 2010, 00:47: Message edited by: Jamat ]

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

There is one detail to add to the 'looniness' you might find interesting. Jonathan Swift in 'Gulliver's Travels' mentions Mars has two moons. At the time no one thought Mars had moons. They did not become visible to astronomers until 150 years later. Was he working from an ancient source? Did that suggest that some time in the past Mars was close enough for them to be visible with the naked eye?

No. The suggestion that Mars had two moons was first made and published by Kepler in 1610, long before Swift, and was well known in the early modern world. He made the suggestion to fit a geometrical theory which turned out to be quite wrong except for this one accident. When he learned of the observation of Jupiter's four brightest moons, and compared this with the Earth's one Moon, Kepler concluded that Mars must have two moons (by the geometrical progression 1,2,4...).

Of course Jupiter doesn't have four moons, at the last count, it had 63. Kepler's geometrical theories were barking up the wrong tree.

L.

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
"High priest status"????? The man was a charalatan!

And btw, I have read one of his books, a long time ago. I forget which one. I was young, but even then I could tell it was a crackpot theory. It doesn't take much.

I don't necessarily buy his theory. His research into ancient stories is what he does well. It's a cheap shot to call him a charlatan.

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

There is one detail to add to the 'looniness' you might find interesting. Jonathan Swift in 'Gulliver's Travels' mentions Mars has two moons. At the time no one thought Mars had moons. They did not become visible to astronomers until 150 years later. Was he working from an ancient source? Did that suggest that some time in the past Mars was close enough for them to be visible with the naked eye?

No. The suggestion that Mars had two moons was first made and published by Kepler in 1610, long before Swift, and was well known in the early modern world. He made the suggestion to fit a geometrical theory which turned out to be quite wrong except for this one accident. When he learned of the observation of Jupiter's four brightest moons, and compared this with the Earth's one Moon, Kepler concluded that Mars must have two moons (by the geometrical progression 1,2,4...).

Of course Jupiter doesn't have four moons, at the last count, it had 63. Kepler's geometrical theories were barking up the wrong tree.

L.

Asaph Hall 1877?

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Asaph Hall 1877?

Swift didn't possess some arcane knowledge that everyone else lacked until Asaph Hall in 1877. He knew a fashionable 17th-18th notion which, while being wrong on just about every other count, said that Mars had two moons, and was right on that purely by accident, despite the theory behind it being completely wrong.


Let's go over it bit by bit

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

Jonathan Swift in 'Gulliver's Travels' mentions Mars has two moons. At the time no one thought Mars had moons.

This is quite simply false. Lots of people, including English contemporaries of Swift, such as William Derham, thought Mars had moons, and two was quite a common number suggested. It traces back to Kepler's theory of two moons which I mentioned. Drawing on Kepler, people thought that the further away from the sun it was, the more moons a planet should have.

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Was he working from an ancient source? Did that suggest that some time in the past Mars was close enough for them to be visible with the naked eye?

No, he was simply showing off his knowledge of theories from his own time about Mars. 18th century person repeats popular 18th century theory is not some kind of miracle of prophecy.

cheers,
L

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
There is one detail to add to the 'looniness' you might find interesting. Jonathan Swift in 'Gulliver's Travels' mentions Mars has two moons. At the time no one thought Mars had moons. They did not become visible to astronomers until 150 years later. Was he working from an ancient source? Did that suggest that some time in the past Mars was close enough for them to be visible with the naked eye?

So you're postulating what? That Mars came really close to Earth shortly before 1726 and only Swift noticed it? Or that he was working from "ancient sources" of which no one knew except Swift, and the only use he had for his exclusive use of this ancient knowledge was a single throw-away line in Gulliver's Travels?

I'd also like to hear an explanation as to how Mars kept its satellites after repeated close exposure to Earth's much stronger gravitational field. Bear in mind that at a 70,000 mile approach the attraction between Deimos and Earth would be almost as great as between Deimos and Mars, depending on where Deimos was in its orbit at the time.

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well to ancient Jewish writers, Chronological order was frequently scrambled. The Gospel of John is a case in point. It is the writer's agenda that dictates the order. The Bible is a collection of books, a library within itself. Each of the 40 writers makes selective and editorial decisions. As a discerning reader, one needs to be as aware of them as possible.

So the Bible is to be taken literally, except when it's not. Very illuminating. [Roll Eyes] The practical application of this principle is that the "discerning reader" can simply discard whatever he doesn't like as metaphor while simultaneously promoting his own prejudices as God's revelation.

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
For instance, genealogies often have holes. A man's son may in fact be his grandson.

Yes, I believe that man's name was Lot.

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
When I said chronology was unimportant, I was suggesting that facts are still facts even if scrambled somewhat. Sometimes, of course, it is important. Many written texts these days are similar in that they are chronologically skewed..not linnear narratives in other words.

I have never denied metaphor. Above, I affirmed it. The concept of the 'floodgates' or 'windows' of heaven is clearly a metaphor to describe what was probably a vapour canopy. The point is that scripture states that waters existed above the earth. That is what I think is true.

The point is that scripture gives you no reason not to believe that a large body of water exists above the Earth right now. After all, if there were no more "waters above", why would God have to close the floodgates, as described by scripture. And if there are no more "waters above", wouldn't that also mean there are no more "fountains of the deep"?

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Incidentally, do we really have to revisit the moon thing? I mentioned nit-picky.. perhaps pedantic would be better.

Yes, I would like to hear a clear, scriptural reason why "light" doesn't mean "light".

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So you're postulating what? That Mars came really close to Earth shortly before 1726 and only Swift noticed it? Or that he was working from "ancient sources" of which no one knew except Swift, and the only use he had for his exclusive use of this ancient knowledge was a single throw-away line in Gulliver's Travels



Never suggested this. You are arguing dishonestly. Swift's reference may or may not be from an ancient source or, as Louise suggests it may just have been 18th Century parlance. It was interesting is all. Another piece of hstorical 'DNA' or not as may be.

quote:
I'd also like to hear an explanation as to how Mars kept its satellites after repeated close exposure to Earth's much stronger gravitational field. Bear in mind that at a 70,000 mile approach the attraction between Deimos and Earth would be almost as great as between Deimos and Mars, depending on where Deimos was in its orbit at the time.
I have no idea about orbital mechanics. The possibility of a Martian close-call was mentioned to suggest that 'Ahaz' sundial' could conceivably have happened.

quote:
So the Bible is to be taken literally, except when it's not. Very illuminating. [Roll Eyes] The practical application of this principle is that the "discerning reader" can simply discard whatever he doesn't like as metaphor while simultaneously promoting his own prejudices as God's revelation.
This strikes me as dishonest or dumbass. You clearly are out to mock and belittle. Perhaps the dead horse has been flogged enough.


quote:
The point is that scripture gives you no reason not to believe that a large body of water exists above the Earth right now. After all, if there were no more "waters above", why would God have to close the floodgates, as described by scripture. And if there are no more "waters above", wouldn't that also mean there are no more "fountains of the deep"?
I never suggested there was a body of water above the earth right now.

quote:
[Yes, I would like to hear a clear, scriptural reason why "light" doesn't mean "light".
This has been addressed already. Light, hopefully is available and evident to all whose heads are not totally up their anterior regions.

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So you're postulating what? That Mars came really close to Earth shortly before 1726 and only Swift noticed it? Or that he was working from "ancient sources" of which no one knew except Swift, and the only use he had for his exclusive use of this ancient knowledge was a single throw-away line in Gulliver's Travels



Never suggested this. You are arguing dishonestly. Swift's reference may or may not be from an ancient source or, as Louise suggests it may just have been 18th Century parlance. It was interesting is all. Another piece of hstorical 'DNA' or not as may be.

Jamat, meet Jamat.

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
There is one detail to add to the 'looniness' you might find interesting. Jonathan Swift in 'Gulliver's Travels' mentions Mars has two moons. At the time no one thought Mars had moons. They did not become visible to astronomers until 150 years later. Was he working from an ancient source? Did that suggest that some time in the past Mars was close enough for them to be visible with the naked eye?

Yeah, you didn't "suggest" it, you merely mentioned evidence your position was correct. What was that about arguing dishonestly?

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
I'd also like to hear an explanation as to how Mars kept its satellites after repeated close exposure to Earth's much stronger gravitational field. Bear in mind that at a 70,000 mile approach the attraction between Deimos and Earth would be almost as great as between Deimos and Mars, depending on where Deimos was in its orbit at the time.
I have no idea about orbital mechanics. The possibility of a Martian close-call was mentioned to suggest that 'Ahaz' sundial' could conceivably have happened.
Aren't questions like this important ones when trying to decide if something "could conceivably have happened"?

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
The point is that scripture gives you no reason not to believe that a large body of water exists above the Earth right now. After all, if there were no more "waters above", why would God have to close the floodgates, as described by scripture. And if there are no more "waters above", wouldn't that also mean there are no more "fountains of the deep"?
I never suggested there was a body of water above the earth right now.
Yeah, that was the question. There's a very clear scriptural reason for saying there are "waters above" today, and yet you insist that you can interpret Genesis literally and still dismiss this part of it. How do you do that? I'd like to hear your scriptural reason for this.

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Yes, I would like to hear a clear, scriptural reason why "light" doesn't mean "light".
This has been addressed already. Light, hopefully is available and evident to all whose heads are not totally up their anterior regions.
"Now, that's just being nit picky" is not a scriptural quote that I'm familiar with. Chapter and verse, please?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well to ancient Jewish writers, Chronological order was frequently scrambled.

You're still missing the point.
Point 1) Saying that ancient Jewish writers scrambled chronology is a way of not taking Scripture at face value.

Point 2) What exactly about the Biblical account contradicts Darwinian evolution as understood by scientists once you've decided that the chronology of the Biblical accounts is scrambled? What exactly are you left with?

quote:
I have never denied metaphor. Above, I affirmed it. The concept of the 'floodgates' or 'windows' of heaven is clearly a metaphor to describe what was probably a vapour canopy.
No. It is only 'clearly' a metaphor because you are importing knowledge from outside scripture into scripture.
If someone brought up underground all their life read this passage of Scripture without independent knowledge of clouds they would see no reason in Scripture not to take this literally.

Let's set this out logically.

1) You take Scripture at face value, and you only take it metaphorically if there is an editorial or contextual reason to do so.
2) Scripture says that there are windows above our heads that let the rain through.
3) There is no editorial or contextual reason in Scripture to take 2) metaphorically.
A) (From 1-3) Therefore, you believe that there are windows above our heads that let the rain through.
4) You do not believe that there are windows above our heads that let the rain through.

Contradiction. Therefore, one of 1-4 must be false. 2-4 are all true. Therefore 1 is false.

You do not take Scripture at face value.

quote:
Incidentally, do we really have to revisit the moon thing? I mentioned nit-picky.. perhaps pedantic would be better.
If you assert that there is a rule that you follow, and you break that rule, then you don't follow that rule. You can say it's nitpicky or pedantic to point out that you've broken the rule; it doesn't matter. You've still broken the rule at some point when it suited you.

If you say that you believe what the Bible says without trying to explain it away, and you then explain away something that the Bible says, it doesn't matter how pedantic or nit-picky it is to point out the exception you've made. You were telling an untruth when you said you believe whatever the Bible says without explaining it away.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No light shines merely by its own power. The fact that it doesn't does not disqualify it from being called a light. A mirror for instance can function as a light. I presume you've heard of semophore? Even the sun shines by virtue of the reactions continuously occurring in is core. For convenience, we call the result 'sunshine' but since the whole argument is 'moonshine' could we just move on?

The basic contention is about hermeneutics. But could you please noteI have not actually used the word 'literal' in any posts on this subject. I have used the term 'face-value.'Not a lot of difference I know but people here assume 'literal' is absurdly extreme.

Conservative scholars use four bases to interpret the Bible. Excuse me if you know this already but understanding it may avoid the petty point scoring game.

First the 'golden rule' One takes Biblical passages as read unless there is something in the text that indicates that they should be understood some other way. metaphor and symbolism are not precluded by this. but symbols are generally explained when such is intended by the writer.

Second is the 'law of double reference'. A passage may be referring to two different things separated by a time gap. An eg is Zech 9:9-10. Reference is made to both comings of the messiah here. V9=ist coming, vs10=2nd.

Third, is the law of recurrence. This is typified in the so called two creation accounts discussed in this thread. Basically, Gen 1 records the chronology of the creation days, Gen 2:4-25, goes back over the ground to provide added details. Many other egs are possible.

Lastly is the 'law of context'. A text without a context is normally a pretext. Taking a verse from context can let some people prove virtually anything.

This stuff is virtually straight from the Dallas Theological Seminary textbooks.

[ 12. April 2010, 04:47: Message edited by: Jamat ]

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
No light shines merely by its own power. The fact that it doesn't does not disqualify it from being called a light. A mirror for instance can function as a light. I presume you've heard of semophore? Even the sun shines by virtue of the reactions continuously occurring in is core. For convenience, we call the result 'sunshine' but since the whole argument is 'moonshine' could we just move on?

I don't see how something with its own built-in nuclear reactor like the Sun can be said to not be shining by its own power.

I also tried your mirror suggestion, and it doesn't work. Try it yourself. Close yourself up in a room and eliminate all other sources of light. Now try to read by light emitted by your mirror.

You can try the same thing with a semaphore signaler, if you happen to have one handy, and the results will be the same.

It also seems that none of your four hermeneutic rules would indicate that "light" means anything other than "light" or that there are not literal floodgates in the heavens through which "the waters above" can pour. In fact, your "golden rule" would seem to require a straightforward, face value interpretation of these things, as there is nothing in the context to indicate otherwise.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Jamat - I read your posts as saying -

'I want to believe it, therefore I will believe it - whatever I see or hear'

...

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Conservative scholars use four bases to interpret the Bible. ...

First the 'golden rule' One takes Biblical passages as read unless there is something in the text that indicates that they should be understood some other way.

It's probably the case that the discussion of Biblical interpretation may be better suited to one of the Inerrancy/Infallibility threads ... but, there's one big problem with this 'golden rule'. That is, once you admit there are some instances where the 'plain meaning' of the passage is an inadequate approach to understanding what it means, and need to use some other way of understanding it, then you need a significant framework for interpretation to say when you need to look beyond the 'plain meaning'. You need some means of deciding when a passage has a 'plain meaning' and when it doesn't. At that point you'll have some people deciding that a passage can be interpreted with a plain reading, and others that you need to interpret it differently ... all of whom are equally committed to your 'golden rule' of Biblical interpretation.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556

 - Posted      Profile for shamwari   Email shamwari   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
All four "conservative" bases for interpreting scripture do not arise out of scripture but are imposed upon scripture.

Which is precisely what "liberals" are accused of doing.

And your insistence on context would make more sense if you kept to the context. In context Zech 9 referred to the imminent coming of Zerubbabel (who was of David's line) at the time of the Return from Exile.

Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493

 - Posted      Profile for JoannaP   Email JoannaP   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
No light shines merely by its own power. The fact that it doesn't does not disqualify it from being called a light. A mirror for instance can function as a light. I presume you've heard of semophore? Even the sun shines by virtue of the reactions continuously occurring in is core.

I don't know that I have heard of "semophore". I know about semaphore but am totally unable to see the relevance of people communicating by waving flags at each other to the issue of whether the moon is a light or not. Can you please explain?

--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin

Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Otter
Shipmate
# 12020

 - Posted      Profile for Otter   Author's homepage   Email Otter   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
I don't know that I have heard of "semophore". I know about semaphore but am totally unable to see the relevance of people communicating by waving flags at each other to the issue of whether the moon is a light or not. Can you please explain?

At a guess, Jamat was thinking of a heliograph system, another low-tech method of long-ish distance signalling.

--------------------
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data", YMMV, limited-time offer, IANAL, no purchase required, and the state of CA has found this substance to cause cancer in laboratory aminals

Posts: 1429 | From: Chicago, IL 'burbs | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
First the 'golden rule' One takes Biblical passages as read unless there is something in the text that indicates that they should be understood some other way. metaphor and symbolism are not precluded by this. but symbols are generally explained when such is intended by the writer.

And at least some Christian writers, all through history, from St Augustine to the first Fundamentalists and the editors of the Scofield Reference Bible have looked at Genesis and not found a description of God creating the world in six calendar days.

Conservative Bible scholars have always had a range of positions on this. There have always been both Young-Earthers and Old-Earthers among people who take the Bible at face value.

The scientific discoveries of the 18th and early 19th centuries - that is observations made by faithful Christians looking at the God's world - proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Old-Earth Creationists were right, and the Young-Earth Creationists wrong. There is no serious doubt about it.

And so-called "Creation Science" is mostly the irrelevant witterings of people who simply don;t understand the real question. And when it isn;t it is mostly nothing but a miserable lie perpetrated by a few exceptionally dishonest Christians, Christians who should in the face of the judgment of almighty God have the moral fiber to know better.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
No light shines merely by its own power. The fact that it doesn't does not disqualify it from being called a light. A mirror for instance can function as a light. I presume you've heard of semophore? Even the sun shines by virtue of the reactions continuously occurring in is core.

I don't know that I have heard of "semophore". I know about semaphore but am totally unable to see the relevance of people communicating by waving flags at each other to the issue of whether the moon is a light or not. Can you please explain?
You are absolutely right, big 'Duh' for me! Should it be heliography?

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
All four "conservative" bases for interpreting scripture do not arise out of scripture but are imposed upon scripture.

Which is precisely what "liberals" are accused of doing.

And your insistence on context would make more sense if you kept to the context. In context Zech 9 referred to the imminent coming of Zerubbabel (who was of David's line) at the time of the Return from Exile.

Read it again. Zerrubbabel was not a king. There is another herneneutic nevertheless that not all agree on. That is the so called 'law of double fulfillment' which suggests things can sometimes have both a local and a prophetic fulfillment.

The other thing to remember is that parts of a verse can be separate in meaning. Another eg Is Jesus' quotation in Luke 4:18, where he pauses in the midst of a verse. There is the 'acceptable year of the Lord,' proclaimed,but not yet his 'day of vengeance'.

Regarding 'imposing interpretations', that has become a bit of a pat answer to anyone who dares declare what a text means.

Basically, hermeneutic tools are decided upon by scholars in an effort to decipher what is being communicated. You cannot not have them if you want to engage in meaningful dialogue where people are on the same page. Your statement is in fact one since it contains presuppositions about what is a valid way to understand the meaning of text.

It is a negative argument though as it implies we cannot impose meaning on text. The problem is that accepting that leads to the conclusion that either texts are meaningless or we can individually decide what they mean

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556

 - Posted      Profile for shamwari   Email shamwari   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Astounding.

The reason why Jesus didnt mention "the day of vengeance of our God" when quoting from Isaiah was because he didnt agree with vengeance. Nothing to do with spurious time-lag gaps dressed up in dubious theological language,

Jesus told us not to seek vengeance on any number of occasions. Why should he apply that concept to God whilst denying it to God's followers.?

Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:


It also seems that none of your four hermeneutic rules would indicate that "light" means anything other than "light" or that there are not literal floodgates in the heavens through which "the waters above" can pour. In fact, your "golden rule" would seem to require a straightforward, face value interpretation of these things, as there is nothing in the context to indicate otherwise.

Honestly, you are like a dog with a bone!

I never said light wasn't light; I never said there were literal floodgates in the sky and I never said scripture teaches either of those things nor do I believe them. The 'floodgates' reference is clearly metaphor and a light is something that shines and helps us see, normally when plugged into a power source. (God being the great exception 1 Jn1:5 teaches God is light.) A reflector, which the moon is, is still a light in my book.

BTW Metaphor, A direct comparison to emphasise one aspect of reality. In this case, lots of water fell fom the sky.

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Astounding.

The reason why Jesus didnt mention "the day of vengeance of our God" when quoting from Isaiah was because he didnt agree with vengeance. Nothing to do with spurious time-lag gaps dressed up in dubious theological language,

Jesus told us not to seek vengeance on any number of occasions. Why should he apply that concept to God whilst denying it to God's followers.?

Excuse me, but are you not imposing your own hermeneutic on the text here?

The Quoted verse in Luke from Isaiah 61:1-2 suggests that he regarded the prophecy as authoritative since he claims to be its fulfillment. On what basis should he fulfill only the first part?

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Jamat - I read your posts as saying -

'I want to believe it, therefore I will believe it - whatever I see or hear'

...

Fair comment. perhaps you are right.

I am neither a scientist nor a theologian. My understanding of how Science works is that someone has a good idea and tests it as best they can by whatever means possible. If your good idea is challenged, then you try to look at all the angles before you throw out the theory and start again.

The problem is that people have agenda. You can't look at your good idea in a moral and ethical vacuum.

Given that, my good idea is that God isn't likely to have led us astray if indeed he wants to communicate with us. My agenda follows; if the Bible seems unreliable, then it really isn't and we must find out why it seems so.

Normally, apparent anomalies are resolvable but, of couse no one has all the answers. One often ends up in a tangle but isn't that where faith come in?

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Conservative scholars use four bases to interpret the Bible. ...

First the 'golden rule' One takes Biblical passages as read unless there is something in the text that indicates that they should be understood some other way.

It's probably the case that the discussion of Biblical interpretation may be better suited to one of the Inerrancy/Infallibility threads ... but, there's one big problem with this 'golden rule'. That is, once you admit there are some instances where the 'plain meaning' of the passage is an inadequate approach to understanding what it means, and need to use some other way of understanding it, then you need a significant framework for interpretation to say when you need to look beyond the 'plain meaning'. You need some means of deciding when a passage has a 'plain meaning' and when it doesn't. At that point you'll have some people deciding that a passage can be interpreted with a plain reading, and others that you need to interpret it differently ... all of whom are equally committed to your 'golden rule' of Biblical interpretation.
You are quite right. Nothing is straightforward. I guess that is why there needs to be all the other rules and hopefully the Holy Spirit as a witness in the church as a corporate body.

[ 12. April 2010, 20:46: Message edited by: Jamat ]

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Asaph Hall 1877?

Swift didn't possess some arcane knowledge that everyone else lacked until Asaph Hall in 1877. He knew a fashionable 17th-18th notion which, while being wrong on just about every other count, said that Mars had two moons, and was right on that purely by accident, despite the theory behind it being completely wrong.


Let's go over it bit by bit

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

Jonathan Swift in 'Gulliver's Travels' mentions Mars has two moons. At the time no one thought Mars had moons.

This is quite simply false. Lots of people, including English contemporaries of Swift, such as William Derham, thought Mars had moons, and two was quite a common number suggested. It traces back to Kepler's theory of two moons which I mentioned. Drawing on Kepler, people thought that the further away from the sun it was, the more moons a planet should have.

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Was he working from an ancient source? Did that suggest that some time in the past Mars was close enough for them to be visible with the naked eye?

No, he was simply showing off his knowledge of theories from his own time about Mars. 18th century person repeats popular 18th century theory is not some kind of miracle of prophecy.

cheers,
L

Well actually, I dispute Kepler discoverered the Martian moons.

Asaph hall in 1877 did so using a telescope of the US naval observatory.

Galileo in 1610 with his famous telescope, discovered the 4 moons of Jupiter and Saturn's rings.

William Herschel in 1721 found Uranus and its two moons and in 1789 he found the two moons of Saturn

In 1846 Laviere found Neptune and its moon

It was actually 151 years after 'Gulliver's Travels' was published that the two moons of Mars were established as there. Thery are apparently very small and non reflective.

If the knowledge was an 18th century commonplace, Why did not Herschel discover them? Why was it not in texts of the period?

Swift's facts also, are eerily close to the truth. He knew for instance, that the two spin in opposite directions and his comments about their orbits, though not correct are reasonable approximations. He said Phobos had a 10 hr orbit. In fact it is 7hhs 39 mins.

Bottom line?

Swift may well have had an ancient source based on an eye witness account. For that to happen, Mars would have had to had a very close fly by. the sort of thing that the bible suggests happened (though it is really all conjectural and circumstantial) in 701BC, which caused Hezekiah to alter the calendar.

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997

 - Posted      Profile for pjkirk   Email pjkirk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Or Louise could be right in the first place. I suggest you read http://www.gullivercode.com/wiki/index.php/Swift,_the_Galileo_Code_and_the_Moons_of_Mars to get rid of a few wacky nutjob ideas floating in your noggin.

Not only does the mars idea you posit make no sense, and requires a vast reworking of orbital mechanics, but the impacts of it would be huge! Can you even imagine the impact of a "close fly by" of another planet? Tides would have destroyed cities!

I think you should study the KISS concept for a while....

--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)

Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
Or Louise could be right in the first place. I suggest you read http://www.gullivercode.com/wiki/index.php/Swift,_the_Galileo_Code_and_the_Moons_of_Mars to get rid of a few wacky nutjob ideas floating in your noggin.

Not only does the mars idea you posit make no sense, and requires a vast reworking of orbital mechanics, but the impacts of it would be huge! Can you even imagine the impact of a "close fly by" of another planet? Tides would have destroyed cities!

I think you should study the KISS concept for a while....

You write with amazing confidence. On what is it based? Kepler was a mathematician astronomer with more than the touch of astrologer about him.

It could indeed be as the great Wiki suggests...or not as the case may be. The fact remains that while Kepler predicted the existence of the martian moons, Hall discovered them and there is even in the Wiki entry an acknowledgement of the incredible accuracy of Swifts facts..Though not actually correct.

Describing the savants of Laputa, Swift writes:

"They have likewise discovered two lesser stars, or satellites, which revolve about mars, whereof the innermost is distant from the centre of the primary planetexactly three of his diameters, and the outermost, five; the former revolves in the space of ten hours, and the latter in twenty one and a half; so that the squares of their periodical times are very near in the same proportion with the cubes of their distance from the centre of Mars.."

In fact, the innermost, Phobos, is one and a half, not three times its diameter from the centre of Mars and Deimos is about three and a half not five diameters away...Where the time of revolution was concerned, swifts guesses were even closer, ten and thirty hours.

Really the choice is whether Swift had some ancient source or he was amazingly intuitive..some kind of psychic.

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You are quite right. Nothing is straightforward. I guess that is why there needs to be all the other rules and hopefully the Holy Spirit as a witness in the church as a corporate body.

Which basically means you can't take any passage "as read", because the first thing you ask when coming to the text is "how do I interpret this?" (ie: what mechanism do I use?). As soon as you ask "can I interpret this 'as read'?" you've put an interpretive layer on the text.

One of the more famous examples of the problem comes right from the start of the concept of Scripture having a "plain meaning". Martin Luther sought to liberate Biblical understanding from the intellectual elite (ie: the priesthood of the Church), and decided that ordinary people should be able to read and understand Scripture - ie: that the meaning should be obvious without the aid of scholarship. He got to Genesis 3 and ran into a problem ... "what was the snake?" He instinctively thought it couldn't be an actual snake (snakes being unable to talk and all that), and resorted to quoting Church Fathers in his commentary. Thus blowing his idea of a "plain reading" of Scripture right out of the water.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556

 - Posted      Profile for shamwari   Email shamwari   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
To my simple mind there can be no such thing as a "plain reading" of Scripture. Just as there is no such thing as a purely 'objective' historical record. Everything comes via an interpretive lens.

This is true of the Bible. It was written "from faith to faith". Thus the Exodus record has Pharaoh recalling the first attempted flight of the Hebrews. "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" is the Biblical reason given. Much more likely is that Pharaoh had a change of heart when he saw his cheap labour force disappearing into the far distance. "Its the economics stupid" as someone once said.

The NT has Paul affirming "Christ died for our sins". That is interpretive (and may well be right). The only factual bit of the statement is that Christ died.

So we are left with deciding the principles of interpretation we bring to a plain reading of Scripture. Common sense might be one, though often lacking. My own predeliction is to opt for the affirmation that Jesus of Nazareth was the Word made flesh and not to identify that Word with the words of scripture. In other words to evaluate scripture in the light of the Word made flesh. This involves, at least, a recognition of a progressive revelation, and I do not take progressive to mean an inevitable upward curve with no downturns. Post-Exilic Judaism is one example of regression. So, too, are parts of Revelation in the NT.

Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Really the choice is whether Swift had some ancient source or he was amazingly intuitive..some kind of psychic.

Or, you could just read what Louise said quite plainly. Then you don't need to have any sort of ancient source or other esoteric knowledge. Just a well known and popular conjecture about the number of moons of different planets that by shear coincidence got the right number of moons for Mars, and just about everything else wrong.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Really the choice is whether Swift had some ancient source or he was amazingly intuitive..some kind of psychic.

Laputa is a satire. The whole of Gulliver's Travels is satirical. Swift is sending up the kinds of enterprise (scientific enquiry carried on without reference to common sense or empirical reality) he is talking about. Or did Swift have an ancient source that told him how to extract sunbeams from cucumbers?

Astronomers predicting the existence of moons of Mars on the basis of mathematics alone is a fairly typical example of what Swift is sending up here.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Let's look at what's being postulated here. First, that there has been a massive scientific conspiracy stretching over centuries to misrepresent the orbit of Mars. Second, that there is/was some ancient source that accurately describes both Mars' real orbit and it's satellites. Third, that this hypothetical source was at some point translated into one of the languages Swift could read, most likely with a view towards propagating said work. Fourth, that despite this effort at putting this hypothetical work into wider circulation, no trace of it remains except a single, brief passage in a work of satirical fiction.

Now, even granting all this, what would such a work describe? Jamat has suggested a Martian approach of 70,000 miles (~112,700 km). I'm not sure why this exact figure and would appreciate some clarification, but that's what's been suggested. Anyway, what would Mars' moons look like at that distance?

Deimos, the smaller of the two, would have an angular diameter of 23 arc-seconds, about the equivalent of Mars (in its current orbit) on a good night. Phobos would be about 41 arc-seconds, about as large as Jupiter on a good night or Venus on an average one. In either case neither of Mars' moons would have a perceptible disk and, since they have albedos about 10% of Jupiter or Venus, would not be anywhere near as bright as either of these bodies.

So your hypothesis hinges on ancient astronomers noticing two fairly dim new "wandering stars" (what we call "planets") about the same time as this gigantic new moon appeared and recording it in such a way that would be intelligible after (at least one) translation to an Englishman with no particular astronomical background as describing two moons of Mars, but written in such an oblique fashion that this observation would escape everyone else who ever came across this writing.

Or we could simply note that the idea that Mars had two moons was a common urban legend in Europe at the time and Swift could simply have written about them as being small, low orbiting bodies as a means to explain why no one had observed them yet.

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Swift may well have had an ancient source based on an eye witness account. For that to happen, Mars would have had to had a very close fly by. the sort of thing that the bible suggests happened (though it is really all conjectural and circumstantial) in 701BC, which caused Hezekiah to alter the calendar.

I'm curious as to which part of the Bible when taken as read at face value (the method you claim to favor) suggests the kind of orbital acrobatics you describe.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493

 - Posted      Profile for JoannaP   Email JoannaP   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I never said light wasn't light; I never said there were literal floodgates in the sky and I never said scripture teaches either of those things nor do I believe them. The 'floodgates' reference is clearly metaphor ...

If the 'floodgates' reference is "clearly" not to be taken literally, why should the rest of the narrative(s) of Noah's flood?

--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin

Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Look, Kepler, and many others, "predicted" the moons of Mars because he believed in a God-imposed regularity in the Universe. As we've got one, and Jupiter (they thought) had four, it made sense to speculate that Mars had two. As we now know there are indeed regularities, but that isn't one of them.

None of that stops Kepler from being the most brilliant astronomer of his time, and of many others. Certainly a lot better than Galileo.

There are other plausible but probably not very significant apparent regularities in the Solar System. Look up "Bode's Law" for another good guess that looks interesting but (almost certainly) isn't really true. OK, its sort of kind-of true some of the time perhaps - but not good enough to be a predictive tool. Lots of rules of thumb are like that from the Anthropic Principle to "ontongeny recapitulates phylogeny" to the strict dispensationalist interpretation of Bible history...

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405

 - Posted      Profile for Porridge   Email Porridge   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
To my simple mind there can be no such thing as a "plain reading" of Scripture.

Or indeed much of anything else that's written down (and thank you, shamwari).

Look, my job is training direct care workers to serve people with disabilities. These workers generally have high school diplomas, occasionally a semester or two of college or trade school.

Our printed training materials use short, simple sentences with pictures. Procedures are given step-by-step. Explanations are basic and concrete. We repeat, we practice, we review.

Despite this, employees occasionally misinterpret simple, plain, metaphor-free instructions. What's more, these misinterpretations vary.

It's not because they're stupid or illiterate; we recruit and hire folks who are plenty smart, with or without much education. So how can this misinterpretation happen?

In reading anything, people bring themselves -- their version of the language, their vocabularies, their values and attitudes, and their personal histories -- into the reading. In short, no two people who read a text -- any text -- read the exact same text.

"Plain" or "face value" reading of anything will not automatically yield a single universally-held "correct" interpretation, with or without a hermaneutic.

Try an experiment next time you're in a small group: ask everybody to close their eyes. Tell them you're going to say a word out loud, and tell them you want them to summon that thing up in their mind's eye. Then offer some noun -- boat, or hammer, or kettle -- and "see" it thoroughly and carefully. Then ask them one by one to describe in detail the mental image they came up with. We do this with trainees to help them start tuning into how they're interpreting what we're covering. You'd be amazed at the differences in what people imagine based on a single word for a concrete physical object.

Later in training, when we start slinging around multiple words and metaphors and abstractions like "respect" and "individual rights" and "freedom to choose," all bets are off. I can't think the process is made clearer or easier when coping with scriptures written eons ago in several cultures in two or three other languages.

--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!

Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I never said light wasn't light; I never said there were literal floodgates in the sky and I never said scripture teaches either of those things nor do I believe them. The 'floodgates' reference is clearly metaphor ...

If the 'floodgates' reference is "clearly" not to be taken literally, why should the rest of the narrative(s) of Noah's flood?
I suspect the real issue is the difference between metaphor and parable or metaphor and myth.

Metaphor serves to sharpen a point through one point of comparison between two otherwise unlike things. In other words, The floodgates are not literally 'gates', but a way of understanding that lots of water fell as rain. The use of metaphor emphasises the literal reality of the rain.

Parable OTOH never pretends to any literal reality, it is a story used as a teaching tool.

Myth is a different category or genre. I'm guessing but suspect it is most often used as an explanation for the way things presently are. In other words it is a conscious fiction created to help us deal with a truth whose origin is actually a mystery. In NZ a Maori myth is that the hero Maui, dragged the North Island of NZ to the surface of the sea when he caught it on his line while out fishing one day.

[ 15. April 2010, 02:45: Message edited by: Jamat ]

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes.

And the creation myth in Genesis beautifully describes a deep, timeless truth - that God created and sustains all things.

No way does it, by any stretch of the inagination, describe HOW God did/does that.

..

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Yes.

And the creation myth in Genesis beautifully describes a deep, timeless truth - that God created and sustains all things.

No way does it, by any stretch of the inagination, describe HOW God did/does that.

..

So you say but that is the point of contention. Genesis does not fit the category of myth that snugly it is not fantastical enough; neither Adam or Eve are heroic and God in the story is precisely what you'd expect God to be. The issue in my mind is not myth but supernaturalism

The Babylonian origins myth is, (I think,) that we hatched out of an egg. I guess no one would argue for the literalness of that

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Timothy the Obscure

Mostly Friendly
# 292

 - Posted      Profile for Timothy the Obscure   Email Timothy the Obscure   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And the OT myth is that we were created out of dust--seems pretty equivalent to me.

--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
  - C. P. Snow

Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
And the OT myth is that we were created out of dust--seems pretty equivalent to me.

Mostly Carbon I think. Seems pretty accurate to me

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Genesis account was written by a person with a brilliant mind. Timeless and wonderfully written poetry - in explanation of the beginning of things. But it is theology, not science.

The fact that we are all made of stardust just enhances it for me.

...

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493

 - Posted      Profile for JoannaP   Email JoannaP   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Genesis does not fit the category of myth that snugly it is not fantastical enough; neither Adam or Eve are heroic and God in the story is precisely what you'd expect God to be. The issue in my mind is not myth but supernaturalism

Who says that the characters have to be "heroic" for something to qualify as a myth??

My problem with the story in Genesis 2 is that God is not at all what I would expect God to be. Creating all the animals and birds in an attempt to find a helper for Adam and then discovering that none of them were up to the job sounds incompetent. Not to mention sticking a tree with nice-looking fruit in the middle of the garden and saying "do not eat". What did God think would happen? And then God's response sounds distinctly petty to me.
I find it very hard to accept that the deity in this story is the same one that was revealed in Jesus.

--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin

Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Not to mention sticking a tree with nice-looking fruit in the middle of the garden and saying "do not eat". What did God think would happen? And then God's response sounds distinctly petty to me.
It just sounds distinctly human to me. As these myths were, first of all, an oral tradition - people will have added to them as time went by. They put a human perspective - of course they did, however inspired.

...

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Mostly Carbon I think. Seems pretty accurate to me

Dust would be mostly silicates (silicon and oxygen), especially before any plants had rotted to form humus.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28

 - Posted      Profile for Nicolemr   Author's homepage   Email Nicolemr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have read any number of creation mmyths from around the world, mythology is something of a hobby of mine. I haven't noticed a qualitative difference between the Genesis myth and any of the others.

--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!

Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
I have read any number of creation mmyths from around the world, mythology is something of a hobby of mine. I haven't noticed a qualitative difference between the Genesis myth and any of the others.

Have another look. Genesis has credible people, a credible human relationship; credible human weakness; no superpowers involved on the part of the humans; a credible human environment as in earth air,water and sky.

Now We also have supernaturalism but the supernatural being is not seeking to explain a human circumstance, He is not capricious, salacious or mendacious. He is a being apart from the human weakness depicted. He has a spiritual opposer, again, explicable in terms of supernaturalism rather than of mythical magic. This being uses the body of an animal. this is not so unusual to a supernaturalist. Jesus sent spirits into a herd of pigs after all.

Now, compare say the Phaeton myth. The sun is a literal chariot, Phaeton and Zeus have heroic qualities. Zeus is a supernatural being but with obvious human concerns; Phaeton is teenager who wants the car, yet he has the power to drive it across the sky.

Bottom line? Some very real genre conflict.

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Genesis does not fit the category of myth that snugly it is not fantastical enough; neither Adam or Eve are heroic and God in the story is precisely what you'd expect God to be.

Petulant?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This is just a very obvious circular argument, Jamat. Invent a lot of extra tailor-made qualifications for the definition of myth, and you can pretend that since Genesis doesn't meet your newly-coined definitions (made up specifically to exclude Genesis), it can't be a myth.


If you go around telling people that you can show the truth of the Bible through discredited writers like Velikovsky and monumental twits like whoever came up with that Jonathan Swift idea, all you're going to do is drag the Bible into disrepute by association. Your idea of bolstering the authority of Jesus by deciding anything in the Old testament he gave a mention to must be treated as some sort of fact, actually does the opposite. It ends up making the Bible seem to rest on a tissue of crackpottery.

Luckily for you, you're not doing much damage here, as there can't be many of us who haven't read the Bible and who don't know that it's more worthwhile to read than the sad stuff you are besmirching it with by association.

But if you met someone who'd never read the Bible, and started telling them this sort of thing, they'd be justified in thinking that Jesus must be as dodgy as David Icke, since you keep trying to show his trustworthiness from utterly untrustworthy sources which would make any sensible person think twice.

L

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools