Let's do Bible study

[Guest Guest]

Isn't that what the public library does? Stock certain books and omit the rest?

You accuse other people of changing your words, then you do this? Here's what Keith wrote:

QUOTE (Keith @ Mar 23 2008, 12:40 PM)

Maybe for the smae reasons that some "books" were banned from the Bible. Pick what you like omit the rest.

There's a difference between banning and selecting on merit. The committee that selected the writings that became the Bible destroyed many of the works they didn't agree with, and they selected based on whether they agreed with them, not on merit.

[Bryan]

You accuse other people of changing your words, then you do this?

Yes, since there's no inconsistency (though not for the lack of your attempt to insinuate as much).

Here's what Keith wrote:

QUOTE (Keith @ Mar 23 2008, 12:40 PM)

Maybe for the smae reasons that some "books" were banned from the Bible. Pick what you like omit the rest.

There's a difference between banning and selecting on merit.

Agreed. You'll note that in your quotation of Keith he went on to say "Pick what you like omit the rest." But I guess you'd prefer to forget about that for purposes of your argument.

The committee that selected the writings that became the Bible destroyed many of the works they didn't agree with, and they selected based on whether they agreed with them, not on merit.

What's the difference between choosing something because you agree with it and choosing on merit, when it comes to that?

What's the merit of something you disagree with, IYO?

I'm aware of no attempt by a canonical committee to physically destroy non-canonical works. I suggest you contact "a pathetic american" and get him to provide you with a good source for that claim.

[Guest Truth Squad]

Today's lesson is from Genesis 1:14-18

"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good."

The word firmament means the sphere of the sky, an arch or dome. Etymologically it refers to a firm or fixed foundation.

That is important because when Genesis was written, men believed that the stars were "set" in a dome over the earth. That is what the text says, and that is precisely what its authors meant. The waters were in a firmament under the earth (Genesis 1:7), and the stars were "set" into a firmament, or solid body, over the earth.

This belief persisted until the early 1700s, when Edmund Halley (Halley's comet) compared the location of the stars in his time to their locations two thousand years before, as recorded by Hipparchus, who had plotted the stars in the second century B.C.E. When Halley saw that some stars had shifted positions discernibly in the sky (while others had not "moved"), he realized that they could not be "set" in a dome, or anything else. They were moving. They were not fixed in position forever, as men had long believed, and they were not all at the same distance from the earth, since some had shifted positions to a greater degree than others. This was the beginning of modern astronomy.

In The Scientists, John Gribbin explains what this meant. "The only conclusion was that these stars had physically moved across the sky since the time of Hipparchus. This was the last nail in the coffin of the crystal sphere idea - the first direct, observational evidence that the notion of stars as little lights attached to a sphere only a little bigger than the orbit of Saturn . . . was wrong. Evidence that the stars move relative to one another is also evidence that the stars are at different distances from us spread out in three dimensions through space."

Everybody knows that, right? Well, actually some people still deny it, claiming that modern science is a hoax. The point for our purposes is that the Bible contains a statement that science has since disproved.

If the Bible told us that someday we would discover that the stars are not fixed in place, but moved, that would transcend what men knew at the time. If it told us that one day people would fly to the moon in a metal object and walk on the moon, that would be even more impressive. If it told us that we would discover that our bodies are composed of cell with 23 pairs of coded instructions, that would be truly impressive.

But the Bible says none of that. The Bible does not reflect knowledge. It reflects ignorance.

We cannot blame the men who authored it. They wrote what was commonly believed at the time.

However, for us today to continue to believe that this collection of writings is the inspired and unerring word of an omniscient god, is indefensible and inexcusable. The fact that the Bible contains a false description of what the stars are is proof beyond any doubt that the Bible is not what fundamentalists like David Paszkiewicz claim it is. It is merely a collection of writings by primitive men, which reflects their hopes and beliefs, but also their limitations, including their ignorance.

[Guest Keith]

Today's lesson is from Genesis 1:14-18

"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good."

The word firmament means the sphere of the sky, an arch or dome. Etymologically it refers to a firm or fixed foundation.

That is important because when Genesis was written, men believed that the stars were "set" in a dome over the earth. That is what the text says, and that is precisely what its authors meant. The waters were in a firmament under the earth (Genesis 1:7), and the stars were "set" into a firmament, or solid body, over the earth.

This belief persisted until the early 1700s, when Edmund Halley (Halley's comet) compared the location of the stars in his time to their locations two thousand years before, as recorded by Hipparchus, who had plotted the stars in the second century B.C.E. When Halley saw that some stars had shifted positions discernibly in the sky (while others had not "moved"), he realized that they could not be "set" in a dome, or anything else. They were moving. They were not fixed in position forever, as men had long believed, and they were not all at the same distance from the earth, since some had shifted positions to a greater degree than others. This was the beginning of modern astronomy.

In The Scientists, John Gribbin explains what this meant. "The only conclusion was that these stars had physically moved across the sky since the time of Hipparchus. This was the last nail in the coffin of the crystal sphere idea - the first direct, observational evidence that the notion of stars as little lights attached to a sphere only a little bigger than the orbit of Saturn . . . was wrong. Evidence that the stars move relative to one another is also evidence that the stars are at different distances from us spread out in three dimensions through space."

Everybody knows that, right? Well, actually some people still deny it, claiming that modern science is a hoax. The point for our purposes is that the Bible contains a statement that science has since disproved.

If the Bible told us that someday we would discover that the stars are not fixed in place, but moved, that would transcend what men knew at the time. If it told us that one day people would fly to the moon in a metal object and walk on the moon, that would be even more impressive. If it told us that we would discover that our bodies are composed of cell with 23 pairs of coded instructions, that would be truly impressive.

But the Bible says none of that. The Bible does not reflect knowledge. It reflects ignorance.

We cannot blame the men who authored it. They wrote what was commonly believed at the time.

However, for us today to continue to believe that this collection of writings is the inspired and unerring word of an omniscient god, is indefensible and inexcusable. The fact that the Bible contains a false description of what the stars are is proof beyond any doubt that the Bible is not what fundamentalists like David Paszkiewicz claim it is. It is merely a collection of writings by primitive men, which reflects their hopes and beliefs, but also their limitations, including their ignorance.

Well said, Great post!

[Guest Seer]

Well said, Great post!

Seconded, very well put!

[Bryan]

Wouldn't it pretty much take a complete idiot to assert the etymological relevance of an English word in explaining a text written in ancient Hebrew?

Survey says yes, and anyone who thought it was a "great post" without noting that embarrassingly stupid error gets to share some of the egg on the face.

The only person I've ever encountered who was routinely stupid enough to employ this type of etymological argument is Paul LaClair, father of Matthew LaClair.

For what that's worth.

[Bryan]

Why punish a man for translating a work of fiction?

Answering a question with a question is one way to dodge a question ...

[Guest Keith]

Wouldn't it pretty much take a complete idiot to assert the etymological relevance of an English word in explaining a text written in ancient Hebrew?

Survey says yes, and anyone who thought it was a "great post" without noting that embarrassingly stupid error gets to share some of the egg on the face.

The only person I've ever encountered who was routinely stupid enough to employ this type of etymological argument is Paul LaClair, father of Matthew LaClair.

For what that's worth.

For what's it's worth Bryan it was a great post. Since you are an apparent etymological expert, among everything else, maybe you can tell us the origin of the word "prick".

[Bryan]

For what's it's worth Bryan it was a great post.

I'd be skeptical that a "great post" could be based on a fundamental error of reasoning. I guess your Faith exceeds mine in this case.

Since you are an apparent etymological expert,

One need not be an etymological expert to recognize that the origins of a English word will not likely have any relevance to the use of a Hebrew word used hundreds of years prior. A passing knowledge of logic is more than enough.

among everything else, maybe you can tell us the origin of the word "prick".

Sure. Silly little children named "Keith" came up with the word as a defensive reaction when they were repeatedly shown wrong during arguments. Keiths use a number of terms for similar reasons.

[Guest Guest]

Silly little children named "Keith" came up with the word as a defensive reaction when they were repeatedly shown wrong during arguments. Keiths use a number of terms for similar reasons.

I think Keith is frustrated that it's impossible to have a reasoned discussion with you.

[Guest Keith]

I'd be skeptical that a "great post" could be based on a fundamental error of reasoning. I guess your Faith exceeds mine in this case.

One need not be an etymological expert to recognize that the origins of a English word will not likely have any relevance to the use of a Hebrew word used hundreds of years prior. A passing knowledge of logic is more than enough.

Sure. Silly little children named "Keith" came up with the word as a defensive reaction when they were repeatedly shown wrong during arguments. Keiths use a number of terms for similar reasons.

Maybe you should find a blog when folks actually consider you to be right about anything. There are only about three people here whom have ever agreed with you and I woudln't be surprised if they weren't all the same person. Long winded dissertations don't mean you are right. What about the names you call people. Liar comes to mind. I'm sure you'll say you call them liars because the shoe fits. Fair enough, that's the same reason I call you a prick.

[Bryan]

I think Keith is frustrated that it's impossible to have a reasoned discussion with you.

That simply stems from Keith's inability to reason.

[Bryan]

Maybe you should find a blog when folks actually consider you to be right about anything.

I receive plenty of support for my positions on a variety of things. Not that it matters. A person can be right and have nobody else agree. I notice that you're not really talking about the issue of etymology in your reply, Keith. Why is that? Should I expect another "Semper Fi" since that is always the topic (especially when you've flubbed up yet another argument)?

There are only about three people here whom have ever agreed with you and I woudln't be surprised if they weren't all the same person.

So apparently you think I'm wrong about the etymology issue. Would you care to explain why, keeping the Semper Fi's to the absolute minimum required?

Long winded dissertations don't mean you are right.

I'm certainly willing to entertain an argument as to why I'm wrong about the current etymological issue. Even if your attempt is long-winded.

What about the names you call people.

Like LaSquid?

Liar comes to mind.

That's not a name. It's an adjective.

I'm sure you'll say you call them liars because the shoe fits.

Correct. I don't use it unless I can make a pretty much airtight case for it. Like with Melanie, who out of the blue asserted that I don't know anything about evolution.

Fair enough, that's the same reason I call you a prick.

I can make an objective case for somebody having lied more effectively than you can make an objective case for somebody being a prick.

You use the term because you're a loser (in terms of repeatedly ending up on the short end of the argument) and you're a little soft in the self-control department. The examples abound, with this etymological issue simply being the latest. Unless you'd like to point me to your rebuttal? Please tell me its not the line where you call me a "prick" for the umpteenth time.

[Guest Guest]

That simply stems from Keith's inability to reason.

No, it stems from your dismissive and arrogant attitude and your complete unwillingness to subject your own views to any real scrutiny.

[Bryan]

No, it stems from your dismissive and arrogant attitude and your complete unwillingness to subject your own views to any real scrutiny.

I gave my view of the OP and and a subsequent argument at length. The sock puppet howled without addressing the critique.

And now here comes a stinky little sock puppet claiming that I don't subject my views to "any real scrutiny."

My views are there in print. If they aren't receiving real scrutiny then perhaps the problem is with the would-be scrutinizers.