Re: The bible/for Noomy. -- Final End

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [9], 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 18:49:34 05/03/02 Fri
Author: Neuminas
Subject: Re: The bible/for Noomy.
In reply to: sue da babe 's message, "Re: The bible/for Noomy." on 14:48:36 05/02/02 Thu

O.K. I apreciate the response. I'm not ZZZZing.
However, I'd like to begin with the observation that telling me that I've got problems if I disagree with you and implying I have no common sense is highly argumentative. I cited the begining of John not with the intent of being argumentative, rather I did to establish that some parts of the bible clearly are symbolic. I'm glad to see that you agree with me on this point.

#1) The point about the sun is not whether or not God can hold the sun still. Of course he can. I'm not debating that point. I'm debating whether God's holding the sun still would extend a day-- it's the Earth's rotation which causes day and night, and this fact was not known to the person who wrote that God held the sun still to extend day. And the fact that this belief is in the bible implies that we need to make allowances for the world view of the people who the bible was initially written to and for.

#2) Why is it that you tell me I'm picking and choosing, yet your views are common sense? Many people take revelations quite literally, for example. You don't, and I agree with you. But what is to stop people who are literalistic from taking the arguments you aim at me, and pointing them at you? There may well be some criteria for determing what counts as literal. But I don't see that you've indicated it. I'm unclear on the relevance of genelogies dating back to Noah or Adam.

#3) My point about translation is this:
If a certain set of words has some sort-of literal relevance, it seems like there is enough variation between translation that only one is going to count for the words which God actually meant. There are significant differences, both in wordings and in agendas behind the translations.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]