An interesting concept
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-12-2011, 02:49 AM
RE: An interesting concept
(06-12-2011 02:19 AM)cufflink Wrote:  
(06-12-2011 01:02 AM)morondog Wrote:  One of these strategies is playing the mis-translation card - arbitrarily arguing that the true meaning of a verse is different than the very careful centuries long effort at translation that has been put in by scholars from KJV onwards. . . . Bible scholars really do put a lot of effort into careful translation . . .

I agree, although there are plenty of places where the translation is genuinely controversial--for example, the iconic verse in Isaiah (7:14) predicting the Messiah: is it "behold, a virgin shall conceive" or "behold, the young woman is with child"? Does almah mean "virgin" (as the Septuagint translators apparently thought) or simply "young woman"?

Yeah, you're right, I did ignore genuine controversies - me no expert though, but you seem to be well-read on the subject Smile Do they mark controversial verses in newer versions of the Bible? Or just choose one translation and run with it. 'Cos that's what I'd do if I was gonna try indoctrinate anyone Tongue Can't be getting all unsure in front of the sheeple.

When I was a young Christian looking for answers I hated the whole Bible until I got to Job and he was totally nailing God, telling him exactly all the problems I had with Christianity, and I couldn't wait for God's response... shoulda known it wouldn't be a point by point rebuttal, rather that tired old stupid "I am so awesome" line again, but that was the beginning of the end for me. I'd really rather prefer the version that Job told God he was a dick, but that is just preference Smile Job and the author of Ecclesiastes are frikken awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
06-12-2011, 03:00 AM
RE: An interesting concept
(06-12-2011 02:49 AM)morondog Wrote:  Yeah, you're right, I did ignore genuine controversies - me no expert though, but you seem to be well-read on the subject Smile Do they mark controversial verses in newer versions of the Bible? Or just choose one translation and run with it. 'Cos that's what I'd do if I was gonna try indoctrinate anyone Tongue Can't be getting all unsure in front of the sheeple.

When I was a young Christian looking for answers I hated the whole Bible until I got to Job and he was totally nailing God, telling him exactly all the problems I had with Christianity, and I couldn't wait for God's response... shoulda known it wouldn't be a point by point rebuttal, rather that tired old stupid "I am so awesome" line again, but that was the beginning of the end for me. I'd really rather prefer the version that Job told God he was a dick, but that is just preference Smile Job and the author of Ecclesiastes are frikken awesome.

Mad props for "sheeple" and especially for "Job told God he was a dick". Big Grin


And I wish I could press "Like" a bazjillion times for Professor Cufflink's lessons in linguistics.

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Erxomai's post
06-12-2011, 03:40 AM
RE: An interesting concept
A modest thought exercise with king. Given the idea of this actually being a local flood. How is Mount Ararat consumed in water without the water spilling over the earth? Even if we're only talking of Lesser Ararat it is still over 12,000 ft tall. Interpretations can be a fun exercise indeed, but in order for water to reach this high it will have to cover a lot more than the middle eastern countries known to the Hebrews of the time. I'm not worried about the scriptural interpretations as you can take any book and change the meanings of it's words. You agree that there was a flood so explain the flood. There is no way that a flood of this scale could be kept to a single region.

And for all of those anti-piscean people out there. Salt water fish and fresh water fish both have specific environments that they can live in. A flood which stirs all of the waters into one will kill them all. There are very few things capable of surviving this sort of flood and most of those things were completely unknown at the time, fish of the deep seas.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Lilith Pride's post
06-12-2011, 03:54 AM
RE: An interesting concept
(06-12-2011 03:40 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  And for all of those anti-piscean people out there. Salt water fish and fresh water fish both have specific environments that they can live in. A flood which stirs all of the waters into one will kill them all. There are very few things capable of surviving this sort of flood and most of those things were completely unknown at the time, fish of the deep seas.

Oh! Let me take this one, KC...
This dilemma is easily solved with reverse evolution! Instead of life evolving from the sea, truth is, life has really evolved INTO the sea. After the Flood, there wasn't enough food on the land to feed generations of the quickly growing numbers of massive dinosaurs so they DEvolved into the oceans over decades or maybe even a century or two!

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2011, 04:25 AM
RE: An interesting concept
(06-12-2011 03:54 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  
(06-12-2011 03:40 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  And for all of those anti-piscean people out there. Salt water fish and fresh water fish both have specific environments that they can live in. A flood which stirs all of the waters into one will kill them all. There are very few things capable of surviving this sort of flood and most of those things were completely unknown at the time, fish of the deep seas.

Oh! Let me take this one, KC...
This dilemma is easily solved with reverse evolution! Instead of life evolving from the sea, truth is, life has really evolved INTO the sea. After the Flood, there wasn't enough food on the land to feed generations of the quickly growing numbers of massive dinosaurs so they DEvolved into the oceans over decades or maybe even a century or two!

They didn't try and scarf down a few humans too? Woulda thought God would like the idea of sending ginormous lizards to nosh anyone he didn't get on with.

Another theory I just made up on the spot (hey, I'm allowed to do that right?) is that maybe Ararat was shorter in those days. Or God made the water all pile up in one spot with his awesomeness. Or the Moon was closer to the Earth in those days and the tidal pull just happened to be enough to pull the water over Ararat.

Or... the flood didn't happen? Maybe *a* flood happened, as floods do, but God and Noah and all that was just an extra bit tacked on later...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
06-12-2011, 09:01 AM
RE: An interesting concept
Some good points have been made... and I do see how I could be wrong in this. I came to the conclusion through my studies, but I'm always open to learning more and possibly changing my view on the flood.

I'm going to keep studying and see what happens. I do appreciate the linguistic lesson, guys.

@Erxomai
It's difficult for modern translations to stand on their own because all of them have some errant (mainly due to the language). I'm a big advocate for finding out not only what the original text said but also what it meant.

Also, I believe in evolution.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kingschosen's post
06-12-2011, 09:05 AM
RE: An interesting concept
(06-12-2011 03:40 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  A modest thought exercise with king. Given the idea of this actually being a local flood. How is Mount Ararat consumed in water without the water spilling over the earth? Even if we're only talking of Lesser Ararat it is still over 12,000 ft tall. Interpretations can be a fun exercise indeed, but in order for water to reach this high it will have to cover a lot more than the middle eastern countries known to the Hebrews of the time. I'm not worried about the scriptural interpretations as you can take any book and change the meanings of it's words. You agree that there was a flood so explain the flood. There is no way that a flood of this scale could be kept to a single region.

And for all of those anti-piscean people out there. Salt water fish and fresh water fish both have specific environments that they can live in. A flood which stirs all of the waters into one will kill them all. There are very few things capable of surviving this sort of flood and most of those things were completely unknown at the time, fish of the deep seas.

Even if it was that deep and regional there's still no answer of where the water came from. There is the same water on Earth today as there was 3 billion years ago. Even the melting of the polar ice caps and all the moisture in the atmoshpere couldn't produce enough water to flood sea level more than a couple hundred feet. And we of course know that 4000 years ago the ice caps are very much similar to what they are today. If anything, more ice.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2011, 10:01 AM
 
RE: An interesting concept
(05-12-2011 04:31 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  I was offering you my opinion of view on it from the studies of the original text. Modern translations use English words that most people can understand and accommodate the majority. Even the most literal translations have trouble literally translating the original text because some words just don't exist in English for the concepts being conveyed.

You don't believe anything I believe anyway, but that's no reason to be rude and snarky about it. You asked "why", and I explained my "why".
Also, the asking of "why God did it this" or "why didn't He just do this" isn't a fair question to ask me. As a theist, my answer of "I don't know" is sufficient because I can't explain why God did anything. My acceptance of that God is omnipotent should be an answer enough. Granted, you don't have to agree with my answer and you may not think it's logical; however, from your point of view my belief in God isn't logical, so there is no answer that I could give you that would be correct.


Rude and Snarky??? Uh, well kind sir i took the little saying below your dog picture at face value..the one that says "Unoffendable".

But it just occurred to me that you dont believe in the meaning of what words mean..so what exactly IS Unoffendable in your world?

I am dead fucking serious! You have openly admitted that the words in modern translations dont mean jack, by playing the translation card. Which sends virtually any argument in a tailspin with anyone reading anything OTHER than the translations YOU deem fit. Its an awfully convenient position for you to be in, no doubt.

I digress......are you Unoffendable? Does not seem that way. I assure you i did not sharpen my tongue with said comments at all...i can easily be far more brutal. That was all in jest....at best.

In the atheist world you must accept the fact that the vast majority of us have believed as you believed. MANY have taken up exhaustive post rebirth research. Some are linguist, others theologians, some scientists. Then there are poor sods like me that read the books of such guys. I WILL take the words of folks like Hector Avalos, Coyne, Dr Price over opinions blathered about on the internet.....silly i know, but thats just the way i roll.

If what i said was snarky enough for you to comment, I'd suggest taking down your Unoffendable banner...and simply put "Partially Offendable".

Many of us in THIS forum generally go by textbook definitions, so you know. Its a funky little universe where words like ALL mean ALL (not some). We dont 'bend' words in a prism to fit our agenda. I'd venture to say that MOST of us would easily change our opinion should new information come to light. I know i would.

Your 'regional flood' hypothesis is nothing new and i have heard it many times before. So my snarky comments are not necessarily directed at you...unless you feel you are the original source of that concept.

Best of luck to you and your unoffendable ways,
Merry Winter Solstice
Denicio
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Denicio's post
06-12-2011, 10:38 AM
RE: An interesting concept
(06-12-2011 10:01 AM)Denicio Wrote:  Rude and Snarky??? Uh, well kind sir i took the little saying below your dog picture at face value..the one that says "Unoffendable".

Maybe I misinterpreted your post. Apparently, I did. Sorry. I just like to keep emotion out of posts, and some have expressed emotion to what I post. Sorry for the hasty generalization.

Quote:But it just occurred to me that you dont believe in the meaning of what words mean..so what exactly IS Unoffendable in your world?

I am dead fucking serious! You have openly admitted that the words in modern translations dont mean jack, by playing the translation card. Which sends virtually any argument in a tailspin with anyone reading anything OTHER than the translations YOU deem fit. Its an awfully convenient position for you to be in, no doubt.

I'll give you that. It does make my argument awfully convenient and irrefutable (not in a good way). This is why I'm going to do some more research on the topic. By default I'm sticking my current interpretation; however, it is on the chopping block.

So, I'm conceding the argument.

Quote:I digress......are you Unoffendable? Does not seem that way. I assure you i did not sharpen my tongue with said comments at all...i can easily be far more brutal. That was all in jest....at best.

That was just my attempt to keep the conversation civil. I hate having a good argument/debate and then having it careen off course into a flame war. So now, I address any hostility to try and quench it before it gets out of hand.

As far as what I mean by "unoffendable" - pretty much anything you say will not directly affect the way I think about you personally, and anything you say will not affect my beliefs, regardless if you directly insult them.

So, don't think that I'm offended when someone responds like that... I'm just trying to avoid any type of hostility (as it's not productive).

Quote:In the atheist world you must accept the fact that the vast majority of us have believed as you believed. MANY have taken up exhaustive post rebirth research. Some are linguist, others theologians, some scientists. Then there are poor sods like me that read the books of such guys. I WILL take the words of folks like Hector Avalos, Coyne, Dr Price over opinions blathered about on the internet.....silly i know, but thats just the way i roll.

Nope. Completely get that. This is why I continue to read and learn as well.

Quote:If what i said was snarky enough for you to comment, I'd suggest taking down your Unoffendable banner...and simply put "Partially Offendable".

Heh, might change it to "come at me, bro!"

Quote:Many of us in THIS forum generally go by textbook definitions, so you know. Its a funky little universe where words like ALL mean ALL (not some). We dont 'bend' words in a prism to fit our agenda. I'd venture to say that MOST of us would easily change our opinion should new information come to light. I know i would.

In the future I'll be more definitive with what I say.

Quote:Your 'regional flood' hypothesis is nothing new and i have heard it many times before. So my snarky comments are not necessarily directed at you...unless you feel you are the original source of that concept.

Best of luck to you and your unoffendable ways,
Merry Winter Solstice
Denicio

No, I learned about it through research.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2011, 11:21 AM
 
RE: An interesting concept
@Kingschosen

I appreciate your thoughtful reply and honesty. You sir, are a pleasure to debate with. No sarcasm intended or implied.

I am still somewhat new to these forums, but what i have seen here is generally a good bunch of folks that like to have a healthy debate. RARELY does anyone, if ever, get personal.

We have all been to those Christian forums where it does get personal. Downright hateful...ususally with a good does of "Enjoy hell to you and ALL your family" before the ban button is pressed.

On this forum FACTS are crucial.

Just know if you come at any of us with one of those tired apologetic arguments, especially as nutty as the regional flood, not only will you get replies but get them in spades. SO much so that we'll help you understand how ridiculous the claim is.
IN that method...you may sense Snide or Snarky tones. If i claimed that Xenu came up and sucked up all of Gods flood waters with a Straw...i'd expect you to rub my nose in it.

ALL we ask folks to do is THINK. When you plug your ears with your fingers and start going "mmmmmmm" thats when you will see the worst in most of us. Personally i dont bode will with dumb people. I have little patience for the "Willfully Ignorant". The fact you are open to ideas and continue to do research is CURRENCY with many atheists. BUT, don't just read Christian Apologetic literature on any given subject of research. THAT is truly a biased way to research anything on ANY side of ANY argument.

Be well
Denicio
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Denicio's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: