I"ll share something on a lighter side
>> Posting from this morning.....just for fun...we all need some.......
>
>
> Ponderisms
> 1· I used to eat a lot of natural foods until I learned that most people die of natural causes.
> 2· There are two kinds of pedestrians: the quick and the dead.
> 3· Life is sexually transmitted.
> 4· Healthy is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die.
> 5· The only difference between a rut and a grave is the depth.
> 6· Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of nothing.
> 7· Have you noticed since everyone has a camcorder these days no one talks about seeing UFOs like they used to?
> 8· Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.
> 9· All of us could take a lesson from the weather. It pays no attention to criticism.
> 10· In the 60's, people took acid to make the world weird. Now the world is weird and people take Prozac to make it normal.
> 11· How is it one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
> 12· Who was the first person to look at a cow and say, 'I think I'll squeeze these dangly things and drink whatever comes out?'
> 13· If Jimmy cracks corn and no one cares, why is there a song about him?
> 14· Why does your OB-GYN leave the room when you get undressed if they are going to look up there anyway?
> 15· If quizzes are quizzical, what are tests?
> 16· If corn oil is made from corn, and vegetable oil is made from vegetables, then what is baby oil made from?
> 17· Do illiterate people get the full effect of Alphabet Soup?
> 18· Does pushing the elevator button more than once make it arrive faster?
> 19· Why doesn't glue stick to the inside of the bottle?
>
> --
> Live lively - love long - laugh lots...
11 comments:
Humorously I can let Dan Dennett handle this one. ;)
'The Evolution of Confusion' by Dan Dennett, AAI 2009
So you can learn something and have fun doing it at the same time. :)
(It might behoove you to watch the whole video in fact... but the section on deepities is what I'm referring to specifically in relation to this post of yours, so I've linked you to the relevant section to start with.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_English_Bible_translations
enjoy some light reading since you believe that translation is night and day. I used Wikipedia for your ease. After this look of all the translations from hebrew to greek, greek to english etc...... What I am trying to get to is why this is time consuming and stupid to try to make a back and white argument(which you seem to want) I will read your article by Dan Dennett from the video that you sent. Videos are so manipulative. My wife and I are going for a bike ride and right now that is more important.
I don't see you pointing out where Dan Dennett was actually wrong. Again, you just say he's being manipulative as an attack on the messenger without clearly stating WHY his message isn't accurate. Same as usual.
Also, I don't see what the modern English Bible translations link has to do with this post or my comment in any way. It's another red herring on your part to take this discussion off on another vector, but heck, I'll bite.
See, this is the reason why I told you that I'd actually studied a number of these and read several different translations... why I referenced textual criticism, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, why I've actually seen the Dead Sea Scrolls in person and studied what they actually said... and why I generally clearly reference the New International Version of the bible in my discussions because it is arguably the more accurate available translation we have today.
I have mentioned all these things to you (save for having seen the Dead Sea Scrolls, as it didn't seem pertinent before now), and yet you STILL keep on pretending that I haven't already explained this to you in detail.
Quit trying to dishonestly act like I haven't repeated these things to you multiple times with further explanations etc... and quit pretending that I have no idea what I'm talking about when clearly I know more than you do about it.
And now maybe YOU can watch this video by one of the preeminent biblical scholars and learn a little bit about what textual criticism is about... and how carefully and honestly actual biblical scholars address the matter of trying to find the most accurate translations of the scriptures possible... and maybe then you'll stop acting like a little kid who keeps pretending I haven't said any of the countless things I've ALREADY SAID in our discussions.
You think you could do that for me Don? I'd appreciate it.
Stanford University's Office for Religious Life - Heyns Lecture Series presents Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's lecture on "Misquoting Jesus: Scribes who altered scripture and readers who may never know".
And in case you can't be bothered to actually read any of the links I've presented, as seems to be the case from your impenetrable ignorance of essentially everything I've linked or explained etc... I'll include the description of the NIV from BibleGateway.com:
"Version Information
The New International Version (NIV) is a translation made by more than one hundred scholars working from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. It was conceived in 1965 when, after several years of study by committees from the Christian Reformed Church and the National Association of Evangelicals, a trans-denominational and international group of scholars met at Palos Heights, Illinois, and agreed on the need for a new translation in contemporary English. Their conclusion was endorsed by a large number of church leaders who met in Chicago in 1966. Responsibility for the version was delegated to a self-governing body of fifteen Biblical scholars, the Committee on Bible Translation, and in 1967, the New York Bible Society (now Biblica) generously undertook the financial sponsorship of the project.
The translation of each book was assigned to a team of scholars, and the work was thoroughly reviewed and revised at various stages by three separate committees.The Committee submitted the developing version to stylistic consultants who made invaluable suggestions. Samples of the translation were tested for clarity and ease of reading by various groups of people. In short, perhaps no other translation has been made by a more thorough process of review and revision.
The Committee held to certain goals for the NIV: that it be an Accurate, Beautiful, Clear, and Dignified translation suitable for public and private reading, teaching, preaching, memorizing, and liturgical use. The translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God's Word in written form. They agreed that faithful communication of the meaning of the original writers demands frequent modifications in sentence structure (resulting in a "thought-for-thought" translation) and constant regard for the contextual meanings of words.
In 1973 the New Testament was published. The Committee carefully reviewed suggestions for revisions and adopted a number of them, which they incorporated into the first printing of the entire Bible in 1978. Additional changes were made in 1983."
So not only is that version a perfectly credible version to reference as being as close to the original and and accurate as we can possibly be today... but trying to argue against being able to take anything the bible says seriously actually just shoots your own delusion in the foot, as your entire religiosity is based upon that very book and its establishment of the authority of God, and thusly Christ, through the LITERAL interpretation of the miracles of creation, origin of original sin for which Jesus was specifically dying to buy our salvation from, etc etc.
The moment you admit that that book is not infallible and authoritative... that it's open to interpretation, to error, etc... then guess what, as I said before, that's when actual objective analysis comes in (which was of course there for the start for us honest, rational people who actually care about the truth and not just believing what we want to in spite of the evidence to the contrary).
Comparison with evidence supported facts about the world, claims of other earlier and later religions as well as contemporary ones... comparison with other writings of the time to understand the historical context of the written word, other archaeological evidence giving context for the claims of the flat Earth, mechanical dome sky, second ocean above that, etc... actual critical analysis based on the evidence to try to figure out not only what the bible itself original said (which we know based on ACTUALLY HAVING fairly early scriptures of the New Testament, as well as other contemporary "holy" writings etc), but how it relates to the millennia of human progress, discovery and enlightenment since then...
And do I really need to address the illogical act of denying the supposed accuracy or validity of the only source of supposed credibility for your religious beliefs in the Judeo-Christian God and Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?
The fact that you can't comprehend the logical consequences of your excuse making isn't my problem... but it does kind of make you look even more silly when you clearly can't even coherently understand your own excuses or where you're trying to go with them etc.
Just a heads up.
Now with that said, I'm waiting for your response to the Roman Calendar post. Why not go over there and address what I said before attempting any more silly distractions over here. :)
Thanks.
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Seely_EarthSeas_WTJ.pdf
Please read that to get a more informed view of what I'm talking about when I refer to how and why not only people like myself, but actual credible theological scholars know about what the bible actually means in the stories of creation etc.
It's interesting to note, that as Dan Dennett mentioned in his video, if you watched it, this very subject of the attention to accuracy and detail of biblical scholars. ;)
Or let me guess... now you'll try to discredit the Westminster Theological Journal 59, published by the Westminster Theological Seminary, right? They must have an evil atheist agenda to I'm sure.
*chuckle*
Come on Don... you're out of your league. Please stop lying about who in this discussion has actually had their facts straight, who knows better what they're talking about, who has a better grasp on the logic and reason involved in valid debate, etc.
I have no interest in mocking you for admitting you were mistaken. My entire goal has been to try to get you to understand your errors and learn from them.
It's not in just proving you wrong... it's more along the lines of the old adage "give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime".
I want you to LEARN HOW TO FISH so to speak. How to think rationally, to understand fallacious arguments, how to understand when you've been mistaken and to learn from it, to critically assess not only the arguments of others, but your own as well in light of new information, especially when credible objective facts and sound reasoning is presented to back it up etc.
These things allow a person to see the world more clearly, to be less credulous, to be less likely to be tricked into believing things that aren't honest or true.
None of us are perfect, but we CAN learn to be more aware of the kind of incredibly common cognitive mistakes we are all prone to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logical_fallacies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_memory_biases
For just the tip of the iceberg on what we know about the failures of human logic, reason, memory, perception, etc. And how we can learn to spot them, avoid them, address them, etc.
Again, thanks.
Here's another to further illustrate my point...
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Seely-Firmament-WTJ.pdf
The article in the previous comment ("The Geographical Meaning of "Earth" and "Seas" in Genesis 1:10") addressed the issue of the flat Earth in relation to Christians trying to redefine the writings of scripture to fit the modern day understanding of the world, rather than in the accurate historical context in which they were written.
This article does the same for the concept of water above the sky.... "The Firmament and the Water Above".
We can of course continue in this scholarly vein to establish the actual validity of my arguments, in contrast with your unscholarly, unsupported, wishful thinking about what you WANT to believe is true... things for which you are searching in vain to try to find a way to defend against my onslaught of facts, evidence, sound reasoning etc... but again Don, it's wishful thinking.
"Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence, rationality or reality."
And perhaps also key to note about wishful thinking: "Related fallacies are the Negative proof and Argument from ignorance fallacies ("It hasn't been proven false, so it must be true." and vice versa). For instance, a believer in UFOs may accept that most UFO photos are faked, but claim that the ones that haven't been debunked must be considered genuine."
Sound familiar Don? Are you starting to see how these things accurately apply to the methods you're using to try to defend your position?
You seem to confuse the bible and the translated bible. Man is failable, God is not. Nice try. No cigar. You know mention the CRC rewriting the bible. This is the first thing that has made any sence as you have defined you attack. You assume that the NIV translation is the word of God. There are translations out there that call God in the female gender. I'm surprised you haven't brought up the"Good News Bible". It has "hip language" and was also written by scholors. Are we taling about th Koran the mormon bible, or another version. You seem to want to blend them altogather. Keep carpet bombing, but let see you replicate.
Don, you as usual ignore many points we've already discussed.
1) You're begging the question again. You're presuming that your God actually exists and that you know what he is, what he thinks etc... already established multiple times as a fallacy. You're dishonest for repeating it.
2) I don't assume that the bible is the word of God. You do. I say that the Judeo-Christian God doesn't exist in the first place and thus the book is inherently nothing more than the wishful thinking of a particularly small and primitive subculture in the middle east thousands of years ago. Nothing more. It is historical fiction. Mythology even. It is no more to the fact that the miracles written therein actually happened than claiming that Scarlett O'hara and her deeds written in "Gone With the Wind" are actually actually non-fiction and true simply because they were written within a historical context.
A distinction you seem unable to understand.
3) I'm not blending anything together. In fact you are the one being openly dishonest here and trying to put words in my mouth to setup a dishonest straw man to try to attack.
The "Good News Bible" doesn't even factor in here because we're dealing with the orignal messages in their historical context. Specific claims of fact made by men claimed to be inspired by God and even literally transcribing His exact words directly.
Trying to distract us by point to a particular modern day version of the bible that we weren't even discussing is, yet again, a dishonest red herring attempt at distraction. Shame on you.
Not only that, but you're also outright ignoring the documents I presented from the Westminster Theological Seminary. You're ingoring the fact that they back up what I was saying to you.
Why don't you try acknowledging those things and admitting that my statements actually match what they were saying about the nature of creation? And acknowledge that based on this, and the countless other claims I've made with sound references to back them up have also been much more accurate, well informed, and validly reasoned than your own.
Would that kill you Don?
Let me clarify some things to you Don.
You lack integrity.
"Integrity is a concept of consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations and outcomes. In western ethics, integrity is regarded as the quality of having an intuitive sense of honesty and truthfulness in regard to the motivations for one's actions. Integrity can be regarded as the opposite of hypocrisy, in that it regards internal consistency as a virtue, and suggests that parties holding apparently conflicting values should account for the discrepancy or alter their beliefs."
You lack intellectual honesty.
"Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving in academia, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways:
* One's personal beliefs do not interfere with the pursuit of truth;
* Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis;
* Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;
* References are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided
Harvard ethicist Louis M. Guenin describes the "kernel" of intellectual honesty to be "a virtuous disposition to eschew deception when given an incentive for deception.""
You have persistently, at almost every step of this discussion avoided admitting your mistakes, presenting an honest, fact based argument, acknowledging the actual facts in favor of denying any information that was critical of your pre-determined belief etc.
With that said, I ask you again... please have the honesty, integrity, and maturity to ADMIT... at the very least... that you were doubly wrong about trying to argue about the length of days justifying YOUR interpretation of the Creation story in Genesis as being true by claiming that the days were longer in the past, that the Roman calendar etc justified your claims, that even any such discrepancies could in any way account for the spans of time necessary even if you weren't claiming the polar opposite of the actual real world process to begin with out of a complete lack of understanding of the material etc.
You were dead wrong Don. Have the maturity, honesty, humility, and integrity to admit it so that we might move forward from there.
Post a Comment