Are Religious Explanations Always Facile?

[ChristineM]

Yeah... but where's your evidence? Were you there?

Yeah. I know.

Attempted sarcasm does not re-write the bible

 

[ChristineM]

Seriously? Why bother with scholarship then? The world of alternative facts is vogue now, it seems. Experts and specialists are just another opinion, no better than anyone else's, it's believed by many to be true to their own ends.

Thats the thing, there are no facts

That means no facts for a scholar to get excited about. All they can do is ignore the first few words of the bible because it interferes with their pet hypothesis

 

[sojourner]

Then i suggest you re read the first verse.

Genesis 1
King James Version

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

I suggest you read the entire statement and stop taking things out of context.

Genesis 1
New Revised Standard Version (a better translation than the above)
In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

 

[sojourner]

So not numbered, not sentenced, are you saying ..

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.


With or without a verse number or full stops is not the first few words of genesis?

See post #103.

 

[sojourner]

Attempted sarcasm does not re-write the bible

No attempt is being made to rewrite the Bible. An attempt is being made to actually exegete the text. Please try to keep up.

 

[ChristineM]

I suggest you read the entire statement and stop taking things out of context.

Genesis 1
New Revised Standard Version (a better translation than the above)
In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

Ohh, a bible battle... interesting.

A New revised version of the revised versions of the book that no originals exist . Cool.

So what does the original text say.

 

[ChristineM]

See post #103.

Why, because it suits your claim... no thanks, I'll stick with the KJV

 

[sojourner]

I think he's a pompous twit that severely over-estimates his own education . He's another academic talking head that battles zealots in debates that are based on literalism and false dichotomies to begin with, which is like kicking a midget and acting like you just beat up a giant

I'd punish this fool in a real debate because he clearly knows nothing about classical Mesopotamian or Egyptian literature, so his ideas about religion are ultracrepidarian at best

Well... isn’t that special!

I hope you feel better now.

BTW: name calling is against forum rules.

 

[ChristineM]

No attempt is being made to rewrite the Bible. An attempt is being made to actually exegete the text. Please try to keep up.

Interpretation is open to interpretation and prevailing opinion. Hence rw-write, exegete, whatever you want to call it

 

[sojourner]

Thats the thing, there are no facts

That means no facts for a scholar to get excited about. All they can do is ignore the first few words of the bible because it interferes with their pet hypothesis

Reading in context is important when reading these texts. One can’t just simply come to a theological conclusion by reading “the first few words” and expect it to have any credibility. The facts are the texts we have. They need to be exegeted in order to get at a reasonable interpretation. that process excludes pet hypotheses by definition.

 

[sojourner]

Ohh, a bible battle... interesting.

A New revised version of the revised versions of the book that no originals exist . Cool.

So what does the original text say.

The oldest text we have is in Hebrew, and it comes from much older texts from various other cultures in languages that were translated into Hebrew. The first line has no exact English equivalent. That’s the problem with picking out one English word and creating a whole theological construct out of it. That’s why various translations vary. Translation and transliteration are two separate endeavors. Translators try to remain true to the text, where such transliteration does not interfere with what the text means. In this case, the translators have access to older texts and better scholarship than those of the KJV.

 

[sojourner]

Interpretation is open to interpretation and prevailing opinion. Hence rw-write, exegete, whatever you want to call it

Nope. Interpretation and exegesis are not cases of “rewriting.”

 

[sojourner]

Why, because it suits your claim... no thanks, I'll stick with the KJV

Where do you think the claim came from? It was read out of that text, not read into the text, as you’re doing. If anyone’s “rewriting,” it’s you.

 

[ChristineM]

Reading in context is important when reading these texts. One can’t just simply come to a theological conclusion by reading “the first few words” and expect it to have any credibility. The facts are the texts we have. They need to be exegeted in order to get at a reasonable interpretation. that process excludes pet hypotheses by definition.

Reading what is written written is important, no time machine required. You are of course entitled to your opinion while remembering that without evidence it is opinion.

Why are you trying to belittle and negate those first few words?
.

 

[ChristineM]

The oldest text we have is in Hebrew, and it comes from much older texts from various other cultures in languages that were translated into Hebrew. The first line has no exact English equivalent. That’s the problem with picking out one English word and creating a whole theological construct out of it. That’s why various translations vary. Translation and transliteration are two separate endeavors. Translators try to remain true to the text, where such transliteration does not interfere with what the text means. In this case, the translators have access to older texts and better scholarship than those of the KJV.

A new revised version maybe?

 

[ChristineM]

Nope. Interpretation and exegesis are not cases of “rewriting.”

Its not, then why is it that there are si many opinions?

 

[ChristineM]

Where do you think the claim came from? It was read out of that text, not read into the text, as you’re doing. If anyone’s “rewriting,” it’s you.

I am not reading out of or into. I am reading WHAT IS WRITTEN. Sorry you have such a problem with that. I cannot see you ever comprehending that so i guess we are done

 

[sojourner]

Reading what is written written is important, no time machine required. You are of course entitled to your opinion while remembering that without evidence it is opinion.

Why are you trying to belittle and negate those first few words?
.

You’re entitled to your opinion, but unfounded opinion and theology don’t mix.

 

[sojourner]

A new revised version maybe?

Among a few others.

 

[ChristineM]

Among a few others.

Except the ones you don't think are correct. Ok