Are Religious Explanations Always Facile?

[sojourner]

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

For one thing, the texts are multivalent. So it’s not so much a matter of “what’s factual” as it is “what makes the most sense, given the parameters.”

 

[ChristineM]

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

Theology is mostly opinion.

 

[ChristineM]

For one thing, the texts are multivalent. So it’s not so much a matter of “what’s factual” as it is “what makes the most sense, given the parameters.”

Whose parameters, yours?

 

[sojourner]

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

You’re only reading part of what’s written. And then you’re reading a lot into that partial statement.

 

[sojourner]

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

Others are correct — they usually have some bias, or scholastic anomalies due to lack of or overlooked resource material, or the bias of the translation team.

 

[sojourner]

Theology is mostly opinion.

No, not”opinion.” “Argument.”

 

[sojourner]

Whose parameters, yours?

No, the parameters of textual evidence.

 

[ChristineM]

No, not”opinion.” “Argument.”

You reckon?

 

[ChristineM]

No, the parameters of textual evidence.

From the new fangled version?

For fear of repeating myself
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

 

[sojourner]

From the new fangled version?

For fear of repeating myself
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

And...?

 

[ChristineM]

And...?

No and needed.

 

[sojourner]

No and needed.

The rest of the statement is...?

(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.)

 

[Windwalker]

now again, I hear a reproach.
Since the discussion involves too many reproaches - reproaches without appropriate sourcing - I'll limit the discussion with you to this very point.

The question you raised to begin with was why there was such an exodus to atheism... or something to that effect. This isn't about YOU. It's about the mindset of certain Christian groups who make it a false choice between accepting God, or accepting science.

My whole point in wishing this discussion with you, without all the defensiveness, is about how that is unnecessary. It's that point of view, that either either God or science, that is the problem. Not you personally.

Cite a source from an atheist saying that he or she left faith because he learned that there were some people around like me who, whenever they believe something to be the case in spite of science claiming otherwise.... give priority to the Bible as opposed to science in what they believe at some instances.
This is the kind of substantiation that is missing.

How about myself? In my path of faith, I left Christianity and began identifying as an atheist as a direct result of science denialism by those I was exposed to in my Christian faith. In my time identifying as that, I was a moderator on a site dedicated to ExChristians for around 10 years, as well as a member of a local support group for Former Fundamentalists. I have heard countless "testimonies" of those who left fundamentalist Christianity.

And the reasons why that was so for the vast majority of them, is that they saw the evidence of science, as opposed to the "explanations" given to them by fundamentalists reading Genesis and the rest of the Bible as science, as hogwash. Countess examples. Just read the atheists post on this site alone. Now multiply that by several hundred, and that's my substantiation of what I have observed.

Obviously, I no longer identify as atheist, because I figured out that that all or nothing, black or white, science of God dichotomy, was the source of the whole problem.

If this is something you don't wish to address, then that is your choice. I raise this, because you have started many threads about this, and they all seem to center around that very choice: atheism or faith, science or God. I can tell you based on experience, those like yourself who make it a choice like that, are going to sacrifice something important either way.

That is unnecessary. There are many people of faith who don't see a conflict like that. Those that do, are poised to lose their faith. And that was the point I was trying to make with you, if you are willing to discuss this.

 

[ChristineM]

The rest of the statement is...?

(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.)

So does it say "when" (in the appropriate language) in the original.

Looks like you are stuck on a modern translation that matches your opinion.

Is that how bible scholars work?

 

[sojourner]

So does it say "when" (in the appropriate language) in the original.

Looks like you are stuck on a modern translation that matches your opinion.

Is that how bible scholars work?

What it says, as I pointed out is not directly translatable. the English “when” is there, because due to the context, it is implied.

The word translated as “create” is bara. Bara literally means “to separate” — as if cut apart. God’s creative act was to separate waters above from waters below, and to separate light from darkness. There simply is no implication in the text that God brought anything into existence from nothing in that creative act.

The word translated as “void” is Tohu vovohu. It literally translates as “desert” — “void of life.” It is interpreted as “chaos.”

God’s creative act was to bring life and order to that formless chaos through an act of separation.

The “when” makes the intent a little clearer than the KJV provides.

 

[ChristineM]

What it says, as I pointed out is not directly translatable. the English “when” is there, because due to the context, it is implied.

The word translated as “create” is bara. Bara literally means “to separate” — as if cut apart. God’s creative act was to separate waters above from waters below, and to separate light from darkness. There simply is no implication in the text that God brought anything into existence from nothing in that creative act.

The word translated as “void” is Tohu vovohu. It literally translates as “desert” — “void of life.” It is interpreted as “chaos.”

God’s creative act was to bring life and order to that formless chaos through an act of separation.

The “when” makes the intent a little clearer than the KJV provides.

You still trying?

 

[sojourner]

You still trying?

No. You asked a question — I answered. isn’t that How it Works?

 

[ChristineM]

No. You asked a question — I answered. isn’t that How it Works?

Much easier to say "no, when isn't there, i put it in to massage my ego" rather than all the irrelevant fluff that does the same thing. It gets boring.

I have just been checking through genesis 1 as written in several bibles, most are the same or similar to the KJV but this one, the AMP caught my attention

1 In the beginning God (Elohim) created [by forming from nothing] the heavens and the earth

Interesting eh?

And the Wycliffe

1 In the beginning God made of nought heaven and earth
(In the beginning God made out of nothing the heavens and the earth)

 

[Onoma]

Well... isn’t that special!

I hope you feel better now.

BTW: name calling is against forum rules.

What's special is that people look to a pompous windbag as some sort of academic standard. I'd be happy to point out some rather comical blunders of Dawkins' if you like

 

[sojourner]

What's special is that people look to a pompous windbag as some sort of academic standard. I'd be happy to point out some rather comical blunders of Dawkins' if you like

I don’t think he’s a windbag, but I think he takes the most (to coin a phrase) facile view of religion and sets up straw men.