Science vs Religion

[Ori]

Much of it is vague babble that accepts the Torah as history. To the extent that it avoids contradiction, it does so solely by virtue of being vague.

But isn't much of Biblical theology vague babble?

 

[scitsofreaky]

One problem I see is that so many people treat science as if it is a tool to prove or disprove religion(s), and not as something that is separate from religion (which we all seem to have agreed upon). I see this as an unbalanced show of respect towards the two areas.

 

[Druidus]

There are scientific contradictions in any religious text. This does not invalidate the religion, but it does invalidate that part of the religion, scientifically.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Much of it is vague babble that accepts the Torah as history. To the extent that it avoids contradiction, it does so solely by virtue of being vague.

But isn't much of Biblical theology vague babble?

Yes. Do you have a point? Have you ever compared, for example, the two creation accounts?

 

[Mister Emu]

But isn't much of Biblical theology vague babble?

If you say so...

Have you ever compared, for example, the two creation accounts?

Gah, this again. In my opinion, there are not two creation accounts, there is a general overview(God creates, and it is good) and a more indepth discourse on the creation of mankind(dust and ribs, all that good stuff).

You may not accept my interpretation, but to state, as fact, that there are two creation accounts is distorting the situation.

The only division between science and religion is what people create.

 

[samgeorge11]

Much of it is vague babble that accepts the Torah as history. To the extent that it avoids contradiction, it does so solely by virtue of being vague.

I dint't Say "Torah". Thats old, only reason for it being old is its adulteration.
I said "Quran".

 

[samgeorge11]

There are scientific contradictions in any religious text. This does not invalidate the religion, but it does invalidate that part of the religion, scientifically.

Thats what I'm claiming. I myself am a devout christian. But till now neither me nor anyone else has been able to find out one scientific flaw in Quran.The whole idea of adding and deleting text in Bibble doesn't get through me. Thats vague, remarked INSANITY.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Gah, this again. In my opinion, there are not two creation accounts, ...

If you had taken the time to both read and think about the posts in question, you would have realized that the two creation accounts referred to were those in the Torah and Quran.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I dint't Say "Torah". Thats old, only reason for it being old is its adulteration. I said "Quran".

Read the sentence again.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I have to agree with Scitsofreaky... many athiests use science as a club with which to try to bludgeon both God and religion to death. They accept nuances in a dead language as being the factual rendering of that text.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

They accept nuances in a dead language as being the factual rendering of that text.

Can you give us some examples of specific nuances improperly presumed factual?

 

[Mister Emu]

If you had taken the time to both read and think about the posts in question, you would have realized that the two creation accounts referred to were those in the Torah and Quran

I am sorry for misunderstanding your post Deut.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Start with the translation of "day" in the creation account.

It does not mean 24 hours, and yet that is what is accepted as the translation. It litteraly means "warm period" and we have assumed that it is some kind of idiom for "day".

 

[Mister Emu]

Well NetDoc, it can mean day(24 hour)/period of time/year. So every "day" could be an indefinite period of time.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Precisely, Mr Emu. Precisely!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It does not mean 24 hours, and yet that is what is accepted as the translation. It litteraly means "warm period" ...

The issue is not idiom but etymology and, interestingly enough, the term has very much the same etymology as the word 'day' in English, i.e., from the Sanskrit 'dah', meaning 'burn', and refering, of course, to the effects of the sun during the day-night cycle. It is also interesting to note that the advent of appeals to idiom is little more than a pathetic cousin to appeals to ignorance, and reflect a somewhat underwhelming effort to insulate the OT from criticism. It is pathetic in that we have well-meaning divers like NetDoc preaching with full confidence that the Jewish sages really didn't know what they were reading or talking about.

 

[Scuba Pete]

You know Deut...

Your words don't really fit in my mouth. Please stop trying to force them there. Your continual baiting of me as well as others is perplexing at best. Perhaps you find it necessary to belittle anyone who disagrees with you, but I find THAT quite pathetic. I am just waiting for you to somehow work this disagreement into being anti-Semitic as well. So please, use your straw man arguments and your appeal to Ridicule on someone else. I don't appreciate them and find your constant use of them as completely inappropriate.

Idioms are etymological in nature. They are the second hardest part of ANY language to discern as they depart from the logical application of the language. Of course, puns are the hardest (double' entendre') since they require a nascent understanding of the language to "get it". To say that the issue is not "idiom but etymology" displays a significant misunderstanding of this science or a willingness to distort it just to prove a point.

I am not sure why you singled out divers in your recent diatribe, but as a diver, I have no issues with Jewish sages of any age. I do have a problem with YOU preaching with full confidence that you alone understand an obscure idiom written thousands of years ago. But then, I don't consider you a "Jewish Sage".

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Idioms are etymological in nature.

From Wikipedia

An idiom is an expression whose meaning is not compositional—that is, whose meaning does not follow from the meaning of the individual words of which it is composed​

From the College of Education - Texas A & M University

Idiom

1. An expression whose meaning is not predictable from the usual meanings of its constituent elements, as kick the bucket, hang one’s head, etc., or from the general grammatical tules of a language, as the table round for the round table, and which is not a constituent of a larger expression of like characteristics.
2. A language, dialect, or style of speaking peculiar to a people.
3. A construction or expression of one language whose parts correspond to elements in another language but whose total structure or meaning is not matched in the same way in the second language.
4. The peculiar character or genius of a language.

At issue is your peculiar ability to discern idiom (as opposed to standard meaning) where others far more knowledgable have not.

I am not sure why you singled out divers ...

It was a childish bait. My apologies.

I do have a problem with YOU preaching with full confidence that you alone understand an obscure idiom written thousands of years ago. But then, I don't consider you a "Jewish Sage".

And I have a problem

• With YOU making things up on the fly.
  Where have I 'preached with full confidence that I alone understand' a particular verse or translation?​
• With YOU engaging in self-serving semantic slight-of-hand.
  You have yet to show that any of the 'translators', or any of the sages who studied the early texts, considered them to be "obscure idiom".​

So, please stop complaining and show us your evidence of "obscure idiom".

 

[Scuba Pete]

So, are you still contending that idioms are not etymological in nature? Of have you now dropped that?

The word for day has a "literal sense": a warm period. I knew this for the ancient Hebrew but had no idea this was true for the current English as well.

Saying that day indicates 24 hours or the "daylight" period makes it by DEFINITION an idiom. You use idioms all of the time without knowing it. Some idioms have evolved into bonafide words, but as to WHEN they evolved is completely open to conjecture. As much as you would like to believe differently, language is NOT static. It is constantly evolving even as our understanding of our universe changes with it.

As for your "A&B", this is dragging us further off topic. I find your protests a kinder to the the pot calling the china "black". You should learn to follow your own principles FIRST, and once you have mastered that, please feel free to come cast some additional stones at me... but do it via PM. We don't need to subject others to our petty differences.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Where is your evidence that the use of day in Genesis is an instance of 'obscure idiom'?