Your view on Creation and the Creator?
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
If there is truth behind it, only one interpretation can be correct. Go by the grammatical and historical context, there is only one interpretation valid. However, if the grammar is ignored, you can make any text say anything you want it too. Also, if the actual historical context doesn't suit someone, they may invent one so as to alter the meaning of the text to their liking. But, taken as the text presents, there is only one meaning that is correct.
If there is truth behind it, only one interpretation can be correct. Go by the grammatical and historical context, there is only one interpretation valid. However, if the grammar is ignored, you can make any text say anything you want it too. Also, if the actual historical context doesn't suit someone, they may invent one so as to alter the meaning of the text to their liking. But, taken as the text presents, there is only one meaning that is correct.
I just thought about the interpretation about the Sabbath for a moment, which would be the correct one? considering historical context, and its interesting to see in that aspect, some scholars have pointed out before that it is one of the things that were corrupted by the romans.
I have to agree with the literal day here, at the time it was written, I don't think it would have been intended to be thousands or millions of years each day of the creation, it wouldn't make sense for them, at the time.
_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?
If there is truth behind it, only one interpretation can be correct. Go by the grammatical and historical context, there is only one interpretation valid. However, if the grammar is ignored, you can make any text say anything you want it too. Also, if the actual historical context doesn't suit someone, they may invent one so as to alter the meaning of the text to their liking. But, taken as the text presents, there is only one meaning that is correct.
Natural language is ambiguous, so even if you could parse the language word by word (which you can't) you still wouldn't get a single definitive meaning.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
If there is truth behind it, only one interpretation can be correct. Go by the grammatical and historical context, there is only one interpretation valid. However, if the grammar is ignored, you can make any text say anything you want it too. Also, if the actual historical context doesn't suit someone, they may invent one so as to alter the meaning of the text to their liking. But, taken as the text presents, there is only one meaning that is correct.
I just thought about the interpretation about the Sabbath for a moment, which would be the correct one? considering historical context, and its interesting to see in that aspect, some scholars have pointed out before that it is one of the things that were corrupted by the romans.
I have to agree with the literal day here, at the time it was written, I don't think it would have been intended to be thousands or millions of years each day of the creation, it wouldn't make sense for them, at the time.
Yeah, the interpretation of these passages,
Genesis 2:2-3
(2) And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
(3) And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
Exodus 20:8-11
(8) Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
(9) Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
(10) But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
(11) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
would be that the creation week was a literal week. If we were to go by Jewish traditions here, then the fact a day starts in the evening and ends after the morning would reflect the "evening and there was morning, the [Xth] day". Here going by Jewish traditions would be appropriate as to which day the Shabbat is, since their lives would revolve around it, so the Shabbat is Saturday. For the Goyim who don't care, why would they keep track of it?
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
If there is truth behind it, only one interpretation can be correct. Go by the grammatical and historical context, there is only one interpretation valid. However, if the grammar is ignored, you can make any text say anything you want it too. Also, if the actual historical context doesn't suit someone, they may invent one so as to alter the meaning of the text to their liking. But, taken as the text presents, there is only one meaning that is correct.
Natural language is ambiguous, so even if you could parse the language word by word (which you can't) you still wouldn't get a single definitive meaning.
I'd like to see you give that excuse in studying a foreign language as a reason for bad grades.
This is preaching to the converted, I know:
He said: "The idea still persists that the fossil record is too patchy to provide good evidence of evolution. One reason for this is the influence of creationism.
"Foremost among their tactics is to distort or ignore the evidence for evolution; a favourite lie is 'there are no transitional fossils'.
"This is manifestly untrue. We now have abundant evidence for how all the major groups of animals are related, much of it in the form of excellent transitional fossils."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/02/28/scicreation128.xml
There is not an iota of empirically evidence supporting the proposition that God exists.
In addition to which, one has the problem of accounting for God. Who made God?
So if one must believe something has always existed since the beginning of time, one may as well believe that it is the Universe.
Ba'al Chatzaf
_________________
Socrates' Last Words: I drank what!! !?????
If there is truth behind it, only one interpretation can be correct. Go by the grammatical and historical context, there is only one interpretation valid. However, if the grammar is ignored, you can make any text say anything you want it too. Also, if the actual historical context doesn't suit someone, they may invent one so as to alter the meaning of the text to their liking. But, taken as the text presents, there is only one meaning that is correct.
I just thought about the interpretation about the Sabbath for a moment, which would be the correct one? considering historical context, and its interesting to see in that aspect, some scholars have pointed out before that it is one of the things that were corrupted by the romans.
I have to agree with the literal day here, at the time it was written, I don't think it would have been intended to be thousands or millions of years each day of the creation, it wouldn't make sense for them, at the time.
Yeah, the interpretation of these passages,
Genesis 2:2-3
(2) And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
(3) And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
Exodus 20:8-11
(8) Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
(9) Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
(10) But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
(11) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
would be that the creation week was a literal week. If we were to go by Jewish traditions here, then the fact a day starts in the evening and ends after the morning would reflect the "evening and there was morning, the [Xth] day". Here going by Jewish traditions would be appropriate as to which day the Shabbat is, since their lives would revolve around it, so the Shabbat is Saturday. For the Goyim who don't care, why would they keep track of it?
An argument that rests upon itself is like an animal that rests upon its own back. Snakes, which are also famous for their forked tongues, are possibly unique in having this ability.
This argument you posted is sort of self defeating researching the proof of god or creation, how does this apply to faith, is not having faith knowing there is a god, and if god has shown you that he or she or it exists, and you only come to this conclusion by researching and have concrete proof that a deity exists, how can you claim to have faith?
Heres the Douglas Adams version of this argument from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
This argument you posted is sort of self defeating researching the proof of god or creation, how does this apply to faith, is not having faith knowing there is a god, and if god has shown you that he or she or it exists, and you only come to this conclusion by researching and have concrete proof that a deity exists, how can you claim to have faith?
"Faith" for me is my confidence level, not an abstract concept.
If there is truth behind it, only one interpretation can be correct. Go by the grammatical and historical context, there is only one interpretation valid. However, if the grammar is ignored, you can make any text say anything you want it too. Also, if the actual historical context doesn't suit someone, they may invent one so as to alter the meaning of the text to their liking. But, taken as the text presents, there is only one meaning that is correct.
This argument you posted is sort of self defeating researching the proof of god or creation, how does this apply to faith, is not having faith knowing there is a god, and if god has shown you that he or she or it exists, and you only come to this conclusion by researching and have concrete proof that a deity exists, how can you claim to have faith?
"Faith" for me is my confidence level, not an abstract concept.
I don't deny the proof or lack of proof of god, that is not an abstract concept, that is mine and most people who don't have the problem of having blind faith. When it comes to religion your going to get people who disagree your version of it. Not that I mean to flame you but your going to be flamed by anyone who disagrees with you
This argument you posted is sort of self defeating researching the proof of god or creation, how does this apply to faith, is not having faith knowing there is a god, and if god has shown you that he or she or it exists, and you only come to this conclusion by researching and have concrete proof that a deity exists, how can you claim to have faith?
"Faith" for me is my confidence level, not an abstract concept.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
This argument you posted is sort of self defeating researching the proof of god or creation, how does this apply to faith, is not having faith knowing there is a god, and if god has shown you that he or she or it exists, and you only come to this conclusion by researching and have concrete proof that a deity exists, how can you claim to have faith?
"Faith" for me is my confidence level, not an abstract concept.
You don't even know the event in question.