|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationists acknowledge evolution makes sense | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[QUOTE]
Of course, the passages have absolutely no significance for the redemption of man from sin or the acceptance of Jesus, and him crucified. It's difficult to believe anyone would find this error a a barrier or challenge to their faith, compared to say, the problem of evil, unless that faith happened to be in a linguistically unsustainable literalism.[/B][/QUOTE]
And this is my point precisely. If one's faith is based upon taking some parts of the Bible as literally true, then why not all parts of the Bible? How does one know which parts are to be taken as literal and which are to be figurative or allegorical? If you want to believe that the Flood occurred, sans evidence, then you must also be willing to believe that rabbits chew their cud, just like ruminants do. You must be willing to believe that the stars are literally "set" into something like a firmament, and there is water above this firmament. The reality of the situation is that there is no such thing as a person who believes the Bible 100% literally. Everyone interprets the Bible, and once you start to interpret, then it's simply a matter of who's interpretation you like. I mean, Creationism based upon the Bible anyway, not evidence found in nature. Why else would there still be such a thing as a YEC and a OEC? The evidence found in nature rules what is accepted in science, not what a particular interpretation of a certain religious book says is true. ------------------"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow- minded." -Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7576 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
I agree with most of what you say, except for one minor quibble. Just as it is untenable to expect the bible to literally true in its every utterance, so one shouldn't go to the other extreme and deny that there is nothing in the bible that is literally true! Yet sometimes it seems that this is what those who oppose literalism are accused of. It most certainly is not an all-or-nothing choice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Joe, I don't have a problem with there being incorrect translations portions of scripture. But I can tell you categorically that this does not grossly affect ony major doctrine including creaiton/flood that I can think of.
Name a doctrine of any bible believing chiurch - eg the Baptists (I'm not a Baptist BTW) - that you think hinges on only one verse that may (or may not) be mistranslated or ambiguous. My point was that the phrase/word transalted as 'chewing the cud' may simply mean grass eating in Hebrew. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-21-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"My point was that the phrase/word transalted as 'chewing the cud' may simply mean grass eating in Hebrew."
--I can also recall when reading something (might have been encarta?) on some of the hares. Maybe this was a usage for itterating digestion (turn around and take bite if you know what I mean). ------------------ [This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-21-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Although rabbits are not ruminants they do eat their own pellets as pointed out by AIG and we would hence suspect that this was categrized as the Hebrew 'alah'.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3725.asp
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7576 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
quote: It doesn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
^ I agree now - See #51.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]Although rabbits are not ruminants they do eat their own pellets as pointed out by AIG and we would hence suspect that this was categrized as the Hebrew 'alah'. [/QUOTE] JM: I thought you were a "phded' scientist (biology part of your emphasis no doubt) and you can't distinguish between 'cud' and 'feces' Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
octipice Inactive Member |
For a very long time there has been one particular verse that has divided christians on the issue of creation. It goes like this: "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day...". The idea that everything was created in only a few of what we consider to be "days" is a verse that divides many christians on the subject of creation. As you can see, an ambiguous phrase such as this can really effect the subject of creation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
You obviuously haven't ahd a close look at rabbit feces joe - it's basically grass. And that's obviously the opinion of the rabbits!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7576 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
quote: No it wouldn't be categorized as alah - if the Hebrews knew that rabbits ate their own fecal matter I suspect their scrupulous hygienic laws would have rather more to say about it! They use exactly the same phrase as they use for chewing the cud - and the word is the same word as is commonly used for cud in semitic languages today (pastoral terms are amongst the most entrenched usages in linguistics). The only argument you could use to render another meaning is that the Bible cannot be wrong, so we must extend the meaning of chewing the cud to encompass this. Note a few things - the word alah is used for bringing up the cud. They were aware of the difference between this and vomiting - for which they use the cognate words Qayah, Qow and Qe. Remember that they do not actually say the Hebrew "chewing" the cud, but "bringing up" the cud. There is actually no mention of chewing - they had special words for that too: araq and G'ram There is no reason to suppose they would not have made a similar distinction for the very distinctive behaviour of rabbits - or the digestive complexities of the hyrax for that matter. So the passages do not mean that Hebrew's were aware that bunnies munch their grassy poo - it means they thought they chewed the cud just like ruminants. And they were wrong. Which is ok, if the author was an ancient Hebrew and only a problem if you believe he was some sort of stenographer for the Almighty.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
Thanks for the info MP!
Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
What you're saying is very compelling but it's not absolute proof that the term wasnt use to indicate that, either way, these animals redigested their food! Your 'meaning of the words' comes from usage of course - or do you have an ancient Hebrew dictionary written back then? Common usage dictates meaning and now it may be actual cud regurgitation, at an earlier point it may have been more incusive regardless of the sub-meanings of parts of the word.
Words become definitions that are only as useful as their common usage. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-21-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Fine, the same could be said about the words in Genesis 1 and 2. The same could be said about the words used in the Noachian flood story. I think you should have held back before posting this one Cheers Joe Meert [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-21-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
You have a thread going on the GC sedimentary rocks. Stick with it. Focus man!
Cheers Joe Meert
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024