Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doctor X · 09-28-2003, 04:45 PM

Quote:

But sir, don't you know that science is but an extrapolation of omniscience. . . .

Since it is not, I do not, thankfully.

Quote:

. . . if this is true, why should I bother?

The ignorant do not have to remain ignorant unless they choose to remain in such an unhappy state.

Quote:

Yes, I know all about it because I have a mother-in-law like that.

Then you have little excuse for such an irresponsible claim.

Quote:

Opposite to this I maintain that all pain is an illusion. . . .

As reliably incorrect as other claims, it seems.

Quote:

. . . because human life itself is an illusion. . . .

Again, one is welcome to his delusions; he cannot force others, including the authors of the texts, to subscribe to them.

--J.D.

Abel Stable · 09-28-2003, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amos
but the apparent darkness can be explained by the void created when the ego died.

What on earth does this mean??? Sounds like you are trying to say that it wasn't an observable darkness (or perhaps 'absence of light' you'd prefer), but rather some other metaphysical explanation you have up your sleeve...

But Luke 23:45 describes the event was due to a solar eclipse.

Quote:

we use our ego identity to transform sound-waves into sound and light-waves into light

How does this process work?

09-28-2003, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amlodhi
How can omniscience extrapolate?

It doesn't extrapolate but it accumilates and we extrapolate our science of the day from that accumilation.

09-28-2003, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X

Then you have little excuse for such an irresponsible claim.

But that is different. I believe my mother-in-law because I love her.

BTW. If females can have a painless childbirth while under hypnosis do you still think that pain is real?

09-28-2003, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Abel Stable

But Luke 23:45 describes the event was due to a solar eclipse.

How does this process work?

Yes it does say that, but that eclipse was obviously not caused by the moon but in the mind of the beholder. It is just a transformation eclipse wherein the light of common day is abandonned to gain access to the celestial light. What really happened is that our sense perception mechanism must be re-routed to go directly to the subconscious mind.

I don't really know how the physiology works but I do know that we look with our eyes and see with our mind just as we listen with our ears and hear with our mind.

Does that help?

Abel Stable · 09-28-2003, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amos
BTW. If females can have a painless childbirth while under hypnosis do you still think that pain is real?

Pain is an indicator of physical harm - it is like a sensory alarm. Regardless of whether or not the nervous system registers the alarm, the harm is real. Alternatively, the brain can be fooled into feeling harm that isn't occurring, but the body still reacts to the sensation. So I'd say that pain is real.

Amlodhi · 09-28-2003, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amos

(Omniscience) doesn't extrapolate but it accumilates and we extrapolate our science of the day from that accumilation.

So, now omniscience accumulates?? . . . . nevermind.

RED DAVE · 09-28-2003, 05:43 PM

From Amos:

Quote:

I should add here that the light of common day is an illusion and I would expect that all of 'Judiasm' experienced a black-out when illumination occured.

Why should we Jews have experienced darkness when one of our many messianic preachers (and not the only one) was crucified? Rome didn't eperience darkness when Spartacus was crucified.

RED DAVE

Peter Kirby · 09-28-2003, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Abel Stable
But Luke 23:45 describes the event was due to a solar eclipse.

Lee Edgar Tyler once told me that this was an unjustified translation. But it looks like there is actually disagreement among the Greek manuscripts. See this notice:

http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/errors.htm

Quote:

Luke 23:45 �because the sun�s light failed. The curtain of the temple was torn in two.� �NET Bible

The wording �the sun�s light failed� is a translation of tou' hJlivou ejklipovnto"/ejkleivponto" (tou heliou eklipontos/ekleipontos), a reading found in the earliest and best witnesses (among them �75 � B C* L 0124 as well as several ancient versions). The majority of manuscripts (A C3 D K W Q Y 0117 0135 �1 �13 Byz lat) have the flatter term, �the sun was darkened� (ejskotivsqh/eskotisthe), a reading that avoids the problem of implying an eclipse. This alternative thus looks secondary because it is a more common word and less likely to be understood as referring to a solar eclipse. That it appears in later witnesses adds confirmatory testimony to its inauthentic character.

Some students of the NT see in Luke�s statement the sun�s light failed (eklipontos) an obvious blunder in his otherwise meticulous historical accuracy. The reason for claiming such an error on the evangelist�s part is due to an understanding of the verb as indicating a solar eclipse when such would be an astronomical impossibility during a full moon. There are generally two ways to resolve this difficulty: (a) adopt a different reading (�the sun was darkened�) that smooths over the problem, or (b) understand the verb eklipontos in a general way (such as �the sun�s light failed�) rather than as a technical term, �the sun was eclipsed.� The problem with the first solution is that it is too convenient, for the Christian scribes who, over the centuries, copied Luke�s gospel would have thought the same thing. That is, they too would have sensed a problem in the wording and felt that some earlier scribe had incorrectly written down what Luke penned. The fact that the reading �was darkened� shows up in the later and generally inferior witnesses does not bolster one�s confidence that this is the right solution. But the second solution, if taken to its logical conclusion, proves too much for it would nullify the argument against the first solution: If the term did not refer to an eclipse, then why would scribes feel compelled to change it to a more general term? The solution to the problem is that ekleipo did in fact sometimes refer to an eclipse, but it did not always do so.

Note two prominent lexical sources on this: BAGD 242 s.v. ejkleivpw (ekleipo) notes that the verb is used in hellenistic Greek �Of the sun grow dark, perh. be eclipsed.� In J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan�s Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, reprint ed. w. scripture index added (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1997), it is argued that �it seems more than doubtful that in Lk2345 any reference is intended to an eclipse. To find such a reference is to involve the Evangelist in a needless blunder, as an eclipse is impossible at full moon, and to run counter to his general usage of the verb = �fail�� (p. 195). They enlist Luke 16:9; 22:32; and Heb 1:12 for the general meaning �fail,� and further cite several contemporaneous examples from papyri of this meaning (195-96).

Thus, the very fact that the verb can refer to an eclipse would would be a sufficient basis for later scribes altering the text out of pious motives; conversely, the very fact that the verb does not always refer to an eclipse and, in fact, does not normally do so, is enough of a basis to exonerate Luke of wholly uncharacteristic sloth.

If Luke 23:45 is discussed in an essay, one would have to justify both one's reconstruction of the Greek text and one's interpretation or translation into English.

best,
Peter Kirby

Abel Stable · 09-28-2003, 06:12 PM

Thanks for the clarification, Peter. In retrospect, the usage seems kind of odd. Did people then even have an idea of what an eclipse is?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-28-2003, 06:12 PM	#20
Abel Stable Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Baltimore, MD Posts: 356	Thanks for the clarification, Peter. In retrospect, the usage seems kind of odd. Did people then even have an idea of what an eclipse is?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.