Freethought & Rationalism Archive

nogods4me · 05-17-2002, 07:02 AM

The Secular Web biased? Why how could that be? I am shocked, shocked, I tell you, that an apologist who came here and intended to refute or convert us met with bias and resistance.
Who would have imagined that folks on the Secular Web, who pronounce themselves infidels, and are pretty much all atheists, would have sound reasoning behind their positions?
I suppose many still believe that all atheists are just "angry" at god, or are "denying" god, and all we need is a bright little candle to show us the way to salvation. Bleech!

It was one little story, some bears mauled some boys, and even if we translate it so that it was young men, it is still an awful story, demonstrating the behavior of a psychotic, fairy tale being.

Vorkosigan · 05-17-2002, 02:04 PM

The NIV is very clear on the biased nature of its translation. Why does it translate the same phrase elsewhere as "young boy?" You never really addressed that issue.

Wallace's arguments fail for the same reason yours do: because the NIV isn't translating things out of some attempt at greater refinement of translation, but out of a desire to bring the Bible into congruence with Evangelical doctrines, particularly inerrantism and ameliorate some of the nasty bits.

Haran, you never had a case. Your mention of Acharya S and Earl Doherty are simply attempts to deflect us from noticing that you have no case. You addressed the real issue: why does the NIV only translate the phrase as "youths" in that passage?

Anyway, good luck. I realize it can be frustrating to deal with so many posters at once. Especially when you haven't much of an argument.

Vorkosigan

Major Billy · 05-17-2002, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Haran:
Let me ask you this question, MB...

If a questioning Christian came to you who didn't know the first thing about the languages, history, etc. of the Bible, would you present that person with all the best information regardless of religious leanings so that they would have all the necessary information to make a decision, or would you only present them with one-sided information like you and others began the thread with? If you would give them all information regardless of religious leanings, then please forgive me, for it did not seem from the beginning of this thread that this is what you intended to do.

Certainly not, Hn. If a questioning Christian came to me who didn't know the first thing about the Bible I would definitely not attempt to "snow them" with so much information overload like all the necessary information to make a 'decision' might cause someone who didn't know the '1st thing'.

What I would recommend is that he read <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/051734582X/rpcman/102-9840043-0060911" target="_blank">Asimov's Guide to the Bible</a>, probably the best book on the subject written for the beginner.

If he (or she) wants more answers than the good Doctor can provide, I'd next recommend <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684869128/102-9840043-0060911" target="_blank">The Bible Unearthed</a> by Israel Finkelstein, Professor of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University.

Starspun · 05-29-2002, 07:58 AM

...When taking things literaly or not, you need to look at what kind of book or passage it is,eg:
poetic, historical etc...If the skeptic really wants to find an answer,then he will search untill he has an exact answer...

Why would anyone that follows the xtianity religion break the bible down into categories? Poetic, historic, bs, etc.? Would it be because science has proven many aspects of the bible stories false?
Simply speaking, if I start a religion based on a book, I would submit that ALL the information contained within to be factual and historic. Let the poets deal with poetry. If one wants to brainwash someone else, there can be no internal debate about the subject matter. All material presented must consistently follow a path to whatever outcome the brainwasher wants.
On those grounds, I submit that the bible was taken literally by all who wanted to believe in the fairy tales of that time. It was taken at face value as Gods word. Science has disproved many of the false claims, thus, believers have to 'adjust' by twisting the prose into a more suitable presentation that makes sense to all, ie., historic, poetic content.
If you are a follower of xtianity, you, like others before you, must take the bible as the literal word of God. IF you dont, then you aren't a true believer. Maybe you are hanging onto something that you should let go of and get on with living a life without the fairy tales.
]

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: Starspun ]

Ion · 05-29-2002, 12:24 PM

Gee, ax and Haran:
In the Bible, in Genesis 1.31, I read:
"Then God saw that eveything that He had made, and indeed it was very good.", after God allegedly created universe, including man.
This is not a statement written for science, and not a mistranslated statement, yet what follows for hundreds of pages is a cacophony of screw ups, including Adam, Jesus Christ, and inconsistencies galore.
This statement of bogus, disqualifies the Bible, right on the first half page, never mind the abundance of inconsistencies that follow.

Haran, life must be hard for you: condescending at first, but easily proven wrong afterwards.
Can you learn from this?

ax · 05-29-2002, 04:04 PM

Starspun alright!!!
What the hell is wrong with you?! When people talk
about stuff they obviously never use artistic descriptions, y'know I mean human nature is to just talk plainly, like we never use stories( parrables) to illustrate a theme or idea.Of course the bible is the word of God but hell,
can't people use annalogies anymore? You are delusional and I fart in you're general direction!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Ion · 05-29-2002, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ax:

...
When people talk
about stuff they obviously never use artistic descriptions, y'know I mean human nature is to just talk plainly, like we never use stories( parrables) to illustrate a theme or idea.
...

ax, the problem is that the Bible has too much of this, to the point that not much from it is truth anymore, it's just interwined phony claims.
There are better books than that.

ax · 05-29-2002, 04:47 PM

Quote:

ax, the problem is that the Bible has too much of this, to the point that not much from it is truth anymore, it's just interwined phony claims.
There are better books than that.

The bible has too much of this?! now come on, it
has a perfect balance of these things. obviously it is you that is delusional-not I.

King Arthur · 05-29-2002, 04:57 PM

I found this thread so fascinating, I went out and bought a book on old testastament criticism (Old Testament Textual Criticism: A Practical Introduction, by Ellis R. Brotzman) to check out all the claims for myself.

Anyways, I was surprised to find something in my book about what Haran said ealier in the thread about some obscure language. The book is talking about some other obscure ancient language called "Akkadian". It says: "The Akkadian language is important for biblical studies on several levels. In the first place, Akkadian is the earliest attested Semitic language, and its decipherment and study since the nineteenth century have proved helpful for the elucidation of features of the Hebrew language."

There is then a footnote that reads: "Cf. Sabatino Moscati et al., An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages (Wiesbaden: Harranssowitz., 1969), 5. The entire book is devoted to showing how the grammar of any single Semitic language can illuminate possibly misunderstood features in another related language."

This book, at least, seems to agree with Haran on what he said about using that other language to understand Hebrew because they're both semitic (whatever he said).

Haran seems to overuse authority to me, but I tried to check out some of the scholars he mentioned. They seem to be legit Bible scholars. One of them even has a widely-used Greek grammar book.

I'm gonna check on his Hebrew transliteration next and compare it to Steven's since Haran made such a big stink about it.

I read a lot of talk about Haran's arguments being defeated, but have they really? I think people are dismissing what he says too quickly.

Skeptical · 05-29-2002, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ax:


The bible has too much of this?! now come on, it
has a perfect balance of these things. obviously it is you that is delusional-not I.

Ax, I don't know how old you are, but your arguments place you at about a 5th grade mentality. "your delusional!" "I resent that!"(from another thread) and "I fart in you're general direction!!!!!!!"

Do you actually have an argument to make that is something more cogent than "I believe the Bible"? If you want to actually make an inerrantist argument, please address the question I asked you earlier in this thread regarding the conflicting dates of the birth of Jesus in Matthew (4BCE) and Luke (6CE). Obviously, they both cannot be correct, so its either one or the other or neither.

If all your going to do is lie on the floor kicking and screaming "it's all true, it's all true!!!!", then don't waste your time replying and I'll just assume that you cannot reconcile this problem and I'll let you assume that somehow there's an answer "because it must be true!"

05-29-2002, 07:58 AM	#94
Starspun Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 334	...When taking things literaly or not, you need to look at what kind of book or passage it is,eg: poetic, historical etc...If the skeptic really wants to find an answer,then he will search untill he has an exact answer... Why would anyone that follows the xtianity religion break the bible down into categories? Poetic, historic, bs, etc.? Would it be because science has proven many aspects of the bible stories false? Simply speaking, if I start a religion based on a book, I would submit that ALL the information contained within to be factual and historic. Let the poets deal with poetry. If one wants to brainwash someone else, there can be no internal debate about the subject matter. All material presented must consistently follow a path to whatever outcome the brainwasher wants. On those grounds, I submit that the bible was taken literally by all who wanted to believe in the fairy tales of that time. It was taken at face value as Gods word. Science has disproved many of the false claims, thus, believers have to 'adjust' by twisting the prose into a more suitable presentation that makes sense to all, ie., historic, poetic content. If you are a follower of xtianity, you, like others before you, must take the bible as the literal word of God. IF you dont, then you aren't a true believer. Maybe you are hanging onto something that you should let go of and get on with living a life without the fairy tales. ] [ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: Starspun ]</p>

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

05-17-2002, 07:02 AM	#91
nogods4me Contributor Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Baltimore, MD USA Posts: 17,432	The Secular Web biased? Why how could that be? I am shocked, shocked, I tell you, that an apologist who came here and intended to refute or convert us met with bias and resistance. Who would have imagined that folks on the Secular Web, who pronounce themselves infidels, and are pretty much all atheists, would have sound reasoning behind their positions? I suppose many still believe that all atheists are just "angry" at god, or are "denying" god, and all we need is a bright little candle to show us the way to salvation. Bleech! It was one little story, some bears mauled some boys, and even if we translate it so that it was young men, it is still an awful story, demonstrating the behavior of a psychotic, fairy tale being.

05-17-2002, 02:04 PM	#92
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	The NIV is very clear on the biased nature of its translation. Why does it translate the same phrase elsewhere as "young boy?" You never really addressed that issue. Wallace's arguments fail for the same reason yours do: because the NIV isn't translating things out of some attempt at greater refinement of translation, but out of a desire to bring the Bible into congruence with Evangelical doctrines, particularly inerrantism and ameliorate some of the nasty bits. Haran, you never had a case. Your mention of Acharya S and Earl Doherty are simply attempts to deflect us from noticing that you have no case. You addressed the real issue: why does the NIV only translate the phrase as "youths" in that passage? Anyway, good luck. I realize it can be frustrating to deal with so many posters at once. Especially when you haven't much of an argument. Vorkosigan

05-29-2002, 12:24 PM	#95
Ion Banned Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: San Diego, California Posts: 2,817	Gee, ax and Haran: In the Bible, in Genesis 1.31, I read: "Then God saw that eveything that He had made, and indeed it was very good.", after God allegedly created universe, including man. This is not a statement written for science, and not a mistranslated statement, yet what follows for hundreds of pages is a cacophony of screw ups, including Adam, Jesus Christ, and inconsistencies galore. This statement of bogus, disqualifies the Bible, right on the first half page, never mind the abundance of inconsistencies that follow. Haran, life must be hard for you: condescending at first, but easily proven wrong afterwards. Can you learn from this?

05-29-2002, 04:04 PM	#96
ax Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In your mind! Posts: 289	Starspun alright!!! What the hell is wrong with you?! When people talk about stuff they obviously never use artistic descriptions, y'know I mean human nature is to just talk plainly, like we never use stories( parrables) to illustrate a theme or idea.Of course the bible is the word of God but hell, can't people use annalogies anymore? You are delusional and I fart in you're general direction!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

05-29-2002, 04:57 PM	#99
King Arthur Banned Join Date: May 2002 Location: Camelot Posts: 290	I found this thread so fascinating, I went out and bought a book on old testastament criticism (Old Testament Textual Criticism: A Practical Introduction, by Ellis R. Brotzman) to check out all the claims for myself. Anyways, I was surprised to find something in my book about what Haran said ealier in the thread about some obscure language. The book is talking about some other obscure ancient language called "Akkadian". It says: "The Akkadian language is important for biblical studies on several levels. In the first place, Akkadian is the earliest attested Semitic language, and its decipherment and study since the nineteenth century have proved helpful for the elucidation of features of the Hebrew language." There is then a footnote that reads: "Cf. Sabatino Moscati et al., An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages (Wiesbaden: Harranssowitz., 1969), 5. The entire book is devoted to showing how the grammar of any single Semitic language can illuminate possibly misunderstood features in another related language." This book, at least, seems to agree with Haran on what he said about using that other language to understand Hebrew because they're both semitic (whatever he said). Haran seems to overuse authority to me, but I tried to check out some of the scholars he mentioned. They seem to be legit Bible scholars. One of them even has a widely-used Greek grammar book. I'm gonna check on his Hebrew transliteration next and compare it to Steven's since Haran made such a big stink about it. I read a lot of talk about Haran's arguments being defeated, but have they really? I think people are dismissing what he says too quickly.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.