₦airaland Forum

imhotep:
Wonderful analysis by Pope John Paul II

1.) Biblical account of creation analyzed => http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb2.htm

2.) The Second account of creation: The Subjective Definition of Man => http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb3.htm

-------------------------
Source => "Theology of the body" => http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM

Sincerely, many thanks for the links. I shall following them up. This is what I need to bone-up on the subject.

What are the deeper meanings and understanding of the creation narrative reported in Genesis 1 & 2. I am given to understand that exegetical and hermeneutical analyses could price those hidden meanings from the claws of the raw text. Would such meanings be consistent with known reality. For instance, where they reveal factual "knowledge" could these be made to harmonise with knowledge from other spheres of understanding.

Here are the Genesis 1&2 accounts. I would like to invite our resident exegetes to illuminate these narratives in the light of exegetical analysis. I apologise in advance for not being a Hebrew scholar and can only make do with translations in English. This is taken from New International Version (http://www.biblegateway.com/) and I trust this would not hinder your efforts.

[table]
[tr][td]Genesis 1[/td][td]Genesis 2[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.[/td]
[td]1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested [a] from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth [b] and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [c] and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams [d] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- the LORD God formed the man The Hebrew for man (adam) sounds like and may be related to the Hebrew for ground (adamah) it is also the name Adam (see Gen. 2:20). from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin [e] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. [f] 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
But for Adam [g] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs [h] and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [i] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman, [j] '
for she was taken out of man."

24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

25
The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.
[/td][/tr]
[/table]

imhotep:
I only suggest you read more especially about hermeneutics => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_hermeneutics

Resorting to examples at this time will only lead to argumentation and deviation from your search. These are deep concepts that should be taken slowly.


------------------------------------
BTW, I saw the picture below on wikipedia's article on Modernism, thought I might share it

[img]http://www.payer.de/fundamentalismus/fund0714.gif[/img]

Thanks, but no thanks. This thread is no place for that picture. This thread is about hermeneutics and exegesis, just to remind you. I know you would like nothing more than to get into the atheism, existence debate. But this is no place for that.

Imhotep,

Thanks for your contribution, but it fall a little short. See below;

very very reliable.

Examples pls?

for over 2000 years, and counting.

Examples pls?

Yes, especially when the 'independents' are NOT prejudiced secular humanists.

Examples Pls?

No.

Examples Pls?

I look forward to you providing the much-needed examples to support your case

kola oloye:
Do you know the meaning of the word 'GRACE'? Grace is an unmerited favour of God bestowed on us.
It makes room for forgiveness because he is a merciful God.That was Jesus' mission on earth
HAD IT EVER OCCURED TO YOU THAT NOT EVERY PERSON THAT GOT THEIR HANDS AMPUTATED in those days
were actually guilty?Thank God for Jesus.
How do you explain this word: 'IT IS FINISHED'?

Have you not read in the bible before where it says ',,,,now may the grace our Lord Jesus Christ, the Love of God and
the sweet fellowship of the Holy spirit rest and abide with us now and forever more'? We are under grace, that is the more reason
you should re-dedicate your life to Christ. He paid the price for you.He is waiting for you.
DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEART.He loves you.

Why don't you re-dedicate your life to Thor or Zeus or Mithras or Dionysus or All-ah?

syrup:
@huxley,

The scientific establishment have tried their utmost best to keep these findings from the public so as not to upset the preferred version from whence you quote.

When I saw this comment, I let it go unchallenged because it was tangential to the theme of the thread. At the very least, I would have expected some examples of the scientific establishment preventing such finds reaching the public.

The scientific landscape is a free-for-all, as far as I know. If you think you have a valid scientific idea, you have to systematically convince the scientific community that your idea is valid. To quote kenneth Miller, "See you at the cell biology conferences, see you at the cosmology conferences, see you at the metabolism conferences"

Failing that, nothing stops you from publishing a book about your idea. There are many of such pseudo-scientific theories out there (Case in point - Darwin's Blackbox by Michael Behe). Has he published in any of the scientific reviewed journals? NO. Yet, he was able to publish his crackpot idea in a popular book.

Admittedly, there are renegades in science, just like in every field. But these tend to be found out and weeded out.

syrup:
Hi there,

I understand your clarifications - well taken on board and we (or, speaking for myself, I) look forward to your adjustments. I enjoyed the sense of humour in the line that you would "loathe to lose the cutting edge of (your) criticisms".

Anyhow, although some people already hold a mindset when they read the Bible or any document, it would not be fair to "condemn" in the strongest terms before they actually understand what is being stated. Let me give you a small example:

A long-time friend recently blurted it out as we sat over coffee - she told me why she finds the Bible "hard" to digest. Surprisingly, not even the wars in the OT unnerve her! I was surprised when she said it was just one statement that Jesus made in Matthew 19:14 - "But Jesus said, Suffer little children". To save you a long story, she had had a very violent past from non-religious parents as a child (I may be wrong in drawing that connection here, but it's true - I know her). So, in her thinking, any idea of "suffering" of children is a bane that must be condemned with the "strongest possible" force!

As we bantered and I poured my heart and knowledge out to her, I saw she was made up and stiff. Clearly, not only was I losing the war of ideas . . . I had lost the "argument" resoundingly, for someone that stiff!

Another quiet friend (*Lisa, not her real name) who sat and smiled all along as she sipped her cappucino finally broke this stiff girl up. She asked her a simple question: "When you get married, what kind of mother would you be?" Her response? "I DON'T want ANY children!!" she snapped. Then Lisa quipped: "Supposing your mother said that and then killed you at birth because she too did not want any children, would you say she was wicked?" Stunned, our friend blurted out - "What kind of mother would that be? Of course, she'd be worse than a human being!!"

Finally, she saw it - while condemning her own mother, she was no different from that same thing. If it was okay for her not to want any children, then her mother would have been right to not want this girl as a child! The miracle: she softened and wanted to listen. Then Lisa surprised us (we had thought she was a dullard) and only then explained yet again that Matthew 19:14 did not mean that Jesus asked that children be exposed to suffering and inhumanity. Rather, the Greek word means "allow" the children - do not restrain them, and the full quote of that verse was:

"But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven."

Okay, our friend was not converted there and then, but the last time I enquired, she was getting more relaxed and enjoying the NT.


That is just one example of how people take things out of context and become so stiff with their concepts as to even re-consider a discussion that may help them. In which case, I was seeking an enabling atmospehere which could have been expressed simply as: "would you consider a friendly discourse to explain the problem of the topic?"

Cheers.

Thanks for your response and I enjoyed the anecdotes. We are all humans and liable to make all sorts of mistakes in comprehension. The antidotes to these mistakes is "to live an analyzed life" . Reflection, discussions, dialogues are the solution to the many of the problems that confront us. Your friend was able to soften her position following the discussions with you, which is all very well.

Also good that she eventually saw into her own mis-reading of the text "suffer little children". It is a shame that a lot of minds are made upon reading a text without necessarily subjecting those material to independent analysis.

You seem to have made a logical error in your argument (correct me pls if you must). To decide to have NO children is NOT a cruel act and cannot be equated to having children and ill-treating them. To have a child and then kill her because one did not want a child is an act of the utmost cruelty and most be strongly condemned.

syrup:
@huxley,

This is one of the threads I saw earlier before trying to post a few comments in the other few. The reason why I passed over was the way you phrased your opening remarks:

The emboldened words were yours, and I only highlighted in red to show the deliberate connection you made to those words. If you have already concluded that Jesus was an "impostor from Nazareth" and that He was an "ignoramus", would that be saying you were open to discussions with a serious and friendly attitude?

Remember in one other such threads after several swaps, we both came to the conclusion that "manners, style" etc are as important as the basic considerations for "ground rules" in fruitful discussions. I was not online in the Forum and only a late-comer to the threads when you initially floated them; but it gave me the impression that the possible reason the thread did not bear fruit was because of the concerns expressed above.

Again, it isn't that there are no intelligent Christians to address them (I've read quite a lot of intelligent inputs from them and have been greatly influenced by their styles and insight - you would even see that in the way I almost rank xerox their fonts! ). All the same, I'm fully persuaded that if people are invited to discuss issues in an enabling manner, you would be surprised how many would join in and make it so fruitful on either sides of the bridge. Would you bear that in mind in future correspondence?

Warmly.

Hello and good morning.

I must admit I was particularly strident on this thread; for which I apologise. This was one of the first few threads I started when I joined the forum and thru my exchange with members, I have learnt a lot and definitely changed my style. I my recent post, I tend to be less strident as in my earlier post, although I would loathe to lose the cutting edge of my criticisms.

I have tried really had to not attack members directly and have also tried to make members see the distinction between attacking one's views and attack an individual personally. I know many xians take any attack on their view personally; I think this is regretable because it makes it difficult to criticise those views. They also take the personal of Jesus as sacrosant, meaning any attacking of the inane doctrine of JC is taken as a personal attack.

Like I said, to foster discussion, I would not write in this manner again unless I found something particularly reprehensible. I felt that this was a particularly reprehensible teaching of JC and felt that it needed to be condemned in the strongest possible terms.

Cheers

What about what causes sin?

A good time to look at this one again given the central position religion appears to be taking in the run-up to the US elections.!

A re-examination into the doctrine of hell?

You may want to peruse my take on the thread https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113947.0.html#msg1971669

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Wise

Kurt Patrick Wise is an American young earth creationist with a degree in paleontology from Harvard University where he studied under the supervision of Stephen Jay Gould.

Education and work history

Wise has a Ph.D. in Invertebrate Paleontology from Harvard University, an M.A. Geology from Harvard University and a B.A. Geology from the University of Chicago. Since August 2006 he has has taught at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; he leads the school's Center for Theology and Science, a job in which he was preceded by intelligent design creationist William Dembski.[1][2] He had previously taught at Bryan College in Tennessee where he served as Director of Center for Origins Research and as an Associate Professor of Science.[1]

He served as scientific consultant to the Answers in Genesis's Creation Museum which opened in 2007.[3] Another scientist who had studied under Gould and knows Wise him "a less propaganda-oriented creationist" than Ken Ham, the leader of Answers in Genesis, and said that Wise's influence on the displays was apparent.[3]

Views

Wise has said he believes, according to a literal reading of the Bible, "that the earth is young, and the universe is young, I would suggest that it’s less than ten thousand years in age." He believes that science can be used to support and demonstrate these claims.[4] Despite believing that science supports his position, Wise has written that "if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."[5] When asked if scientific conclusions should be constrained by the Bible, Wise answered that "science has never been closed to people who had ideas they wouldn't change. Every scientist has a set of presuppositions and assumptions that he never questions."[6]

As a young child interested in science, Wise tentatively adopted an old Earth creationist point of view after doing a science fair project on the geologic column, but was not completely satisfied with that decision.

What nagged me was that even if the days were long periods of time, the order was still out of whack. After all, science said the sun came before the earth—or at least at the same time—and the Bible said that the earth came three days before the sun. Whereas science said that the sea creatures came before plants and the land creatures came before flying creatures, the Bible indicated that plants preceded sea creatures and flying creatures preceded land creatures. On the other hand, making the days millions of years long seemed to take away most of the conflict. I thus determined to shelve these problems in the back recesses of my mind.[7]

Later, as a sophomore in high school, he took a newly-purchased Bible and a pair of scissors and cut out every verse which could not be interpreted literally if scientific determinations on the age of the earth and evolution were true. He pursued this task with a flashlight under the covers of his bed for several months; at the end, he had removed so much material that "with the cover of the Bible taken off, I attempted to physically lift the Bible from the bed between two fingers. Yet, try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two.[7] Wise decided to reject evolution instead of Biblical literalism, deciding

that the rejection of evolution does not necessarily involve the rejection of all of science. In fact, I have come to learn that science owes its very existence and rationale to the claims of Scripture. On the other hand, I have also learned that evolution is not the only claim of modern science which must be rejected if Scripture is assumed to be true.[7]


In a 2006 article for Answers in Genesis, Wise expressed concern for the status of the young Earth belief at Christian colleges and universities where "a survey of Wheaton College students which indicated that while 47% of incoming students believed in a young Earth, only 27% did so at the time the survey was taken.[8] Wise has said that "we need to train Southern Baptist pastors to equip young people to engage Darwinism from elementary school on. We also need to train Southern Baptists to recognize Darwinist thinking in ways that are subtle that they don't even recognize."

Controversy and criticism

Wise has been called the "most honest" creationist by Richard Dawkins, as opposed to others who purposely deceive their audiences.[5] But he criticizes Wise for his predetermined conclusions and ability to continue believing in creationism "if all the evidence in the universe turns against [it]." Dawkins wrote that "this leaves me, as a scientist, speechless. I cannot imagine what it must be like to have a mind capable of such doublethink." This is because "we have it on the authority of a man who may well be creationism’s most highly qualified and most intelligent scientist that no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference."[5]

Wise's arguments about geology have been criticized.[9]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Wise

more material: http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Sailhamer_Gen1_TJ.pdf

Hey,

Just found this on the internet: http://www.ankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/theological-dictionary/TD1W1200.pdf

syrup:
Hi huxley,

Finally I'm here as invited. As a background to discussing and expounding on this interesting topic, perhaps it might be a bit helpful to repost an earlier entry where I alluded to such terms in summarily. Here:

---

I'll build on that and then seek to outline them in simple terms.

Regards.

Hello again.

When I don't know what to said, I rather shut up. And such is the case now. I shall need to do some work on these first and them come back to you. Promise!

In the meantime, if you could bring me up to speed with these arts, that would be much appreciated? You got any sources or references you could recommend?

syrup:
Dear huxley,

I won't argue - let me humbly agree.

Cheers.

_{Edited:
sincere apologies for the inconvenient manner in my previous posts where you perceive them.}

Hey, Syrup. Apologies fully accepted. And I shall left the issue rest.

You seem to be applying some techniques with which I have little experience (Hermeneutics and Exegesis). So before commenting on your earlier post, I shall want to study what these are. I have started a thread to that effect. If you could bring me up to speed on that, it would be much obliged.

These two words (Hermeneutics and Exegesis) have seen so popularity on this forum, courtesy of Syrup. While I had some superficial familiarity with these words, I am not up to speed with the methodology yet. I have a number of questions about these arts, directed particularly at its advocates (Syrup and Imhotep).

1) Are these reliable methods of understanding ancient text?
2) have these been empirically validated?
3) Are they and text from the bible that have been illuminated by these techniques and subsequently validated by independent means?
4) Are the parts of the bible that do not admit of Hermeneutics and Exegesis analysis?


In the meantime, I shall do more research on the subject.

This thread is being mis-directioned yet again.

syrup:
The rules of scholarly academic discussions are largely vacant in your responses. Go back and see where I offered you a few principles on theological and teleological enquiries. If you cannot take them, like I said: you've got no fish to fry.

Cheers.

When I said the rules, I meant not just the content [/b]but also the [b]manner, style and decorum of conducting such discussions.

syrup:
Now, plagiarism over - get to be man enough to betake yourself to serious scholarship. Thank you in anticipation.

The fact is, I am more than willing to accept you apologies and get into discussion with you. I never shy away from discussions where I think I have some valid points to make.

To get into serious scholarship, you will have to bear in mind the following;

1) A great deal of the criticism about the bible are not new and given that I have read more than 50 books about this subject, it is not unexpected that I would mention critics that have been voiced be other people. Where that is the case, I have said so. Looks at my post "When was Jesus crucified".

2) Plagiarism is when one deliberated and maliciously tries to pass off some piece of material as one's own. I take it you have been educated through the public or private school system. Does it constitute plagiarism when you were writing a report about basic history, geography, maths, biology. At some points all the tenets of these subjects were not available in the public domain

3) It would be difficult to enter into a scholarly discussion with you if you do not understand the basic principle of scholarly discussions. Scholars tend to use each other's work if it supports their case. Can you imagine trying to re-discover everything each time embark of some progressive enterprise?


The fact that babs787 made have made similar arguments to the arguments I made does not constitute plagiarism. Like I said most of these are in the public domain.

Furthermore, the force of an argument does not diminish if one is not the originator of the argument. For instance, you would argue that Christ was the son of God. Does that mean take you have plagiarised this argument?

I would get into a scholarly conversation with you once we both understand the ground rules of scholarly academic discussion. Otherwise, it would just be a dogfight, and I would loathe to stoop so low.

Well, I said I took umbrage at two things which have no basis in actuality:

1) The charge of plagiarism
2) Your claiming I had admitted to plagiarism

I am saying you are wrong on both counts. I have asked you to show me where I have plagiarised, but you have not been able to show evidence for that.

I also asked for evidence of me admitting to plagiarism, but you have not. You may have been mistaken in making this latter charge. But if you willfully made this charge while knowing that you have not seen any evidence of my admitting to plagiarism; THAT WOULD BE DISHONESTY.

To absolve yourself of my charge of dishonesty, you will have to show the evidence that I admitted to plagiarism. In which case I would be the dishonest one, and would fullheartedly accept liability and apologise.

syrup:
@huxley,


My honesty is not in question as you may wish. The reponse I made which seems to have eluded your notice is this:

---

You admitted them earlier, so what's the shouting about? Just a reminder:. . . and an example is the one on the Virgin Birth which stimulus rigorously answered. Funny thing is that Babs787 had used those same questions repeatedly in several threads - and I don't see what your "challenge" here is warranting a red scream for.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113676.0.html#msg2303331

---

If it were not so, then no worries. I hope you're not sulking or pouting just so you want "apologies". I don't see you response to the issues at hand - and if this present plagiarism stuff is the excuse to detract from the discussion, I can well bear with it.

I offered an amicable response above so we could move on. However, you seem to want an apology by all means! Here: APOLOGIES.

Now can I see your own intelligent and principled response to my detailed reposte on your topic?

Well my personal standards are such that I find it hard to hold a discussion with people who are being disrespectful and dishonest. I see you have apologised, which I am minded to accept, but you have not withdrawn the charge.

Should I read from that that you also withdraw the charge?

huxley:
Would be interesting to see where I admitted this? Can you shown the forum, as nice and honest christian as you are.

Have you found out yet where I admitted to plagiarism? I would not have my integrity impugned by you and you getting off lightly.

As far as I am concerned, you should;

1) Prove that I admitted to plagiarism
2) Prove that I plagiarised
3) Or apologise if you cannot prove 1) and/or 2)

No point in discussing with someone whose honesty remains in question.

You are so illogical, it is incredible;

Let's say I made an argument that there is a monster encased in mount Kilimajaro, but could not sustained that with defendible reasoning. Does that constitute plagiarism?

syrup:
@huxley,

You admitted them earlier, so what's the shouting about?

Would be interesting to see where I admitted this? Can you shown the forum, as nice and honest christian as you are.

syrup:
@huxley,

Having set an intro to a proper understanding of theological discussions - particularly Biblical hermeneutics - I'd now be examining your other worries on this sound principle. To violate this principle is not my problem: it would only rubbish the arguments of those who assume to see a "valid" argument out of cacophony - and I hope that is not where you'd like to see your thread going.

I did not see that happening when I visited your earliest threads. You seem to have been somewhat forced to admit to that after others impressed it upon you.

If they were responsibly put across, it should not have been difficult to hold and sustain your own arguments afterall. Why is this vacant in a higher percentage of "your" threads?

Indeed - I've seen so many of them elsewhere.

That's okay so far. However, if you understood that you lack knowledge in the text and doctrine (as you stated), why not invite responsible answers by seeking amicably to discuss them. Often, unfortunately, you started out with a bias not to discuss, but rather to ridicule and castigate issues you have no understanding whatsoever about!

There are many things outside of religion that are believed - I leave it open to you to make your pick (science, philosophy, naturalism, cultures, etc). People have sought to calmly investigate matters seriously without falling on their faces with the recourse to animosity. I am aware of many scientists, for instance, who are have admirable attitudes in seeking answers to things they do not understand in religion. But here is an important distinction: my friend, ATHEISM is NOT science! You can shout "science, science, science" from now till your next taxonomy, but they are not the same!

However, people who are so assuming and presumptious are so unable to see the difference. I've appreciated the discourses of some other atheists who see the difference, and not too long ago one reminded me of something I already know: 'evolution is not atheism'. The mistake many people make is to assume that they are synonymous - and this type of attitude is sadly what the fundamentalist atheists often assume.

I asked you to proved that I have plagiarised. You seem not to be able.

My very first thread on this site reference material by another author. Check it out; It is titled "The Dangers of Religiosity to Intellectualism"

Where I have not referenced sources, I have constructed my arguments from my own wits based partly on things I would have read in the past. Does that constitute plagiarism.

A trip to the dictionary would help you understand the mean of the word "plagiarism".


I await your evidence that I have plagiarised.


Even if I did, it does not lessen the force of the arguments.

syrup:
@huxley,

Thank you for responding - a better deal from the other two threads I just posted on.

What is remarkable is that the points or arguments are not as valid as you posit - often because you have failed seriously to stand or sustain those same views when answers were proffered. I don't understand how you could feel so threatened as to have raised objections to some people replying your threads (notably 4Him, stmulus and imhotep) if indeed you assumed that your arguments were "valid".

Second, "valid" arguments would mean that the discussants (whoever they may be) put their views across quite simply. Overweening pride or uppity is a display of insecurity, and often times has been used as firstaid by those who have no fish to fry. Are you actually one of such? If not, what is wrong with addressing issues responsibly without recourse to such arrogance?

Third, my dear huxley, even informed guesses are made on principles. You cannot sustain a view that you posit out of hand out of pretext rather than carefully examining those views contextually. In science, there are standard formulae, theorems and principles that are observed in investigating any phenomena. This is often known as the "scientific method". Honesty in those who passionately pursue truth of any kind will respect those "methodologies" in each case of study so that informed results are adduced.

So it is with philosophy - people don't go out of hand to engage in teleological (i.e., philosophical) discussions or debates without following certain models and logic. Even in applying logic, one has to know if the case advanced was put accross by "deductive" or "inductive" logic, and what particular path of reasoning such studies are carried out.

And what about theological discussions? Certainly, they follow established principles as well. Often, for those who may not have carefully been following that principle, I have intoned that they take care to not mix up eisegesis for exegesis - they are not the same. When I read so-called objections to the Christian faith (such as you are wont to assume are "valid", you make the serious mistake of drawing your conclusions before even examining the arguments of those who you plagiarize - which is like saying it is okay to hold just about anything as long as it supports your argument against "Christianity" even before you consider any case on the topic!

What is the point of all this? Just simply to remind you that every aspect of rigorous enquiry (whether they are theological or teleogical in nature) must be based on established principles best suited to their own mode of investigation. It is naive to assume that Chemistry can be better understood by applying the principles of Sociology! But the big mistake every single time your authors find themselves making is to cheat behind the counters by ignoring the "models, principles and methodologies" of theological enquries.

That said, let me summarize your other concerns.

Firstly, I am getting exactly the same thing from you as I got from the four other guys, viz;

Personal attacks
Accusations of plagiarism
etc;

Despite the fact that I bent over backward to be courteous to them. That is why I asked that they "may not" respond. If you understand the England language, you would know that that does not mean they should NOT post. I just found the personal attacks irritating. And I see you making exactly the same here now.

Since you started engaging me, have I attacked you?

Try as I might to get the discussion back on track, I get all sorts of abuse. That was why I asked that until they change their behaviour I would not respond to them on my threads. Which the duly did. Apologies were exchanges and accepted alround. If you want to engage me, I would be oblige if you would be respectful and withdraw your charges of plagiarism.

BTW, do you know what plagiarism means? I can hardly be accused of that.

Why am I not surprised that most religious-heads would stay clear of any intellectual inquiry!

syrup:
@huxley,

I could do precisely that. A few moments since discovering your several threads, I took time to see the sort of discussant you make and sadly found that you really are not seeking a rational discourse. Perhaps I should have listened to those who warned me earlier - but I wanted to prove you for myself.

Plagiarism, in my view, is beggarly and unfortunately absurd - because it gives the plagiarist every excuse to pretend the scholarship as his/her own until they begin to make disclaimers to where they are unable to hold rational discourses. That is the sort of thing that struck me in many of your threads - I don't see you holding your ground when attempts were made to offer answers.

One other thing that struck me is this:

This is pitiful, huxley. Why this immature pretences of "no answers" when several have been pointed out? I carefully went through this thread in particular and visited the links stimulus offered:

How on earth you could claim that there have been "no answers" is beyond me! That is sadly bordering to . . . well, duplicity! The one thing you could have said better was that you were not satisfied with the answers offered - and then seriously articulate your own points rather than ducking behind other authors whose articles you shlepped unto.

Could I safely conclude that you take time to present yourself in a more amicable and responsible light in your claims? I trust this is not a difficult request to make.

Blessings.

First, do you know what plagiarism means. Check out some of the previous threads where I had this accusation made against me. When I pointed out that where I used other's materials, it was duly and properly referenced. This is NOT called plagiarism.

I even had Stimulus withdraw his charge of plagiarism. I thought that was very magnanimous of him.

Now I an having you making the same charge. OK, my challenge to you is this;

Can you prove that I have plagiarise material (using the standard academic definition of the word)


HAVE YOU NOTICED WHAT THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD IS? IT IS "WHEN WAS JESUS BORN"

What do answers about Jesus Genealogy got to do with WHEN he was born?


You see the point I am making? You are repeating exactly the same thing the others guys did. You fail to answer the question. When I start a different thread to deal with your mis-directioning the thread, you accuse me of evasion.

Who really is evading the questions? I have not seen your own answers forthcoming here, have I?

syrup:
@huxley,

I asked a simple question, but by the day you come across as someone who actually has nothing intelligent to offer. Is it such a demand upon your person to get over this overwheening pride of yours and seek rather to put across your view points quite simply? You actually convince me that you fit precisely the image of those who have adviced already that you have nothing intelligent to say. It's all up to you to prove them wrong by acting grown up.

So far, I have tried to be reasonable - that is why I stated my question simply and responsibly. You have a problem with that? Or am I to be even more impressed that you own worldview makes a sorry and vexed soul with such hubris?

A simple question put across to you should not mean that I am asking to be spoon-fed. Between the three passages you offered, I wanted a simple outline from you as to where you had questions. If that was too much an exercise for you, I apologise. However, your pride is not to be mistaken as intelligence.

How does that cut out the portion of what I asked as per the 10 Commandments? I'm sorry huxley, but this is actually a sad discovery to find that you have no handle on simple comprehension. My question was simple enough:
Since you could not do so, it leaves much to see how you demonstrate your intelligence.


Cheers.

Ha well.

I have not made any claims about being intelligent or proud. There goes another logical fallacy. Because I raise questions about these text, you are presuming that I claim to be intelligent. Are these questions not obvious to any open and fair-minded person? I had trouble with this at about the age of 10 when I first came across these multiple versions of the commandments. And I am not intelligent. Can you imagine what I might have found out if I was intelligent and proud?

I simply asked, which set of 10 commandments should take precedent and why are they different. And I get all this ad homenims.

Imagine you had a 10 year old child who asked the same questions, viz;

1) Why are there given in three sections of the bible?
2) Why are they not the same?
3) Why are we downplaying one set (Ex34)?

What would you say?


Please, let's get back to the question and avoid making personal attacks or praise. I would rather that my intelligence/pride/etc/etc NOT be the subject of the debate. Any valid arguments should stand or fall on its merit (not on the merits/dismerit of the messenger)

Note: If I attack a text for being reprehensible, that does not mean I am attacking you personally. You should learn to make that distinction. I think by and large you are a descent person. However I do not think that the text your are defending is a good book.

A few of the other prophets who spoke of God coming to dwell in the midst of His people include the following:

Zechariah 2:10
"Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion:
for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the LORD.

Malachi 3:1
Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me:
and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple,
even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold,
he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.

Here, God prophetically declared that He would come to dwell in the midst of His people (Zech. 2:10), and though the Jews were looking forward to this event, it nonetheless says that He would "suddenly come" to His Temple - and for all that they would not recognize Him! WHY? Because it was a "sign" - the sign of God Himself in the Incarnation of the Child born by the virgin in a supernatural way.

It is hard for me to comment on this, firstly as it does not relate to the topic being discussed (Virgin birth). If this was a prophecy of Jesus, then it is strange that when he arrived, he was rounded rejected by the people he was sent to (the Jews) but found company amongst Gentile.

Am afraid, you have started to do the same thing that I found irritating (pardon me) with the earlier discussants. We should really be talking here about the prophecy of virgin birth. Shall I go start a thread about other prophecies of Jesus Christ?

By right I think you should really be addressing the following issues raised in the main post;

1) The issue of mistranslation of the word virgin/young woman in the Septuagint.
2) The context of the narrative in Is 7;

Am afraid, you have not dealt with any of these in your post.