arndt@lymph.DEC (03/11/85)
Please. Talk about being dishonest! Let's let poor ole Bishop Ussher rest in peace. No one is helped by dragging him out of his grave and propping him up as if he had anything to say today. Why not bring back those who opposed Pasteur? Or some other such from the history of science. The good Bishop made an attempt, in line with the best scientific and theological thinking of his day to determine the age of the world from the histories of families given in the Old Testament. So he came up with a date of 4004BC. Since then, not only has science moved on but historiography has shown that the Hebrews, like the rest of the civilizations in the area (Egypt, Babylon, etc.) didn't list generations one after the other giving EVERY single family in the line!!! Rather they counted generations the same way we might if asked to highlight the Presidents. Perhaps there are a few Christians aroundwho haven't heard (The Schofield notes ?) the news, but please don't make fools of yourselves talking about Bishop Ussher as if he is taken seriously. It only show your lack of knowledge and ability to deal with Christian claims. The same sort of bosh is put forward by no less (he should know better!) than Ethan Vishniac when he asks if Christians wish to defend a flat earth and a geocentric universe because HE says that a literal reading of the bible leads to those ideas. Please. Spare me, Ethan. Perhaps, your lack of liberal arts training is showing, perhaps you are being flip, perhaps you really believe Christians believe those things, perhaps you are silly. But 'literal' reading MEANS reading the document through the eyes of writer and his times!!!!!! At the time the Old Testament was written the earth appeared flat to a great manny people. And geocentric too. Just how would you EXPECT someone from the tenth century BC to describe the earth???? And if God gave an ACCURATE scientific description of things, who would understand them????? Tenth century people, us, in the future???? The point is of course that as Calvin (of Geneva, not Klein) said "God lisps" when talking to man. Otherwise we wouldn't know what he was talking about, eh? The bible is not a scientific explanation of the world. But it does describe accurately what men saw and heard. We do the same today. Talk about things in not a strickly 'accurate' way. One MUST be less than entirely accurate to communicate! Now, I'm not jumping on you Ethan, really, I respect your mind and views and have enjoyed your postings to net.physics. Regards, Ken Arndt
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (03/13/85)
> > The same sort of bosh is put forward by no less (he should know better!) than > Ethan Vishniac when he asks if Christians wish to defend a flat earth and a > geocentric universe because HE says that a literal reading of the bible leads > to those ideas. Please. Spare me, Ethan. Perhaps, your lack of liberal arts > training is showing, perhaps you are being flip, perhaps you really believe > Christians believe those things, perhaps you are silly. But 'literal' reading > MEANS reading the document through the eyes of writer and his times!!!!!! > At the time the Old Testament was written the earth appeared flat to a great > manny people. And geocentric too. Just how would you EXPECT someone from the > tenth century BC to describe the earth???? And if God gave an ACCURATE > scientific description of things, who would understand them????? Tenth > century people, us, in the future???? The point is of course that as Calvin > (of Geneva, not Klein) said "God lisps" when talking to man. Otherwise we > wouldn't know what he was talking about, eh? The bible is not a scientific > explanation of the world. But it does describe accurately what men saw and > heard. We do the same today. Talk about things in not a strickly 'accurate' > way. One MUST be less than entirely accurate to communicate! Now, I'm not > jumping on you Ethan, really, I respect your mind and views and have enjoyed > your postings to net.physics. > > Regards, > > Ken Arndt OK. I understand now. When the bible says that the earth is flat then the 'literal' interpretation is the earth only appeared to be flat. And when the bible says that Jesus was the Son of God, the 'literal' interpretation is that He only APPEARED to be the Son of God. Sounds reasonable to me. Padraig houlahan.
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (03/13/85)
[] > Ethan Vishniac when he asks if Christians wish to defend a flat earth and a > geocentric universe because HE says that a literal reading of the bible leads > to those ideas. Please. Spare me, Ethan. Perhaps, your lack of liberal arts > training is showing, perhaps you are being flip, perhaps you really believe > Christians believe those things, perhaps you are silly. But 'literal' reading > MEANS reading the document through the eyes of writer and his times!!!!!! > Ken Arndt OK, I confess. I was being flip and I forgot to use that little :-). What's more, I think your definition of what constitutes a "literal" reading of the Bible is quite reasonable. However, buried in that article were two serious questions. Why do some (not all) of the creationists in this newsgroup insist on describing their opposition as atheistic? Some are and some aren't and there is nothing logically inconsistent with regarding "scientific" creationism as an intellectual shell game and being devoutly religious. Second, how can one maintain that the some statements in the Bible must be interpreted metaphorically or "for the people of that time" etc. and yet insist that it gives a scientifically accurate and detailed description of the origin of life and the universe? I am aware that *very* few Christians believe in a flat Earth or a geocentric solar system. (In fact, they may be outnumbered by those that believe Michael Jackson is the Second Coming of Christ, and I wouldn't consider those people "typical" Christians.) The only intellectual justification I can see for discarding the flat Earth and retaining the kind of creationism I see espoused here is that the absurdity of the former position is immediately apparent to everyone and the absurdity of the latter is a matter which requires some thought. Ken, I get the impression that we are in substantial agreement on this subject. This is probably an example of why :-) is useful (to digress to discussion in a different newsgroup). "Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac Borrow his money." {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan *Anyone who wants to claim these opinions is welcome to them.*
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (03/13/85)
> > The same sort of bosh is put forward by no less (he should know better!) than > Ethan Vishniac when he asks if Christians wish to defend a flat earth and a > geocentric universe because HE says that a literal reading of the bible leads > to those ideas. Please. Spare me, Ethan. Perhaps, your lack of liberal arts > training is showing, perhaps you are being flip, perhaps you really believe > Christians believe those things, perhaps you are silly. But 'literal' reading > MEANS reading the document through the eyes of writer and his times!!!!!! > At the time the Old Testament was written the earth appeared flat to a great > manny people. And geocentric too. Just how would you EXPECT someone from the > tenth century BC to describe the earth???? And if God gave an ACCURATE > scientific description of things, who would understand them????? Tenth > century people, us, in the future???? The point is of course that as Calvin > (of Geneva, not Klein) said "God lisps" when talking to man. Otherwise we > wouldn't know what he was talking about, eh? The bible is not a scientific > explanation of the world. But it does describe accurately what men saw and > heard. We do the same today. Talk about things in not a strickly 'accurate' > way. One MUST be less than entirely accurate to communicate! Now, I'm not > jumping on you Ethan, really, I respect your mind and views and have enjoyed > your postings to net.physics. > > Regards, > > Ken Arndt It's not Ethan who is ignorant. A substantial minority of Creationists are, in fact, geocentrists, and many of these are, in fact, Flat-Earthers. Their basis for this belief in the face of clear evidence to the contrary is a literal reading of certain passages in the Bible, exactly as Ethan said. These facts are documented in an article in "The Skeptical Inquirer" which appeared about 2-3 years ago, as well as an article in the most recent "Creation/Evolution Newsletter". Geocentrism and Flat-Earth-ism were major topics at last Summer's Bible-Science Conference. My copies of the articles aren't handy at the moment, but if someone wants the references, I can look them up. The Flat-Earthers and Geocentrists pose somewhat of an embarrassment for more "left-wing" Creationists, as Ken's article clearly shows. But it is wrong to deny their existence. Ken makes a good point about the need to read the Bible through the eyes of the writers. What is hard to understand is how he can give this advice with regard to Flat-Earth-ism and ignore it with regard to the Genesis account of the origin of Mankind. By insisting on a literal interpretation of the words of Genesis, instead of viewing the Bible as a religious document containing religious (not scientific) truth, Creationists leave themselves open to the probability that science will slowly eat away at their position leaving them with nothing. This has already happened to the Geocentric and Flat-Earth positions (except for a minority of die-hards), and largely to the anti-evolutionist position as well. I believe that this attempt to do battle with science *on Science's terms* is inevitably doomed. To equate the Bible with scientific truth is to trivialize the religious truths contained in the Bible. The Creationists are playing a very dangerous game. -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (03/15/85)
In article <1041@decwrl.UUCP> arndt@lymph.DEC writes: > >The same sort of bosh is put forward by no less (he should know better!) than >Ethan Vishniac when he asks if Christians wish to defend a flat earth and a >geocentric universe because HE says that a literal reading of the bible leads >to those ideas. Please. Spare me, Ethan. Perhaps, your lack of liberal arts >training is showing, perhaps you are being flip, perhaps you really believe >Christians believe those things, perhaps you are silly. But 'literal' reading >MEANS reading the document through the eyes of writer and his times!!!!!! >At the time the Old Testament was written the earth appeared flat to a great >manny people. And geocentric too. Just how would you EXPECT someone from the >tenth century BC to describe the earth???? And if God gave an ACCURATE >scientific description of things, who would understand them????? Tenth >century people, us, in the future???? The point is of course that as Calvin >(of Geneva, not Klein) said "God lisps" when talking to man. Otherwise we >wouldn't know what he was talking about, eh? The bible is not a scientific >explanation of the world. But it does describe accurately what men saw and >heard. We do the same today. Talk about things in not a strickly 'accurate' >way. One MUST be less than entirely accurate to communicate! Now, I'm not >jumping on you Ethan, really, I respect your mind and views and have enjoyed >your postings to net.physics. > I think this is in fact the very point Mr Vishhniac was trying to get across in a facetious way. Has it not occured to you that the creation accounts in Genesis are the same sort of thing as the references to a flat earth? After all if the early peoples could not be expected to understand a heliocentric(or even acentric) cosmology how could they POSSIBLY understand something as subtle as evolutionary theory!? Thus the point, if you insist on reading the creation accounts as literal *history* rather than as an explanation of God's creative power from the perspective of a "primitive" culture, then you should logically also treat the cosmological statements in the Bible as literally true in a *physical* sense rather than a perceptive sense. This is why I have no trouble with believing both the Bible and evolutionary theory. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (03/15/85)
{Padraig Houlahan:}
>OK. I understand now. When the bible says that the earth is flat then
>the 'literal' interpretation is the earth only appeared to be flat.
>And when the bible says that Jesus was the Son of God, the
>'literal' interpretation is that He only APPEARED to be the Son of God.
>Sounds reasonable to me.
A real literary critic we have here, implying perspectival statements
must be interpreted in the same sense as statements of identity. If the
subject of your mockery wasn't the Bible your foolishness might be more
apparent to you. I suppose you never speak of the sunset as such? And
when you drive into a gas station asking directions you want them in
stellar coordinates. Either that or, for consistency's sake, you only
claim to *appear* to be Padraig Houlahan. Ken Arndt is making a lot
more sense than you, fella (Maybe you should be worried? :-)).
--
Paul Dubuc (not DuBois) cbscc!pmdkeithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (03/16/85)
> .... The bible is not a scientific >explanation of the world. But it does describe accurately what men saw and >heard. >Ken Arndt What is this claim based on? Do we REALLY know how accurate? HOW do we know how accurate? Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (03/17/85)
Paul Dubuc (not DuBois) writes, >{Padraig Houlahan:} > >>OK. I understand now. When the bible says that the earth is flat then >>the 'literal' interpretation is the earth only appeared to be flat. >>And when the bible says that Jesus was the Son of God, the >>'literal' interpretation is that He only APPEARED to be the Son of God. > >>Sounds reasonable to me. > >A real literary critic we have here, implying perspectival statements >must be interpreted in the same sense as statements of identity. If the >subject of your mockery wasn't the Bible your foolishness might be more >apparent to you. I suppose you never speak of the sunset as such? And >when you drive into a gas station asking directions you want them in >stellar coordinates. Either that or, for consistency's sake, you only >claim to *appear* to be Padraig Houlahan. Ken Arndt is making a lot >more sense than you, fella (Maybe you should be worried? :-)). > >Paul Dubuc (not DuBois) cbscc!pmd Now, I don't claim to be much of a literary critic, but I have picked up a few useful pointers on literary criticism and debating style, and am more than willing to share them with you (on the off chance that they might prove useful.) I strongly suspect that it is a definite "no-no" to take quotations out of the context that puts them in very clear perspective. This is what Paul Dubuc (not Dubois) has done, since, he conveniently omitted the following from my article: >[emphasis Arndt's] ... But 'literal' reading >MEANS reading the document through the eyes of writer and his times!!!!!! >At the time the Old Testament was written the earth appeared flat to a great >manny people. And geocentric too. Just how would you EXPECT someone from the >tenth century BC to describe the earth???? And if God gave an ACCURATE >scientific description of things, who would understand them????? Tenth >century people, us, in the future???? The point is of course that as Calvin >(of Geneva, not Klein) said "God lisps" when talking to man. Otherwise we >wouldn't know what he was talking about, eh? The bible is not a scientific >explanation of the world. But it does describe accurately what men saw and >heard. We do the same today. Talk about things in not a strickly 'accurate' >way. One MUST be less than entirely accurate to communicate! > > Ken Arndt With this, it is evident that my comment is just an application of the definition of 'literal' that Ken Arndt himself introduced. If you feel uncomfortable with Ken's definition and its consequences, then take it up with him, not me. As far as implying that "perspectival statements must be interpreted in the same sense as statements of identity", if this is a consequence of his definition, then I can't be faulted for applying it, and getting a result you don't like. You had better take this one up with Ken also, since he seems quite happy interpreting a statement of identity, (geocentrism, the identification of the earth with the center of the universe) as a perspectival statement. Another pointer is not to use ad hominem attacks as Paul Dubuc (not DuBois) has done by calling me a 'literary critic'. :-) - yeachh! the insult! :-) Ad hominem attacks are not very persuasive, or useful, and are a poor substitute for sound reasoning. Putting words in your fellow seeker of knowledge's mouth (I never said a thing about sunsets, or, whether or not, I am, or just appear to be myself - Gee! that sounds deep) is also not a desireable thing for aspiring critics and debaters. It is of the utmost importance to stick to the point and avoid digressing to new topics that are not at all necessary to the topic being considered. Talk about "stellar coordinates" etc. is not relevant in a discussion on definitions for 'literal' interpretations of the bible. Literary criticism also requires that you read the article you aim to criticize. Paul Dubuc (not DuBois) states that the subject of my mockery is the Bible. Nowhere in my article did I imply that such was the case. The subject was the definition of the term 'literal' that Ken introduced. The article merely showed the inevitable conclusion that followed such a definition. And as for being worried? nah! Not me. Thanks for your concern. Padraig Houlahan.
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (03/19/85)
Padraig, Are you really a "seeker of knowledge", or do you just like to argue? I took you for the latter because of the tone of your posting (and others). If you just wanted the issue clarified, you could have been less sarcastic. If I have presumed too much about you, then I'm sorry. I did not conveniently omit your quote of Ken. Any one following the discussion would have read it. The point of my "presumptions about your speaking" is that if you speak of the "sunrise" or "sunset" as such, you are using geocentric description. Similarly, uses of words like "east", and "north", "right" and "left" are, in a sense, flat earth descriptions. "Is Spain really to the east?" "Well not really. The earth curves slightly as you go, you see...". The thing I was trying to bring out, is that language does have rules of interpretation, and I felt you were breaking them. You didn't bother dealing with Ken's question of how you would expect certain events in the Bible to be described (e.g. the sun "standing still") and yet have the event be understood. Scholars don't interpret the Bible as haphazardly as you infer. Literary criticism is a valuable discipline. From the tone of your article I could only surmize that you have quite a disdain for those who try to study the Bible seriously and make sense out of what it says. You seemed to be trying to make nonsense out of it and that bothered me. Again, I apologise to everyone for my outburst. It was totally uncalled for. By the way, the reason I identified myself as "not DuBois" is that people have gotten us awefully confused in the past, and I wouldn't want my inanity to give the other "Paul" a bad name. Thanks. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (03/19/85)
[..........] >OK. I understand now. >When the bible says that the earth is flat then >the 'literal' interpretation is the earth only appeared to be flat. >And when the bible says that Jesus was the Son of God, the >'literal' interpretation is that He only APPEARED to be the Son of God. >Sounds reasonable to me. >Padraig houlahan. Or further, when the bible says that the universe was created in 7 days then the 'literal' interpretation is they only APPEARED to be days. (jeez, my sundial must have been broken :-) Maybe God needs to sleep for a long time!). Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd "You'll THINK to know what you REALLY pay!"
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (03/21/85)
> By the way, the reason I identified myself as "not DuBois" is that people > have gotten us awefully confused in the past, and I wouldn't want my inanity > to give the other "Paul" a bad name. Thanks. > > Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd Not to worry, Paul. It's reasonably clear that my own inanity is sufficient to give me a bad name! -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois | --+-- | "...still waiting for my name..." |
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (03/22/85)
Paul Dubuc writes: >Are you really a "seeker of knowledge", or do you just like to argue? I took >you for the latter because of the tone of your posting (and others). If you >just wanted the issue clarified, you could have been less sarcastic. If I >have presumed too much about you, then I'm sorry. I did not conveniently >omit your quote of Ken. Any one following the discussion would have read it. > My response was to your contribution: >>A real literary critic we have here, implying perspectival statements >>must be interpreted in the same sense as statements of identity. If the >>subject of your mockery wasn't the Bible your foolishness might be more >>apparent to you. I suppose you never speak of the sunset as such? And >>when you drive into a gas station asking directions you want them in >>stellar coordinates. Either that or, for consistency's sake, you only >>claim to *appear* to be Padraig Houlahan. Ken Arndt is making a lot >>more sense than you, fella (Maybe you should be worried? :-)). >> >>Paul Dubuc (not DuBois) cbscc!pmd which accused me of: 1) mocking the bible, 2) implying that "perspectival statements" are to be interpreted like statements of identity, 3) being foolish 4) making less sense than Ken, in a tone that is clearly abrasive. How do you size up according to your own criteria? I demonstrated that nothing in my article justified the first charge. I also showed that I was doing no more than Ken, where the second charge is concerned. As far as seeking knowledge is concerned, I have made the contribution that there is a serious problem for christians in Ken's definition. All I have gotten in return are the above accusations. There has been no retraction of the proposed definition (an act by which I am under no illusion constitutes a collapse of the christian point of view), nor a defense of it. The lack of a constructive response to the criticism could be construed as being indicative of the degree of sincerity with which this discussion is being held i.e. if you have problems with your position lets talk, but if you show me problems in mine then you are only argueing for arguments sake, mocking my holy book, being foolish etc. If you think the criticism is invalid, then say so, and state where you think the problems with it are, otherwise you are wasting both our time by complaining about your perceptions of the criticism's tone, while ignoring the content. In fact I really don't mind if you complain about the tone, just as long as you include either a defense or retraction. I expect to be treated similarly. Padraig Houlahan.