>Please clarify on a couple [A COUPLE??? Do we share a numeric system?]of
points from the second paragraph:
>1. How is 'translated' defined and why is it a problem?
Translated is defined by the dictionary; it's a problem because the original
writers are no longer around so that we have no way of asking them exactly
what they meant. If I don't understand something Jacques Derrida, for
example, writes today, I could converse with him and clarify if I really
wanted to.
Do you apply the
>translation principle
> universally or *only* to the Bible? If universally, then present-day
>information exchange is a
> problem (yours or any other field of expertise). Assuming English, all
>posts to this forum
> from people of non-English language origin could not be trusted, as we
>would not know if
> the translation mechanism and their application of it were applied
>correctly to the original
> content.
I don't know of anyone here that doesn't speak English, though I've wondered
if biblicists do since they seem to find new definitions for the words in
their own book.
>
>2. How do you conclude that the testimonies are 'hearsay' and that the
>communicators were
> 'mystics?'
Since we do not have an original copy, and the copies we do have were not
written by the original witnesses, it's hearsay. As for mystic, look it up:
what else do you call people who claim to have "bisions," etc?
>
>3. What defines 'pre-scientific?' Do you have a date/period of time/person
>in mind to
> draw the scientific/pre-scientific line?
There is no evidence of scientific method in any bible I've heard of. No
rational inquiry, no testing of so-called "miracles." Faith is given
pre-eminence.
>
>4. What testimonies do you believe are scientific in nature and yet show
>poor/lack of scientific
> method?
???? What are you talking about???? In the Babble? Try claims of living in a fish's belly, for starters.
Do you regard the Bible as a scientific document? What about
>the newspaper,
> love letter from your significant other or other written documents? If
>they are not scientific,
> do you throw out/disregard their information content?
No, No, No, and if they claimed "miracles" without evidence, YES. Let's not
mix apples, potatoes, and tomatoes here.
>
>Also, a couple of additional questions:
>1. What keeps you interested in discussions like these? Do you really want
>to know if there> is a God nor not?
>
Quite frankly, I don't really care, under current conditions. If he/she/it
cannot come up with a better method of communicating than the religions now
existent, nor a better design for this world than the one we have, then I
don't consider it worth my trouble.
>2. If you are not burdened with or interested in proving the non-existence
>of a 'god-item,' why
> waste your time? Are you concerned about fellow subscribers being 'led
>astray' to the
> belief in God? Why would it matter?
WHY WOULD IT MATTER? READ HISTORY! LOOK AT THE OPPRESSIVE LAWS PASSED IN THIS
COUNTRY BY POMPOUS, PETTY DICTATORS IN LITTLE BACKWATER FIEFDOMS! LOOK AT THE
APPALLING LACK OF CRITICAL THINKING ABILITY IN THE GENERAL POPULATION, A
GROUP IN WHICH MOST CAN"T PROGRAM A VCR! In a country where Pat Buchanan is
considered a viable candidate by a major party, another Holocaust is not only
a possibility, it's a likelihood!
>
>Interested to know more,
>
>Adam Dixon
If that's really true--and excuse me if my experience with Xians has been mostly the opposite--then I suggest you read a number of books and publications written by freethinkers on biblical errancy, including at a minumum The Skeptical Review, Biblical Errancy, The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy, The Case Against God, and Deceptions and Myths of the Bible. Read a few books on logic, critical thinking, and reading arguments; a good place to begin is with the International Society of General Semantics, which publishes a variety of books on the subject. Read the Holey Babble itself as a book, without assuming it's anything more, and examine how well it makes its case.
As an ex-Baptist who began his journey to atheism by reading the King James version cover-to-cover and becoming dissatisfied with the faith-based answers I received, I cannot conceive how anyone who follows the preceding will not reject religion as I have. That is the fear that drives the censorship efforts of religions, because they know that held up to the light of reason, they shrivel and die like the societal vampires they are.
Cheers,
Brent Yaciw ATHALFLB@AOL.COM The views I present are still...only at their birth. Do not therefore take them as universally accepted or definitive. What I am putting before you are suggestions rather than affirmations. My principle objective is not to convert you to ideas which are still fluid, but to open horizons for you, to make you think.
-- Teilhard de Chardin