29 Aug 06
Originally posted by no1marauder"The" usually begins with a 't.' The quotations belong on the outside of the punctuation in the States.
Nitpicking is LH's job on this Forum. In any event, he placement of the quotation marks is correct, though I also considered putting "belief system" in quotes as well (I'm not sure your theology rates as a "system"😉.
29 Aug 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzDespite having been taught to put the quote after the punctuation and despite my strong drive to use of language according to it's rules of grammer, I usually refuse to do it. It just feels so silly and counterintuitive. Why would I punctuate a sentence after I've already indicated that the sentence is done? It makes no sense. Even if the quote includes a punctuation mark I feel odd not putting another one after the quotes.
Not necesarily. In fact, logically it's rather stupid to do that. After all, one is punctuating the sentence, not the quote.
He asked me, "How tall are you?".
I am not sure if I've ever actually done that but it feels much better than to have the endquote be after the punctuation that is supposed to signify that the sentence is done.
29 Aug 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAhem.
I'll cut to the chase and answer but one of your charges. Your characterization of the earth's age is wrong. A straight-forward reading of the text in the original language says nothing whatsoever regarding a date for the earth's age. As such, given supporting Scripture in other passages, it is more likely that the earth is millions of years old.
Now, you were saying about narrow-mindedness?
By 'cutting to the chase' you are ignoring the foundation of my argument and focusing on
an auxiliary matter (the age of the earth).
Here is the critical question:
Can you fathom a scientific advance so incontrovertible that you would reject a literal element
of Scripture (on any topic: creation, the flood, evolution, whatever)? Or, rather, does Scripture
form the irrefutable lens through which you interpret all later data?
And, whether you assert that the earth is a few thousand, tens of thousands, or even 'millions of
years old,' I would (again) have you review the independent concordant evidence provided by
chemistry, biology, astronomy, physics and geology which says otherwise.
And, I'd ask that you explain why pre-Jesus Jews never insisted upon 'one reading,' much less a
literal one, like you seem to be promoting.
Nemesio
01 Sep 06
Originally posted by NemesioYour supposed "auxillary matter" was pivotal and illustrative of your argument, and--- as it is based on fallacy--- it must be rejected out of hand which thereby renders your argument moot... until such time as you can retool and perhaps provide another example which would better support the same.
Ahem.
By 'cutting to the chase' you are ignoring the foundation of my argument and focusing on
an auxiliary matter (the age of the earth).
[b]Here is the critical question:
Can you fathom a scientific advance so incontrovertible that you would reject a literal element
of Scripture (on any topic: creation, the flood, evolution, whatever)? Or, ra ...[text shortened]... 'one reading,' much less a
literal one, like you seem to be promoting.
Nemesio[/b]
You cannot point to the age of the earth as an example of science contradicting the Bible, when the Bible doesn't make a statement regarding the same.
However, in your return, you asked an interesting question:
Or, rather, does Scripture
form the irrefutable lens through which you interpret all later data?
I find it interesting because you said in your earlier post that your own experience is the lens through which you interpret all data. Do you consider your own experience authoritative enough to warrant such faith?
You also made a few interesting comments with respect to the supposed differences in our perspectives:
And, here is the difference between you and me: There is no dogma or scientific datum of which I am unwilling to let go. I am always opened to the possibility that something surely learned or apparently understood is actually erroneous. And, if I am unknowingly in error, I am always hopeful that someone will correct me and, more importantly, show me why my thinking was incorrect.
It is because I am in the 'first category' that you mention that I have
come to the conclusions about Scripture that I currently hold; not only
am I familiar with some Hebrew, Jewish culture before the common era, non-Scriptural Jewish writing, and mythological archetypes and evolution, but I also have a fair understanding of various sciences, especially biology an astronomy, but also physics and (least) chemistry. These things inform my reading of Scripture, or any text.
I find the statements interesting because you insist there is a fundamental difference in how you come to conclusions and the manner in which I do the same. How could you possibly know my thought process? How could you possibly know those beliefs which I once held and have since relinquished or etc?
Either your wording is woefully inadequate in expressing your actual thoughts, or your arrogance is in overload. Essentially, you are saying that any thinking adult will naturally come to the conclusions you have reached, and only the willful ignorant could possibly hold otherwise.
And, the $64,000 answer to the underlying question is: when science and the Bible are seemingly contradicting one another, there are but a few scenarios possible.
1.) Our understanding of the science involved is flawed
2.) Our understanding of the Bible is flawed
There are no contradictions possible when truth is viewed aright.
01 Sep 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI don't know. That's why I asked. And, since you returned an unintelligible reply, I'll ask it
I find the statements interesting because you insist there is a fundamental difference in how you come to conclusions and the manner in which I do the same. How could you possibly know my thought process? How could you possibly know those beliefs which I once held and have since relinquished or etc?
again:
Can you fathom a scientific advance so incontrovertible that you would reject a literal element
of Scripture (on any topic: creation, the flood, evolution, whatever)?
This is a simple 'yes' or 'no' question.
My answer to this one is 'yes.' What is yours?
Nemesio
01 Sep 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHScenario 3) the bible is wrong. You seem to have forgotten that one.
Your supposed "auxillary matter" was pivotal and illustrative of your argument, and--- as it is based on fallacy--- it must be rejected out of hand which thereby renders your argument moot... until such time as you can retool and perhaps provide another example which would better support the same.
You cannot point to the age of the earth as an example o ...[text shortened]... of the Bible is flawed
There are no contradictions possible when truth is viewed aright.
01 Sep 06
Originally posted by no1marauderIt would be interesting to know if FreakyKBH intended this. I, like Scottishinnz, understood
If our understanding is that the Bible is infallible when it is not, then our understanding is flawed.
option #2 to be that we had a flawed understanding of the Bible's (perfect) content and
thought of the 'third' option posited.
Alas, Scottishinnz never seems to leave his computer and beat me to posting it. 😉
Nemesio