Loch Ness Monster Is Real and so Disproves Evolution

prinz

pauldla wrote: »

It doesn't? I was under the impression that Christians are pretty sure that is is one, rather than the other. That's how it's usually marketed, anyhow.

Your impression is mistaken. The Qu'ran for example in Islam IIRC is deemed to be the direct transcribing of the word of God, word for word the entire book. The Bible on the other hand for most Christians contains the word of God (God says....., Jesus said.....) but is not completely itself the word of God in the same way the Qu'ran is for Muslims, because part of the book is in fact poetry, history, narrative, prophecy. These can be inspired by God, without necessarily being infallible. The vast majority of Christians IMO would see the Bible as possibly being open to human fallibility. So, you have different Christian denominations discussing interpretations, what was meant here, what there, etc etc.

pauldla

prinz wrote: »

Your impression is mistaken. The Qu'ran for example in Islam IIRC is deemed to be the direct transcribing of the word of God, word for word the entire book. The Bible on the other hand for most Christians contains the word of God (God says....., Jesus said.....) but is not completely itself the word of God in the same way the Qu'ran is for Muslims, because part of the book is in fact poetry, history, narrative, prophecy. These can be inspired by God, without necessarily being infallible. The vast majority of Christians IMO would see the Bible as possibly being open to human fallibility. So, you have different Christian denominations discussing interpretations, what was meant here, what there, etc etc.

I believe this is called 'dialectical theology', but I could be wrong about that too.

Not sure how widespread it is. I suppose I could start a thread in the Christianity forum asking how many subscribe to it. Sure to be a lively conversation.

The vast majority of Christians seeing the bible as possibly being open to human fallibility? Can I ask you to expand upon that please, as I'm not sure what you mean.

Incidentally, do a google for 'bible' and 'word of god', as it seems there are a lot of very devout Christians who do not share your doubts on the matter. Perhaps they are but a vocal minority.


Have we derailed the thread yet? Um, Nessie, well, maybe, who knows in this crazy world we live in.

pauldla

From the Catholic encyclopedia. Emphasis added.

I'm very surprised that I able to access it from here...!

The Bible, as the inspired recorded of revelation, contains the word of God; that is, it contains those revealed truths which the Holy Ghost wishes to be transmitted in writing. However, all revealed truths are not contained in the Bible (see TRADITION); neither is every truth in the Bible revealed, if by revelation is meant the manifestation of hidden truths which could not other be known. Much of the Scripture came to its writers through the channels of ordinary knowledge, but its sacred character and Divine authority are not limited to those parts which contain revelation strictly so termed. The Bible not only contains the word of God; it is the word of God. The primary author is the Holy Ghost, or, as it is commonly expressed, the human authors wrote under the influence of Divine inspiration.

prinz

pauldla wrote: »

The vast majority of Christians seeing the bible as possibly being open to human fallibility? Can I ask you to expand upon that please, as I'm not sure what you mean..

The majority of Christians are Roman Catholics, in Roman Catholicism it is not the Bible itself that is inerrant but rather the agreed upon interpretation of the Roman Catholic Church that is.

For example creationism etc comes from taking a very strict literal interpretation of the opening parts of the Bible. In Roman Catholicism this approach is not taken. Now if the Bible in its entirety were the undisputed exact literal word of God then Roman Catholics would be creationist. They aren't, and why aren't they? Because they approach different parts of the Bible in different fashions. It's not so much open to human fallibility as it is parts are written from a human perspective in trying to understand the origins of the universe for example. Chrisitans believe God inspired the Bible, but did not dictate it to the authors to be written down word for word.

A thread in Christianity would be interesting.

DB21

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

a quick look got these,

http://bible.cc/matthew/28-2.htm
http://bible.cc/mark/16-9.htm
http://bible.cc/john/20-3.htm

Hey, philologos, do you plan on answering Capt'n's points?

philologos

DB21 wrote: »

Hey, philologos, do you plan on answering Capt'n's points?

Yes, I do now that I'm home from work. Unfortunately, I need to do the day job as well

Mark 16:9 is not included in the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament. There are 40 verses in the New Testament which are in doubt. Mark 16:9-20 is one of those sections. You'll find this noted in most Bibles. We can however, be confident on the basis of what Biblical scholarship and analysis that has been done (see the work of Bruce Metzger for example) that 99.6% of the New Testament is as it was when it was first written.

John 20:3 -

So Peter went out with the other disciple, and they were going toward the tomb.

Matthew 28:2 -

And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it.

I presume that you must be thinking about different verses Capt'n Midnight?

The posts about the alleged "contradictions" in the Gospels starts here. Penn brought some quotes forward, and PDN showed that none of them are actually contradictory. Namely none of them make mutually exclusive claims. I'd encourage you to read through them there, and possibly post more there if you feel that they haven't been covered. There's another thread here which includes more of the same. In fact these alleged "contradictions" have been responded to on numerous occasions on boards.ie.

pauldla

prinz wrote: »

The majority of Christians are Roman Catholics, in Roman Catholicism it is not the Bible itself that is inerrant but rather the agreed upon interpretation of the Roman Catholic Church that is.

For example creationism etc comes from taking a very strict literal interpretation of the opening parts of the Bible. In Roman Catholicism this approach is not taken. Now if the Bible in its entirety were the undisputed exact literal word of God then Roman Catholics would be creationist. They aren't, and why aren't they? Because they approach different parts of the Bible in different fashions. It's not so much open to human fallibility as it is parts are written from a human perspective in trying to understand the origins of the universe for example. Chrisitans believe God inspired the Bible, but did not dictate it to the authors to be written down word for word.

A thread in Christianity would be interesting.

I still maintain that Catholicism regards the bible as the word of god, as per the extract from the Catholic Encyclopedia above. And I think they are pretty clear that the bible is indeed inerrant, at least in it's original Hebrew form which has now been lost.

Since Vatican 2 bible scholars have been playing with the idea of 'limited inerrancy' (a marvelous phrase!), presumably in an attempt to sidestep some of the more outlandish biblical passages relating to science, history, etc.

I didn't actually say that god dictated the bible, though it would have been great if he had. I'm sure he would have done a better job than his host writers. My understanding of the writing of the bible is that is was written by men who were inspired and guided by the holy spirit, though alas the technical details of this have not been described, which is a pity. It would be terrible to think that the 'Word of God' is nothing more than 'something I wrote while thinking about god, and it's right, I tell you!'.

Wibbs

philologos wrote: »

The posts about the alleged "contradictions" in the Gospels starts here. Penn brought some quotes forward, and PDN showed that none of them are actually contradictory. Namely none of them make mutually exclusive claims. I'd encourage you to read through them there, and possibly post more there if you feel that they haven't been covered. There's another thread here which includes more of the same. In fact these alleged "contradictions" have been responded to on numerous occasions on boards.ie.

Oh man talk about PDN bobbing and weaving like a prizefighter to avoid the bloody obvious. His idea of non contradictory; witness A says there were two burglars in the house, witness B says there was one. PDN extrapolation? If it is true that were two burglars, then it logically follows that it is also true that there was one burglar. I kid thee not gentle reader. I'm directly paraphrasing him by swapping out burglar for angel as he actually uses this argument with regard to variability in the inability of the authors to count angels no less and calls it logic. Don't expect him to be your star witness in court.

philologos

A contradiction is where point A precludes point B entirely. If it is possible that A and B could be both true, then it isn't a contradiction.

I think prinz' point is also significant. In that eyewitness testimony will differ purely on what people happen to notice. If it didn't differ, that would actually be extremely suspicious. This is a strength of the Gospels rather than a weakness.

In fact I don't even think this offers a serious challenge to the infallibility of Scripture.

AtomicHorror

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Have you noticed the storyline in Prometheus with the 'scientist' who believes in "intelligent design" (a fancy name for creationism)? I presume that was to appeal to that constituency.

What about the bits where

giant aliens made us and Weyland dies saying "there's nothing"?

AtomicHorror

squod wrote: »

Darwinism is having it's own effect on sociology, beliefs and even science. If you choose to have your status debased and believe what is a flimsy story then that's up to you. All I ask is that you don't include me when you describe yourself.

If you'd like to start a debate on Darwinism and it's effects then please do. But I certainly won't be aping your ideas about the origins of man.

It's interesting how people who favour intelligent design theory so often tend to express disgust at the idea of being an ape, monkey or in any sense "animal". Seems like that's a bit of a biasing factor right there. If we ever saw any design proponents who don't consider it an insult to be related to other species, I might have a bit more respect for their arguments.

pauldla

philologos wrote: »

In fact I don't even think this offers a serious challenge to the infallibility of Scripture.

Well, others think it does. The details of the resurrection are very confused, and it's hard to give credence to the idea that this was to appeal to different readerships (so much for 'one truth'). Why would it matter to one crowd that it was light when she/they went to the tomb, and to another crowd that it was dark when she/they went to the tomb? Was there a group of early christian photophobes?

And of course there are other problems with the whole story of the crucifixion and resurrection....

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

Don't be lazy. Provide the direct quotes and references from the text. Then we can start looking at it. I shouldn't have to do this for you.

Zombrex wrote: »

The resurrection as described by the Bible.

Very early on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome, Joanna and "others" decided to take spices to anoint the body of Jesus.

When they arrived they saw the guards appeared like dead men and on the stone sat an angel who said that Jesus was risen and gone ahead to Galilee. [Matt 28]

They entered the tomb and saw a man dressed in white sitting on the right hand side of the tomb. He again told them that Jesus had risen and that they should go tell the disciples to meet him in Galilee.[Mark 16]

Despite having met an angel sitting on the stone to the tomb, and a man dressed in white sitting in the tomb as they entered, the women wondered why they had not found the body of Jesus in the tomb. As they wondered this 2 men dressed in white appeared before them. As the women bowed down before them the men explained yet again that Jesus had risen. [Luke 24]

Finally after all this they ran back, afraid but full of joy [Matt 28:8] to the disciples. On the way to tell the disciples they met the risen Jesus [Matt 28:9] who told them to go tell the disciples to meet him Galilee.

The women arrived at the disciples. For some reason Mary Mag. told them first that "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!" [John 20]. Which is a bit odd considering the 4 people see meet in the tomb and Jesus himself informing her of his resurrection and instructions for the disciples.

Mary Mag and the other women then proceed to recount the miraculous events they experienced in the tomb [Luke 24:10]. The disciples don't believe them [Luke 24:11] and frankly who can blame them given that Mary Mag just said someone stole Jesus and they don't know where they took him and then proceeded to tell them that they had met angels and Jesus has risen.

Peter and the other disciple ran to the tomb [John 20:3]. The other disciple stayed outside and Peter entered seeing the linen. The other disciple entered then and believed. They then left.

Mary Mag was standing outside the tomb crying [John 20:11], possibly because she had forgotten all the stuff that had already happened, including already meeting Jesus and being told he has risen and recounting all this to the disciples which was the initial reason Peter ran to the tomb in the first place.

As she cried she saw two angels in the tomb where Jesus had been. [John 20:12]. They asked her why she was crying and she said it was because they have taken Jesus away and they don't know where he is. Again odd considered she already met angels telling her he had risen and had met Jesus himself running back to the disciples.

She then turned around to see Jesus himself. Initially she didn't recognize him (must have forgot what he looked like since meeting him only moments before on her way to Peter). Then she recognized him (ah memory). He told her to tell the disciples to meet him in Galilee. Jesus obviously feared that Mary Mag had already forgotten the message from the few moments ago when he already told her [Matt 28:9]

Mary Mag. left the tomb and again ran to the disciples to tell them that she had seen their lord, which must have been some what confusing since she had just done that a few moments ago.

Clearly the story is nonsense if you compile all 4 accounts together. It involves people acting very strangely, forgetting what they have already been told, forgetting what they have seen and in general acting nonsensically.

The honest reality is that John describes Mary Mag finding an empty tomb and believing Jesus has been stolen, informing the disciples of this and only coming to believe Jesus has risen after Peter has investigated the tomb. She then meets the angels and Jesus and realizes what has happened. John deals exclusively with Mary Mag.

Mark, Matthew Luke tell a rather different story, the women including Mary Mag find the empty tomb and meet the angels then and there. They then meet Jesus on the way to tell the disciples who do not believe their story when they explain it to them.

They are two different and contradictory accounts of supposably the same event. The most common way of squaring the round hold that is Mary Mag. account with the others is to claim that she must have left the women just before they entered the tomb. But there is zero support for this in the text, it makes no sense in the context of the narrative (eg Matt 28 describes only Mary and Mary and then continues to refer to "the women").

And isn't inventing details that are not present in the story in order to fit a particular interpretation something only us heathen atheists are supposed to do. :P

The clearest problem is the time line of Mary Mag, who flip flops between seeing Jesus and knowing he has been resurrected and believing that someone has stolen his body. There are a multitude of other smaller problems, right down to the sequence that the women enter the tomb. They seem to be told over and over that Jesus has been resurrected, and continue to not know this the next time they are told.

philologos

Zombrex wrote: »

The clearest problem is the time line of Mary Mag, who flip flops between seeing Jesus and knowing he has been resurrected and believing that someone has stolen his body. There are a multitude of other smaller problems, right down to the sequence that the women enter the tomb. They seem to be told over and over that Jesus has been resurrected, and continue to not know this the next time they are told.

If anyone is interested. PDN and others on the Christianity forum responded to this post. The thread is here. I suggest that you read all of it.

If your claims about the Resurrection account hadn't been already responded to by Christians in depth on boards.ie it might have been good to spend some time on them.

If you quote something from a thread, it's good to link to it so people can follow up the discussion that others had with you there. It's clear that PDN explained to you that the quotes that you used aren't contradictory - namely they aren't claiming things that logically exclude the other as a possibility.

Colmustard

A monster, I prefer to call it a fellow creature,

I wish it was real but sadly it is not, if there was a big scary monster in a loch in Scotland David Attenborough would have swam with it.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

If anyone is interested. PDN and others on the Christianity forum responded to this post. The thread is here. I suggest that you read all of it.

If your claims about the Resurrection account hadn't been already responded to by Christians in depth on boards.ie it might have been good to spend some time on them.

If you quote something from a thread, it's good to link to it so people can follow up the discussion that others had with you there. It's clear that PDN explained to you that the quotes that you used aren't contradictory - namely they aren't claiming things that logically exclude the other as a possibility.

It is clear that PDN claimed that, though didn't spend all that long trying to support this (I suspect because he knows his claim is utterly nonsensical).

If you feel you can do a better stab at it fire away. Particularly if you can provide a plausible and Biblically supported explaination for Mary Mag. rather disjointed account of the resurrection.