Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
1,253
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 89:
Line 89: + + + + + + + + + + +
→What is the evidence that Dinosaurs only ate plants
::: Umm, yeah? What does that have to do with inerrancy? As the article on [[classification system]]s points out, "some systems may be better, or more useful than others, ''especially for a given purpose''" (emphasis altered). The point is, the Bible had a ''different'' purpose than modern science. The Bible's classification system wasn't intended for scientific use. Beyond that, your response amounts to saying, "I can't see how that would be useful, so the Bible must be wrong.", which makes your lack of imagination the benchmark for deciding biblical accuracy! What arrogance! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:27, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
::: Umm, yeah? What does that have to do with inerrancy? As the article on [[classification system]]s points out, "some systems may be better, or more useful than others, ''especially for a given purpose''" (emphasis altered). The point is, the Bible had a ''different'' purpose than modern science. The Bible's classification system wasn't intended for scientific use. Beyond that, your response amounts to saying, "I can't see how that would be useful, so the Bible must be wrong.", which makes your lack of imagination the benchmark for deciding biblical accuracy! What arrogance! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:27, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
:::: Not at all. My response amounts to "When an assertion is made concerning the original meaning of the Bible, and when this assertion conflicts with observed evidence, it is likely that the assertion is in error." I must confess to not even being sure of which passage you're referring to, as the only passage I can think of offhand that mentions the breath of life in conjunction with the nostrils is Genesis 7:22--and no translation of Genesis 7:22 I have ever read makes "All in whose nostrils was the breath of life..." a benchmark for all that is living. In fact, it immediately links that qualifier to "...of all that was in the dry land." If there is another line I'm overlooking elsewhere, please feel free to point it out; while I study the Bible, I do not claim to have it committed perfectly to memory, and it's entirely possible that I'm overlooking the line on which you base your argument.
::::Moreover, I can observe that the definition you offered ("The Bible defines living things as those that breath air through their nostrils.") seems rather strongly at odds with Genesis 1:20, which establishes that the creatures brought forth from the water had life. You could add the qualifier that this only applies to creatures on dry land, as per Genesis 7:22, but as I already pointed out, Genesis 7:22 does not establish that only those creatures that had the breath of life in their nostrils were alive; merely that the ones who did and were on dry land all died. It would be possible to argue that "in whose nostrils was the breath of life" is in the poetic mode, and meant to refer to a broader range of respiration than strictly the nostrils, but that would also undermine the definition offered.
:::: Is my skepticism when someone says "The Bible says..." or "The Biblical definition is..." arrogance? Perhaps. I think it would be far more arrogant if I were to assume that current scholarship has so successfully captured the nuance and idiom of the autographic texts that no significant errors of understanding remain.
:::: I have faith in God. I know, however, how difficult it is to perfectly render an author's original intent even when you share the author's language, culture, and frame of reference. I would greet ''any'' claim by any scholar that they perfectly comprehended the idiom and tropes of a writer two thousand years dead with healthy skepticism. I know that some advance the argument that it is God's Word, and therefore, He will ensure understanding--but, again, that claim conflicts with what has been observed throughout history. Men...even saintly men...are capable of misunderstanding God's Word, and so coming to wrong conclusions about the world around them. God has not prevented this from happening, so it would be arrogant indeed to presume that He will do so now.
:::: If you want to argue that the writers of the Bible did not consider plants to be alive in the same sense as animals, I completely agree; I take no issue with that part of your statement. Certainly, they didn't consider bacteria to be alive...it's extremely unlikely that they considered bacteria at all (I suppose it's possible that God revealed the existence of bacteria to them, but it seems pretty doubtful.) However, I disagree that the Bible defines living things as those that breathe air through their nostrils. I think a stronger case could be made for mobility, and even THAT is not offered as an exclusive definition. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:12, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
==Evaluating the stature of resources==
==Evaluating the stature of resources==