Changes

The greatness of Isaac Newton is not to be denied.  However, that doesn't mean that his ideas can never be superseded, or that we can't disagree with him.  According to an essay on Newton by Stephen Snobelen - found via the site isaac-newton.org - Newton believed that the ancient Greeks knew about the inverse-square law of gravitation, but "cloaked [that knowledge] behind the figure of Apollo and his seven-string lyre".  Personally, I don't think that is the case.  Religiously, Newton seemed to have believed in Arianism, that Jesus wasn't God - a view you probably disagree with.  To say that the Bible is not a science book is not "placing limits" on the Bible.  Its acknowledging that the Bible is a product of the time(s) when it was written.  And its also stating that, characterizing the Bible as a science book mischaracterizes it, and leads to misunderstandings.  Reading Mark's stories of the feedings of the multitudes as "order vs disorder" is a woeful misconception of what Mark was trying to say.  The one link that JacobB wanted me to check out actually said that Matthew 24:30 somehow is a reference to television!! - which is simply outlandish!  Would reading that verse with "television" in mind really improve someone's understanding of it?  I'm highly skeptical of that notion, to say the least.  Just as I'm skeptical of finding dinosaurs in the Bible, for reasons I've mentioned elsewhere.  Realizing that the ancient Hebrews or Greeks didn't know modern science is not to say that they were idiots.  The people who wrote the Bible were hardly that.  Isn't it enough that they bequeathed to us the idea of monotheism with an ancient logic which, by itself and without the need to inject dinosaurs into it, is still compelling? - Danielitld

The greatness of Isaac Newton is not to be denied.  However, that doesn't mean that his ideas can never be superseded, or that we can't disagree with him.  According to an essay on Newton by Stephen Snobelen - found via the site isaac-newton.org - Newton believed that the ancient Greeks knew about the inverse-square law of gravitation, but "cloaked [that knowledge] behind the figure of Apollo and his seven-string lyre".  Personally, I don't think that is the case.  Religiously, Newton seemed to have believed in Arianism, that Jesus wasn't God - a view you probably disagree with.  To say that the Bible is not a science book is not "placing limits" on the Bible.  Its acknowledging that the Bible is a product of the time(s) when it was written.  And its also stating that, characterizing the Bible as a science book mischaracterizes it, and leads to misunderstandings.  Reading Mark's stories of the feedings of the multitudes as "order vs disorder" is a woeful misconception of what Mark was trying to say.  The one link that JacobB wanted me to check out actually said that Matthew 24:30 somehow is a reference to television!! - which is simply outlandish!  Would reading that verse with "television" in mind really improve someone's understanding of it?  I'm highly skeptical of that notion, to say the least.  Just as I'm skeptical of finding dinosaurs in the Bible, for reasons I've mentioned elsewhere.  Realizing that the ancient Hebrews or Greeks didn't know modern science is not to say that they were idiots.  The people who wrote the Bible were hardly that.  Isn't it enough that they bequeathed to us the idea of monotheism with an ancient logic which, by itself and without the need to inject dinosaurs into it, is still compelling? - Danielitld

:Daniel, we addressed this on the Genesis talk page, and you seem to be bringing up the same nonsense as there.  "Its acknowledging that the Bible is a product of the time(s) when it was written."  The Bible is '''not''' a cultural product.  It is the inspired word of God.  The Logic of the bible is not ancient.  It is divine.  Methinks you've listened to too many liberal apologists. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:21, 23 November 2009 (EST)

:Daniel, we addressed this on the Genesis talk page, and you seem to be bringing up the same nonsense as there.  "Its acknowledging that the Bible is a product of the time(s) when it was written."  The Bible is '''not''' a cultural product.  It is the inspired word of God.  The Logic of the bible is not ancient.  It is divine.  Methinks you've listened to too many liberal apologists. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:21, 23 November 2009 (EST)

So, Douglas, am I to take it that you believe that televisions are referred to in Matthew's gospel?  And you say that my comments are "nonsense"!  But if the Bible is not a cultural product, then how is it that you are supposedly finding the products of the 20th and 21st centuries in it?  You want to deny that ancient cultures had any influence in the Bible's writing, yet apparently only our modern day culture can fully understand it.  If the Bible is the timeless word of God, then the ancient Hebrew should have been as fully able of comprehending it as an early 21st Century American.  It shouldn't require the happenstance of the invention of television to understand what the Bible says.

So, Douglas, am I to take it that you believe that televisions are referred to in Matthew's gospel?  And you say that my comments are "nonsense"!  But if the Bible is not a cultural product, then how is it that you are supposedly finding the products of the 20th and 21st centuries in it?  You want to deny that ancient cultures had any influence in the Bible's writing, yet apparently only our modern day culture can fully understand it.  If the Bible is the timeless word of God, then the ancient Hebrew should have been as fully able of comprehending it as an early 21st Century American.  It shouldn't require the happenstance of the invention of television to understand what the Bible says.

You might want to talk with Michael Back about this, as well.  "As for the logos, John was using a concept the Greeks had . . to help the Greeks better understand who and what Jesus was," he wrote.  This definitely sounds like its a "cultural product", especially since Mr Back "highly doubts" that the term logos - and the Greek ideas related to it - is "EXACTLY who Jesus is".  (Emphasis in the original.)  When asked by the scribe which is the greatest commandment, Jesus responded that the Shema Yisrael is.  But then he added:  "The second is this: Love your neighbor as yourself." (Mark 12:29-31)  These two great commandments are Jewish, from Deuteronomy and Leviticus.  Rabbi Hillel, who lived at same time as Jesus, told the man hopping about on one leg that the Torah can be reduced to this:  What is hateful to you, don't do to another.  So we can see that Jesus' words were part and parcel of the cultural milieu of his time.  They, and the gospel they are in, were cultural products.  And now these ancient cultural products are part and parcel of our culture.  They don't require televisions, dinosaurs or the Second Law of Thermodynamics for further explication.  Like the Socratic "Know thyself", they stand on their own, as relevant today as they were 2,000 years ago or more. - Danielitld     

You might want to talk with Michael Back about this, as well.  "As for the logos, John was using a concept the Greeks had . . to help the Greeks better understand who and what Jesus was," he wrote.  This definitely sounds like its a "cultural product", especially since Mr Back "highly doubts" that the term logos - and the Greek ideas related to it - is "EXACTLY who Jesus is".  (Emphasis in the original.)  When asked by the scribe which is the greatest commandment, Jesus responded that the Shema Yisrael is.  But then he added:  "The second is this: Love your neighbor as yourself." (Mark 12:29-31)  These two great commandments are Jewish, from Deuteronomy and Leviticus.  Rabbi Hillel, who lived at same time as Jesus, told the man hopping about on one leg that the Torah can be reduced to this:  What is hateful to you, don't do to another.  So we can see that Jesus' words were part and parcel of the cultural milieu of his time.  They, and the gospel they are in, were cultural products.  And now these ancient cultural products are part and parcel of our culture.  They don't require televisions, dinosaurs or the Second Law of Thermodynamics for further explication.  Like the Socratic "Know thyself", they stand on their own, as relevant today as they were 2,000 years ago or more. - Danielitld     

::The Bible is logic, as Douglas says.  Logic yields insights.  It did for Newton, for everyone's benefit.  Of course Newton wasn't correct about everything he did.  But he got enough things right, and the Bible helped.  It can help us too ... in all areas of life, including science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:38, 23 November 2009 (EST)

:Daniel, as a favor, please in the future try to be concise rather than resorting to rants.  I'm not sure why you keep bringing up televisions, but the matter is extremely simple.  The Bible is '''God's''' word.  It is not, as you claim, a "cultural product." The objections many of those around Jesus were cultural, but his responses transcended culture, and included messages which were entirely new in human history.  What I find most disturbing is that you seem to entirely ignore, or even ''deny'' the divine origin of the Bible.  How can you possibly claim that it is God's inspired word when you deride it as a "cultural product" and that God was influenced by ancient cultures?  Thanks to what we have learned of God's creation in the intervening millenia, we are more than ever able to discover the incredible depth, both logical and, yes, scientific, of God's word.  Why are you so set on denying the mere possibility that the Bible mentioned dinosaurs? I've never claimed that it's true, nor would I seek to prove it, but I'm willing to allow for the possibility, and am amazed by the foresight entailed. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 16:46, 23 November 2009 (EST)