Is this a blatant example of circular logic?

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 17 by Justin108]

Truth doesn't contradict truth; scientific truth is simply the correct understanding of the physical world. The bible is a book of truth and so by definition it won't contradict what is true. If therefore the bible touches on science (which it does rarely, but it does on occassion) but one interpretation contradicts what we know to be true about the physical world and the other doesn't, its not rocket science to know which interpretation is correct.

Logic,

JW

- Everything in the Bible is true
- If you find something in the Bible that is not true, it must mean that you interpreted it wrong
- How do we know you interpreted it wrong and that the Bible is not simply mistaken? Because everything in the Bible is true

[dio9]

[Replying to post 49 by Willum]

Here we disagree, I don't blame God or expect God to fix it. We made the mess and we have to clean it up.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 49 by Willum]

Here we disagree, I don't blame God or expect God to fix it. We made the mess and we have to clean it up.

What mess did you make and how do you plan to clean it up?
Thank you.

[H.sapiens]

Given that the book can be interpreted in many ways when it touches on science and we have relevant scientific data, then what we know to be true about the physical world would obviously have a bearing on which interpretation we favor. It might not be paramount, that would depend on the context, but all things being equal, it seems logical and reasonable to favor the one that harmonizes with what we know about the natural world.

If you can't come up with a single approach to interpretation then you are just full of beans. If you must have a custom tuned interpretation for every phrase, then you might as well just be making it all up yourself in the first place.

[JehovahsWitness]

If you can't come up with a single approach to interpretation then you are just full of beans.

What do you mean by "a single approach to interpretation"? Can you outline your own "single approach" so I can see how you do it right?

Thanks,

JW

[Willum]

[Replying to post 49 by Willum]

Here we disagree, I don't blame God or expect God to fix it. We made the mess and we have to clean it up.

I don't care if you disagree if you can't back it up.
Free-will is a non-existent but accepted rationale for God doing nothing.
However free-will is a function of individuals... governments and groups are clearly of God...

God made the mess, leaving two children, Adam and Eve, alone with the greatest child molester in the history of history.

[rikuoamero]

If you can't come up with a single approach to interpretation then you are just full of beans.

What do you mean by "a single approach to interpretation"? Can you outline your own "single approach" so I can see how you do it right?

Thanks,

JW

it seems logical and reasonable to favor the one that harmonizes with what we know about the natural world.

JW, you interpret the phrases from Genesis to align with what we today know about the natural world, to such a degree that your interpretation says things that are quite plainly not in the text (I remember discussions about this before from you where you say that the fourth day refers not to the actual creation of stars, but just them merely being viewable from Earth).
Put yourself in the shoes of someone in say 1000 AD, to pick a year at random. That person does not know that stars take millions, if not billions of years to form. In fact, the notion of millions/billions of years is quite alien to that person. Thus, if he reads Genesis and does what you say up above, how is he incorrect when he says that on Day 4 the stars were created, where previously they did not exist?

To put it bluntly, that person's interpretation harmonizes with what he knows about the natural world.

Ah but of course...that person's interpretation is actually incorrect. You and I know this because we're living in the year 2017 AD and our society knows a lot more about the natural world than Mr 1000 AD.
So wouldn't it seem that simply saying "Go with the interpretation that harmonizes with what we know about the natural world" is actually an intellectual dead end?

[H.sapiens]

If you can't come up with a single approach to interpretation then you are just full of beans.

What do you mean by "a single approach to interpretation"? Can you outline your own "single approach" so I can see how you do it right?

Thanks,

JW

You are the one with multiple, what-ever works for the moment, inconsistencies. My single approach is simple, the BIble is an historical novel and nothing in it should be given credence without clear external confirmation.

[otseng]

else you are revealed as a liar.

you are just full of beans.

I don't want to overtly state that you're thick

Moderator Comment

The thread is crossing over the line into incivility. Please tone it down.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[JehovahsWitness]

My single approach is simple, the BIble is an historical novel and nothing in it should be given credence without clear external confirmation.

My single approach is the bible is a book of religious instruction and nothing in it should be dismissed without clear divine confirmation.

JW

[Justin108]

My single approach is simple, the BIble is an historical novel and nothing in it should be given credence without clear external confirmation.

My single approach is the bible is a book of religious instruction and nothing in it should be dismissed without clear divine confirmation.

JW

Define "divine confirmation". Should God himself tell you when something is to be dismissed?