Comment Re:Debian can just call it... (Score 0, Offtopic) 565
If you really want an answer to that, I can give it a shot:
First of all, the accuracy is considered semantic and pragmatic. Obviously, it doesn't bear a whole lot of syntactic relationship to the original (especially the old testament/torah which was written right to left with no vowels). The idea is that there's a 'natural language' to the Bible, and that God has protected the accuracy to that language throughout each translation.
When we talked about hermeneutics in religion class, an algorithm for verification of verses was presented:
1) figure out what the contextual meaning of the verse is
2) figure out what the verse means to people today
3) abstract
4) investigate the validity of that abstraction as a valid biblical theme.
his was a class on Pauline literature, and this became really important, because there are a lot of surface inconsistencies. This is due to different writers who claim to be Paul throughout the early centuries, and with the general curosities to be found in the book of Acts.
All this is based on a faith that the Bible is in fact directly inspired by God, which in turn requires faith (which is by definition unverifiable). I think that many people accept the Bible (or any complete belief system) as absolute truth because they feel that otherwise they are just making haphazard decisions on things they don't feel qualified to judge. Of course, they are making a haphazard decision to buy into a particular belief system, but they only do that once. Plus, usually their parents do that for them ;).
At this point I've created a rather circular argument. Faith -> Belief Belief -> Trust Trust -> Faith. I suppose that's where people come up with 'a leap of faith' to enter the circle, but I think there might be something you can do to rationally enter it. If you believe in God - and if you don't, the whole thing is rather moot - then try to define what you see as his nature for yourself. Then try to find relgions/philosophy that matches what you see as God's nature. Then see what they say the implications of that nature are. That gives you a fundamental basis on which to accept/reject both individual ideas and whole themes/writers/religions. It still leaves a lot of gray areas and question marks, but :shrug: that's just the way it is.
Reading Mr. Markham's site, I am rather curious how he came to the conclusion you quote. I don't see how it is as inevitable as he makes it sound (since plenty of open-minded and intelligent people have taken different paths). However, given what I have said, I do see how one could reach the conclusion that the Bible is accurate and historical.
Thanks for reading this if you did. If you didn't, meh.
First of all, the accuracy is considered semantic and pragmatic. Obviously, it doesn't bear a whole lot of syntactic relationship to the original (especially the old testament/torah which was written right to left with no vowels). The idea is that there's a 'natural language' to the Bible, and that God has protected the accuracy to that language throughout each translation.
When we talked about hermeneutics in religion class, an algorithm for verification of verses was presented:
1) figure out what the contextual meaning of the verse is
2) figure out what the verse means to people today
3) abstract
4) investigate the validity of that abstraction as a valid biblical theme.
his was a class on Pauline literature, and this became really important, because there are a lot of surface inconsistencies. This is due to different writers who claim to be Paul throughout the early centuries, and with the general curosities to be found in the book of Acts.
All this is based on a faith that the Bible is in fact directly inspired by God, which in turn requires faith (which is by definition unverifiable). I think that many people accept the Bible (or any complete belief system) as absolute truth because they feel that otherwise they are just making haphazard decisions on things they don't feel qualified to judge. Of course, they are making a haphazard decision to buy into a particular belief system, but they only do that once. Plus, usually their parents do that for them
At this point I've created a rather circular argument. Faith -> Belief Belief -> Trust Trust -> Faith. I suppose that's where people come up with 'a leap of faith' to enter the circle, but I think there might be something you can do to rationally enter it. If you believe in God - and if you don't, the whole thing is rather moot - then try to define what you see as his nature for yourself. Then try to find relgions/philosophy that matches what you see as God's nature. Then see what they say the implications of that nature are. That gives you a fundamental basis on which to accept/reject both individual ideas and whole themes/writers/religions. It still leaves a lot of gray areas and question marks, but
Reading Mr. Markham's site, I am rather curious how he came to the conclusion you quote. I don't see how it is as inevitable as he makes it sound (since plenty of open-minded and intelligent people have taken different paths). However, given what I have said, I do see how one could reach the conclusion that the Bible is accurate and historical.
Thanks for reading this if you did. If you didn't, meh.
