Fair Dinkum Posted August 3, 2022 Author Posted August 3, 2022 8 minutes ago, smac97 said: Okay. Here are my questions again: Question 1. In your view, is the phrase "all the world" as used in Luke 2:1 ("And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed") necessarily to be literally and unequivocally construed? Question 2. If you can find a way to construe "all the world" with some measure of figurativeness, poetic license, etc., if you can give some room for the possibility that the author of Luke 2 had a more finite and decidedly non-scientific view/perspective of things, could you do the same with other portions of the Bible? Or do you think that a 100%-literal interpretation is the only way to go? Question 3. What are your thoughts about the exegesis of Genesis 11:1 referenced above ("To begin with, the Hebrew word eretz used in Genesis 11:1 (and also in the story of Noah’s flood) can mean either 'earth' or 'land,' and it is impossible to know which except from context. Here, the phrase probably just means that the people in the land where the story took place originally spoke a common language.")? Do you find this plausible? Question 4. You asked "where one draws the line between fact and fiction, how does one separate the the myth from what could actually be accepted as truth." I have previously laid out a basic framework that appears to be responsive to this inquiry (see above) : 1) Ahistorical Stories, or Stories Where Historicity is Immaterial 2) Stories that are "True" (Historical) but Particulars and Details are Missing or Misunderstood 3) Stories that Require Historicity Do you agree that this framework is responsive to your question? If so, what are your thoughts about this framework? Question 5. Do you insist that Christians everywhere have a comprehensive and empirically testable explanation for Jesus turning water to wine, multiplying the loaves and fishes, walking on water, raising from the dead the daughter of Jairus and Lazarus, etc.? Question 6. You have previously stated that you "question the reality of an actual resurrection." I certainly understand and respect that position. My questions, though, are: (A) On what basis do you think Christians should accept the bodily resurrection of Jesus as a factual, it-really-happened event? (B) Do you think that belief in the resurrection must be predicated on it (resurrection) being empirically explained/defined/quantified (as to the physiological mechanics of how it works)? (C) Do you think that belief in the resurrection must be predicated on it (resurrection) being empirically proven as having actually happened (that the individual referenced as "Jesus" in the New Testament was literally resurrected from the dead)? Question 7. You have previously argued, or at least strongly implied, that some of the truth claims of Christianity in general, and/or of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in particular, can be "empirically" disproven. Is that a fair characterization of your position? If so, could you itemize which events/claims you believe are empirically testable/falsifiable? Thanks, -Smac Like you I get paid by the hour. My going rate is $500 per hour. Send a retainer of say $10K and I'll refund what I don't earn.
smac97 Posted August 3, 2022 Posted August 3, 2022 1 minute ago, Fair Dinkum said: Like you I get paid by the hour. My going rate is $500 per hour. Send a retainer of say $10K and I'll refund what I don't earn. Kinda hard to take your "Yeah-but-what-about..."-style questions at face value when you ignore meaningful attempts to address them. But you're right. You have no obligation to answer anything. Thanks, -Smac 2
Fair Dinkum Posted August 3, 2022 Author Posted August 3, 2022 (edited) 34 minutes ago, smac97 said: Okay. Here are my questions again: Question 1. In your view, is the phrase "all the world" as used in Luke 2:1 ("And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed") necessarily to be literally and unequivocally construed? The writer, a human being attested to be Luke, was referring to his own known world 34 minutes ago, smac97 said: Question 2. If you can find a way to construe "all the world" with some measure of figurativeness, poetic license, etc., if you can give some room for the possibility that the author of Luke 2 had a more finite and decidedly non-scientific view/perspective of things, could you do the same with other portions of the Bible? Or do you think that a 100%-literal interpretation is the only way to go? Yes I would give full poetic license to all human beings 34 minutes ago, smac97 said: Question 3. What are your thoughts about the exegesis of Genesis 11:1 referenced above ("To begin with, the Hebrew word eretz used in Genesis 11:1 (and also in the story of Noah’s flood) can mean either 'earth' or 'land,' and it is impossible to know which except from context. Here, the phrase probably just means that the people in the land where the story took place originally spoke a common language.")? Do you find this plausible? Here's where we get into muddier waters. Moses, the ascribed author of Genesis, (personally I don't believe Moses ever existed but that's a subject for another thread) was a prophet with a direct bat phone to the creator of the universe. So I would NOT extend the same poetic license to him or his ilk. 34 minutes ago, smac97 said: Question 4. You asked "where one draws the line between fact and fiction, how does one separate the the myth from what could actually be accepted as truth." I have previously laid out a basic framework that appears to be responsive to this inquiry (see above) : 1) Ahistorical Stories, or Stories Where Historicity is Immaterial 2) Stories that are "True" (Historical) but Particulars and Details are Missing or Misunderstood 3) Stories that Require Historicity Do you agree that this framework is responsive to your question? If so, what are your thoughts about this framework? Again I am happy to allow both ignorance, tradition or lack of a modern education to discount or inform our understanding of myths passed forward by our human ancestors. 34 minutes ago, smac97 said: Question 5. Do you insist that Christians everywhere have a comprehensive and empirically testable explanation for Jesus turning water to wine, multiplying the loaves and fishes, walking on water, raising from the dead the daughter of Jairus and Lazarus, etc.? No they do not have any evidence to support these claims and there fore can only be taken on faith. But the fact that these claims also fly in the face of our understanding and are not supported in any fashion by any known science we should view these claims with great skepticism and discount the reality of these claims. 34 minutes ago, smac97 said: Question 6. You have previously stated that you "question the reality of an actual resurrection." I certainly understand and respect that position. My questions, though, are: (A) On what basis do you think Christians should accept the bodily resurrection of Jesus as a factual, it-really-happened event? (B) Do you think that belief in the resurrection must be predicated on it (resurrection) being empirically explained/defined/quantified (as to the physiological mechanics of how it works)? (C) Do you think that belief in the resurrection must be predicated on it (resurrection) being empirically proven as having actually happened (that the individual referenced as "Jesus" in the New Testament was literally resurrected from the dead)? A: I don't believe they should. This claim flies in the face of known reality B: Human beings don't come back from the dead. Once dead you are dead. Period C : Belief in a resurrection is a belief in a false hope. That's my opinion 34 minutes ago, smac97 said: Question 7. You have previously argued, or at least strongly implied, that some of the truth claims of Christianity in general, and/or of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in particular, can be "empirically" disproven. Is that a fair characterization of your position? If so, could you itemize which events/claims you believe are empirically testable/falsifiable? I'll give you some examples: 01. Adam & Eve as the first humans to exist on earth 02. No death prior to the existence of this fictional Adam 03. A Universal Flood that covered the entire earth surface. 04. That a Tower of Babel, where the human family's languages were confounded, ever existed. 34 minutes ago, smac97 said: Thanks Fair Dinkum Edited August 3, 2022 by Fair Dinkum
Fair Dinkum Posted August 3, 2022 Author Posted August 3, 2022 (edited) 20 minutes ago, smac97 said: Kinda hard to take your "Yeah-but-what-about..."-style questions at face value when you ignore meaningful attempts to address them. But you're right. You have no obligation to answer anything. Thanks, -Smac Brother Smac97, I was attempting to be cute due to the length of your posts...mate that's a lot of word salad. I fully intended to answer your Q's and have done so. See above post. Edited August 3, 2022 by Fair Dinkum
Recommended Posts