Ashamed to be Texan - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

11/18/2005 12:42:11 PM · #1126

Originally posted by scalvert:

1) A. "Paths" could simply mean channels, not currents and B. Anybody who's experienced undertow knows there are underwater currents that don't follow the wind

Perhaps. But, to my knowledge nothing "swims" in the undertow.

Originally posted by scalvert:

2) You can feel the pressure of the air against your skin when the wind blows. Duh.

But that apparently didn't lead anyone to surmise that it had "weight" until 1640. Why did it take several thousands of years to "discover" that fact?

Originally posted by scalvert:

3) The notion of a round earth was well known to the Greeks (they observed it's shadow during lunar eclipses). So yeah, circular was known, but it was thought to be flat.

In what year was the notion known to the Greeks? Was it prior to 800 B.C.?

Originally posted by scalvert:

Besides, you've pretty much invalidated your claims with your own words:

Originally posted by RonB:
What Bible are you quoting? The King James Version lists Isaiah 18:6 as this...

Get real. How does that invalidate my claims? I asked that question of SJCarter because he posted that the scripture said

"ISA 18:6 Mixed couples when dancing dressed or near nude, are practicing sexual foreplay. Body to body dancing is a common teaching of the Devil, and an old custom of nations that hate God's word."

I responded with

"The King James Version lists Isaiah 18:6 as this:
"They shall be left together unto the fowls of the mountains, and to the beasts of the earth: and the fowls shall summer upon them, and all the beasts of the earth shall winter upon them."

It is obvious to anyone with a brain that HIS quotation was completely unrelated to ANY version of scripture, but to show the discrepancy I had to show what SOME version of scripture said for comparison.

Originally posted by scalvert:

If your contention is that the bible is completely accurate and without error, that the stories of the Old Testament were passed down faithfully for generations, that the monks and clerics were so meticulous in their translations and transcriptions of the New Testament through 1500+ years that the contents are beyond question, then what difference would it make WHICH bible you were reading from?

It would make a difference because the meticulous translations and transcriptions of the monks and clerics ceased hundreds of years ago. Not to mention the fact that it was obvious to anyone with a brain that SJCarter ( who claims to have read the Bible from cover to cover multiple times ) was not quoting from ANY translation know to modern man. It would, for example, make a diference if He were quoting from the Sam Jones version of the Bible as dictated by the Spaghetti Monster, which it may very well have been.

Originally posted by scalvert:

They would all be equally infallible direct copies.

No, they wouldn't. As I have just explained.

Originally posted by scalvert:

If the King James version (first published in 1611) is the "correct" version to quote from, then what was the accurate version that preceded it?

Prior to the King James version, there were the Bishop's Bible, the Geneva Bible, and others. Each reflected the bias of its interpreters. For that matter, so does the King James. That is why it is always advisable to "let scripture interpret scripture" - that is not rely on scripture taken out of context, but to search scripture elsewhere in the Bible to validate the meaning.

Originally posted by scalvert:

The mere fact that there ARE versions is proof that there were significant changes and discrepancies through time.

Proof that there were changes? Sure, obviously. That there were SIGNIFICANT changes? Sorry, that is not a logical conclusion. That there are discrepancies? Sure, again obviously, but not proof that they are more than insignificant.

Flash

Nikon D700

11/18/2005 12:56:35 PM · #1127

Originally posted by scalvert:

...then what difference would it make WHICH bible you were reading from? ...The mere fact that there ARE versions demonstrates that there were significant changes and discrepancies through time.

I do not feel it does make a difference which Bible one reads, and I comer to that conclusion after an exhustive side by side comparison of a King James, New Jerusalem, and an NIV (New International Version) of he Gospels. It was my conclusion that not enough difference existed on the "meat" of the text to matter, therefore I chose and choose to read the NIV. It is simply easier for this English Major to understand. I do however, believe that the Apocrapha can be useful in teaching and enjoy the book of Ecclesiasticus, although it is not in the NIV.

Regarding the discrepancies through time, I am not sure that I would define them as "significant" but rather small differences in language or word choice on the part of the translator(s). Some wish to argue against the Bible's accuracy (aka revelancy) due to apparent contradictions or laws that appear to be the opposite of contemporary ideals. That is their choice. Some truly need to justify their "non-belief" so as to assure themselves of their decision. They typically do this via arguments pointing out the many apparent fallacies of Bible texts. What gets harder to defend or argue against, is the fact that millions and millions and millions of believers over centuries and centuries have found comfort and forgiveness in the scriptures. It is possible that these multitudes were deceived into believing that which was not true, as is exemplified throughout many cultures (and Scalvert used Egyptian Gods as an illustration). This would seem to present a quandry to the Jew, Christian, or Muslim who believes in the foundations set about by Abraham and Moses. However, for those who have "felt" the power of forgiveness, that comes from understanding the house that your Father has built for you, the apparent arguments against the Bible by non-believers is merely straw in a gale force wind.

As Scalvert and I have agreed, I believe in his right to choose to not believe, and he supports my right to choose the opposite. I spent 4 very intense years on a self directed study of scripture and found the answers that I was looking for. There would be entire days that I would not leave my study room, except for personal relief calls. I have studied with fundementalists and some highly regarded scholars. In the end, I found what I sought. And that is good enough for me.

rox_rox

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

11/18/2005 01:35:41 PM · #1128

Originally posted by RonB:

It would, for example, make a diference if He were quoting from the Sam Jones version of the Bible as dictated by the Spaghetti Monster, which it may very well have been.

Ron,
That is the funniest thing I've ever seen from you. Not to disrepect how seriously you take your argument; but that just made me giggle.

As I've said before, anyone can pull scripture from the Bible to demonstrate their individual viewpoint. The book is filled with contradictions; and biblical scholars devote their entire careers to this. Personally, I think the teachings of the Bible can be very life-changing and wonderful, in the right context. In the wrong context (ie. using the teachings of the Bible to manipulate the masses) it can be a dangerous prospect.

If our government is bound to grant exclusive priveledges to particular religious sects then I believe that government should act to set aside the right to use the term "Christian Marriage" for devout, heterosexual Christian couples who are proven (How? I don't know.) to never break any of Christian God's laws of marriage, as outlined in the Bible.

For the rest of us consenting adults who wish to acknowledge our romantic contracts under the terms of our individual spiritual value systems, the simple term "Marriage".

I'm sure it's already been said somewhere in the bowels of this rant; but it appears that the only argument is whether or not Christians have a patent on the definition of a word.

Message edited by author 2005-11-18 13:36:40.

11/18/2005 01:48:18 PM · #1129

Originally posted by RonB:

to my knowledge nothing "swims" in the undertow.

Why am I not surprised? Statements like this, and equating the weight of wind (pressure) with the weight of air (mass) are pointless arguments. All you surfcasters working your lines around ripcurrents, listen up: you're wasting your time! Apparently so am I.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

11/18/2005 01:55:29 PM · #1130

Originally posted by Flash:

What gets harder to defend or argue against, is the fact that millions and millions and millions of believers over centuries and centuries have found comfort and forgiveness in the scriptures. It is possible that these multitudes were deceived into believing that which was not true, as is exemplified throughout many cultures (and Scalvert used Egyptian Gods as an illustration). This would seem to present a quandry to the Jew, Christian, or Muslim who believes in the foundations set about by Abraham and Moses. ...the apparent arguments against the Bible by non-believers is merely straw in a gale force wind.

That is the fallacy of numbers. Jews, Muslims and Christians combined account for less than 53% of the world's population. The remaining 47% are primarily Hindu, Buddhists, and Sikhs (and that doesn't even consider the Egyptian, Greek, Inca, Maya, etc. civilizations that ALSO didn't believe in the bible). If you see a straw that size blowing towards you, DUCK!!! ;-)

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

11/18/2005 02:19:34 PM · #1131

I found this interesting discussion (below) while searching "Bible fallacies" and thought I'd post part of it here as it seems to reflect the gist of the debate in this thread:

"On May 12, 1797 while living in Paris, France, Tom Paine wrote the following letter to a Christian friend who was trying to convert Paine to Christianity. Paine's response fits perfectly with this page regarding the origins of the Bible.

"In your letter of the twentieth of March, you give me several quotations from the Bible, which you call the Word of God, to show me that my opinions on religion are wrong, and I could give you as many, from the same book to show that yours are not right; consequently, then, the Bible decides nothing, because it decides any way, and every way, one chooses to make it.

"But by what authority do you call the Bible the Word of God? for this is the first point to be settled. It is not your calling it so that makes it so, any more than the Mahometans calling the Koran the Word of God makes the Koran to be so. The Popish Councils of Nice and Laodicea, about 350 years after the time the person called Jesus Christ is said to have lived, voted the books that now compose what is called the New Testament to be the Word of God. This was done by yeas and nays, as we now vote a law.

"The Pharisees of the second temple, after the Jews returned from captivity in Babylon, did the same by the books that now compose the Old Testament, and this is all the authority there is, which to me is no authority at all. I am as capable of judging for myself as they were, and I think more so, because, as they made a living by their religion, they had a self-interest in the vote they gave.

"You may have an opinion that a man is inspired, but you cannot prove it, nor can you have any proof of it yourself, because you cannot see into his mind in order to know how he comes by his thoughts; and the same is the case with the word revelation. There can be no evidence of such a thing, for you can no more prove revelation than you can prove what another man dreams of, neither can he prove it himself.

"It is often said in the Bible that God spake unto Moses, but how do you know that God spake unto Moses? Because, you will say, the Bible says so. The Koran says, that God spake unto Mahomet, do you believe that too? No.

"Why not? Because, you will say, you do not believe it; and so because you do, and because you don't is all the reason you can give for believing or disbelieving except that you will say that Mahomet was an impostor. And how do you know Moses was not an impostor?

"For my own part, I believe that all are impostors who pretend to hold verbal communication with the Deity. It is the way by which the world has been imposed upon; but if you think otherwise you have the same right to your opinion that I have to mine, and must answer for it in the same manner. But all this does not settle the point, whether the Bible be the Word of God, or not. It is therefore necessary to go a step further. The case then is: - "

The rest can be found here.

Flash

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

11/18/2005 02:36:56 PM · #1132

Originally posted by scalvert:

I will ;-]

This is a problem that I have pondered about for some time. It was a question that drove me to challenge a basic tenent of my childhood teachings. It does not seem to make any sense that if ONE God created the world and man, and man was made in the image of God, and one of man's purposes was to praise (aka worship) God, then how could there be different religions? How could ONE God allow such a diverse interpretation of his divine word?

Was man that ignorant of "His Will" that we bastardized his teachings into the many forms of worship throughout the ages? Short answer - yes.

Long answer -Tough questions. I do not have answers for all of them. I do feel however, that 2 historical events have occured that permit a possible conciliation of these ponderments. For there to be "one" religion, then there would have to be a means to communicate the message of one religion. Prior to the 1st coming of Christ, the Roman's had built roadways throughout much of the known world. This allowed for communication to be greatly expanded. Additionally, a common form of greek existed which allowed communication between different languages and translations of current events was possible. This preceeded the 1st coming. As I have posted earlier, we currently have 3 groups awaiting the arrival of the Messiah. This is important on several fronts as it begs an explanation. How is it that more than half the worlds population is awaiting the same "savior"? We also have an similar set of circumstances in place that parrellell to the previous example. We have the internet which is akin to the roadways built by the Romans and we have English which is spoken throughout much of the world, which is akin to the common greek. We have at hand a set of parameters that would "allow" for vast communication of information to litterally the entire world. This prompts a possibility of the world being primed for a False Christ. A prophecy.

This seems to me, to be a partial answer to the apparent dilemna of why such different religions can coexist while one base religion is the "true" path to salvation. Meaning that the passage of the charge to "spread the good news" was dependent upon a means to share it and a language to share it in. There is not a responsibility to save (or convert) anyone, only to share the "good news". This was accomplished 2000 years ago and could be accomplished again today. Individuals then must choose whether to "listen". It is the "choice" component that then explains how believers of various religions can maintain their "faith" when it is in contradiction with the teachings of another.

This obviously does not address the questions of; What if they are right and we are wrong? Good question. However, it seems odd that both Rome and America were in existence at "opportune" times to provide catalysts required for the message to be heard.

corrections and additions

Message edited by author 2005-11-18 17:44:23.

11/18/2005 02:50:51 PM · #1133

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by scalvert:
1) A. "Paths" could simply mean channels, not currents and B. Anybody who's experienced undertow knows there are underwater currents that don't follow the wind

Perhaps. But, to my knowledge nothing "swims" in the undertow.

Ron,

To the contrary, "the undertow" is prime feeding habitat for species that dine on molluscs; the scouring action of the swift current over the sea bottom uncovers them, and their predators are quick to take advantage.

Robt.

11/18/2005 03:39:45 PM · #1134

Originally posted by bear_music:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by scalvert:
1) A. "Paths" could simply mean channels, not currents and B. Anybody who's experienced undertow knows there are underwater currents that don't follow the wind

Perhaps. But, to my knowledge nothing "swims" in the undertow.

Ron,

To the contrary, "the undertow" is prime feeding habitat for species that dine on molluscs; the scouring action of the swift current over the sea bottom uncovers them, and their predators are quick to take advantage.

Robt.

Not to be contrarian :) but I was absolutely correct in what I said, which was that "to my knowledge" nothing swam in the undertow.
At the time, that was quite true. My knowledge has now been increased.

Be that as it may. I still maintain that neither undertows nor rip currents are of the nature that I would call "paths". In the Greek, the word in Psalm 8:8 is "orach" which has, in English, a number of possible translations. These include caravan, path, and byway - but not channel or current. In fact, "orach" has as its root the word "arach" which, in English, is "to travel".

Message edited by author 2005-11-18 15:47:50.

11/18/2005 03:48:20 PM · #1135

Originally posted by RonB:

1) Psalms 8:8 ( circa 1000 B.C. ) in which the Bible speaks of "all that swim the paths of the sea". Although surface currents may have been known at the time, underwater currents were not.

Originally posted by RonB:

In the Greek, the word in Psalm 8:8 is "orach" which has ...a number of possible translations. These include caravan, path, and byway - but not channel or current.

You used "orach" to prove the discovery of currents, but now you claim that "current" not a possible meaning of orach? Hey! Whose side are you on anyway? ;-)

Message edited by author 2005-11-18 16:19:14.

pidge

Canon EOS-7D Mark II

11/18/2005 04:46:13 PM · #1136

Rehashing old arguments in this thread, but I thought this would be an interesting read, regardless of if you agree or not with ID and if it should be taught in a science classroom

Vatican official refutes Intelligent Design

You may now resume your normally scheduled rant

11/18/2005 04:57:30 PM · #1137

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:
1) Psalms 8:8 ( circa 1000 B.C. ) in which the Bible speaks of "all that swim the paths of the sea". Although surface currents may have been known at the time, underwater currents were not.

Originally posted by RonB:
In the Greek, the word in Psalm 8:8 is "orach" which has ...a number of possible translations. These include caravan, path, and byway - but not channel or current.

You used "orach" to prove the discovery of currents, but now you claim that "current" not a possible meaning of orach? Hey! Who's side are you on anyway? ;-)

My bad. I let you lead me down a garden path. I spoke of underwater currents, and you responded that the word for paths could mean channels ( which it can't ), but that everyone knows that undertows are underwater currents. What I should have done, is rebut your first statement on its own merits.

Let me correct that oversight now.

1) the Greek word orach, though it does not mean "current", DOES mean path or byway, and its root means "to travel".

2) Since an undertow is not used for travelling, it does not qualify as a "path" of the sea

3) Since mMarine life, including fish, algai, lobsters, tuna, and turtles among others ( watch Finding Nemo for a nice demonstration ) DO use the underwater ocean currents ( other than undertows ) for purposes of TRAVELLING, THOSE underwater currents DO qualify as "paths of the sea).

I apologize for a) responding too quickly, and b) letting my eagerness to rebut your false assertions override the more studied approach that I should have taken - which is to rebut your false statements.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

11/18/2005 05:11:14 PM · #1138

Originally posted by RonB:

Ron,

First, let me say I was aware of the "to my knowledge" qualifier; my goal was simply to increase your knowledge here :-)

Regarding "Orach" and "Pathways", since time out of mind seafaring peoples have been aware of ocean currents and used them for migration/travel. Indeed, to a certain extent they were MORE aware of them in those days than we are now, for they were at the mercy of them. But, very definitely, ocean currents have been referred to as "pathways of the sea" for a very long time. They were, in fact, one of the defining oceanic characteristics as far as ancient seafarers were conerned, and they had a suprisingly sophisticated knowledge of them. There are, for example, "current maps" created by ancient Polynesian seafarers that still survive, in the form of shells strung on a matrix of strans in a wooden frame.

What I'm unsure of is how/why you came to this distinction of "deep currents" or "undertow" at all. I don't have time to go back through the thread to figure that out right now...

Robt.

res0m50r

Canon EOS-30D

11/18/2005 05:11:35 PM · #1139

Just a few fun facts!

********************************************
Ashamed to be Texan
-The fastest growing rant thread in this history of DPC to date.
-Start Date: 11/09/2005
-End Date: N/A at this time
-Total Post: 1134 at this time
********************************************

********************************************
Discover Freedoms
-This was the first and last rant thread previous to Ashamed to be Texan thread to break the 1000 post mark.
-Started: 03/06/2003
-Ended: 11/28/2004
-Total Post: 1246
********************************************

Previous to it
********************************************
DPC Record Attempt
-This was the highest post count rant thread to date.
-Started: 08/23/2004
-Ended: 10/04/2004
-Total Post: 1528
********************************************

Message edited by author 2005-11-18 17:26:45.

Strikeslip

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

11/18/2005 05:13:38 PM · #1140

Wow, this thread is huge!

Someone should hire a geologist to finish it.

;-)

pidge

Canon EOS-7D Mark II

11/18/2005 05:18:30 PM · #1141

Originally posted by Strikeslip:

Wow, this thread is huge!

Someone should hire a geologist to finish it.

;-)

Just shine a light on your beard, those grey hairs should reflect enough light for you to find your way ;)

Strikeslip

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

11/18/2005 05:19:25 PM · #1142

Originally posted by pidge:

Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Wow, this thread is huge!

Someone should hire a geologist to finish it.

;-)

Just shine a light on your beard, those grey hairs should reflect enough light for you to find your way ;)

LOL... OUCH! :-P

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/18/2005 05:19:28 PM · #1143

Originally posted by bear_music:

What I'm unsure of is how/why you came to this distinction of "deep currents" or "undertow" at all. I don't have time to go back through the thread to figure that out right now...

Robt.

I believe because his chosen edition uses the preposition "in the sea ..." rather than "on the sea ..." in some predictive quotation, meaning that the Bible predicts undersea currents scientifically unknown at the time.

pidge

Canon EOS-7D Mark II

11/18/2005 05:23:50 PM · #1144

Originally posted by Strikeslip:

Originally posted by pidge:

Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Wow, this thread is huge!

Someone should hire a geologist to finish it.

;-)

Just shine a light on your beard, those grey hairs should reflect enough light for you to find your way ;)

LOL... OUCH! :-P

I can't find the huggy one, so here's this instead.

11/18/2005 05:26:47 PM · #1145

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by bear_music:
What I'm unsure of is how/why you came to this distinction of "deep currents" or "undertow" at all. I don't have time to go back through the thread to figure that out right now...

Robt.

I believe because his chosen edition uses the preposition "in the sea ..." rather than "on the sea ..." in some predictive quotation, meaning that the Bible predicts undersea currents scientifically unknown at the time.

That's silly: any current, by definition, is "in" the sea. If it were "on" the sea, it would be separate from it and resting upon it, as for example a boat might be. And even then, I'd argue that a boat that is "on" the sea is also "in" the sea, in the sense that it penetrates the surface of the sea.

Robt.

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

11/18/2005 05:29:01 PM · #1146

Originally posted by bear_music:

Originally posted by RonB:
My bad. I let you lead me down a garden path. I spoke of underwater currents, and you responded that the word for paths could mean channels ( which it can't ), but that everyone knows that undertows are underwater currents. What I should have done, is rebut your first statement on its own merits.

Let me correct that oversight now.

1) the Greek word orach, though it does not mean "current", DOES mean path or byway, and its root means "to travel".

2) Since an undertow is not used for travelling, it does not qualify as a "path" of the sea

3) Since mMarine life, including fish, algai, lobsters, tuna, and turtles among others ( watch Finding Nemo for a nice demonstration ) DO use the underwater ocean currents ( other than undertows ) for purposes of TRAVELLING, THOSE underwater currents DO qualify as "paths of the sea).

I apologize for a) responding too quickly, and b) letting my eagerness to rebut your false assertions override the more studied approach that I should have taken - which is to rebut your false statements.

Ron,

First, let me say I was aware of the "to my knowledge" qualifier; my goal was simply to increase your knowledge here :-)

I was just having a little pun at your expense.

Originally posted by bear_music:

Regarding "Orach" and "Pathways", since time out of mind seafaring peoples have been aware of ocean currents and used them for migration/travel. Indeed, to a certain extent they were MORE aware of them in those days than we are now, for they were at the mercy of them.

Yes, those were surface currents and were dependent on prevailing winds.

Originally posted by bear_music:

But, very definitely, ocean currents have been referred to as "pathways of the sea" for a very long time.

How long is a "very long time"? Do references precede 1000 B.C.? Did they include underwater currents before the mid 1800's?

Originally posted by bear_music:

They were, in fact, one of the defining oceanic characteristics as far as ancient seafarers were conerned, and they had a suprisingly sophisticated knowledge of them. There are, for example, "current maps" created by ancient Polynesian seafarers that still survive, in the form of shells strung on a matrix of strans in a wooden frame.

All true, and all related to surface currents.

Originally posted by bear_music:

What I'm unsure of is how/why you came to this distinction of "deep currents" or "undertow" at all. I don't have time to go back through the thread to figure that out right now...

Robt.

Because it was the scripture that led Mr. Maury to look for underwater currents.
And it was SCalvert that tried to confuse the issue by interjecting undertows.

milo655321

Nikon D70

11/18/2005 05:43:33 PM · #1147

Originally posted by RonB:

Because it was the scripture that led Mr. Maury to look for underwater currents.

There appears to be some disagreement with you on that claim:

â��However, readers may want to treat one claim with a little suspicion (see Major, 1995). Several accounts suggest that Maury was so confident about Godâ��s Word that his mapping of ocean currents resulted directly from reading or hearing about the â��paths of the seasâ�� in Psalm 8:8. Some go on to suggest that ocean currents would have remained hidden unless Maury had read this passage in the Bible. Some set this crucial event in Mauryâ��s childhood, and others set it during the recovery from his accident. One popular account by Virginia Lee Cox has a son reading to Maury during an illness (Lewis, 1927, p. 252), but Maury began his mapping project when the oldest son was only two years old. Another problem is that some currents, such as the Gulf Stream, were well-studied by the 1840s. Mauryâ��s feat was to bring his scientific knowledge to bear on a vast array of nautical information, but he was not the first to discover ocean currents.â��

11/18/2005 06:09:22 PM · #1148

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by bear_music:
Regarding "Orach" and "Pathways", since time out of mind seafaring peoples have been aware of ocean currents and used them for migration/travel. Indeed, to a certain extent they were MORE aware of them in those days than we are now, for they were at the mercy of them.

Yes, those were surface currents and were dependent on prevailing winds.

That's simply NOT true. Deep ocean and even most coastal currents are NOT dependent upon prevailing winds. They have thermodynamic roots; movement of waters based on temperature gradients. A classic example is the recurring "El Nino" current when changes in water temperature reverse the normal flow of the Pacific coastal currents and bring much warmer water much further north than usual.

Robt.