Not all republicans are conservatives and all democrats liberals. So, what's your point?
deranged wacko. I hope youre just pulling our legs. Most of the points you raised have been dismissed twenty plus years ago.
Deranged Wacko wrote: Besides, there has been proof in a way of religion in the fact that the ark of noah has been found,
Only by readers of the National Enquirer ...or is it the Star.
Here's one of the better links on explaining why the floods did not occur as the bible claims.
http://www.geocities.com/anatheist2001/subnoah.htm
But I must say that I like the idea of all human-kind being the decendants of Noah, since the floods killed all life on land.
But not the life in the sea? So creatures like the shark and dolphin and the lesser spotted wrass survived, but the plesiosaur, the mega-shark and the trilobite didn't. They couldn't have been less fit to survive and they couldn't have been wicked in the eyes of the Invisible Sky Being.
And if the seas were comprised of fresh water (from the flooding) ALL the salt-water adapted fish would have died, leaving the fresh-water fish that would have then died when the waters 'receded' (to where? They covered Everest for chrissake - there IS NOWHERE to recede to!) and left the salt-water seas 'behind'. And don't even get me started on Noah's Ark!
So, how did the dodo, the emu, and the rhea - all of them flightless birds separated from Eurasia by water - get to Palestine?
So what's the difference between a fundamentalist and a literalist? Sorry if this has already been brought up, but I might have forgotten.
Well these are my definitions of course, but in my opinion:
A fundamentalist is a person who believes the teachings of the early church, in a literal resurrection, in a literal heaven and hell, and follows the intent of God's Law as defined in the Bible. A fundamentalist may be guilty of proof texting--plucking a verse out of context to make a point--but s/he can also accept that much of the Bible is allegory, parable, poetry, symbolism, etc. and does not have to accept all of it literally. Such people rarely believe the earth was created in seven literal 24-hour days for instance. S/he more often than not does accept most modern science and will believe it to be God''s science.
The literalist, however, is an extreme fundamentalist who will go to his grave believing the Bible said God created the earth in seven days, therefore it was created in seven literal days. Therefore there is no evolution and no credible science that would support evolution or any earth sciences that contradict a literal interpretation of the Bible. These people may be loving, sincere, model citizens, etc., but they are able to somehow switch off the logic in their heads that would allow them to see that the Bible contains all the contradictions that it contains if one does take it literally.
What about all those different versions of the bible? There are slight differences. Would they just generally be following one version? What if you introduced a literalist to a different version of the bible?
Most use the King James version because 'if it was good enough for Jesus, it is good enough. . .' - just kidding.
Actually most do use the King James though some will use other versions. I think most would probably reject any modern translation that differed much from the King James.
Walter..
If you please let me know: In Germany, in what ratio "Die Bibel - Luther Übersetzung" (trans. by Martin Luther) is used? Just from curiosity. :wink:
Protestants use (mainly) the revised version of 1982 of the Luther bible; both Catholics and Protestants use (for Protestatnts: as well, for Catholics: only) the ecumenical translation, the so-called 'Einheitsübersetzung' (which indead isn't different very nuch to the revised Luther version).
Thanks, Walter.
I have a copy of Lutherbibel Standardausgabe mit Apokryphen Durchgesehene Ausgabe copyrighted 1999 Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart (Bibeltext in der revidirierten Fassung von 1984). I need it as a background for Bach's cantatas.
Oops - you are correct: the revised version is from 1984
Never mind, the revision seems to have taken 27 years from 1957 to 1984, and 1982 is contained in the interval.
I just wanted to know the popularity of the version. Thanks anyway.
A good article on this debate is in this month's _Wired_ Magazine
The attempt to wedge fundamentalist creationist ideas into the public education system is well organized and well funded, and cunningly disguised as "an opposing scientific theory".
In a world in which we use the knowledge of evolutionary theory to understand the disease process, stem cells and Genetics, the education of our children (future researchers and decision makers) is threatened with a corruption of basic scientific principles. While one group of fundamentalists blows up buildings with stolen airplanes, another group works to undermine the education of our children, the basic tenets of the US Constitution, and foundations of science; a branch of knowledge which humanity is now dependent on to support our civilization.
Some people feel the creation/evolution controversy is merely an interesting side note in state education. But as you can probably see from the paragraph above, I think it is far more important than most people realize.
Those who would interject their religious faith to the exclusion of science should be gently steered to educate their children elsewhere. The school should be careful of the faith of the children and tell them that what the science teacher teaches and what they believe are two different things. The children may believe whatever they believe regarding God and other faith matters, but they will nevertheless be required to know the material in the science book.
Then again there are times when parents have legitimately protested curriula that is sometimes is so far off the wall it should not be tolerated, such as one Freshman highschool English teacher who put Fanny Hill and Lady Chatterly's Lover on the approved reading list or the history teacher who was having her class act out witchcraft rites so they would better unerstand witches. Parents should be able to object when the schools veer too far away from community values/standards.
And people don't know that the King James bible was altered by King james (hence the name). The original bible had a slightly different meaning/interpretation.
The King James Bible wasn't altered by the king, but it was ordered translated into English. The translation, unfortunately, isn't the most accurate we have. Later translations from the origina Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek are by far more accurate than the King James Version, but unfortunately they don't match the beauty of the old English text and, to some, don't sound as 'scriptural' when read. Then there some politically correct modern translations that have rewritten the scriptures to be what the liberals wish they said instead of what they actually say.
Considering it all, however, it is pretty remarkable that these ancient manuscripts have made it all the way from then to now and I think the Bible is still the No. 1 best seller worldwide. At least it was a decade ago.
Foxfyre wrote:Considering it all, however, it is pretty remarkable that these ancient manuscripts have made it all the way from then to now and I think the Bible is still the No. 1 best seller worldwide. At least it was a decade ago.
The texts were substantially rewritten long before King James, the revision now known as the Vulgate of St Jerome dropped a lot of stuff that was probably too Mosaic (ie Jewish) or didn't 'fit in' with the rest. Remember, without the printing press or the internet or peer review the Pope and cardinals were The Authority on matters spiritual. It wasn't like anyone was going to contradict them, not unless they LIKED the idea of being burnt alive.
