Is Intelligent Design Scientific Theory?

[ShaneMan]

No need to apologize. I'm not saying you are being argumentative. Just that I didn't want to bore everyone with my waffle after I had already made my main point. But, for the sake of trying to explain more fully...

The verse you quoted says one thing to me: your interpretation seems to give that passage a broader meaning of that same passage. The same problem plagues almost any religious text. Which is where Kraj is on-point.

For example, you seem to think that God would have checked over the texts during/after their authorship by imperfect humans (presumably to make sure that the scientific validity of the words is ok?).

That's not in the passage you quoted that I can see. I would agree that it would be logical for God to do such a QC review with regard to the scientific validity of the texts. But that assumes:

1. God follows my sense of logic.
2. God cares about the scientific validity of the creation account.
3. That is even possible for the written language of the day to convey such concepts accurately.

The first two assumptions require me to make some kind of guess as to God's intentions/motivations (2) and behavior (1).

That is how your verse tied to my earlier comment.

As for (3): try accurately describing a car and it's engine without using words like pistons, compression, steel, plastic, brakes, factory, motor, gasoline, oil, combustion, sparkplugs, electricity etc. When cars first came out, people called them 'horseless carriages' as the best descriptor that they could think of. It made sense to them but as our vocabulary evolved, the term was dropped. It was 'true' in the sense they intended, but it fails to accurately describe the essence of the car.

Now, harken back to the ancient Hebrew world where concepts like a spherical earth, space-time continuums, gravity, alternate planes of existence, a universe filled with other worlds and stars, etc were unheard of. Now, try to explain the entire creation of the universe in the words that people of the day could understand in just a few paragraphs.

I think it is impossible to do while preserving scientific accuracy. Not because of God's limitations, but because of human limitations.

Now look, you've gone and made me get long-winded again!

No, I'm glad you took the time to explain, because putting it that way then I'm starting to see what your saying and would have to say I would be in agreement. An example that I think fits real well is Revalation. John is seeing events that are no telling how far into the future, so he's trying to write down things he's never seen before the best he can. He knows he's seeing a war of some kind but he's limited to what he's seen up to this point in his life or what history has revealed up to this point. If it was today's times (he was seeing) then how would he describe a helicopter? Maybe a head of a lion the tail of a scorpion, like one of his descriptions? Thanks for taking the time to explain.

 

[ShaneMan]

You chose a quote from the Bible that is tremendously open to interpretation, which seems to prove the point that the message God was trying to communicate with that particular passage could quite easily muddled by human language and individual perception.

Perhaps so, but I don't know that it really should be. The New Testament was written in Greek and if we go to the original language and see what was written then I start having a harder time understanding why it would be tremendously open to interpretation. The Bible says what it says. I would think from there a person either believes it or doesn't.

This is from Easton's Bible Dictionary:

that extraordinary or supernatural divine influence vouchsafed to those who wrote the Holy Scriptures, rendering their writings infallible. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" ( R.V., "Every scripture inspired of God"), 2Ti 3:16. This is true of all the "sacred writings," not in the sense of their being works of genius or of supernatural insight, but as "theopneustic," i.e., "breathed into by God" in such a sense that the writers were supernaturally guided to express exactly what God intended them to express as a revelation of his mind and will. The testimony of the sacred writers themselves abundantly demonstrates this truth; and if they are infallible as teachers of doctrine, then the doctrine of plenary inspiration must be accepted. There are no errors in the Bible as it came from God, none have been proved to exist. Difficulties and phenomena we cannot explain are not errors. All these books of the Old and New Testaments are inspired. We do not say that they contain, but that they are, the Word of God. The gift of inspiration rendered the writers the organs of God, for the infallible communication of his mind and will, in the very manner and words in which it was originally given.

As to the nature of inspiration we have no information. This only we know, it rendered the writers infallible. They were all equally inspired, and are all equally infallible. The inspiration of the sacred writers did not change their characters. They retained all their individual peculiarities as thinkers or writers.

 

[Kraj]

OK, ShaneMan answer me one quick question: have you ever made a post in an online forum that you thought was very clear but someone who read it interpreted very differently than you intended? Or you interpreted a post very differently than the author intended?

 

[ShaneMan]

OK, ShaneMan answer me one quick question: have you ever made a post in an online forum that you thought was very clear but someone who read it interpreted very differently than you intended? Or you interpreted a post very differently than the author intended?

Sure, but you knew that before you asked, so I guess you've already made your point. Right?

 

[Rich]

Confronted with modern science, I suspect/hope that St Augustine would do a re-write.

You mean god couldn't see into the future?

 

[Bodisathva]

You mean god couldn't see into the future?

...it was written before the Edit Post button was invented

 

[Kraj]

Sure, but you knew that before you asked, so I guess you've already made your point. Right?

I suppose that's true. It's conceivable you never experienced that, though, so assuming would have been a bad idea.

Regardless, it seems you did get my point; that all communication is subject to the interpretation of the sender and the receiver. Even if the Bible is directly inspired by God, language is still an imperfect communicator and it's not so simple as "it says what it says". The only perfect communication would be directly from God to the individual.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

If the Bible contains the word of God, then why are four Gospels different? Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John have different things to say. They don't contradict each other, but each omits things said by the others, and they often tell it somewhat differently. That is clearly because of differences in interpretation. Whoops, there is that nasty little word again.

If all Bibles are the work of God, then the King James version makes God a misogynist. (Because King James was a misogynist and he is the one who paid for that translation.) Women are deeply denigrated in the KJV. Or is it that the scribes who re-translated the KJV were influenced by the breath of money, not of God? Naw, that wouldn't happen, now would it?

If you read a more modern translation that went back to as many original texts as possible (including Dead Sea scrolls), you find discrepancies with other intermediate versions that clearly involve different nuances. Yet many times those nuances change at least part of the meaning of the Bible.

Then, of course, there is the bit about not adding to or taking away from the Bible. So how do you justify removal of the Apocrypha from the "official" Bible? They were god-breathed before, but later he changed his mind and held his breath?

And if you restore the Apocrypha, look long and hard at the book of Esdras, first several chapters. It essentially tells you that these TV evangelists who say "Send money and I will pray for you" are full of CRAP no matter how earnest they think they are. Intercessory prayers are useless. They are a waste of time. Whoops, that means that "praying to the saints" is also a pile of junk. (Although in New Orleans, "praying FOR the Saints" still has some lesser meaning. Geaux Saints!)

Sorry, guys, you caught me on a "rant" day. It is just that when you take TOO much from the Bible, you are asking for trouble precisely because it has been "handled" too many times. Too many cooks, don't you know?

 

[KalelGmoon]

if you look at them from the sides, some american helicopters look like locusts. the ah-64 I think it is the blackhawk is one of them and I think the cobra, one of the newer ones, is another. so that could be his interpretation of the swarm of locusts

 

[CraigDolphin]

You mean god couldn't see into the future?

What are you talking about?

St Augustine wrote his interpretation of Genesis sometime before his death in 430 BC. This treatise laid the foundation for the western Church's generally-accepted interpretation of Genesis since that time.

His interpretation of the bible is not in the bible. God did not write St Augustine's interpretation and no-one is claiming that he did. Moreover, the events of Genesis are in the past...unless I'm very greatly mistaken.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

DocMan is Correct,

>>>handled" too many times. Too many cooks, don't you know?<<<

The Bible may have been the work of god at one stage, however it has definitely been "handle" by many people over the years, mostly for political purposes.

What better way to keep the common man in line than using God's name to back up your political will and purpose.

For example whole chapters of the original Bible was thought Unsuitable for general publication, particularly the chapter by Enoch. There are examples of this chapter on the web and it is well worth Reading.

Enoch describes his assent to the seventh heaven where he met with God.

 

[BarryMK]

Enoch describes his assent to the seventh heaven where he met with God.

Funny, I don't recall ever meeting anyone called Enoch.

 

[Rich]

Funny, I don't recall ever meeting anyone called Enoch.

Wasn't he seen as a racist?

 

[BarryMK]

Wasn't he seen as a racist?

I think you mean realist!

For our international colleagues - check out Enoch Powell MP

 

[Adeptus]

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God" ( R.V., "Every scripture inspired of God"), 2Ti 3:16

And the movie of "I, Robot" was inspired by the novel by Isaac Asimov, but has very little of the original story intact...

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Adeptus, you are quite correct. Compare, for example, the movie Thunderball with Sean Connery vs. the Ian Fleming novel - then the movie Octopussy with Roger Moore vs. the Ian Fleming short-story. You see a whole RANGE of adaptation in only a few years from only one author. The Bible has had 20 CENTURIES to adapt.

BTW - my example was because Thunderball the movie was incredibly close to its adaptation source, while the entire short-story that was the "real" Octopussy was a single scene of less than two minutes in the movie, told in "expository lump" fashion. So the two movies represent massive differences in stories based on contemporary adaptation. I wonder how much adaptation has occurred in Der Bibl

 

[Kraj]

I wonder how much adaptation has occurred in Der Bibl

None. Because unlike every other action or event in the (non-Biblical) history of humanity, rather than allow people the free will to make their own mistakes and accomplishments, God decided that He would take a special interest in the Bible and directly comandeer people's minds to ensure absolutely every last word in the Bible is 100% true, accurate, and clear. In addition, He ensured that variables which may cause miscommunication like semantics, interpretation, imperfect language, and perception are all nullified when a person reads the Bible.

So there.

 

[Rich]

None. Because unlike every other action or event in the (non-Biblical) history of humanity, rather than allow people the free will to make their own mistakes and accomplishments, God decided that He would take a special interest in the Bible and directly comandeer people's minds to ensure absolutely every last word in the Bible is 100% true, accurate, and clear. In addition, He ensured that variables which may cause miscommunication like semantics, interpretation, imperfect language, and perception are all nullified when a person reads the Bible.

So there.

Is that why the commandment "thou shalt not kill" is now being re-classified as "thou shalt not murder"? and of course the fact that it was aimed at Jews is never mentioned

 

[KenHigg]

Is that why the commandment "thou shalt not kill" ...

Unless you're acting on behalf of the state and carrying out capital punisment...

 

[Rich]

Unless you're acting on behalf of the state and carrying out capital punisment...

I've been making the same point for years. Those who support it claim that they're just sending the executed to meet god earlier than expected, but then I'd have to ask them just who the hell gave them that right in the first place. So full of hypocrisy, don't you think