Terry Watkins #fundie

Terry Watkins #fundie av1611.org

To realize how Amazing that Book is; compare what the scientists taught when that Amazing Book was written. They believed lightning bolts were missiles from the gods. The Vedas (Hindu sacred book) taught, to get rain, tie a frog with his mouth open to a tree and repeat some magic words - and presto - rain! The Egyptians believed stars were the souls of dead people who were now gods. The Greeks believed a god named Atlas held the earth on his shoulders. Some taught the earth sat on the backs of several large (very large!) elephants. And the elephants were resting on the back of a large (very, very large!) turtle! And the turtle? He was resting on a large (very, very, very large!) snake! And the snake? Well, you get the picture.

But, that Amazing Book, contains nothing so foolish!

53 comments

old comment by Torquemada

Ok, folks, listen up. Uncle Torquemada is going to give you a lesson in historical hermeneutics. When it comes to interpreting historical documents, rule numero uno is: Don't try to read modern categories, concepts, or expectations into the document you are analyzing. Instead, try to understand what categories the original authors were working with.

The argument that the Bible describes insects as having four legs is a shoddy one, at best. "Insect" was not a category that the ancient Hebrew was familiar with. The authors of Leviticus did not use a classification system like we have today. Instead, they simply referred to "creeping things." "Insect" is an unfortunate modernization that came about when the Bible was translated into English.

Likewise, the reference to bats being "birds" is equally inappropriate. The Hebrews did not use a classification system like we have today, and did not have a specific, scientific category for "birds." They simply referred to "winged creatures" or "flying creatures."

I don't mind people knocking the Bible, but please make an effort to knock it accurately, folks. The old "bats are birds" and "insects have four legs" arguments are wearing thin and reflect a poor understanding of the original Old Testament documents.

old comment by tracer

Torquemada wrote:

"The argument that the Bible describes insects as having four legs is a shoddy one, at best. "Insect" was not a category that the ancient Hebrew was familiar with. The authors of Leviticus did not use a classification system like we have today. Instead, they simply referred to "creeping things." "Insect" is an unfortunate modernization that came about when the Bible was translated into English."

Bullpuckey.

Leviticus 11:20-23 explicitly includes locusts, katydids, crickets, and grasshoppers in the category of "winged creatures that have four legs."

And that "four legs" isn't just a metaphorical translation into English. The Hebrew word there is 'arba` , which literally means "four."

There is no if, and, but, or metaphor about it. The bible clearly, unequivocably states that at least 4 known species of what-we-classify-today-as-insects have FOUR LEGS.

old comment by Brain_In_A_Jar

This "Amazing Book" of yours also contains the ludicrous, and dangerous, ideas that responsibility for one's actions can somehow be transferred to somebody else after the fact if only they'll agree to take it, and that as long as somebody receives sufficient punishment to match the crime, it doesn't actually matter whether it was him that did it - at the core of this supposedly enlightened doctrine still lies the barbaric notion of retributionary justice. For all its talk of forgiveness, it still holds that for every crime punishment must be meted out to somebody, apparently regardless of who.

Retributionary justice is neither morally justifiable nor effective at reducing crime, and in a causal universe you can't transfer responsibility to someone else, not even if they're perfectly happy for you to do so, any more than you can change any other aspect of the past.

Terry Watkins #fundie av1611.org

53 comments

Confused?