Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Religion IS crazy!

Jump to new
bellenuit said:
No you haven't. You continue to vacillate between 23 being the original components and 23 being the leftover components as in these two statements from above.....

"Through removal of an item from the 23 components of the man a woman was fashioned."

and

The next clue: 24 - 1 = 23

However, lets skip the math for a moment and consider the original basis of your argument.

Imagine a medieval monk translating an ancient language equivalent of my statement!
There he is wondering what is meant by the removal of an item from one of 23 components of a man. Bearing in mind that he has no knowledge of chromosomes, said monk erroneously concludes that the statement must be in reference to the human ribcage after removal of one of the ribs!

But people today know what chromosomes are and the translations of the Bible are constantly being retested by scholars. Wouldn't they have picked up on it by now if that was a mistranslation. And what a whopper it would be of a mistranslation. It is not just making the wrong choice between two possible interpretations of one word (for instance it is claimed that the word that was translated to "virgin" in relation to Mary also meant "young girl").

This is the text as we know it today:

"And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said: 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.'" (Genesis 2:18, 21-23, NKJV)

How on earth do you get a child receiving 23 chromosomes from each parent from that. What way could you reformulate that to convey what you are suggesting without pretty much discarding everything and writing something completely different. As I have said so many times, 23 does not come into it. 1 component was taken. That passage does not mention left over components anywhere.
Click to expand...

I'm with you, Bellenuit.
 
With incoming cyclone in WA, hmm, this seems appropriate.....

(Some swearing [little bit], but nothing we can't handle)


 
Last edited by a moderator:
bellenuit said:
No you haven't. You continue to vacillate between 23 being the original components and 23 being the leftover components as in these two statements from above.....

"Through removal of an item from the 23 components of the man a woman was fashioned."

and

The next clue: 24 - 1 = 23

However, lets skip the math for a moment and consider the original basis of your argument.

Imagine a medieval monk translating an ancient language equivalent of my statement!
There he is wondering what is meant by the removal of an item from one of 23 components of a man. Bearing in mind that he has no knowledge of chromosomes, said monk erroneously concludes that the statement must be in reference to the human ribcage after removal of one of the ribs!

But people today know what chromosomes are and the translations of the Bible are constantly being retested by scholars. Wouldn't they have picked up on it by now if that was a mistranslation. And what a whopper it would be of a mistranslation. It is not just making the wrong choice between two possible interpretations of one word (for instance it is claimed that the word that was translated to "virgin" in relation to Mary also meant "young girl").

This is the text as we know it today:

"And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said: 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.'" (Genesis 2:18, 21-23, NKJV)

How on earth do you get a child receiving 23 chromosomes from each parent from that. What way could you reformulate that to convey what you are suggesting without pretty much discarding everything and writing something completely different. As I have said so many times, 23 does not come into it. 1 component was taken. That passage does not mention left over components anywhere.
Click to expand...
You are already well aware that our earliest, extant, written accounts for the book of Genesis, are not original accounts as they have been transcribed and/or translated from earlier times!

This leads me to question the rmotivation behind your continued protestations.

l've re-examined my posts several times in search of logical and/or numerical errors. Although I cannot claim impartiality, I've been unable to discern any logical omissions or unaccounted numerical discrepancies within my discourse.
I do understand your comments regarding the numerical vacillation between numbers whether they be 24(ribs), 23 (chromosomal pairs) or 1(something removed). I maintain that my medieval monk hypothesis provides a simple and plausibly logical accounting of all numerical and literal anomalies. Please note said hypothesis could equally be applied to any translation predating our earliest available written records. Should the term "medieval monk" present a challenge to understanding, one may readily substitute other terms (e.g. "Iron Age Shaman" or similar) for adaptation to earlier epochs.

In the spirit of healthy skepticism, are you able to offer a more logical account for the existence of the biblical passage in question?

Speaking of skepticism, did you notice the logical flaw I hinted at(i.e. word clue: "Pioneer") in your earlier philosophical discourse?
 
cynic said:
In the spirit of healthy skepticism, are you able to offer a more logical account for the existence of the biblical passage in question?
Click to expand...

Heavens Cynic. A more logical account is blatantly obvious. It is simply a collection of stories written by fairly primitive people whose understanding of science was nothing more than superstition and mythology of the time. Why would you assume that the missing original text described the creation of Eve as involving the passing on of 23 chromosomes from Adam (which is wrong in any case as it requires 23 chromosomes from two parents, not one, and relates to an offspring not an unrelated female), when the best the same book can offer for an explanation of the creation of Adam is that he was created from dirt. Is that a mistranslation too, as we also know that men get 23 chromosomes from each of their parents too

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Genesis 2:7 King James Version (KJV)

And you still haven't answered how the mistranslation could be so bad that they ended up with the text we associate with the creation of Eve as described in previous posts.

In fact whenever the Bible deals with not so obvious scientific facts, facts that would not be readily known by the people of the day, it usually gets it wrong. For example:

After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.

An almost spherical earth does not have 4 corners.

Can you name one scientific fact relating to any field of science that the Bible revealed that was not already known to those living at the time the various books were written.

If you think it was revealing the inheritance of 23 chromosomes from each parent then surely there must be hundreds of other examples. And if there are no other examples, why would there be this one single item sitting there all on its own that describes a very complex and modern understanding of genetics? You have offered no explanation other than the number 23 being a common factor though only common by distorting its relevance to the text as we know it.
 
I state it plainly.

I have given ample account of how easily the story of the creation of Eve is logically, and symbolically recognisable as a valid description of the genetic process whereby a female results from the removal of the "y" from one of the 23 chromosomal pairs of the male!
The medieval monk hypothesis is simply one of numerous constructs that I could have chosen to provide plausible account for any literal or numeric anomalies.
If you seriously expect me to accept your assertion that this story is solely the product of the wild imaginings of primitive people, then please tell me how you account for the extraordinary symbolic similarities between their account and our more recent (past few centuries) genetic discoveries?
 
cynic said:
I state it plainly.

I have given ample account of how easily the story of the creation of Eve is logically, and symbolically recognisable as a valid description of the genetic process whereby a female results from the removal of the "y" from one of the 23 chromosomal pairs of the male!
The medieval monk hypothesis is simply one of numerous constructs that I could have chosen to provide plausible account for any literal or numeric anomalies.
If you seriously expect me to accept your assertion that this story is solely the product of the wild imaginings of primitive people, then please tell me how you account for the extraordinary symbolic similarities between their account and our more recent (past few centuries) genetic discoveries?
Click to expand...

Cynic. You are referring to 23 items being left over after the removal of 1 item from 24 as offering extraordinary symbolic similarities between their account and our more recent (past few centuries) genetic discoveries. I'm afraid you think on a very different plane to me, so I see no point in arguing as I have further. You keep ignoring every other issue I have raised as if it is irrelevant, such as to why there is no other piece in the Bible that hints at our modern understanding of genetics other than this single passage that has no relationship to how a woman is conceived other than there been a number 23 figure as a side calculation (1 is the relevant number in that piece when it comes to the number of donated items, 23 isn't mentioned) and you also particularly ignored why the author chose to describe the creation of Adam without conveying similar genetic insights, though that description is from the same book.

However, since you believe that a mistranslation is a possible explanation, I would be interested in how you think the translation would have been if it was to convey what you believe it is conveying (I'm still not sure whether you think it is conveying the creation of the first woman in adult form or of a baby girl from its parents). This is the translation as we know it.

"And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said: 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.'" (Genesis 2:18, 21-23, NKJV)

It has under 100 words. We know you don't have the original text to be able to actually translate what was written, but if you believe it was mistranslated and you believe that it accurately described modern genetics, what do you think it might have said. You are not limited to 100 words, but unless the translators completely rewrote that passage, one would assume that the correct translation would be of similar length.
 
bellenuit said:
Cynic. You are referring to 23 items being left over after the removal of 1 item from 24 as offering extraordinary symbolic similarities between their account and our more recent (past few centuries) genetic discoveries. I'm afraid you think on a very different plane to me, so I see no point in arguing as I have further. You keep ignoring every other issue I have raised as if it is irrelevant, such as to why there is no other piece in the Bible that hints at our modern understanding of genetics other than this single passage that has no relationship to how a woman is conceived other than there been a number 23 figure as a side calculation (1 is the relevant number in that piece when it comes to the number of donated items, 23 isn't mentioned) and you also particularly ignored why the author chose to describe the creation of Adam without conveying similar genetic insights, though that description is from the same book.

However, since you believe that a mistranslation is a possible explanation, I would be interested in how you think the translation would have been if it was to convey what you believe it is conveying (I'm still not sure whether you think it is conveying the creation of the first woman in adult form or of a baby girl from its parents). This is the translation as we know it.

"And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said: 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.'" (Genesis 2:18, 21-23, NKJV)

It has under 100 words. We know you don't have the original text to be able to actually translate what was written, but if you believe it was mistranslated and you believe that it accurately described modern genetics, what do you think it might have said. You are not limited to 100 words, but unless the translators completely rewrote that passage, one would assume that the correct translation would be of similar length.
Click to expand...

For the record I state again that I cannot claim to total impartiality. However, I am still currently of the firm and honest belief that I have already provided adequate response to your repeated questions.

Bearing in mind that I consider us both equally capable of recognising our own personal capacities for error, I would ask that we both give due consideration to our personal motivations. Am I /are you attempting to arrive at an understanding of something that is potentially new? Or, am I /are you attempting to arrive at a misunderstanding in order to preserve my/your treasured personal philosophy?

On that note, I have noticed that you are yet to answer my question regarding a certain logical flaw (to which I have already alluded) found within your expressed views on the importance of skepticism:

cynic said:
bellenuit,

I find your accounts of the purposes and benefits of skepticism largely agreeable, however, I would ask that you cast your skeptical eye over the following excerpt and see whether there might be a logical flaw present in this part of your acclaimed skeptic philosophy. (To further narrow it down for you I offer the following word clue: "Pioneer").
Click to expand...

bellenuit said:
...How do you disprove that someone hasn't been abducted by aliens if they make that claim? However, past experience tells us what is the most likely explanation to be true.
...
Click to expand...
cynic said:
...
Speaking of skepticism, did you notice the logical flaw I hinted at(i.e. word clue: "Pioneer") in your earlier philosophical discourse?
Click to expand...

I believe that this represents a sufficient variance in our respective personal philosophy to adequately account our continued "Oh yes I have! Oh no you haven't" disagreement on the eventuation of the biblical passage under discussion.
 
cynic said:
On that note, I have noticed that you are yet to answer my question regarding a certain logical flaw (to which I have already alluded) found within your expressed views on the importance of skepticism
Click to expand...

No, I didn't notice the logical flaw. BTW, are you going to provide your opinion of what the translation should have said to lend support to your hypothesis that it provided insights into modern genetic discoveries.
 
bellenuit said:
No, I didn't notice the logical flaw. BTW, are you going to provide your opinion of what the translation should have said to lend support to your hypothesis that it provided insights into modern genetic discoveries.
Click to expand...

Thankyou bellenuit.

Your revelation tells me that there is indeed a
cynic said:
...sufficient variance in our respective personal philosophy to adequately account our continued "Oh yes I have! Oh no you haven't" disagreement on the eventuation of the biblical passage under discussion.
Click to expand...

From your revelation, I now recognise the presence of a perspective that severely limits the possibility of any productive continuance of this discussion.

Given the curious tendencies of humanity, I find it interesting that whilst claiming not to have seen it, you have not asked me for an account of the "logical flaw" I discerned.
 
cynic said:
Thankyou bellenuit.

Your revelation tells me that there is indeed a


From your revelation, I now recognise the presence of a perspective that severely limits the possibility of any productive continuance of this discussion.

Given the curious tendencies of humanity, I find it interesting that whilst claiming not to have seen it, you have not asked me for an account of the "logical flaw" I discerned.
Click to expand...

I assumed you would account for it without being asked. But you seem to avoid everything asked of you so perhaps I expected too much.
 
bellenuit said:
I assumed you would account for it without being asked. But you seem to avoid everything asked of you so perhaps I expected too much.
Click to expand...
Much as I suspected! You did indeed spot it!
Needless to say , we both know that you definitely don't want to own it!
 
cynic said:
Much as I suspected! You did indeed spot it!
Needless to say , we both know that you definitely don't want to own it!
Click to expand...

As I said, I did not spot it. If you want to enlighten me, then please go ahead. But don't suggest I am a liar.
 
cynic said:
I state it plainly.

I have given ample account of how easily the story of the creation of Eve is logically, and symbolically recognisable as a valid description of the genetic process whereby a female results from the removal of the "y" from one of the 23 chromosomal pairs of the male!
The medieval monk hypothesis is simply one of numerous constructs that I could have chosen to provide plausible account for any literal or numeric anomalies.
If you seriously expect me to accept your assertion that this story is solely the product of the wild imaginings of primitive people, then please tell me how you account for the extraordinary symbolic similarities between their account and our more recent (past few centuries) genetic discoveries?
Click to expand...

bellenuit, I note that you are yet to provide an alternative account for the symbolic similarities.
I also know that the observations I am making present sufficient challenges to numerous belief (and disbelief) systems. Those holding too dearly to such belief systems are unlikely to even want to understand what I am highlighting, as acceptance of such, would be, not only humiliating, it would force them to abandon their comfortable illusion of superiority.

Your desperate efforts to misunderstand what I am saying have not escaped my attention.
 
MONTY PYTHON STAR WON'T JOKE ABOUT ISLAM FOR FEAR OF VIOLENT BLOWBACK

Don't expect any wacky Islam-based skits when Monty Python reunites in the new year.

The British troupe is known for poking fun at all manner of subjects, including religion in films like Monty Python's Life of Brian. But Monty Python member Michael Palin says making even an innocent joke about Islam puts a comic in the cross-hairs, and he prefers to stay far, far away from that. Religion in general is a far more touchy subject than it was 30 years ago, he says, but one religion makes mockery a dangerous business.

‘Religion is more difficult to talk about. I don’t think we could do Life of Brian any more. A parody of Islam would be even harder.
‘We all saw what happened to Salman Rushdie and none of us want to get into all that. It’s a pity but that’s the way it is. There are people out there without a sense of humour and they’re heavily armed.’

The show must go on all the same, since several Python members told the press that financial reward is a key reason for the upcoming reunion shows.
Click to expand...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2013/12/30/monty-python-fears-islam
 
bellenuit said:
Burger King recalls 'sacrilegious' desserts

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/burger-king-recalls-sacrilegious-desserts-1-1096308
Click to expand...

What a joke....


However, it is 9 years old.

Lid
BK-Cones.jpg
 

Attachments

  • BK-Cones.jpg
    BK-Cones.jpg
    25 KB · Views: 11
Top