They sound like Islanders. https://www.facebook.com/leka24kaufusi
They need some of that "old time religion".
They sound like Islanders. https://www.facebook.com/leka24kaufusiCourt told two men committed random assault on Gold Coast after attending church camp
Seems they didn't catch the meaning of the church at the camp! Must be atheists
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.
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!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.
In the spirit of healthy skepticism, are you able to offer a more logical account for the existence of the biblical passage in question?
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. 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,
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").
...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.
...
cynic said:...
Speaking of skepticism, did you notice the logical flaw I hinted at(i.e. word clue: "Pioneer") in your earlier philosophical discourse?
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
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.
...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.
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.
Much as I suspected! You did indeed spot it!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.
Much as I suspected! You did indeed spot it!
Needless to say , we both know that you definitely don't want to own 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?
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.
I can certainly understand why he doesn't want to touch Islam, but I wonder why he feels they couldn't do Life of Brian now? Who is he frightened of?MONTY PYTHON STAR WON'T JOKE ABOUT ISLAM FOR FEAR OF VIOLENT BLOWBACK
Burger King recalls 'sacrilegious' desserts
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/burger-king-recalls-sacrilegious-desserts-1-1096308
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?