Total Posts:74|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Newton's Principles is all a lie.

Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 12:41:04 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
If we read newton's book "Philosophia Naturalis"..

Yes he wrote it in Latin, But I'll be using the Andrew Motte Translation circa 1729. It is clearly the only accurate translation.

"herefore if hereafter, I should happen to consider quantities as made up of particles, or should use little curve lines for right ones; I would not be understood to mean indivisibles, but evanescent divisible quantities; not the sums and ratio's of determinate parts, but always the limits of sums and ratio's: "

Now if I go just by the words as they literally are of an accurate translation, I'm left to ask what the heck is a "Evanescent divisible quantity"? "evanescent" means quickly fading, disappearing. How is the number 2 quickly disappearing?

It's like saying the moon shines with light when everyone in the 21st century knows the moon doesn't emit it's own light but reflects the light from the sun. But i digress Newton says the number 2 disappears right before our eyes!

By taking a literal interpretation we see newton's work is wrong from cover to cover.

And this was in the first chapter.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 1:15:42 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/11/2016 12:41:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
If we read newton's book "Philosophia Naturalis"..

Yes he wrote it in Latin, But I'll be using the Andrew Motte Translation circa 1729. It is clearly the only accurate translation.

"herefore if hereafter, I should happen to consider quantities as made up of particles, or should use little curve lines for right ones; I would not be understood to mean indivisibles, but evanescent divisible quantities; not the sums and ratio's of determinate parts, but always the limits of sums and ratio's: "

Now if I go just by the words as they literally are of an accurate translation, I'm left to ask what the heck is a "Evanescent divisible quantity"? "evanescent" means quickly fading, disappearing. How is the number 2 quickly disappearing?

It's like saying the moon shines with light when everyone in the 21st century knows the moon doesn't emit it's own light but reflects the light from the sun. But i digress Newton says the number 2 disappears right before our eyes!

By taking a literal interpretation we see newton's work is wrong from cover to cover.

And this was in the first chapter.

What does this have to do with religion?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 1:39:35 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/11/2016 1:15:42 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/11/2016 12:41:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
If we read newton's book "Philosophia Naturalis"..

Yes he wrote it in Latin, But I'll be using the Andrew Motte Translation circa 1729. It is clearly the only accurate translation.

"herefore if hereafter, I should happen to consider quantities as made up of particles, or should use little curve lines for right ones; I would not be understood to mean indivisibles, but evanescent divisible quantities; not the sums and ratio's of determinate parts, but always the limits of sums and ratio's: "

Now if I go just by the words as they literally are of an accurate translation, I'm left to ask what the heck is a "Evanescent divisible quantity"? "evanescent" means quickly fading, disappearing. How is the number 2 quickly disappearing?

It's like saying the moon shines with light when everyone in the 21st century knows the moon doesn't emit it's own light but reflects the light from the sun. But i digress Newton says the number 2 disappears right before our eyes!

By taking a literal interpretation we see newton's work is wrong from cover to cover.

And this was in the first chapter.

What does this have to do with religion?

Well a literal interpretation of Newton demonstrates that Newton was wrong.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 2:00:36 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/11/2016 1:39:35 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/11/2016 1:15:42 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/11/2016 12:41:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
If we read newton's book "Philosophia Naturalis"..

Yes he wrote it in Latin, But I'll be using the Andrew Motte Translation circa 1729. It is clearly the only accurate translation.

"herefore if hereafter, I should happen to consider quantities as made up of particles, or should use little curve lines for right ones; I would not be understood to mean indivisibles, but evanescent divisible quantities; not the sums and ratio's of determinate parts, but always the limits of sums and ratio's: "

Now if I go just by the words as they literally are of an accurate translation, I'm left to ask what the heck is a "Evanescent divisible quantity"? "evanescent" means quickly fading, disappearing. How is the number 2 quickly disappearing?

It's like saying the moon shines with light when everyone in the 21st century knows the moon doesn't emit it's own light but reflects the light from the sun. But i digress Newton says the number 2 disappears right before our eyes!

By taking a literal interpretation we see newton's work is wrong from cover to cover.

And this was in the first chapter.

What does this have to do with religion?

Well a literal interpretation of Newton demonstrates that Newton was wrong.

So, you're trying to defend the Bible by attacking an interpretation of Newton you openly admit you don't understand? Plus, I'm not sure that point could be made by comparing two different types of literature.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 3:30:43 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/11/2016 2:00:36 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/11/2016 1:39:35 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/11/2016 1:15:42 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/11/2016 12:41:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
If we read newton's book "Philosophia Naturalis"..

Yes he wrote it in Latin, But I'll be using the Andrew Motte Translation circa 1729. It is clearly the only accurate translation.

"herefore if hereafter, I should happen to consider quantities as made up of particles, or should use little curve lines for right ones; I would not be understood to mean indivisibles, but evanescent divisible quantities; not the sums and ratio's of determinate parts, but always the limits of sums and ratio's: "

Now if I go just by the words as they literally are of an accurate translation, I'm left to ask what the heck is a "Evanescent divisible quantity"? "evanescent" means quickly fading, disappearing. How is the number 2 quickly disappearing?

It's like saying the moon shines with light when everyone in the 21st century knows the moon doesn't emit it's own light but reflects the light from the sun. But i digress Newton says the number 2 disappears right before our eyes!

By taking a literal interpretation we see newton's work is wrong from cover to cover.

And this was in the first chapter.

What does this have to do with religion?

Well a literal interpretation of Newton demonstrates that Newton was wrong.

So, you're trying to defend the Bible by attacking an interpretation of Newton you openly admit you don't understand? Plus, I'm not sure that point could be made by comparing two different types of literature.

It's an illustration to Atheist who argue on this website demanding that every verse from psalm to revelation be interpreted literally.

It's an example that even in a genre of mathematics and scientific endeavor that to understand the writing everyone has to consider context, audience, time period ect..

But I see this example falls on deaf ears. Only when it comes to religious text do the majority of Atheist then demand that the text be understood literally and with the language of today.

It's a deep seeded bias and you don't want to admit the practice either.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 4:19:50 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/11/2016 3:30:43 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/11/2016 2:00:36 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/11/2016 1:39:35 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/11/2016 1:15:42 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/11/2016 12:41:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
If we read newton's book "Philosophia Naturalis"..

Yes he wrote it in Latin, But I'll be using the Andrew Motte Translation circa 1729. It is clearly the only accurate translation.

"herefore if hereafter, I should happen to consider quantities as made up of particles, or should use little curve lines for right ones; I would not be understood to mean indivisibles, but evanescent divisible quantities; not the sums and ratio's of determinate parts, but always the limits of sums and ratio's: "

Now if I go just by the words as they literally are of an accurate translation, I'm left to ask what the heck is a "Evanescent divisible quantity"? "evanescent" means quickly fading, disappearing. How is the number 2 quickly disappearing?

It's like saying the moon shines with light when everyone in the 21st century knows the moon doesn't emit it's own light but reflects the light from the sun. But i digress Newton says the number 2 disappears right before our eyes!

By taking a literal interpretation we see newton's work is wrong from cover to cover.

And this was in the first chapter.

What does this have to do with religion?

Well a literal interpretation of Newton demonstrates that Newton was wrong.

So, you're trying to defend the Bible by attacking an interpretation of Newton you openly admit you don't understand? Plus, I'm not sure that point could be made by comparing two different types of literature.

It's an illustration to Atheist who argue on this website demanding that every verse from psalm to revelation be interpreted literally.

It's an example that even in a genre of mathematics and scientific endeavor that to understand the writing everyone has to consider context, audience, time period ect..

But I see this example falls on deaf ears. Only when it comes to religious text do the majority of Atheist then demand that the text be understood literally and with the language of today.

It's a deep seeded bias and you don't want to admit the practice either.

It seems to me, that you agree with the atheists who say a literal interpretation makes no sense and you're not addressing the real issue: How can the intended message of Biblical passages be objectively extracted? Given the context, audience, time period, etc., why is a literal interpretation wrong? Additionally, the fact that a literal interpretation sometimes goes against modern knowledge doesn't disallow it as the intended meaning.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 4:31:10 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/11/2016 4:19:50 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/11/2016 3:30:43 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/11/2016 2:00:36 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/11/2016 1:39:35 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/11/2016 1:15:42 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/11/2016 12:41:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
If we read newton's book "Philosophia Naturalis"..

Yes he wrote it in Latin, But I'll be using the Andrew Motte Translation circa 1729. It is clearly the only accurate translation.

"herefore if hereafter, I should happen to consider quantities as made up of particles, or should use little curve lines for right ones; I would not be understood to mean indivisibles, but evanescent divisible quantities; not the sums and ratio's of determinate parts, but always the limits of sums and ratio's: "

Now if I go just by the words as they literally are of an accurate translation, I'm left to ask what the heck is a "Evanescent divisible quantity"? "evanescent" means quickly fading, disappearing. How is the number 2 quickly disappearing?

It's like saying the moon shines with light when everyone in the 21st century knows the moon doesn't emit it's own light but reflects the light from the sun. But i digress Newton says the number 2 disappears right before our eyes!

By taking a literal interpretation we see newton's work is wrong from cover to cover.

And this was in the first chapter.

What does this have to do with religion?

Well a literal interpretation of Newton demonstrates that Newton was wrong.

So, you're trying to defend the Bible by attacking an interpretation of Newton you openly admit you don't understand? Plus, I'm not sure that point could be made by comparing two different types of literature.

It's an illustration to Atheist who argue on this website demanding that every verse from psalm to revelation be interpreted literally.

It's an example that even in a genre of mathematics and scientific endeavor that to understand the writing everyone has to consider context, audience, time period ect..

But I see this example falls on deaf ears. Only when it comes to religious text do the majority of Atheist then demand that the text be understood literally and with the language of today.

It's a deep seeded bias and you don't want to admit the practice either.

It seems to me, that you agree with the atheists who say a literal interpretation makes no sense and you're not addressing the real issue: How can the intended message of Biblical passages be objectively extracted? Given the context, audience, time period, etc., why is a literal interpretation wrong? Additionally, the fact that a literal interpretation sometimes goes against modern knowledge doesn't disallow it as the intended meaning.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. There are parts best understood literally.

What I am revering to is the great number of Atheist demanding that every explanation for what a verse means has to be literal.

Bulpoop, deem, chloe, on and on

all refuse to understand any scripture with any explanation other than literal one with modern definition of words used from an old english translation of a latin translation of a greek one of the hebrew.
xXKorvexiusXx
Posts: 56
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 4:35:25 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
Genius. After centuries of confirmation by the entire body of scientific academia of Newton's theories, it was entirely refuted by a random internet blogger. Absolutely genius.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 4:40:42 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/11/2016 4:31:10 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/11/2016 4:19:50 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/11/2016 3:30:43 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/11/2016 2:00:36 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/11/2016 1:39:35 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/11/2016 1:15:42 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/11/2016 12:41:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
If we read newton's book "Philosophia Naturalis"..

Yes he wrote it in Latin, But I'll be using the Andrew Motte Translation circa 1729. It is clearly the only accurate translation.

"herefore if hereafter, I should happen to consider quantities as made up of particles, or should use little curve lines for right ones; I would not be understood to mean indivisibles, but evanescent divisible quantities; not the sums and ratio's of determinate parts, but always the limits of sums and ratio's: "

Now if I go just by the words as they literally are of an accurate translation, I'm left to ask what the heck is a "Evanescent divisible quantity"? "evanescent" means quickly fading, disappearing. How is the number 2 quickly disappearing?

It's like saying the moon shines with light when everyone in the 21st century knows the moon doesn't emit it's own light but reflects the light from the sun. But i digress Newton says the number 2 disappears right before our eyes!

By taking a literal interpretation we see newton's work is wrong from cover to cover.

And this was in the first chapter.

What does this have to do with religion?

Well a literal interpretation of Newton demonstrates that Newton was wrong.

So, you're trying to defend the Bible by attacking an interpretation of Newton you openly admit you don't understand? Plus, I'm not sure that point could be made by comparing two different types of literature.

It's an illustration to Atheist who argue on this website demanding that every verse from psalm to revelation be interpreted literally.

It's an example that even in a genre of mathematics and scientific endeavor that to understand the writing everyone has to consider context, audience, time period ect..

But I see this example falls on deaf ears. Only when it comes to religious text do the majority of Atheist then demand that the text be understood literally and with the language of today.

It's a deep seeded bias and you don't want to admit the practice either.

It seems to me, that you agree with the atheists who say a literal interpretation makes no sense and you're not addressing the real issue: How can the intended message of Biblical passages be objectively extracted? Given the context, audience, time period, etc., why is a literal interpretation wrong? Additionally, the fact that a literal interpretation sometimes goes against modern knowledge doesn't disallow it as the intended meaning.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. There are parts best understood literally.

What I am revering to is the great number of Atheist demanding that every explanation for what a verse means has to be literal.

Bulpoop, deem, chloe, on and on

all refuse to understand any scripture with any explanation other than literal one with modern definition of words used from an old english translation of a latin translation of a greek one of the hebrew.

With all due respect, Mhyk, aren't you doing exactly the same thing by assuming that the passages in question were never meant literally?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
ethang5
Posts: 4,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 7:34:51 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
He wasn't refuting Newton, or insisting that the passages in the Bible should never be read literally. He is saying that there is a principle which should be applied equally to literature.

The meaning of a piece of literature depends on the context. We know Newton was correct, but that is because we did not read his work literally 100% of the time. Atheists seem to know when to apply this principle in all literature except when it comes to the Bible. There are times when the Bible is literal, and times when it is not. Just like all good literature. Insisting that all verses be interpreted literally, or choosing the interpretation which renders the passage least reasonable is intellectually dishonest.

The point is, he took a work of science, written by a giant of science, read it literally, and it made no sense literally. Now, what if he insisted that this passage of Newton MUST be interpreted literally? Would he be being reasonable?

Fairness is an essential part of the search for truth.
dee-em
Posts: 6,472
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 11:25:48 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/11/2016 12:41:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
If we read newton's book "Philosophia Naturalis"..

Yes he wrote it in Latin, But I'll be using the Andrew Motte Translation circa 1729. It is clearly the only accurate translation.

"herefore if hereafter, I should happen to consider quantities as made up of particles, or should use little curve lines for right ones; I would not be understood to mean indivisibles, but evanescent divisible quantities; not the sums and ratio's of determinate parts, but always the limits of sums and ratio's: "

Now if I go just by the words as they literally are of an accurate translation, I'm left to ask what the heck is a "Evanescent divisible quantity"? "evanescent" means quickly fading, disappearing. How is the number 2 quickly disappearing?

Where is the number 2 mentioned? Newton seems to be talking about calculus:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

In formulating his physical theories, Newton developed and used mathematical methods now included in the field of calculus. But the language of calculus as we know it was largely absent from the Principia; Newton gave many of his proofs in a geometric form of infinitesimal calculus, based on limits of ratios of vanishing small geometric quantities.[9]

It's like saying the moon shines with light when everyone in the 21st century knows the moon doesn't emit it's own light but reflects the light from the sun. But i digress Newton says the number 2 disappears right before our eyes!

No he doesn't. That is you still injecting things into the text that aren't there.

By taking a literal interpretation we see newton's work is wrong from cover to cover.

That's not a literal interpretation, it's a non-literal interpretation and quite bizarre to boot. You misunderstood one paragraph and now the whole book is wrong? Lol.

And this was in the first chapter.

You do realize that the book in question is in a highly specialized field and that you have to be a mathematician to understand it? Are you trying to compare it to the Bible which is allegedly the word of God for all humanity? Could there be a problem with your phony analogy maybe?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 7:56:43 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/11/2016 4:40:42 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/11/2016 4:31:10 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/11/2016 4:19:50 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/11/2016 3:30:43 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/11/2016 2:00:36 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/11/2016 1:39:35 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/11/2016 1:15:42 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/11/2016 12:41:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
If we read newton's book "Philosophia Naturalis"..

Yes he wrote it in Latin, But I'll be using the Andrew Motte Translation circa 1729. It is clearly the only accurate translation.

"herefore if hereafter, I should happen to consider quantities as made up of particles, or should use little curve lines for right ones; I would not be understood to mean indivisibles, but evanescent divisible quantities; not the sums and ratio's of determinate parts, but always the limits of sums and ratio's: "

Now if I go just by the words as they literally are of an accurate translation, I'm left to ask what the heck is a "Evanescent divisible quantity"? "evanescent" means quickly fading, disappearing. How is the number 2 quickly disappearing?

It's like saying the moon shines with light when everyone in the 21st century knows the moon doesn't emit it's own light but reflects the light from the sun. But i digress Newton says the number 2 disappears right before our eyes!

By taking a literal interpretation we see newton's work is wrong from cover to cover.

And this was in the first chapter.

What does this have to do with religion?

Well a literal interpretation of Newton demonstrates that Newton was wrong.

So, you're trying to defend the Bible by attacking an interpretation of Newton you openly admit you don't understand? Plus, I'm not sure that point could be made by comparing two different types of literature.

It's an illustration to Atheist who argue on this website demanding that every verse from psalm to revelation be interpreted literally.

It's an example that even in a genre of mathematics and scientific endeavor that to understand the writing everyone has to consider context, audience, time period ect..

But I see this example falls on deaf ears. Only when it comes to religious text do the majority of Atheist then demand that the text be understood literally and with the language of today.

It's a deep seeded bias and you don't want to admit the practice either.

It seems to me, that you agree with the atheists who say a literal interpretation makes no sense and you're not addressing the real issue: How can the intended message of Biblical passages be objectively extracted? Given the context, audience, time period, etc., why is a literal interpretation wrong? Additionally, the fact that a literal interpretation sometimes goes against modern knowledge doesn't disallow it as the intended meaning.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. There are parts best understood literally.

What I am revering to is the great number of Atheist demanding that every explanation for what a verse means has to be literal.

Bulpoop, deem, chloe, on and on

all refuse to understand any scripture with any explanation other than literal one with modern definition of words used from an old english translation of a latin translation of a greek one of the hebrew.

With all due respect, Mhyk, aren't you doing exactly the same thing by assuming that the passages in question were never meant literally?

Well knock my socks off, are you saying there are no relatively accurate ways of discerning from semantics, context or syntax if a particular piece of literature is litteral or not?

Tell me what you think, your opinion, your personal interpretation of what Newton was saying?

Do you think Newton is trying to convey a message in his writing or do you think Newton expects a thousand different personal interpretations all of them equally esteemed?

No I have this crazy idea that when an Author writes a book of words they have the intent to conveyto the audience an idea or conception. And the utilize vocabulary, commonly accepted structures in their language to do just that.

And then a diligent reader truly desiring to understand what message is being conveyed will consider those structures and words.

So if it rhymes, has rhythm, syllables of each line in a pattern, parallelism, contains an antithesis,

Shiver me timbers I might think I'm reading a POEM!

This ofcourse is only because I don't think language is inherently 'meaningless' .

Do you understand what I am saying Skep? Or do you think I'm speaking gibberish that can be interpreted differently by many fools like a Rorschach test? All of them equally valid.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 9:54:27 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/11/2016 7:56:43 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/11/2016 4:40:42 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/11/2016 4:31:10 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/11/2016 4:19:50 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/11/2016 3:30:43 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/11/2016 2:00:36 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/11/2016 1:39:35 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/11/2016 1:15:42 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/11/2016 12:41:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
If we read newton's book "Philosophia Naturalis"..

Yes he wrote it in Latin, But I'll be using the Andrew Motte Translation circa 1729. It is clearly the only accurate translation.

"herefore if hereafter, I should happen to consider quantities as made up of particles, or should use little curve lines for right ones; I would not be understood to mean indivisibles, but evanescent divisible quantities; not the sums and ratio's of determinate parts, but always the limits of sums and ratio's: "

Now if I go just by the words as they literally are of an accurate translation, I'm left to ask what the heck is a "Evanescent divisible quantity"? "evanescent" means quickly fading, disappearing. How is the number 2 quickly disappearing?

It's like saying the moon shines with light when everyone in the 21st century knows the moon doesn't emit it's own light but reflects the light from the sun. But i digress Newton says the number 2 disappears right before our eyes!

By taking a literal interpretation we see newton's work is wrong from cover to cover.

And this was in the first chapter.

What does this have to do with religion?

Well a literal interpretation of Newton demonstrates that Newton was wrong.

So, you're trying to defend the Bible by attacking an interpretation of Newton you openly admit you don't understand? Plus, I'm not sure that point could be made by comparing two different types of literature.

It's an illustration to Atheist who argue on this website demanding that every verse from psalm to revelation be interpreted literally.

It's an example that even in a genre of mathematics and scientific endeavor that to understand the writing everyone has to consider context, audience, time period ect..

But I see this example falls on deaf ears. Only when it comes to religious text do the majority of Atheist then demand that the text be understood literally and with the language of today.

It's a deep seeded bias and you don't want to admit the practice either.

It seems to me, that you agree with the atheists who say a literal interpretation makes no sense and you're not addressing the real issue: How can the intended message of Biblical passages be objectively extracted? Given the context, audience, time period, etc., why is a literal interpretation wrong? Additionally, the fact that a literal interpretation sometimes goes against modern knowledge doesn't disallow it as the intended meaning.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. There are parts best understood literally.

What I am revering to is the great number of Atheist demanding that every explanation for what a verse means has to be literal.

Bulpoop, deem, chloe, on and on

all refuse to understand any scripture with any explanation other than literal one with modern definition of words used from an old english translation of a latin translation of a greek one of the hebrew.

With all due respect, Mhyk, aren't you doing exactly the same thing by assuming that the passages in question were never meant literally?

Well knock my socks off, are you saying there are no relatively accurate ways of discerning from semantics, context or syntax if a particular piece of literature is litteral or not?

Tell me what you think, your opinion, your personal interpretation of what Newton was saying?

Do you think Newton is trying to convey a message in his writing or do you think Newton expects a thousand different personal interpretations all of them equally esteemed?

No I have this crazy idea that when an Author writes a book of words they have the intent to conveyto the audience an idea or conception. And the utilize vocabulary, commonly accepted structures in their language to do just that.

And then a diligent reader truly desiring to understand what message is being conveyed will consider those structures and words.

So if it rhymes, has rhythm, syllables of each line in a pattern, parallelism, contains an antithesis,

Shiver me timbers I might think I'm reading a POEM!

This ofcourse is only because I don't think language is inherently 'meaningless' .

Do you understand what I am saying Skep? Or do you think I'm speaking gibberish that can be interpreted differently by many fools like a Rorschach test? All of them equally valid.

I've never suggested all interpretations of the Bible should be held equally valid. The only thing I've questioned is by what means interpretations of the Bible should be authenticated. To understand Newton's work, one needs a prerequisite understanding of the subject. There is no such thing with the Bible - it is claimed to be for all humanity presumably for all time.

So, again, authentication?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Harikrish
Posts: 11,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 10:03:33 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/11/2016 12:41:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
If we read newton's book "Philosophia Naturalis"..

Yes he wrote it in Latin, But I'll be using the Andrew Motte Translation circa 1729. It is clearly the only accurate translation.

"herefore if hereafter, I should happen to consider quantities as made up of particles, or should use little curve lines for right ones; I would not be understood to mean indivisibles, but evanescent divisible quantities; not the sums and ratio's of determinate parts, but always the limits of sums and ratio's: "

Now if I go just by the words as they literally are of an accurate translation, I'm left to ask what the heck is a "Evanescent divisible quantity"? "evanescent" means quickly fading, disappearing. How is the number 2 quickly disappearing?

It's like saying the moon shines with light when everyone in the 21st century knows the moon doesn't emit it's own light but reflects the light from the sun. But i digress Newton says the number 2 disappears right before our eyes!

By taking a literal interpretation we see newton's work is wrong from cover to cover.

And this was in the first chapter.

Newton was introducing the concepts in Calculus a new branch of mathematics. The excerpt you provided are well understood by students of calculus which is a highly specialized branch of mathematics. It is obviously lost to the layman.

But the messages in the Bible were meant for the average person. It was spoken to ordinary people to convert them into God fearing and believing individuals to serve their creator. The language had to be as simple, intelligible and easily understood by the masses to be effective.

It is not a matter of style but the esoteric nature of calculus that makes it beyond the scope of the average person to comprehend. But the same cannot be said about the Bible when was Jesus was an ordinary carpenters son and his disciples were fishermen, unschooled and of average intelligence.

The Bible was also written during the Iron Age which is primitive compared to the Mathematics/Cakculus that Newton was creating.

Please draw a fairer comparison in your examples.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 10:15:07 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/11/2016 12:41:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
If we read newton's book "Philosophia Naturalis"..

Yes he wrote it in Latin, But I'll be using the Andrew Motte Translation circa 1729. It is clearly the only accurate translation.

"herefore if hereafter, I should happen to consider quantities as made up of particles, or should use little curve lines for right ones; I would not be understood to mean indivisibles, but evanescent divisible quantities; not the sums and ratio's of determinate parts, but always the limits of sums and ratio's: "

Now if I go just by the words as they literally are of an accurate translation, I'm left to ask what the heck is a "Evanescent divisible quantity"? "evanescent" means quickly fading, disappearing. How is the number 2 quickly disappearing?

So, what you're admitting is that you don't understand a particular terminology contained in a mathematical philosophical statement, but have nonetheless concocted some silly notion about the number 2.

It's like saying the moon shines with light when everyone in the 21st century knows the moon doesn't emit it's own light but reflects the light from the sun. But i digress Newton says the number 2 disappears right before our eyes!

No, that's not what Newton was saying.

By taking a literal interpretation we see newton's work is wrong from cover to cover.

In other words, you have thusly refuted an entire philosophical work based on something you don't understand. Well done.

You do realize that "evanescent divisible quantities" were abandoned not to long after Newton wrote about it. Or not.

And this was in the first chapter.

Wow, you're a genius.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 12:43:03 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/11/2016 9:54:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/11/2016 7:56:43 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/11/2016 4:40:42 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/11/2016 4:31:10 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/11/2016 4:19:50 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/11/2016 3:30:43 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/11/2016 2:00:36 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/11/2016 1:39:35 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/11/2016 1:15:42 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/11/2016 12:41:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
If we read newton's book "Philosophia Naturalis"..

Yes he wrote it in Latin, But I'll be using the Andrew Motte Translation circa 1729. It is clearly the only accurate translation.

"herefore if hereafter, I should happen to consider quantities as made up of particles, or should use little curve lines for right ones; I would not be understood to mean indivisibles, but evanescent divisible quantities; not the sums and ratio's of determinate parts, but always the limits of sums and ratio's: "

Now if I go just by the words as they literally are of an accurate translation, I'm left to ask what the heck is a "Evanescent divisible quantity"? "evanescent" means quickly fading, disappearing. How is the number 2 quickly disappearing?

It's like saying the moon shines with light when everyone in the 21st century knows the moon doesn't emit it's own light but reflects the light from the sun. But i digress Newton says the number 2 disappears right before our eyes!

By taking a literal interpretation we see newton's work is wrong from cover to cover.

And this was in the first chapter.

What does this have to do with religion?

Well a literal interpretation of Newton demonstrates that Newton was wrong.

So, you're trying to defend the Bible by attacking an interpretation of Newton you openly admit you don't understand? Plus, I'm not sure that point could be made by comparing two different types of literature.

It's an illustration to Atheist who argue on this website demanding that every verse from psalm to revelation be interpreted literally.

It's an example that even in a genre of mathematics and scientific endeavor that to understand the writing everyone has to consider context, audience, time period ect..

But I see this example falls on deaf ears. Only when it comes to religious text do the majority of Atheist then demand that the text be understood literally and with the language of today.

It's a deep seeded bias and you don't want to admit the practice either.

It seems to me, that you agree with the atheists who say a literal interpretation makes no sense and you're not addressing the real issue: How can the intended message of Biblical passages be objectively extracted? Given the context, audience, time period, etc., why is a literal interpretation wrong? Additionally, the fact that a literal interpretation sometimes goes against modern knowledge doesn't disallow it as the intended meaning.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. There are parts best understood literally.

What I am revering to is the great number of Atheist demanding that every explanation for what a verse means has to be literal.

Bulpoop, deem, chloe, on and on

all refuse to understand any scripture with any explanation other than literal one with modern definition of words used from an old english translation of a latin translation of a greek one of the hebrew.

With all due respect, Mhyk, aren't you doing exactly the same thing by assuming that the passages in question were never meant literally?

Well knock my socks off, are you saying there are no relatively accurate ways of discerning from semantics, context or syntax if a particular piece of literature is litteral or not?

Tell me what you think, your opinion, your personal interpretation of what Newton was saying?

Do you think Newton is trying to convey a message in his writing or do you think Newton expects a thousand different personal interpretations all of them equally esteemed?

No I have this crazy idea that when an Author writes a book of words they have the intent to conveyto the audience an idea or conception. And the utilize vocabulary, commonly accepted structures in their language to do just that.

And then a diligent reader truly desiring to understand what message is being conveyed will consider those structures and words.

So if it rhymes, has rhythm, syllables of each line in a pattern, parallelism, contains an antithesis,

Shiver me timbers I might think I'm reading a POEM!

This ofcourse is only because I don't think language is inherently 'meaningless' .

Do you understand what I am saying Skep? Or do you think I'm speaking gibberish that can be interpreted differently by many fools like a Rorschach test? All of them equally valid.

I've never suggested all interpretations of the Bible should be held equally valid. The only thing I've questioned is by what means interpretations of the Bible should be authenticated. To understand Newton's work, one needs a prerequisite understanding of the subject. There is no such thing with the Bible - it is claimed to be for all humanity presumably for all time.

So, again, authentication?

No don't change the subject.

You asked: Mhyk, aren't you doing exactly the same thing by assuming that the passages in question were never meant literally?

Was my reply too complicated for you to understand.

I think certain verse should be taken in a non-literal way when they contain the tale-tell and common elements of non-literal literature. As well as when the context demands it like the recording of a vision or dream scene.

But what you see a lot of Atheist on this website arguing is Screw the historical precedence of rhyming being used in poetry, screw that poems are written with every sentence beginning with the same letter, forget that rhythm is utilized almost exclusively in poetry and then DEMAND that despite those things being present the verse must be understood in a literal manner as we know English today.

The accuracy of the understanding is supported by Linguistics.

But Hey i don't know what I'm saying. I'm just throwing words on the screen in an order that looks like sentences. interpret my answers any way you want and be a dumb fool for it.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 12:47:58 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/11/2016 10:03:33 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 8/11/2016 12:41:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
If we read newton's book "Philosophia Naturalis"..

Yes he wrote it in Latin, But I'll be using the Andrew Motte Translation circa 1729. It is clearly the only accurate translation.

"herefore if hereafter, I should happen to consider quantities as made up of particles, or should use little curve lines for right ones; I would not be understood to mean indivisibles, but evanescent divisible quantities; not the sums and ratio's of determinate parts, but always the limits of sums and ratio's: "

Now if I go just by the words as they literally are of an accurate translation, I'm left to ask what the heck is a "Evanescent divisible quantity"? "evanescent" means quickly fading, disappearing. How is the number 2 quickly disappearing?

It's like saying the moon shines with light when everyone in the 21st century knows the moon doesn't emit it's own light but reflects the light from the sun. But i digress Newton says the number 2 disappears right before our eyes!

By taking a literal interpretation we see newton's work is wrong from cover to cover.

And this was in the first chapter.

Newton was introducing the concepts in Calculus a new branch of mathematics. The excerpt you provided are well understood by students of calculus which is a highly specialized branch of mathematics. It is obviously lost to the layman.

When Newton was talking about this it wasn't even named calculus. Obviously newton would be writing in a language so that people could understand a new idea.


But the messages in the Bible were meant for the average person. It was spoken to ordinary people to convert them into God fearing and believing individuals to serve their creator. The language had to be as simple, intelligible and easily understood by the masses to be effective.

You meant he language was geared to getting people to think about a new concept. Like Newton was doing.


It is not a matter of style but the esoteric nature of calculus that makes it beyond the scope of the average person to comprehend. But the same cannot be said about the Bible when was Jesus was an ordinary carpenters son and his disciples were fishermen, unschooled and of average intelligence.

The Bible was also written during the Iron Age which is primitive compared to the Mathematics/Cakculus that Newton was creating.

Please draw a fairer comparison in your examples.

Yeah I reject your reply. Newton was describing a new idea to people in a manner for them to comprehend a new concept. There was no use of some occult high brow science or math terms. He was speaking simply.

And yet he was not speaking "literally" as in something vanishing. Which for calculations of division on any quantity would never vanish because the distance between points is infinitesimal. infinitely small.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 12:52:14 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/11/2016 12:41:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
If we read newton's book "Philosophia Naturalis"..

Yes he wrote it in Latin, But I'll be using the Andrew Motte Translation circa 1729. It is clearly the only accurate translation.

"herefore if hereafter, I should happen to consider quantities as made up of particles, or should use little curve lines for right ones; I would not be understood to mean indivisibles, but evanescent divisible quantities; not the sums and ratio's of determinate parts, but always the limits of sums and ratio's: "

Now if I go just by the words as they literally are of an accurate translation, I'm left to ask what the heck is a "Evanescent divisible quantity"? "evanescent" means quickly fading, disappearing. How is the number 2 quickly disappearing?

It's like saying the moon shines with light when everyone in the 21st century knows the moon doesn't emit it's own light but reflects the light from the sun. But i digress Newton says the number 2 disappears right before our eyes!

By taking a literal interpretation we see newton's work is wrong from cover to cover.

And this was in the first chapter.

I thought you didn't believe in modern science in late 19th, 20th, and 21st century science like modern biology, geology, astrology, etc. Now it looks like you don't even believe in 18th century physics. Wow.

So basically the middle ages were the pinnacle of science and we have slid downhill ever since. Just wow.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 12:53:32 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/11/2016 11:25:48 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/11/2016 12:41:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
If we read newton's book "Philosophia Naturalis"..

Yes he wrote it in Latin, But I'll be using the Andrew Motte Translation circa 1729. It is clearly the only accurate translation.

"herefore if hereafter, I should happen to consider quantities as made up of particles, or should use little curve lines for right ones; I would not be understood to mean indivisibles, but evanescent divisible quantities; not the sums and ratio's of determinate parts, but always the limits of sums and ratio's: "

Now if I go just by the words as they literally are of an accurate translation, I'm left to ask what the heck is a "Evanescent divisible quantity"? "evanescent" means quickly fading, disappearing. How is the number 2 quickly disappearing?

Where is the number 2 mentioned? Newton seems to be talking about calculus:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

In formulating his physical theories, Newton developed and used mathematical methods now included in the field of calculus. But the language of calculus as we know it was largely absent from the Principia; Newton gave many of his proofs in a geometric form of infinitesimal calculus, based on limits of ratios of vanishing small geometric quantities.[9]

It's like saying the moon shines with light when everyone in the 21st century knows the moon doesn't emit it's own light but reflects the light from the sun. But i digress Newton says the number 2 disappears right before our eyes!

No he doesn't. That is you still injecting things into the text that aren't there.

By taking a literal interpretation we see newton's work is wrong from cover to cover.

That's not a literal interpretation, it's a non-literal interpretation and quite bizarre to boot. You misunderstood one paragraph and now the whole book is wrong? Lol.

And this was in the first chapter.

You do realize that the book in question is in a highly specialized field and that you have to be a mathematician to understand it? Are you trying to compare it to the Bible which is allegedly the word of God for all humanity? Could there be a problem with your phony analogy maybe?

Deem you are not smart.

Here I'll beak it down barney style for you.

evanescent
soon passing out of sight, memory, or existence; quickly fading or disappearing.

infinitesimal
an indefinitely small quantity; a value approaching zero.

Obviously the math Newton is doing the quantities don't EVER DISAPPEAR. because they are infinitely small.

Literally Newton is a liar.

And you are liar. Because you know to well to understand what Newton was saying would be to know that he means the quantities get so small it is like watching them vanish before your eyes. That's what he meant using those words. Not literally.

I forgot You were one of the regulars I ignore with many good reasons. Join bulpoop in the ignore bin. Fool and a Liar.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 12:56:56 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/11/2016 10:15:07 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/11/2016 12:41:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
If we read newton's book "Philosophia Naturalis"..

Yes he wrote it in Latin, But I'll be using the Andrew Motte Translation circa 1729. It is clearly the only accurate translation.

"herefore if hereafter, I should happen to consider quantities as made up of particles, or should use little curve lines for right ones; I would not be understood to mean indivisibles, but evanescent divisible quantities; not the sums and ratio's of determinate parts, but always the limits of sums and ratio's: "

Now if I go just by the words as they literally are of an accurate translation, I'm left to ask what the heck is a "Evanescent divisible quantity"? "evanescent" means quickly fading, disappearing. How is the number 2 quickly disappearing?

So, what you're admitting is that you don't understand a particular terminology contained in a mathematical philosophical statement, but have nonetheless concocted some silly notion about the number 2.

It's like saying the moon shines with light when everyone in the 21st century knows the moon doesn't emit it's own light but reflects the light from the sun. But i digress Newton says the number 2 disappears right before our eyes!

No, that's not what Newton was saying.

By taking a literal interpretation we see newton's work is wrong from cover to cover.

In other words, you have thusly refuted an entire philosophical work based on something you don't understand. Well done.

You do realize that "evanescent divisible quantities" were abandoned not to long after Newton wrote about it. Or not.

Yes because quantities are infinitely divisible and therefor do not vanish. The wording if taken literally can cause an error in understanding the subject Newton is trying to convey. But taking as some artistic license the concept is simple to see.


And this was in the first chapter.

Wow, you're a genius.

You have never been smart on this forum. And I constantly ignore your replies because they are a train wreck of irrelevant and copy-paste drivel.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 12:58:52 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 12:52:14 AM, distraff wrote:
At 8/11/2016 12:41:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
If we read newton's book "Philosophia Naturalis"..

Yes he wrote it in Latin, But I'll be using the Andrew Motte Translation circa 1729. It is clearly the only accurate translation.

"herefore if hereafter, I should happen to consider quantities as made up of particles, or should use little curve lines for right ones; I would not be understood to mean indivisibles, but evanescent divisible quantities; not the sums and ratio's of determinate parts, but always the limits of sums and ratio's: "

Now if I go just by the words as they literally are of an accurate translation, I'm left to ask what the heck is a "Evanescent divisible quantity"? "evanescent" means quickly fading, disappearing. How is the number 2 quickly disappearing?

It's like saying the moon shines with light when everyone in the 21st century knows the moon doesn't emit it's own light but reflects the light from the sun. But i digress Newton says the number 2 disappears right before our eyes!

By taking a literal interpretation we see newton's work is wrong from cover to cover.

And this was in the first chapter.

I thought you didn't believe in modern science in late 19th, 20th, and 21st century science like modern biology, geology, astrology, etc. Now it looks like you don't even believe in 18th century physics. Wow.

So basically the middle ages were the pinnacle of science and we have slid downhill ever since. Just wow.

I've forgotten more science than you have ever learned. And still know more than you.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 1:20:37 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/11/2016 3:30:43 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/11/2016 2:00:36 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/11/2016 1:39:35 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/11/2016 1:15:42 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/11/2016 12:41:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
If we read newton's book "Philosophia Naturalis"..

Yes he wrote it in Latin, But I'll be using the Andrew Motte Translation circa 1729. It is clearly the only accurate translation.

"herefore if hereafter, I should happen to consider quantities as made up of particles, or should use little curve lines for right ones; I would not be understood to mean indivisibles, but evanescent divisible quantities; not the sums and ratio's of determinate parts, but always the limits of sums and ratio's: "

Now if I go just by the words as they literally are of an accurate translation, I'm left to ask what the heck is a "Evanescent divisible quantity"? "evanescent" means quickly fading, disappearing. How is the number 2 quickly disappearing?

It's like saying the moon shines with light when everyone in the 21st century knows the moon doesn't emit it's own light but reflects the light from the sun. But i digress Newton says the number 2 disappears right before our eyes!

By taking a literal interpretation we see newton's work is wrong from cover to cover.

And this was in the first chapter.

What does this have to do with religion?

Well a literal interpretation of Newton demonstrates that Newton was wrong.

So, you're trying to defend the Bible by attacking an interpretation of Newton you openly admit you don't understand? Plus, I'm not sure that point could be made by comparing two different types of literature.

It's an illustration to Atheist who argue on this website demanding that every verse from psalm to revelation be interpreted literally.

It's an example that even in a genre of mathematics and scientific endeavor that to understand the writing everyone has to consider context, audience, time period ect..

But I see this example falls on deaf ears. Only when it comes to religious text do the majority of Atheist then demand that the text be understood literally and with the language of today.

It's a deep seeded bias and you don't want to admit the practice either.

So you're saying that if a limited and biased human being can't write a book that can be taken literally, then why should we expect the ultimate being of all reality, that created the universe, life, and everything we see to do the same when inspiring an instruction book that covers what he wants human beings to do because he wants us all to do the right thing to do the same.

Way to lower the bar on your God!
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 1:28:55 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 1:20:37 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/11/2016 3:30:43 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/11/2016 2:00:36 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/11/2016 1:39:35 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/11/2016 1:15:42 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/11/2016 12:41:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
If we read newton's book "Philosophia Naturalis"..

Yes he wrote it in Latin, But I'll be using the Andrew Motte Translation circa 1729. It is clearly the only accurate translation.

"herefore if hereafter, I should happen to consider quantities as made up of particles, or should use little curve lines for right ones; I would not be understood to mean indivisibles, but evanescent divisible quantities; not the sums and ratio's of determinate parts, but always the limits of sums and ratio's: "

Now if I go just by the words as they literally are of an accurate translation, I'm left to ask what the heck is a "Evanescent divisible quantity"? "evanescent" means quickly fading, disappearing. How is the number 2 quickly disappearing?

It's like saying the moon shines with light when everyone in the 21st century knows the moon doesn't emit it's own light but reflects the light from the sun. But i digress Newton says the number 2 disappears right before our eyes!

By taking a literal interpretation we see newton's work is wrong from cover to cover.

And this was in the first chapter.

What does this have to do with religion?

Well a literal interpretation of Newton demonstrates that Newton was wrong.

So, you're trying to defend the Bible by attacking an interpretation of Newton you openly admit you don't understand? Plus, I'm not sure that point could be made by comparing two different types of literature.

It's an illustration to Atheist who argue on this website demanding that every verse from psalm to revelation be interpreted literally.

It's an example that even in a genre of mathematics and scientific endeavor that to understand the writing everyone has to consider context, audience, time period ect..

But I see this example falls on deaf ears. Only when it comes to religious text do the majority of Atheist then demand that the text be understood literally and with the language of today.

It's a deep seeded bias and you don't want to admit the practice either.

So you're saying that if a limited and biased human being can't write a book that can be taken literally, then why should we expect the ultimate being of all reality, that created the universe, life, and everything we see to do the same when inspiring an instruction book that covers what he wants human beings to do because he wants us all to do the right thing to do the same.

Way to lower the bar on your God!

Ever come across an idea so big and intangible that the only way it ever gets described is by allegory, example, ... not "literally"?

Ever heard someone describe an experience with the phrase "I can barely describe it"?

Why do Atheist ignore the way people talk to each other, the way people real to each other.. why do Atheist ignore those principles when the discussion turns to God?

Way to box that thought (the conception of God) into a dark corner.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 1:42:17 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 1:28:55 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/12/2016 1:20:37 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/11/2016 3:30:43 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/11/2016 2:00:36 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/11/2016 1:39:35 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/11/2016 1:15:42 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/11/2016 12:41:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
If we read newton's book "Philosophia Naturalis"..

Yes he wrote it in Latin, But I'll be using the Andrew Motte Translation circa 1729. It is clearly the only accurate translation.

"herefore if hereafter, I should happen to consider quantities as made up of particles, or should use little curve lines for right ones; I would not be understood to mean indivisibles, but evanescent divisible quantities; not the sums and ratio's of determinate parts, but always the limits of sums and ratio's: "

Now if I go just by the words as they literally are of an accurate translation, I'm left to ask what the heck is a "Evanescent divisible quantity"? "evanescent" means quickly fading, disappearing. How is the number 2 quickly disappearing?

It's like saying the moon shines with light when everyone in the 21st century knows the moon doesn't emit it's own light but reflects the light from the sun. But i digress Newton says the number 2 disappears right before our eyes!

By taking a literal interpretation we see newton's work is wrong from cover to cover.

And this was in the first chapter.

What does this have to do with religion?

Well a literal interpretation of Newton demonstrates that Newton was wrong.

So, you're trying to defend the Bible by attacking an interpretation of Newton you openly admit you don't understand? Plus, I'm not sure that point could be made by comparing two different types of literature.

It's an illustration to Atheist who argue on this website demanding that every verse from psalm to revelation be interpreted literally.

It's an example that even in a genre of mathematics and scientific endeavor that to understand the writing everyone has to consider context, audience, time period ect..

But I see this example falls on deaf ears. Only when it comes to religious text do the majority of Atheist then demand that the text be understood literally and with the language of today.

It's a deep seeded bias and you don't want to admit the practice either.

So you're saying that if a limited and biased human being can't write a book that can be taken literally, then why should we expect the ultimate being of all reality, that created the universe, life, and everything we see to do the same when inspiring an instruction book that covers what he wants human beings to do because he wants us all to do the right thing to do the same.

Way to lower the bar on your God!

Ever come across an idea so big and intangible that the only way it ever gets described is by allegory, example, ... not "literally"?

Ever heard someone describe an experience with the phrase "I can barely describe it"?

Why do Atheist ignore the way people talk to each other, the way people real to each other.. why do Atheist ignore those principles when the discussion turns to God?

Way to box that thought (the conception of God) into a dark corner.

What you're doing is being an apologist; which is a suspension of abductive reasoning.

Look at it like this:

God wants humans to have a record of what he wants them to do; so his "test" can be fair as you cannot test someone against adherence to rules fairly in this way if they are not adequately informed of what the rules are.

He likely knows, or has a strong suspicion of what is going to happen in the future.

He likely knows about other religions, and other events and scenarios that could occur that may potentially undermine the nature of the book.

Is the Bible an excellent document that fully fulfills those things?

No.

Knowing what I know now, with help from a number of psychologists, and behavior change experts, as a human being of the 21st century, with the power of God, I think it's perfectly reasonable for me to have inspired a book that is more compelling, that would have done a better job of unifying religions, more believable (while still entertaining some doubt, if you want) and made damned sure that events conspired not to have been signficantly altered in that time.

If I can be reasonably expected to do it, whereas the evidence indicates God cannot; God can't exist.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 1:52:10 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 1:42:17 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/12/2016 1:28:55 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/12/2016 1:20:37 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/11/2016 3:30:43 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/11/2016 2:00:36 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/11/2016 1:39:35 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/11/2016 1:15:42 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/11/2016 12:41:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
If we read newton's book "Philosophia Naturalis"..

Yes he wrote it in Latin, But I'll be using the Andrew Motte Translation circa 1729. It is clearly the only accurate translation.

"herefore if hereafter, I should happen to consider quantities as made up of particles, or should use little curve lines for right ones; I would not be understood to mean indivisibles, but evanescent divisible quantities; not the sums and ratio's of determinate parts, but always the limits of sums and ratio's: "

Now if I go just by the words as they literally are of an accurate translation, I'm left to ask what the heck is a "Evanescent divisible quantity"? "evanescent" means quickly fading, disappearing. How is the number 2 quickly disappearing?

It's like saying the moon shines with light when everyone in the 21st century knows the moon doesn't emit it's own light but reflects the light from the sun. But i digress Newton says the number 2 disappears right before our eyes!

By taking a literal interpretation we see newton's work is wrong from cover to cover.

And this was in the first chapter.

What does this have to do with religion?

Well a literal interpretation of Newton demonstrates that Newton was wrong.

So, you're trying to defend the Bible by attacking an interpretation of Newton you openly admit you don't understand? Plus, I'm not sure that point could be made by comparing two different types of literature.

It's an illustration to Atheist who argue on this website demanding that every verse from psalm to revelation be interpreted literally.

It's an example that even in a genre of mathematics and scientific endeavor that to understand the writing everyone has to consider context, audience, time period ect..

But I see this example falls on deaf ears. Only when it comes to religious text do the majority of Atheist then demand that the text be understood literally and with the language of today.

It's a deep seeded bias and you don't want to admit the practice either.

So you're saying that if a limited and biased human being can't write a book that can be taken literally, then why should we expect the ultimate being of all reality, that created the universe, life, and everything we see to do the same when inspiring an instruction book that covers what he wants human beings to do because he wants us all to do the right thing to do the same.

Way to lower the bar on your God!

Ever come across an idea so big and intangible that the only way it ever gets described is by allegory, example, ... not "literally"?

Ever heard someone describe an experience with the phrase "I can barely describe it"?

Why do Atheist ignore the way people talk to each other, the way people real to each other.. why do Atheist ignore those principles when the discussion turns to God?

Way to box that thought (the conception of God) into a dark corner.

What you're doing is being an apologist; which is a suspension of abductive reasoning.

Look at it like this:


God wants humans to have a record of what he wants them to do; so his "test" can be fair as you cannot test someone against adherence to rules fairly in this way if they are not adequately informed of what the rules are.

He likely knows, or has a strong suspicion of what is going to happen in the future.

He likely knows about other religions, and other events and scenarios that could occur that may potentially undermine the nature of the book.

Is the Bible an excellent document that fully fulfills those things?

No.

Knowing what I know now, with help from a number of psychologists, and behavior change experts, as a human being of the 21st century, with the power of God, I think it's perfectly reasonable for me to have inspired a book that is more compelling, that would have done a better job of unifying religions, more believable (while still entertaining some doubt, if you want) and made damned sure that events conspired not to have been signficantly altered in that time.

If I can be reasonably expected to do it, whereas the evidence indicates God cannot; God can't exist.

Yeah because the truth is welcomed with open arms, and lies never attract anyone. How do you convince an idiot that his plans won't work?

You can't. they are so stubborn and stupid that reason and appeals don't distract them from the disaster they are heading for. Because they have chosen to think themselves smarter than everyone else. Have chosen to think their will is stronger than the consequences of their actions.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 1:57:49 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 1:52:10 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/12/2016 1:42:17 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/12/2016 1:28:55 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/12/2016 1:20:37 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/11/2016 3:30:43 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/11/2016 2:00:36 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/11/2016 1:39:35 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/11/2016 1:15:42 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/11/2016 12:41:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
If we read newton's book "Philosophia Naturalis"..

Yes he wrote it in Latin, But I'll be using the Andrew Motte Translation circa 1729. It is clearly the only accurate translation.

"herefore if hereafter, I should happen to consider quantities as made up of particles, or should use little curve lines for right ones; I would not be understood to mean indivisibles, but evanescent divisible quantities; not the sums and ratio's of determinate parts, but always the limits of sums and ratio's: "

Now if I go just by the words as they literally are of an accurate translation, I'm left to ask what the heck is a "Evanescent divisible quantity"? "evanescent" means quickly fading, disappearing. How is the number 2 quickly disappearing?

It's like saying the moon shines with light when everyone in the 21st century knows the moon doesn't emit it's own light but reflects the light from the sun. But i digress Newton says the number 2 disappears right before our eyes!

By taking a literal interpretation we see newton's work is wrong from cover to cover.

And this was in the first chapter.

What does this have to do with religion?

Well a literal interpretation of Newton demonstrates that Newton was wrong.

So, you're trying to defend the Bible by attacking an interpretation of Newton you openly admit you don't understand? Plus, I'm not sure that point could be made by comparing two different types of literature.

It's an illustration to Atheist who argue on this website demanding that every verse from psalm to revelation be interpreted literally.

It's an example that even in a genre of mathematics and scientific endeavor that to understand the writing everyone has to consider context, audience, time period ect..

But I see this example falls on deaf ears. Only when it comes to religious text do the majority of Atheist then demand that the text be understood literally and with the language of today.

It's a deep seeded bias and you don't want to admit the practice either.

So you're saying that if a limited and biased human being can't write a book that can be taken literally, then why should we expect the ultimate being of all reality, that created the universe, life, and everything we see to do the same when inspiring an instruction book that covers what he wants human beings to do because he wants us all to do the right thing to do the same.

Way to lower the bar on your God!

Ever come across an idea so big and intangible that the only way it ever gets described is by allegory, example, ... not "literally"?

Ever heard someone describe an experience with the phrase "I can barely describe it"?

Why do Atheist ignore the way people talk to each other, the way people real to each other.. why do Atheist ignore those principles when the discussion turns to God?

Way to box that thought (the conception of God) into a dark corner.

What you're doing is being an apologist; which is a suspension of abductive reasoning.

Look at it like this:


God wants humans to have a record of what he wants them to do; so his "test" can be fair as you cannot test someone against adherence to rules fairly in this way if they are not adequately informed of what the rules are.

He likely knows, or has a strong suspicion of what is going to happen in the future.

He likely knows about other religions, and other events and scenarios that could occur that may potentially undermine the nature of the book.

Is the Bible an excellent document that fully fulfills those things?

No.

Knowing what I know now, with help from a number of psychologists, and behavior change experts, as a human being of the 21st century, with the power of God, I think it's perfectly reasonable for me to have inspired a book that is more compelling, that would have done a better job of unifying religions, more believable (while still entertaining some doubt, if you want) and made damned sure that events conspired not to have been signficantly altered in that time.

If I can be reasonably expected to do it, whereas the evidence indicates God cannot; God can't exist.

Yeah because the truth is welcomed with open arms, and lies never attract anyone. How do you convince an idiot that his plans won't work?

You can't. they are so stubborn and stupid that reason and appeals don't distract them from the disaster they are heading for. Because they have chosen to think themselves smarter than everyone else. Have chosen to think their will is stronger than the consequences of their actions.

Yeah; everything you said there is pretty much what Atheists, in a broad and general sense think is what's happening with you.

So, for what reason do you think they're wrong and you are right?
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 1:58:11 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 1:28:55 AM, Mhykiel wrote:


Ever come across an idea so big and intangible that the only way it ever gets described is by allegory, example, ... not "literally"?

Ever heard someone describe an experience with the phrase "I can barely describe it"?

Why do Atheist ignore the way people talk to each other, the way people real to each other.. why do Atheist ignore those principles when the discussion turns to God?
Why do many theists ignore the sequence of events and contextual clues, and instead support what they were instructed to believe about God rather than re-reading the texts with a fresh mind? You never responded to several pertinent points I made on Dee-em's OP, "God Set Man Up for Certain Failure." Here is a link to the post that you never addressed. http://www.debate.org...

Way to box that thought (the conception of God) into a dark corner.
Pot calling kettle black in my opinion.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 2:07:56 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 1:57:49 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/12/2016 1:52:10 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/12/2016 1:42:17 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/12/2016 1:28:55 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/12/2016 1:20:37 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/11/2016 3:30:43 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/11/2016 2:00:36 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/11/2016 1:39:35 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/11/2016 1:15:42 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/11/2016 12:41:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
If we read newton's book "Philosophia Naturalis"..

Yes he wrote it in Latin, But I'll be using the Andrew Motte Translation circa 1729. It is clearly the only accurate translation.

"herefore if hereafter, I should happen to consider quantities as made up of particles, or should use little curve lines for right ones; I would not be understood to mean indivisibles, but evanescent divisible quantities; not the sums and ratio's of determinate parts, but always the limits of sums and ratio's: "

Now if I go just by the words as they literally are of an accurate translation, I'm left to ask what the heck is a "Evanescent divisible quantity"? "evanescent" means quickly fading, disappearing. How is the number 2 quickly disappearing?

It's like saying the moon shines with light when everyone in the 21st century knows the moon doesn't emit it's own light but reflects the light from the sun. But i digress Newton says the number 2 disappears right before our eyes!

By taking a literal interpretation we see newton's work is wrong from cover to cover.

And this was in the first chapter.

What does this have to do with religion?

Well a literal interpretation of Newton demonstrates that Newton was wrong.

So, you're trying to defend the Bible by attacking an interpretation of Newton you openly admit you don't understand? Plus, I'm not sure that point could be made by comparing two different types of literature.

It's an illustration to Atheist who argue on this website demanding that every verse from psalm to revelation be interpreted literally.

It's an example that even in a genre of mathematics and scientific endeavor that to understand the writing everyone has to consider context, audience, time period ect..

But I see this example falls on deaf ears. Only when it comes to religious text do the majority of Atheist then demand that the text be understood literally and with the language of today.

It's a deep seeded bias and you don't want to admit the practice either.

So you're saying that if a limited and biased human being can't write a book that can be taken literally, then why should we expect the ultimate being of all reality, that created the universe, life, and everything we see to do the same when inspiring an instruction book that covers what he wants human beings to do because he wants us all to do the right thing to do the same.

Way to lower the bar on your God!

Ever come across an idea so big and intangible that the only way it ever gets described is by allegory, example, ... not "literally"?

Ever heard someone describe an experience with the phrase "I can barely describe it"?

Why do Atheist ignore the way people talk to each other, the way people real to each other.. why do Atheist ignore those principles when the discussion turns to God?

Way to box that thought (the conception of God) into a dark corner.

What you're doing is being an apologist; which is a suspension of abductive reasoning.

Look at it like this:


God wants humans to have a record of what he wants them to do; so his "test" can be fair as you cannot test someone against adherence to rules fairly in this way if they are not adequately informed of what the rules are.

He likely knows, or has a strong suspicion of what is going to happen in the future.

He likely knows about other religions, and other events and scenarios that could occur that may potentially undermine the nature of the book.

Is the Bible an excellent document that fully fulfills those things?

No.

Knowing what I know now, with help from a number of psychologists, and behavior change experts, as a human being of the 21st century, with the power of God, I think it's perfectly reasonable for me to have inspired a book that is more compelling, that would have done a better job of unifying religions, more believable (while still entertaining some doubt, if you want) and made damned sure that events conspired not to have been signficantly altered in that time.

If I can be reasonably expected to do it, whereas the evidence indicates God cannot; God can't exist.

Yeah because the truth is welcomed with open arms, and lies never attract anyone. How do you convince an idiot that his plans won't work?

You can't. they are so stubborn and stupid that reason and appeals don't distract them from the disaster they are heading for. Because they have chosen to think themselves smarter than everyone else. Have chosen to think their will is stronger than the consequences of their actions.

Yeah; everything you said there is pretty much what Atheists, in a broad and general sense think is what's happening with you.

So, for what reason do you think they're wrong and you are right?

Well that would be THE the discussion wouldn't it.

It's just ridiculous and I'm tired of repeating myself. If I say genesis is poetry and non-literal. And I support that claim by pointing out elements of Hebrew poetry and poetry in general. And I point out the structure following a non chronological arrangement of categories.

Well that's a strong case because so many elements found in non-literal poetic accounts are also present in Genesis. Like did you know every line of it begins with the same letter "Eleph" (the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet) except the first word which is "Beth".

Can you please demonstrate to me a literal chronological account in ANY literature in the whole world that has those elements happening!

Why do I think I am right and they are wrong? Because the history of observing these elements supports my conclusion. And they disregard and refuse to account for the rhyming, the first letter, the structure, the rhythm.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 2:15:25 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 2:07:56 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/12/2016 1:57:49 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/12/2016 1:52:10 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/12/2016 1:42:17 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/12/2016 1:28:55 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/12/2016 1:20:37 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/11/2016 3:30:43 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/11/2016 2:00:36 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/11/2016 1:39:35 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/11/2016 1:15:42 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/11/2016 12:41:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
If we read newton's book "Philosophia Naturalis"..

Yes he wrote it in Latin, But I'll be using the Andrew Motte Translation circa 1729. It is clearly the only accurate translation.

"herefore if hereafter, I should happen to consider quantities as made up of particles, or should use little curve lines for right ones; I would not be understood to mean indivisibles, but evanescent divisible quantities; not the sums and ratio's of determinate parts, but always the limits of sums and ratio's: "

Now if I go just by the words as they literally are of an accurate translation, I'm left to ask what the heck is a "Evanescent divisible quantity"? "evanescent" means quickly fading, disappearing. How is the number 2 quickly disappearing?

It's like saying the moon shines with light when everyone in the 21st century knows the moon doesn't emit it's own light but reflects the light from the sun. But i digress Newton says the number 2 disappears right before our eyes!

By taking a literal interpretation we see newton's work is wrong from cover to cover.

And this was in the first chapter.

What does this have to do with religion?

Well a literal interpretation of Newton demonstrates that Newton was wrong.

So, you're trying to defend the Bible by attacking an interpretation of Newton you openly admit you don't understand? Plus, I'm not sure that point could be made by comparing two different types of literature.

It's an illustration to Atheist who argue on this website demanding that every verse from psalm to revelation be interpreted literally.

It's an example that even in a genre of mathematics and scientific endeavor that to understand the writing everyone has to consider context, audience, time period ect..

But I see this example falls on deaf ears. Only when it comes to religious text do the majority of Atheist then demand that the text be understood literally and with the language of today.

It's a deep seeded bias and you don't want to admit the practice either.

So you're saying that if a limited and biased human being can't write a book that can be taken literally, then why should we expect the ultimate being of all reality, that created the universe, life, and everything we see to do the same when inspiring an instruction book that covers what he wants human beings to do because he wants us all to do the right thing to do the same.

Way to lower the bar on your God!

Ever come across an idea so big and intangible that the only way it ever gets described is by allegory, example, ... not "literally"?

Ever heard someone describe an experience with the phrase "I can barely describe it"?

Why do Atheist ignore the way people talk to each other, the way people real to each other.. why do Atheist ignore those principles when the discussion turns to God?

Way to box that thought (the conception of God) into a dark corner.

What you're doing is being an apologist; which is a suspension of abductive reasoning.

Look at it like this:


God wants humans to have a record of what he wants them to do; so his "test" can be fair as you cannot test someone against adherence to rules fairly in this way if they are not adequately informed of what the rules are.

He likely knows, or has a strong suspicion of what is going to happen in the future.

He likely knows about other religions, and other events and scenarios that could occur that may potentially undermine the nature of the book.

Is the Bible an excellent document that fully fulfills those things?

No.

Knowing what I know now, with help from a number of psychologists, and behavior change experts, as a human being of the 21st century, with the power of God, I think it's perfectly reasonable for me to have inspired a book that is more compelling, that would have done a better job of unifying religions, more believable (while still entertaining some doubt, if you want) and made damned sure that events conspired not to have been signficantly altered in that time.

If I can be reasonably expected to do it, whereas the evidence indicates God cannot; God can't exist.

Yeah because the truth is welcomed with open arms, and lies never attract anyone. How do you convince an idiot that his plans won't work?

You can't. they are so stubborn and stupid that reason and appeals don't distract them from the disaster they are heading for. Because they have chosen to think themselves smarter than everyone else. Have chosen to think their will is stronger than the consequences of their actions.

Yeah; everything you said there is pretty much what Atheists, in a broad and general sense think is what's happening with you.

So, for what reason do you think they're wrong and you are right?

Well that would be THE the discussion wouldn't it.

It's just ridiculous and I'm tired of repeating myself. If I say genesis is poetry and non-literal. And I support that claim by pointing out elements of Hebrew poetry and poetry in general. And I point out the structure following a non chronological arrangement of categories.

Well that's a strong case because so many elements found in non-literal poetic accounts are also present in Genesis. Like did you know every line of it begins with the same letter "Eleph" (the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet) except the first word which is "Beth".

Can you please demonstrate to me a literal chronological account in ANY literature in the whole world that has those elements happening!

Why do I think I am right and they are wrong? Because the history of observing these elements supports my conclusion. And they disregard and refuse to account for the rhyming, the first letter, the structure, the rhythm.

No one is claiming that ANY other literature in the whole world is the result of being inspired by an omnibenevolent super being.

This is the point.

You can't on the one hand claim it's the inspired word of God, and should be held in higher regard to every other book on it's fundamental truth and interpretation; yet on the other demand it be held in the same regard to every other book on the nature of it's content.

Fundamentally, human beings have written innumerable fables, riddled with inconsistencies, factual descriptions of events that, if taken literally, can be shown to be wrong, and include moral and historical divine narratives that are relatively incoherent.

The most logical and simplest explanation; is that humans make this sort of crap up all the time; and the bible is just as much a wo