Predestination, John Calvin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Don't bother, he's simply wrong. Pretty much any Church can claim legitimacy, and point to their interpretation of the Bible or other works for their support. As long as people are willing to believe their dogma, that is.

Meanwhile, given that one can construct arguments to make the Bible and other works fit pretty much any narrative you wish to support, isn't it all a bit pointless? I mean even you, a smart well educated person with probably rather better grasp of Latin slips up in a basic mistake of gender -- so what are the odds that the under-educated slaves and monks didn't mess up far worse through years of little slip ups filtered into Canon? And that's before one even considers the more difficult issue of contradictions...

---

Do you know (you probably do), medieval Latin literacy and scribal error in the copying of the Latin Vulgate is a really interesting topic, not least because they did know when mistakes were made and they could correct them. They could also correct varient spellings and errors of conjugation and declension.

However, I have been squinting at Middle English scrawl for six months, and John Shirley couldn't spell to save his life. In fact, he spells "lyf" differently every other line!

The "correctness" (sorry) of the bible in general should maybe be discussed in a different thread just as the "legitimacy" of any church or denomination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheLastDays

The "correctness" (sorry) of the bible in general should maybe be discussed in a different thread just as the "legitimacy" of any church or denomination.

---

We were talking about scribal error, which is a well documented fact in relation to Biblical manuscripts.

The later the writing of the specific edition the more inaccuracies present. For example, the KJ while a beautifully written work is far different than the earlier latin scripts. Those same latin scripts are different from the even earlier Hebrew and Greek copies we have found.

Human error exists in everything. Especially when a document is first recorded by stories that were told by word of mouth.

Give me one doctrine these "errors" would change.

Just an example: there are American churches out there which preach that Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit are not in fact part of the same Godhead/being/thing. How? Well they manage to mis-translate a single fairly basic Greek word for “one” (as in: “one” guy).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

The later the writing of the specific edition the more inaccuracies present. For example, the KJ while a beautifully written work is far different than the earlier latin scripts. Those same latin scripts are different from the even earlier Hebrew and Greek copies we have found.

Human error exists in everything. Especially when a document is first recorded by stories that were told by word of mouth.

---

This is not necessarily true, Erasmus' Vulgate is an improvement on Jerome's, the modern NRSV incorporates texts to available to anyone since the second century, and while it overmodernises it has copius footnotes to identify the deviations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfylwyr

Give me one doctrine these "errors" would change.

---

The biggest screw up was that Jesus was widely regarded by the fishing community of Nazareth as a "crapenterer" (Galilean slang for an unmarried chap who hangs around with guys) but St Minan the Bewildered (who despite his dyslexia had made a good career in scribing) mistook this in the context of a third hand story about getting wood, and the rest is history and woefully misplaced prejudice.

:wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

The biggest screw up was that Jesus was widely regarded by the fishing community of Nazareth as a "crapenterer" (Galilean slang for an unmarried chap who hangs around with guys) but St Minan the Bewildered (who despite his dyslexia had made a good career in scribing) mistook this in the context of a third hand story about getting wood, and the rest is history and woefully misplaced prejudice.

:wink:

---

:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

The biggest screw up was that Jesus was widely regarded by the fishing community of Nazareth as a "crapenterer" (Galilean slang for an unmarried chap who hangs around with guys) but St Minan the Bewildered (who despite his dyslexia had made a good career in scribing) mistook this in the context of a third hand story about getting wood, and the rest is history and woefully misplaced prejudice.

:wink:

---

My lips twitched.

I have to ask though: what's the point behind all the "Gay Jesus" jokes, it feels a bit self defeating. It implies straight Jesus wouldn't have been tollerant enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Augustine believed in evolution.

---

No he did not. He believed in an Earth that was not many thousands of years old. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120112.htm This the title of one the chapters of his Magnum Opus "The City of God" in the 12th book " Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World's Past" Here he is arguing against an old earth, which is the crux of the issue of Evolution. Given enough time, miracles can happen.

The crux of evolution is passing a template to the next generation.

Time is more of a requirement in seeing the results. Given enough time and you get more then enough variety. Each generation can have a change, seeing those results withou DNA testing can take many generations to see.

The age of the Earth is a geological and/or astronomical area of endeavour. Mind you the various fields of science can be used to calibrate and test the other fields. That the age of the Earth is ample enough for Evolution from inanimate to cell to multicellullar life is apparent within the fossil record. That age of sediments can be approximately dated by matching the fossils within them with other such fossil sites around the world.

Scientists get a perverse joy in tearing down theories, even their own if they can find a more elegant solution that fits the data.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classical_hero

No he did not. He believed in an Earth that was not many thousands of years old. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120112.htm This the title of one the chapters of his Magnum Opus "The City of God" in the 12th book " Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World's Past" Here he is arguing against an old earth, which is the crux of the issue of Evolution. Given enough time, miracles can happen.

---

Have you read what you quoted? Augustine is aguing against the belief in cyclical time, rather than linear (Christian) time, which was one of the most important gifts Christianity gave to scientific enquiry. He is also correct within his knowledge, he can only date from written history and no written history goes back more much further than the Bible. I will, however, check that quote as I am supcicious of "not six thousand years", as that is a modern figure and would make Augustine's world about 2,000 years older than Bishop Ussher's 1200 years later.

Just because Augustine doesn't believe in an Earth which is billions of years old does not mean he believes life does not develop, quite the opposite in fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

The age of the Earth is a geological and/or astronomical area of endeavour. Mind you the various fields of science can be used to calibrate and test the other fields. That the age of the Earth is ample enough for Evolution from inanimate to cell to multicellullar life is apparent within the fossil record. That age of sediments can be approximately dated by matching the fossils within them with other such fossil sites around the world.

---

There is something of a fallacy here, sediments are dated by fossils and fossils are dated by sedimentary layer. It's a closed loop. All the fossil record tells us is that life has had long enough to evolve, but not how long that has taken.

I'm not arguing that the Earth isn't old, I'm just making a point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

There is something of a fallacy here, sediments are dated by fossils and fossils are dated by sedimentary layer. It's a closed loop. All the fossil record tells us is that life has had long enough to evolve, but not how long that has taken.

I'm not arguing that the Earth isn't old, I'm just making a point.

---

Fossils are dated by carbon are they not, by definition it would be dead and therefore the carbon content would be datable, and I was always under the impression things like sediments were dated by things like lead or uranium decay??

Furnuculus is the man to ask

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Fossils are dated by carbon are they not, by definition it would be dead and therefore the carbon content would be datable, and I was always under the impression things like sediments were dated by things like lead or uranium decay??

Furnuculus is the man to ask

---

Fossils are petrified, in most cases this means they can't be carbon dated because the original organic material has been replaced by some form of inorganic chemical. In any case, Carbon14 dating is quite unreliable because of the way it can fluctuate, so it is calibrated using dendrochonology, but it has now been discovered that trees can grow more than one ring a year, so that is also flawed and in any case dendro only goes back to about 3,000 BC, which is as far as history goes anyway. Lead and Uranium decay can also be contaminated if they are too closely associated with other minerals.

The point is, we don't know how old the Earth is, we just have evidence and ways of interpreting it. This is no different to Augustine, whose analysis of the available evidence (the historical record) was essentially correct, the Greeks were basically right and the Egyptions really quite wrong.

We can measure quite accurately several different Isotope ratios. Different half lives lend themselves to different clocks. The age if the Earth is well known. It's billions of years +/- millions. Not thousands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

There is something of a fallacy here, sediments are dated by fossils and fossils are dated by sedimentary layer. It's a closed loop. All the fossil record tells us is that life has had long enough to evolve, but not how long that has taken.

I'm not arguing that the Earth isn't old, I'm just making a point.

---

To a degree but you have to keep in mind that sedimentary layers are conveniently quite large and made by relatively simply physical processes which means you can do a lot of comparison with other samples of the same or other layers. This doesn't give you a reliable dating technique, but then again the sedimentary layer is only corroborating evidence for a dating or a ball park figure from where to start.

Also if you want an accurate measure of time based on radioactive decay, you want to try Caesium isotopes. These have a very regular and predictable decay pattern which is why they are used as atomic clocks. Furthermore there are other radioactive isotopes, again it is the multitude of samples which provides accuracy and not some technique applied to any individual sample.

It is precisely that flaw which makes carbon dating unreliable: the lack of valid samples to compare against.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Fossils are petrified, in most cases this means they can't be carbon dated because the original organic material has been replaced by some form of inorganic chemical. In any case, Carbon14 dating is quite unreliable because of the way it can fluctuate, so it is calibrated using dendrochonology, but it has now been discovered that trees can grow more than one ring a year, so that is also flawed and in any case dendro only goes back to about 3,000 BC, which is as far as history goes anyway. Lead and Uranium decay can also be contaminated if they are too closely associated with other minerals.

The point is, we don't know how old the Earth is, we just have evidence and ways of interpreting it. This is no different to Augustine, whose analysis of the available evidence (the historical record) was essentially correct, the Greeks were basically right and the Egyptions really quite wrong.

---

Apparently Carbon 14 would be no use for Dinosaurs cos it would be all gone by the time we dig it up but fine for later ones.

In an effort to find summit on this I just googled this "How to Date a Fossil"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Apparently Carbon 14 would be no use for Dinosaurs cos it would be all gone by the time we dig it up but fine for later ones.

In an effort to find summit on this I just googled this "How to Date a Fossil"

---

What that fails to mention though is contamination, irrc Lead207 can occur naturally, and there are ways that other radiometric tests can go squiffy, I think jet fumes can mess with Carbon14.

Anyway, my original point was fallability, nothing more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

In an effort to find summit on this I just googled this "How to Date a Fossil"

---

Any authored by Wendy Deng or Hugh Hefner? :drummer:

=][=

As for fallability this is where it comes apparent that Science and Religion are playing different ball games. Its like a big tough American Football team turn up to play against their opponents absolutely certain in their victory, only to find its a water polo team and the playing field is water. This leads the football team to find all their armour drowns them in a pool of possibilities.

Science is only science whilst it is falliable. If a theory cannot be tested or have a chance to be proven wrong it is no longer science. All science comes with small print in the form of an error bar.

So in their game once you go from 99% confidence to 100% confidence that you are right, you are moving from fact to opinion.