Cheeze Louise, leave it to the inveterate Bible-bangers to come up with their own "logic" or biblical language use, as well as recycling the old canard of "what the bible authors really meant?" Huh? You mean their words can't be read literally?
Now, Pastor Mikey is at it again, tasking me for showing the errors of his KJV. As usual, in order to show HE and his KJV are correct, he's forced to prostitute himself and his mind to subterfuge, logical backflips, not to mention the drivel of insane, sack cloth-wearing knuckle-draggers and lunatics. Then we wonder why he can't even distinguish between a belly ache and food poisoning? No wonder!
Let's look at some of his recent reply in his blog ('May I humbly educate the Idiot....errrr...Atheist?'):
He weighs in first on Genesis, wherein I pointedly noted the major and massive error in presuming the Earth could form in any way before the Sun. His rejoinder?
"Now , if we look at verses 14-19 , we see that , yes , they record the formation of the sun , moon , and stars on the fourth day . Here again , is a reversal of order from that proposed by the atheists / evolutionists . According to Genesis , God created the earth on the FIRST day , and THEN the sun on day four . According to the atheists / evolutionists , the earth was thrown off from the sun or bore some other relationship to the sun . "
Which, of course, is fine if one accepts or embraces a mythology. I mean even I can accept certain aspects of ancient Roman or Greek mythology (such as winged horses) as MYTHOLOGY. But to assert winged horses represent a reality or truth, and on ce raced across the stratosphere is one sign of insanity!
Ditto with Mikey's biblical bunkum. Mikey, oblivious to physics or astrophysics, seems unaware a planet cannot form before a much larger mass already exists which possesses intrinsic angular momentum. If such a planet were suddenly formed - whether by "God", a Jolly Green Giant Duppie or the Flying Spaghetti monster, it would instantly be set hurling through space following the predominant gravitational forces acting on it. (Or if no pre-existing forces were present, it would simply explode in the vacuum, since in that case it would be analogous to a mini-Big Bang).
We know none of that happened, hence Mikey's assigned --- or excuse me, the Bible-assigned, order, can't be correct!
As for the Moon, since the radioactive isotope dating of its rocks and materials can be traced to the same rocks and materials of similar age on Earth, we know it spun off from the Earth- hence it had to have formed FROM the Earth! The most likely scenario for this occurred while the Earth-Moon planetestimal were still relatively molten and the (greater) gravitational force of attraction of the proto-Sun- pulled the Moon with much greater tidal force. (Even today, as Isaac Asimov noted in one published lecture, we know the Earth-Moon system is really a double planet with the Sun exerting roughly twice the force of attraction on the Moon, see e.g. The Collapsing Universe than the Earth.)
But trying to educate bible-bangers on this is more or less like trying to train a bunch of monkeys how to polish a large patio glass window without crapping all over the place.
Again also, he insists that this correct order is due to "atheists-evolutionists" when in fact it is precisely ASTRONOMERS and ASTROPHYSICSTS who have painstakingly made the findings via a combination of computer simulations, geological analysis of lunar rocks and sediment, and plain old celestial mechanics.
Yet we're asked to put all this aside for the disjointed, illiterate ramblings of some fly-infested sheep herder from 1000 B.C.. Then Europeans wonder why Americans are so backward in their educational system and place something like 25th in math and 18th in physics testing relative to the other 28 or so more advanced nations!
Not content to demonstrate his rabid ignorance here, he moves on to:
"Phil , listen up here . The "molten sea" was a huge bowl , 15 feet in diameter and 7 1/2 feet high . It was mounted upon four groups of three brass oxen facing the four directions of the compass . This "sea" took the place of the laver of the tabernacle ( Ex. 30:18-21 ) . It was designed and used for the priests' ceremonial washings , it stood in the Temple court near the altar of burnt offering . Priests washed themselves before offering sacrifices or entering the Temple . "
Which, of course, doesn't address the issue!
To repeat and reference the error:
Kings 7:23 :"He made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."
The geometrical figure (shown in the accompanying sketch) more or less captures the basic object ("molten sea"). D is the object's diameter. The claim is that there is a line that "did compass all round about it" - which can only mean the circumference of the bowl. The circumference, from basic math (given that π = 22/7, approximately) is:
Circumference = π x Diameter = π x D = (22/7) x 10 cubits = 220/7 cubits
and therefore:
Circumference = 31. 4 cubits
In other words, since Mikey didn't process it the first time - the error made by the writer is failing to see that "30 cubits" doesn't cut it! It doesn't make the circumference of the bow but is SHORT by: 31. 4 cubits - 30 cubits = 1.4 cubits! (Note also how he changes the units to feet and inches, again clearly trying to escape the biblical scribbler's use of CUBITS. Mikey believes if he changes units it will be harder to show he's defending the indefensible - but it's just as easy. I just prefer to use the original measures and words rather than make changes!)
Thus, one cannot assert "did compass ALL AROUND IT" - NO IT DID NOT!
One can't even use the claim that the author "rounded" it off, because when one rounds off one increases not decreases to the nearest figure. Thus, the correct rounded number would have been 31 cubits, not 30 cubits, which would have shown the author was at least remotely aware he was in the vicinity!
Again, Mikey falls flat on his face - maybe because he never took geometry.
More to come:
This time, Mikey again resorts to tricks he's played before but never admits to. The error, for reference, is in:
Lev 11:20-21:"All fowls that creep, going upon all four, ......"
But as I observed, fowl do not "go upon all four"
He writes in response:
"Well , like our Catechist friend , Phil lacks proper biblical exegesis ( i.e., failing to define according to the original intent and NOT according to modern usage.) Hence , the words in Lev. 11:20 ; "All fowls that creep..." refer to "every creeping thing that flies"; for what are designed are not properly fowls, but, as the Jewish writers interpret them, flies, fleas, bees, wasps, hornets, locusts , etc."
But "failing to define according to original intent" means ONE CANNOT TAKE THE PASSAGE LITERALLY!
Yet Mikey insists every passage can be taken literally! So which is it? Can the Bible be read literally (which means without having to parse what any original meaning was) or can it not?
The way the Roman Catholic Church saw it (why they originally prohibited widespread bible reading by the hoi polloi), the Bible wasn't fit to be read or mastered by the common, ordinary farmer or laborer - because he'd need exegetical training, precisely what Mikey demands here! Yet on the other side of their mouths these inveterate liars claim the Bible "can be read and understood by anyone" - NO IT CANNOT BE IF ONE NEEDS TO BE PRIVY to WHAT THE ORIGINAL MEANING WAS!
That is precisely why exegesis is reserved to the niche of higher education. I didn't take it until my second semester at Loyola. Mikey is therefore in a box: either he is lying when he claims the bible must be read only with regard to the "original meaning" (implying he's only using this response to parry my attacks on his KJV since he has nowhere else to do) OR the bible can be read literally, even by the sharecropper and migrant worker, without special training.
The amusing thing here is even when Mikey performs these linguistic and logical acrobatics, he still FAILS!
For example, even by extending the definition (according to him, of what the biblical authors really meant) to "flies, fleas, bees, wasps, hornets, locusts.." doesn't correct the error!
All of those are INSECTS, meaning they have EIGHT legs, but the author of Leviticus explicitly refers to the "fowl going upon all four"!
BUT THEY GO ON EIGHT (by extension of Mikey's definition) - NOT FOUR!
SO he's still missing the boat, and the KJV Bible remains as much in error as before Mikey tried his best to rescue it by resorting to his "literal-then non-literal" trick.
Recall the next error shown:
Lev 11:6:
"And the hare, because he cheweth the cud..."
Hare do not "chew the cud", cows do.
And Mikey's rejoinder (note how the guy creates his own "biblical taxonomy" to try and make his case, which I presume is also part of his "exegesis"):
"Here again , he is confused . You see , verse 6 goes hand-in-hand with Lev. 11:4-8 . In other words , camels , rock badgers , rabbits , and swine are examples of quadrupeds ( i.e., it is generally considered that the Bible divides animals into four groups, according to their mode of moving: (1) quadrupeds, or walkers; (2) birds, or fliers; (3) reptiles, or creepers; (4) fishes, or swimmers ) , which do not meet these tests . The rock badgers and rabbits ( "hare" ) have a motion that LOOKS like a chewing of the cud , but is not "
Oh, oh, okay....all righty...so my eyes deceive me! I'm having hallucinations then? Hey, maybe your whole stupid book is one big hallucination! Reptiles as "creepers"? So where do millipedes fit in this taxonomy? Fishies as "swimmers"? Then what were or are sea snakes?
Now, here's what I need to know: Is there a separate Bible handbook that informs us of all this? Tells us before we read Leviticus how the Bible classes animals? Or fowl? No freaking way! Because Mikey pulled it all out of his butt! He's making this stuff up as he goes along!
But again, even this effort - though I admit is valiant - falls flat. Because if the Leviticus writer couldn't make the distinction between an animal chewing the cud, and one that doesn't (hare) then we're under no obligation to take him seriously! Even if what Mikey spouts is true and these "quadrupeds" display an analogous mouth motion to "chewing the cud" - we must at least expect the righteous biblical author himself to MAKE THE DISTINCTION! But he fails to do so!
And if he can't accurately make such distinction, why take anything else he avers seriously? Like the admonition by God "instructing males are to purify" themselves after contact with a woman menstruating.)
Mikey, deep as he can go, persists in waging a losing battle, this in reference to the mixing up of "whales" and "fish":
"NO! there are NO "ERRORS" here , Phil ! As I have stated many times before , the Hebrew text merely says that it was a "great fish" ( Heb dag gadol ) . Jesus' citation of this event ( 12:40 ) , where he uses the word "whale" ( Gr ketos ) , can be either "a sea monster, whale, huge fish" ( The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon Strong's Number: 2785 ; Greek lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary plus others; this is keyed to the large Kittel and the "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament." ) . "
But again, even being generous, the most one can allow these biblical authors is pointing out only a crude, Level 1 truth- or half-truth. And I certainly couldn't go so far as to say they're "inerrant"! Because to me that implies a level of truth not only accurate in critical essentials, but complete.
Bear in mind I went through the levels of truth statements in an earlier blog. For example, Scott Soames (Understanding Truth) uses as an example of an L(1) statement:
“The Moon has 500 craters”
So if one restricts information-data to the preceding, he'll only be accurate to that initial truth statement level. If, however, one uses instruments of higher resolution (say much more powerful telescopes, or better yet Moon mapping satellites) one will have to change the statement, perhaps referencing lunar Maria (seas) and craters within craters. Thus, no truth statement can be complete at the initial level formulated, there’ll always be a higher, more complex truth statement that trumps it. The most one has, if anything, is partial truth and he may not even have that!
Worse, is the L/2 (one half -statement):
"The Moon has 500 big holes"
If there are eight possible grades of accuracy with '8' the highest, then the L=½ level falls lower by nearly 15 orders! Why? Because a generic "hole" isn't a crater! A hole can be anything and emerge any number of ways! A crater, meanwhile, has a specific profile of criteria including layering and impact formations, not to mention dimensions. To say a "crater" is a "hole" is therefore to commit a monumental inaccuracy!
In the same way, failing to distinguish a "fish" (even a GREAT fish) from a Whale (a mammal) is just as egregious.
If we allow our definitions of truth to be so crudely limited and deformed then in fact, anything goes! One can adopt the same wide latitude to alter at will the meanings of words he doesn't like (for example, Mikey asserting in an earlier blog that "killing" and "murder" are distinct - so "Thou shalt not Kill" can't be universally applied! This then allows the state to eliminate "killers" without itself being such - because the state is "murdering" not "killing" when it executes. When you gather your brain cells after reading this permutative verbal back flip, let me know!)
Thus, the very ambiguity of meaning shows that one isn't dealing with an empirical truth on the level of say" The Solar oblateness is 1 part in 250" but rather with a METAPHORICAL interpretation of reality. Thus, again, another reason to abandon literalness! Or literal approaches to biblical truth!
Let's move on to more Mikey Malarkey:
"Now , grasping at any demonic straws that Satan hands him , he next cites Matthew 13:31-32 re: the mustard seed , and comments :"There are two major errors here: first, there are many smaller seeds, like the orchid seed; and second, mustard plants don't grow into trees."
The mustard seed was the smallest seed a farmer USED . Jesus used this parable to show that the Kingdom has small beginnings but will grow and produce great results ."
However, again this resort to retrospective word- parsing (and effectively putting his own words into the author's script) doesn't cut it. WHY didn't the author make the distinction in the first place? Why not simply insert the words to make the meaning clear, e.g.
"a grain of mustard seed which…is the least of all seeds used by farmers",
The failure to append the added condition means the statement could be taken as an absolute - again by those who would read it literally in the future. More importantly, not to make the inference that future readers might not KNOW this implies the writer only considered his own immediate language needs - thus disclosing NO "divine inspiry"! So again, what Mikey is going back on ....is that he can't allow the bible to be literally read, but only in terms of what the original writers meant. It is either one or the other here, can't be both!
Also, the parable reference to Yeshua's invocation of the mustard seed still doesn't eliminate the biological fact that mustard seeds don't grow into trees. So again, it can't be taken literally! Indeed, IF one took it literally it would be interpreted along the lines of: "My kingdom is like a mustard seed- but it's really bait and switch because no tree will grow from it - so y'all foolish believers are gonna be left in the cold!". At the very least, with all his somersaults on meanings and reverse engineering the words of the original writers, Mikey's conceding one can't read the bible literally! To me, this is a monster concession in and of itself, though I'm sure he'll figure out a way to fudge it with more verbal tricks and dodges. (E.g. "I mean you can read it literally ONCE you know what the original words mean". Sorry that won't cut it!)
Mikey again for an encore:
"Lastly he cites Matt. 4:8 and comments :"Unless the world is flat, altitude simply will not help you see all the kingdoms of the Earth - a point made in a prior blog."
Phil , again , LOOK at who was tempting Jesus in His human form.. it was your buddy , the great DECEIVER...SATAN !! This was a fictitious, delusive representation, which Satan was permitted to make; to cover which, and that it might be thought to be real, he took Christ into a high mountain; where he proposed an object externally to His sight, and internally to His imagination, which represented, in appearance, the whole world, and all its glory . "
But again, he misses the point! The point isn't that "Satan is a deceiver" or was "permitted to make a delusive representation" or anything else but that the Gospel writer himself (or the translating scribe) didn't point out the deception! I mean, if the book is truly "divinely inspired" one would think the writer would have to know future readers would read what he's written...or not? One wouldn't assume a future reader would know this, and certainly one (Gentile) not au fait with the ancient Jewish tradition or customs, including of language use.
Again, the failure or omission is just as egregious an error as making the false statement. In this case, it was the gospel writer's duty to inform us of the deception but he failed.
Now, how could we leave out the dramatics?
"Satan" being my buddy? Hardly! Since I'm not the one that has a hard-on for him every waking minute, depicting him regularly in blogs with horns, pitchforks, fires etc. and relentlessly writing about him and what he plans to do with the "popey", the "Catechist", atheists, Mormons, JWs, Buddhists, Eckists and anyone else that can't get their craniums squeezed into Mikey's 2' by 4" brain mold.
No, looks to me like "Satan" is YOUR buddy!
Let's look at some of his recent reply in his blog ('May I humbly educate the Idiot....errrr...Atheist?'):
He weighs in first on Genesis, wherein I pointedly noted the major and massive error in presuming the Earth could form in any way before the Sun. His rejoinder?
"Now , if we look at verses 14-19 , we see that , yes , they record the formation of the sun , moon , and stars on the fourth day . Here again , is a reversal of order from that proposed by the atheists / evolutionists . According to Genesis , God created the earth on the FIRST day , and THEN the sun on day four . According to the atheists / evolutionists , the earth was thrown off from the sun or bore some other relationship to the sun . "
Which, of course, is fine if one accepts or embraces a mythology. I mean even I can accept certain aspects of ancient Roman or Greek mythology (such as winged horses) as MYTHOLOGY. But to assert winged horses represent a reality or truth, and on ce raced across the stratosphere is one sign of insanity!
Ditto with Mikey's biblical bunkum. Mikey, oblivious to physics or astrophysics, seems unaware a planet cannot form before a much larger mass already exists which possesses intrinsic angular momentum. If such a planet were suddenly formed - whether by "God", a Jolly Green Giant Duppie or the Flying Spaghetti monster, it would instantly be set hurling through space following the predominant gravitational forces acting on it. (Or if no pre-existing forces were present, it would simply explode in the vacuum, since in that case it would be analogous to a mini-Big Bang).
We know none of that happened, hence Mikey's assigned --- or excuse me, the Bible-assigned, order, can't be correct!
As for the Moon, since the radioactive isotope dating of its rocks and materials can be traced to the same rocks and materials of similar age on Earth, we know it spun off from the Earth- hence it had to have formed FROM the Earth! The most likely scenario for this occurred while the Earth-Moon planetestimal were still relatively molten and the (greater) gravitational force of attraction of the proto-Sun- pulled the Moon with much greater tidal force. (Even today, as Isaac Asimov noted in one published lecture, we know the Earth-Moon system is really a double planet with the Sun exerting roughly twice the force of attraction on the Moon, see e.g. The Collapsing Universe than the Earth.)
But trying to educate bible-bangers on this is more or less like trying to train a bunch of monkeys how to polish a large patio glass window without crapping all over the place.
Again also, he insists that this correct order is due to "atheists-evolutionists" when in fact it is precisely ASTRONOMERS and ASTROPHYSICSTS who have painstakingly made the findings via a combination of computer simulations, geological analysis of lunar rocks and sediment, and plain old celestial mechanics.
Yet we're asked to put all this aside for the disjointed, illiterate ramblings of some fly-infested sheep herder from 1000 B.C.. Then Europeans wonder why Americans are so backward in their educational system and place something like 25th in math and 18th in physics testing relative to the other 28 or so more advanced nations!
Not content to demonstrate his rabid ignorance here, he moves on to:
"Phil , listen up here . The "molten sea" was a huge bowl , 15 feet in diameter and 7 1/2 feet high . It was mounted upon four groups of three brass oxen facing the four directions of the compass . This "sea" took the place of the laver of the tabernacle ( Ex. 30:18-21 ) . It was designed and used for the priests' ceremonial washings , it stood in the Temple court near the altar of burnt offering . Priests washed themselves before offering sacrifices or entering the Temple . "
Which, of course, doesn't address the issue!
To repeat and reference the error:
Kings 7:23 :"He made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."
The geometrical figure (shown in the accompanying sketch) more or less captures the basic object ("molten sea"). D is the object's diameter. The claim is that there is a line that "did compass all round about it" - which can only mean the circumference of the bowl. The circumference, from basic math (given that π = 22/7, approximately) is:
Circumference = π x Diameter = π x D = (22/7) x 10 cubits = 220/7 cubits
and therefore:
Circumference = 31. 4 cubits
In other words, since Mikey didn't process it the first time - the error made by the writer is failing to see that "30 cubits" doesn't cut it! It doesn't make the circumference of the bow but is SHORT by: 31. 4 cubits - 30 cubits = 1.4 cubits! (Note also how he changes the units to feet and inches, again clearly trying to escape the biblical scribbler's use of CUBITS. Mikey believes if he changes units it will be harder to show he's defending the indefensible - but it's just as easy. I just prefer to use the original measures and words rather than make changes!)
Thus, one cannot assert "did compass ALL AROUND IT" - NO IT DID NOT!
One can't even use the claim that the author "rounded" it off, because when one rounds off one increases not decreases to the nearest figure. Thus, the correct rounded number would have been 31 cubits, not 30 cubits, which would have shown the author was at least remotely aware he was in the vicinity!
Again, Mikey falls flat on his face - maybe because he never took geometry.
More to come:
This time, Mikey again resorts to tricks he's played before but never admits to. The error, for reference, is in:
Lev 11:20-21:"All fowls that creep, going upon all four, ......"
But as I observed, fowl do not "go upon all four"
He writes in response:
"Well , like our Catechist friend , Phil lacks proper biblical exegesis ( i.e., failing to define according to the original intent and NOT according to modern usage.) Hence , the words in Lev. 11:20 ; "All fowls that creep..." refer to "every creeping thing that flies"; for what are designed are not properly fowls, but, as the Jewish writers interpret them, flies, fleas, bees, wasps, hornets, locusts , etc."
But "failing to define according to original intent" means ONE CANNOT TAKE THE PASSAGE LITERALLY!
Yet Mikey insists every passage can be taken literally! So which is it? Can the Bible be read literally (which means without having to parse what any original meaning was) or can it not?
The way the Roman Catholic Church saw it (why they originally prohibited widespread bible reading by the hoi polloi), the Bible wasn't fit to be read or mastered by the common, ordinary farmer or laborer - because he'd need exegetical training, precisely what Mikey demands here! Yet on the other side of their mouths these inveterate liars claim the Bible "can be read and understood by anyone" - NO IT CANNOT BE IF ONE NEEDS TO BE PRIVY to WHAT THE ORIGINAL MEANING WAS!
That is precisely why exegesis is reserved to the niche of higher education. I didn't take it until my second semester at Loyola. Mikey is therefore in a box: either he is lying when he claims the bible must be read only with regard to the "original meaning" (implying he's only using this response to parry my attacks on his KJV since he has nowhere else to do) OR the bible can be read literally, even by the sharecropper and migrant worker, without special training.
The amusing thing here is even when Mikey performs these linguistic and logical acrobatics, he still FAILS!
For example, even by extending the definition (according to him, of what the biblical authors really meant) to "flies, fleas, bees, wasps, hornets, locusts.." doesn't correct the error!
All of those are INSECTS, meaning they have EIGHT legs, but the author of Leviticus explicitly refers to the "fowl going upon all four"!
BUT THEY GO ON EIGHT (by extension of Mikey's definition) - NOT FOUR!
SO he's still missing the boat, and the KJV Bible remains as much in error as before Mikey tried his best to rescue it by resorting to his "literal-then non-literal" trick.
Recall the next error shown:
Lev 11:6:
"And the hare, because he cheweth the cud..."
Hare do not "chew the cud", cows do.
And Mikey's rejoinder (note how the guy creates his own "biblical taxonomy" to try and make his case, which I presume is also part of his "exegesis"):
"Here again , he is confused . You see , verse 6 goes hand-in-hand with Lev. 11:4-8 . In other words , camels , rock badgers , rabbits , and swine are examples of quadrupeds ( i.e., it is generally considered that the Bible divides animals into four groups, according to their mode of moving: (1) quadrupeds, or walkers; (2) birds, or fliers; (3) reptiles, or creepers; (4) fishes, or swimmers ) , which do not meet these tests . The rock badgers and rabbits ( "hare" ) have a motion that LOOKS like a chewing of the cud , but is not "
Oh, oh, okay....all righty...so my eyes deceive me! I'm having hallucinations then? Hey, maybe your whole stupid book is one big hallucination! Reptiles as "creepers"? So where do millipedes fit in this taxonomy? Fishies as "swimmers"? Then what were or are sea snakes?
Now, here's what I need to know: Is there a separate Bible handbook that informs us of all this? Tells us before we read Leviticus how the Bible classes animals? Or fowl? No freaking way! Because Mikey pulled it all out of his butt! He's making this stuff up as he goes along!
But again, even this effort - though I admit is valiant - falls flat. Because if the Leviticus writer couldn't make the distinction between an animal chewing the cud, and one that doesn't (hare) then we're under no obligation to take him seriously! Even if what Mikey spouts is true and these "quadrupeds" display an analogous mouth motion to "chewing the cud" - we must at least expect the righteous biblical author himself to MAKE THE DISTINCTION! But he fails to do so!
And if he can't accurately make such distinction, why take anything else he avers seriously? Like the admonition by God "instructing males are to purify" themselves after contact with a woman menstruating.)
Mikey, deep as he can go, persists in waging a losing battle, this in reference to the mixing up of "whales" and "fish":
"NO! there are NO "ERRORS" here , Phil ! As I have stated many times before , the Hebrew text merely says that it was a "great fish" ( Heb dag gadol ) . Jesus' citation of this event ( 12:40 ) , where he uses the word "whale" ( Gr ketos ) , can be either "a sea monster, whale, huge fish" ( The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon Strong's Number: 2785 ; Greek lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary plus others; this is keyed to the large Kittel and the "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament." ) . "
But again, even being generous, the most one can allow these biblical authors is pointing out only a crude, Level 1 truth- or half-truth. And I certainly couldn't go so far as to say they're "inerrant"! Because to me that implies a level of truth not only accurate in critical essentials, but complete.
Bear in mind I went through the levels of truth statements in an earlier blog. For example, Scott Soames (Understanding Truth) uses as an example of an L(1) statement:
“The Moon has 500 craters”
So if one restricts information-data to the preceding, he'll only be accurate to that initial truth statement level. If, however, one uses instruments of higher resolution (say much more powerful telescopes, or better yet Moon mapping satellites) one will have to change the statement, perhaps referencing lunar Maria (seas) and craters within craters. Thus, no truth statement can be complete at the initial level formulated, there’ll always be a higher, more complex truth statement that trumps it. The most one has, if anything, is partial truth and he may not even have that!
Worse, is the L/2 (one half -statement):
"The Moon has 500 big holes"
If there are eight possible grades of accuracy with '8' the highest, then the L=½ level falls lower by nearly 15 orders! Why? Because a generic "hole" isn't a crater! A hole can be anything and emerge any number of ways! A crater, meanwhile, has a specific profile of criteria including layering and impact formations, not to mention dimensions. To say a "crater" is a "hole" is therefore to commit a monumental inaccuracy!
In the same way, failing to distinguish a "fish" (even a GREAT fish) from a Whale (a mammal) is just as egregious.
If we allow our definitions of truth to be so crudely limited and deformed then in fact, anything goes! One can adopt the same wide latitude to alter at will the meanings of words he doesn't like (for example, Mikey asserting in an earlier blog that "killing" and "murder" are distinct - so "Thou shalt not Kill" can't be universally applied! This then allows the state to eliminate "killers" without itself being such - because the state is "murdering" not "killing" when it executes. When you gather your brain cells after reading this permutative verbal back flip, let me know!)
Thus, the very ambiguity of meaning shows that one isn't dealing with an empirical truth on the level of say" The Solar oblateness is 1 part in 250" but rather with a METAPHORICAL interpretation of reality. Thus, again, another reason to abandon literalness! Or literal approaches to biblical truth!
Let's move on to more Mikey Malarkey:
"Now , grasping at any demonic straws that Satan hands him , he next cites Matthew 13:31-32 re: the mustard seed , and comments :"There are two major errors here: first, there are many smaller seeds, like the orchid seed; and second, mustard plants don't grow into trees."
The mustard seed was the smallest seed a farmer USED . Jesus used this parable to show that the Kingdom has small beginnings but will grow and produce great results ."
However, again this resort to retrospective word- parsing (and effectively putting his own words into the author's script) doesn't cut it. WHY didn't the author make the distinction in the first place? Why not simply insert the words to make the meaning clear, e.g.
"a grain of mustard seed which…is the least of all seeds used by farmers",
The failure to append the added condition means the statement could be taken as an absolute - again by those who would read it literally in the future. More importantly, not to make the inference that future readers might not KNOW this implies the writer only considered his own immediate language needs - thus disclosing NO "divine inspiry"! So again, what Mikey is going back on ....is that he can't allow the bible to be literally read, but only in terms of what the original writers meant. It is either one or the other here, can't be both!
Also, the parable reference to Yeshua's invocation of the mustard seed still doesn't eliminate the biological fact that mustard seeds don't grow into trees. So again, it can't be taken literally! Indeed, IF one took it literally it would be interpreted along the lines of: "My kingdom is like a mustard seed- but it's really bait and switch because no tree will grow from it - so y'all foolish believers are gonna be left in the cold!". At the very least, with all his somersaults on meanings and reverse engineering the words of the original writers, Mikey's conceding one can't read the bible literally! To me, this is a monster concession in and of itself, though I'm sure he'll figure out a way to fudge it with more verbal tricks and dodges. (E.g. "I mean you can read it literally ONCE you know what the original words mean". Sorry that won't cut it!)
Mikey again for an encore:
"Lastly he cites Matt. 4:8 and comments :"Unless the world is flat, altitude simply will not help you see all the kingdoms of the Earth - a point made in a prior blog."
Phil , again , LOOK at who was tempting Jesus in His human form.. it was your buddy , the great DECEIVER...SATAN !! This was a fictitious, delusive representation, which Satan was permitted to make; to cover which, and that it might be thought to be real, he took Christ into a high mountain; where he proposed an object externally to His sight, and internally to His imagination, which represented, in appearance, the whole world, and all its glory . "
But again, he misses the point! The point isn't that "Satan is a deceiver" or was "permitted to make a delusive representation" or anything else but that the Gospel writer himself (or the translating scribe) didn't point out the deception! I mean, if the book is truly "divinely inspired" one would think the writer would have to know future readers would read what he's written...or not? One wouldn't assume a future reader would know this, and certainly one (Gentile) not au fait with the ancient Jewish tradition or customs, including of language use.
Again, the failure or omission is just as egregious an error as making the false statement. In this case, it was the gospel writer's duty to inform us of the deception but he failed.
Now, how could we leave out the dramatics?
"Satan" being my buddy? Hardly! Since I'm not the one that has a hard-on for him every waking minute, depicting him regularly in blogs with horns, pitchforks, fires etc. and relentlessly writing about him and what he plans to do with the "popey", the "Catechist", atheists, Mormons, JWs, Buddhists, Eckists and anyone else that can't get their craniums squeezed into Mikey's 2' by 4" brain mold.
No, looks to me like "Satan" is YOUR buddy!
No comments:
Post a Comment