No fallacies involved: you made a blanket assertion, he asked about specific examples.
1 Like
Of course not.
You have made it quite clear that you will not acknowledge simple errors or learn anything from anyone in any way whatsoever – even if such a simple admission would improve your position. LOL
So you cannot find a translation of the Bible that translates this as “speculation” then.
It is a far-fetched interpretation when you consider the context.
Romans 1:21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
He is speaking of people who know God but did not honor or give thanks to him, but turned to the worship of idols. I really don’t see what this has to do with speculations in the effort to explain phenomenon in nature among all kinds of people including those who worship the God of the Bible. It obviously has nothing to do with them, so this Bible passage is clearly being misused.
To be more accurate. It is a statement about a question.
When he has repeatedly demonstrated a complete unwillingness to learn anything from anyone here, asking such a question is far from pejorative. On the contrary it is quite kind to say this is an open question.
Strange thing to say when Augustine himself is quoted.
2 Likes
Clarify. Your writing is vague. Passages from Augustine’s works??? If you have Augustine’s works, you can reserch it yourself.
The opening of Genesis doesn’t “fit” what? Your response will determine whether you approach the Bible from reader-response or author intent.
With good reason – ἐματαιώθησαν (eh-ma-tie-OH-thay-san) should not be translated as “speculation”, ever. The verb, mataióō, indicates being deceived, or having one’s thoughts become void. This can be related to speculation, but is not itself speculation.
The following word, διαλογισμοῖς (dee-ah-loh-GIZ-mois), is what the NAS is translating as “speculations”, but that is really a speculative rendering; its core meaning is “discussion” or “dialogue”, and possibly “ponderings” r even “conversation”.
Most certainly. It isn’t talking about science at all; it’s more like philosophy.
2 Likes
Your statement. Nothing in the opening of Genesis was meant to be read literally. The Hebrew, read in the literary genres used, show that it was meant as meditation on the relationship between YHWH-Elohim and His people; it was not meant as historical narrative because that genre did not yet exist. The literary genres tell us what the author’s intent was.
1 Like
I don’t see anything about philosophy there either. The only people who fit the description would be Israelites turning to idolatry – like the Hellenistic Jews maybe.
That’s just the tip of the iceberg.
2 Likes
I compare denying macroevolution to looking at a row of bricks but denying they could ever be used to make a building.
1 Like
Nice demonstration of the fallacy of appeal to authority rather than applying reasoning and logic. That iceberg just melted.
Fallacy of false equivalence and faulty reasoning.
And how do you know this? Did the author of Genesis tell the reader what genre he uses? Where? If Genesis is nonliteral, the gospel is completely destroyed.
Your attitude in many of your posts is the exact same one that turned many students away from Christ when I was a university student. Your posts come across as deliberately antagonistic as well as condescending.
Using a comparison can’t be a fallacy by the very nature of the thing, so your claim here is void. The way to respond to a comparison is to point out weaknesses and/or strengths.
1 Like
Because I have read stories with equivalent structure in the original “chicken scratchings” (our grad school term for various ancient near eastern writing systems). The opening Creation account is a definite match for that genre. It is also a match for a “temple inauguration” account, as shown quite eloquently by Dr. John Walton of Wheaton. Neither of these two genres intend the details to be regarded as literal in themselves.
But I also know it because a survey of ancient near eastern literature shows conclusively that there was no historical narrative genre back then.
He didn’t have to because his audience would have recognized the genre rather quickly.
This is something we miss as a society that depends greatly on written texts: we lack the variety of different approaches to relate a story verbally and so we don’t grasp that listeners three thousand years ago listened to storytelling often enough that they would recognize a literary form with far fewer clues than we would need.
Interestingly there are a number of fantasy novels that describe this better than the books (and seminars and lectures) I learned from, and the way they do it is by using storytelling methods. They distinguish between different ways to tell the same story for different audiences – a king, a noble, a wealthy merchant, a military officer, a tavern in a city or town, the priests in a temple, a group of village peasants; for each there was a recognizable form that the audience would grasp immediately (and woe to the storyteller who used a lower form for his audience!). But there weren’t just different forms for different groups of people, there were different types of stories – which is what we find in Genesis.
2 Likes
The links I gave you contain the reasoning and logic. Iceberg is still there.
Unfortunately, for the third time you continue to take a straw man approach by misreading what I wrote by focusing on a specific word without considering the meaning and context of my statement. I also mentioned several times that the word “speculation” IS NOT from the Greek, You ignore that with your non sequitur reply. Your replies are all faulty by not addressing what I originally wrote and going off on one tangent after another without addressing what I actually wrote and therefore never refuted it. So my statement remains unrefuted.
This statement directly addresses the topic. No one in this discussion has yet refuted it but have digressed from it repeatedly without even addressing what I actually said.
I am not interested in your faulty claims, especially since you failed to read what I originally wrote and addressed it.
By the way, I found three major translations with the word “speculations” (DERIVED FROM LATIN AND NOT GREEK). Translators select the best synomym for a Greek term since many do not directly translate into English. A dozen or more English words are used for translation in Romans 1:21. But you failed to consider that at all. English words come into it from a variety of languages: Greek, Latin, German, etc. So translators select terms based on their own background, dialect, training. Do your homework. I have no need to do your homework for you.
What we have here is a severe case the fallacy fallacy, where instead of a substantial response, every reply is dismissed in a pretentious deflection with some fallacy label.
Evolution is supported by scientific evidence, meaning careful measurement and observations that go beyond mere rhetoric. Science cannot answer metaphysical philosophical questions, but neither can just pondering answer most questions about nature. All the blah blah blah in the world did not resolve the structure of the solar system until Galileo presented observational evidence. Evolution is reasonable, but our understanding of it is based not on philosophy or theology, but squarely on science.
5 Likes
- Somewhat analogous to a dilettante Samson playing at “slaying philistines with the jawbone of an ass.”
2 Likes
Ok, I looked again and I did find websites claiming NASB used this word, but when I looked up the passage in NASB the word wasn’t there. Besides even if the word was there, it wouldn’t change the fact as I explained before that Paul clearly isn’t talking about speculations about the natural world by people who do honor and worship God. So it is still the case that Alonzo is misusing that passage. Furthermore he is inconsistent in calling evolution speculation when it is an hypothesis repeatedly tested and confirmed by experiments in the laboratory.
The Fallacy Fallacy: Why Fallacious Arguments Can Have True Conclusions. The fallacy fallacy (also known as the argument from fallacy) is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone assumes that if an argument contains a logical fallacy, then its conclusion must be false
Frankly I think @rsewell is being rather generous in this. Because what I see is not that of finding logical fallacies but merely the accusation of them. It is akin to pseudoscience where one tries to sound scientific by using the words from science, in this case trying to sound logical by naming logical fallacies.
.
3 Likes
Ahh…reader-response readings rather than author intent. Eisegesis rather than exegesis. Near eastern literature as and external authority rather than God directed. Indeed…all liberal readings of the Bible.
Indeed there are. They assume an answer in the question and are too generalized for a direct answer, and another rabbit trail. Seems to be a lot of them here.