Philosophical crisis

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

STOLTZFUS
Why not?  Why can't I have faith that what is proven to be contradictory
in English is really not contradictory in the Hebrew?  When did you
prove to me that the translation isn't faulty?  Isn't it true that
Hebrew has no past tense, but only the perfect and imperfect?  If it is
true, then an accurate translation into English -- which is a much more
precise language -- would often seem to provide contradictory
information regarding historical events.  I admit I didn't follow that
discussion at all, so perhaps someone has proven that this cannot be the
reason for the contradiction in the English translation.  But when it
comes down to it, I start off wanting to believe it's true, and as long
as it can't be proven false I'll assume there's a way to harmonize.  You
start off wanting to believe it's false, and as long as it can't be
definitively proven to be true you assume there's no way it can be
harmonized.

POOBAH
"You start off wanting to believe it's false, and as long as it can't be
definitively proven to be true you assume there's no way it can be
harmonized." - Well this just about says it all. I wish I had a dollar for
each time we've heard that.

I think the term "projection" comes to mind. Mr. Stoltzfus, just because you
are a close-minded unthinking religious zealot doesn't mean everyone else
is. Isn't it just possible we've examined the evidence and come to the
conclusion that there is a contradiction, not that we just assumed it? I for
one had never even considered the accounts of King Josiah's death until Joe
Crea brought them up. I have seen plenty of evidence offered by "skeptics"
as to why this is probably a contradiction, but I've seen no evidence from
you, or anyone else, that it isn't, except some attempts by some to say that
"dead doesn't mean dead." What do you suppose is the rational thing to
conclude?

Let me give you an example: At the very end of the 2nd book of _Don
Quixote_, Cervantes says, "... let Don Quixote's weary & mouldering bones
rest in the grave... [he is] powerless to make a third expedition." The
problem, of course, is that Cervantes is wrong. Don Quixote had already made
three expeditions, one by himself, and two with Sancho Panza.

Now, am I assuming _Don Quixote_ is false by assuming that? Do I have to
examine the original Spanish to determine that this is an error? Do I have
to definitely prove that "third" means "third" before you will accept this
as a gaff on the part of the author?

If this were the bible, we would probably hear that expedition really means
"book" or that expeditions only properly refers to the times DQ was out with
Sancho, or that DQ can't make a third expedition because he already had had
his third expedition, but in this case I imagine that you would conclude
that Cervantes made a mistake above without much thought, yet you demand
"disproof" (which is impossible) before admitting the same in the case of
the Bible.

Why is that intellectually honest?

• Previous message: Philosophical crisis
• Next message: Philosophical crisis
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]