Does this make sense-science and the athiest/religion extension thread.

[D_Mansworthy Meatwrench III]

(1) Science is lopsided, and geared toward "proving" only what they find important.
Namely drugs and physics, and NOT "Gods".

(2) Science rarely disproves anything, and generally proves nothing, but DOES at least legitimately say they don't know what the fuck is going on. I like that. They should say that more. "Reality" does not depend on YOUR view of it, or what YOU think about it, or of it. After all, "Reality is really Real", and you are in short supply of the overall tools needed to define, refine, and understand even the smallest part. However, if you designed and built the perfect Cuckoo Clock....you might understand THAT.

(3) Science IS God. Without one, you have not the other. "God" being defined as no matter what the fuck YOU think, YOU are not even remotely in the ballpark of "right".
If you were, you would probably be a small God. Lucky me, I don't understand any of this either, so let me be the first to congratulate you on joining the club of, "Science...We make the Best Guesses, at the highest $$ Amount".

(After all, "Publicly Sold God" is awesome, he talks "Very Important" people into writing complete volumes...and forgets to bring the paper and ink so he can write them himself. He can build untold trillions of interlocking and perfect systems....he just can't use a ballpoint.)

(Narrow of mind = Narrow of vision. Since all humans existing lack the capacity to understand all of the basic things the Universe, and Time/Space have to offer, I highly doubt "guessing" about Black Holes and Event Horizons will let you understand the original designer(s) of it.)

(4)Everything above is easily transferrable to "Religion". Ego: The most powerful force in the Universe, it always fucks up the "Real Answers". Beliefs: See- Ego.

Answer: (Postulation)
Pick your Poison, either Religion or Science. Hopefully, what the hell ever designed and built all this also built you to be smart enough to TRY to figure it out.

Note:
And NO, Lady Luck does NOT build entire Universes nor Species. Lady Luck DOES, however, fuck up and make me stand in line at the DMV way too fucking long for no reason.

As you might guess, one does not equal the other.

I once pointed out elsewhere, "It is nice that everyone is right, and no one is wrong. Wars were fought for less than that alone."

 

[cdarro]

You people have too much time on your hands.

 

[B_Hamadim]

(Searching cdarro's posts made for the last 24 hours and seeing who really has too much time on his hands)

 

[cdarro]

Oh no! I've been put in my place! God (or science) help me!

Seriously, how long can you argue the same pointless questions?

 

[Calboner]

I respect your interference, Allow me to add something.

You see, In the original version of the Bible that is in hebrew(Song of Solomon 5:16), Mohammadim is written there, and It was in Plural of respect (im), so without it, it would be Mohammad.

In Judaism, the word for God is Elloh, but the jews are used to using the Plural of Respect so the name becomes Ellohim (Hence the im).

When Christians translated the Hebrew Bible, they also Translated the name Mohammadim to "altogether lovely" which you can't Associate with the word "Mohammad".

You have no right to translate the names of people, For example, Mr Black is british thou he is White, I have no right to call him Mr Aswad (Aswad is Black in Arabic) or call him Mr Omnyama (Omnyama is Black in Zulu) or call him Mr Kala (Kala is Black in Urdu).

So the names should be retained.

This is completely nuts. The word "machamadim" is not a name in Hebrew; it is an adjective that just happens to sound like "Mohamed." The name "Mohamed" does not occur anywhere in the Hebrew Bible. All that you have done is to find a word that has a similar sound.

 

[B_Hamadim]

This is completely nuts. The word "machamadim" is not a name in Hebrew; it is an adjective that just happens to sound like "Mohamed." The name "Mohamed" does not occur anywhere in the Hebrew Bible. All that you have done is find a word that has a similar sound.

Yes brother, I shall expalin.

You see, my name is Hamad, but in Hebrew it is Chamad.

Machamadim is in Hebrew, but in english, it is Mahamadim/Mohamadim.
I expalined before what is the added "im", which is Plural of respect just the same way we utter the word Ellohim.

Without it, it would be Mohamad.


No one has the right to translate the names of people, but it happened with the verse 5:16 Song of solomon where they translated the word "Mohamadim" to "All together lovely", although Mohamadim is still in the hebrew Bible Today!

Shalom!

 

[Calboner]

Yes brother, I shall expalin.

You see, my name is Hamad, but in Hebrew it is Chamad.

Machamadim is in Hebrew, but in english, it is Mahamadim/Mohamadim.
I expalined before what is the added "im", which is Plural of respect just the same way we utter the word Ellohim.

Without it, it would be Mohamad.


No one has the right to translate the names of people, but it happened with the verse 5:16 Song of solomon where they translated the word "Mohamadim" to "All together lovely", although Mohamadim is still in the hebrew Bible Today!

Shalom!

Dude, this is as if somebody named Fred were to look through a book written in Italian, find a sentence in which the word "freddo" (Italian for "cold") occurred, and say, "My name is in this book, so it's wrong to translate it into English as 'cold'! It should be written as 'Fred.'"

"Machamad" is an adjective in Hebrew. It is not a name. It has no connection with the name "Mohamed" other than an accidental similarity of sound.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Dude, this is as if somebody named Fred were to look through a book written in Italian, find a sentence in which the word "freddo" (Italian for "cold") occurred, and say, "My name is in this book, so it's wrong to translate it into English as 'cold'! It should be written as 'Fred.'"

"Machamad" is an adjective in Hebrew. It is not a name. It has no connection with the name "Mohamed" other than an accidental similarity of sound.

I'm not agreeing with InHamad here but just curious, many names in fact do have a root in an adjective, descriptive of some personal trait of the bearer of the name, and since Hebrew and Arabic are both semitic languages and do share a very substantial root lexicon isn't it possible that Machamad and Mohammed have a lexical link even if the reference in the bible isn't to the person of the Prophet of Islam ?

An interesting example of the adjectival root of names coming from your own example, Fred short for Frederick from the German Friedrich meaning "Peaceful-Ruler".

 

[Calboner]

I'm not agreeing with InHamad here but just curious, many names in fact do have a root in an adjective, descriptive of some personal trait of the bearer of the name, and since Hebrew and Arabic are both semitic languages and do share a very substantial root lexicon isn't it possible that Machamad and Mohammed have a lexical link even if the reference in the bible isn't to the person of the Prophet of Islam ?

One source that I found says that the words are related; the others say that they are not. Unfortunately, none of these sources (all found on the Web) show any reputable scholarship to back up their claims, and I don't have access to any more reliable sources right now.

What is plain is that the word "machamadim" is an adjective in Hebrew, not a noun, and that to translate it into English as "Mohamed" is ridiculous. The Bible verse would then read "He is altogether Mohamed."

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

One source that I found says that the words are related; the others say that they are not. Unfortunately, none of these sources (all found on the Web) show any reputable scholarship to back up their claims, and I don't have access to any more reliable sources right now.

What is plain is that the word "machamadim" is an adjective in Hebrew, not a noun, and that to translate it into English as "Mohamed" is ridiculous. The Bible verse would then read "He is altogether Mohamed."

Oh yes I quite agree no lexical links could allow one to read "machamadim" as the actual name Mohamed.

 

[JustAsking]

One source that I found says that the words are related; the others say that they are not. Unfortunately, none of these sources (all found on the Web) show any reputable scholarship to back up their claims, and I don't have access to any more reliable sources right now.

What is plain is that the word "machamadim" is an adjective in Hebrew, not a noun, and that to translate it into English as "Mohamed" is ridiculous. The Bible verse would then read "He is altogether Mohamed."

No, it is worse than you say. If InHamad claims that the word is Mohameddim, then it would read, "He is altogether Mohameds". The singular pronoun would not agree with its plural adjective.

Finally, if InHamad is still around, I wonder if he could provide a quote from the Qu'ran that supports Evolution? Although the people of Islam were extremely competent philosophers, mathematicians and astronomers (observationally, anyway) I would be surprised if 5th century Muslims would have figured out Evolution at that time.

On the other hand, we owe the Muslims a debt of gratitude for preserving and extending much of the intellectual property of the Western world while the Western world came down with a bad case of amnesia for about 800 years.

I have been interested in the contributions to science made by the Roman Catholic Church from the 12th century on, but I know very little about the specific contributions made by Islam during those times. I am wondering if InHamad knows of a credible place to start.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

No, it is worse than you say. If InHamad claims that the word is Mohameddim, then it would read, "He is altogether Mohameds". The singular pronoun would not agree with its plural adjective.

Mind you this is only as bad as generations of christian scholars interpreting biblical references to "Elohim" as references to "God" and not "Gods".

 

[Calboner]

On the other hand, we owe the Muslims a debt of gratitude for preserving and extending much of the intellectual property of the Western world while the Western world came down with a bad case of amnesia for about 800 years.

Here is my understanding of that chapter of history: When the Moors brought Muslim civilization to Spain in the 8th century, Christian Europe was pretty much a load of savages lying in ditches poking berries up their noses.* But after eight or nine hundred years, they, or some of them, eventually got to their feet and starting moving science forward, while Islam, to its great cost, stayed put in the middle ages, from which it has yet to emerge.

*Fans of The Simpsons will recognize this borrowing.

 

[JustAsking]

Mind you this is only as bad as generations of christian scholars interpreting biblical references to "Elohim" as references to "God" and not "Gods".

Yes, you are right about this, but to further complicate thing, the singular/plural reference to God is inconsistent. Such as in Genesis:

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. Genesis 1:26

The puzzling plural references to God in the OT are often explained by Jewish scholars as a reference to a kind of "unified" God. The strongest direct monotheistic statement in the Bible, the Sh'ma is used as a mitzvah in Jewish services as:

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one LORD!" - Deuteronomy 6:4 (KJV)

The Hebrew word used for "one" is echadh, which is used throughout the Bible to refer to things or to people who are unified.

As in:
"And the LORD said: They are one (echadh) people, and they have all one language." Genesis 11:6

Or:

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one (echadh) flesh" Genesis 2:24

So the correct reading is The Lord our God is a unified God. Where the term unified implies a compound unity.

But then again, all of this is often hotly disputed, since the word echad is the Hebrew word for one. Nothing is ever simple in the Bible is it? Perhaps it was written this way for Rabbinical job security.


.

 

[Calboner]

Mind you this is only as bad as generations of christian scholars interpreting biblical references to "Elohim" as references to "God" and not "Gods".

"Elohim" has a plural ending but the verb attached to it is conjugated in the singular, not in the plural, unless the word is being used in a plural sense. In Genesis 1, I am pretty sure that it is always singular. E.g., Genesis 1:6 begins "Vayomer elohim" ("And God said"), which is singular. So if there was ever any imposition of a monotheistic meaning on a polytheistic word, it occurred before the Bible was compiled.

 

[JustAsking]

Here is my understanding of that chapter of history: When the Moors brought Muslim civilization to Spain in the 8th century, Christian Europe was pretty much a load of savages lying in ditches poking berries up their noses.* But after eight or nine hundred years, they, or some of them, eventually got to their feet and starting moving science forward, while Islam, to its great cost, stayed put in the middle ages, from which it has yet to emerge.

*Fans of The Simpsons will recognize this borrowing.

Yes this is what happened. And I think it was elderberries.

But don't forget the role of Irish clerics who also protected and copied a lot of ancient manuscripts. I recommend a book written by Thomas Cahill, whose writing I love, called How the Irish Saved Civilization. Anything by Cahill is both scholarly and lyrical. I wish I could write like that.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

"Elohim" has a plural ending but the verb attached to it is conjugated in the singular, not in the plural, unless the word is being used in a plural sense. In Genesis 1, I am pretty sure that it is always singular. E.g., Genesis 1:6 begins "Vayomer elohim" ("And God said"), which is singular. So if there was ever any imposition of a monotheistic meaning on a polytheistic word, it occurred before the Bible was compiled.

Or perhaps by the compilers of some mother text from which all versions of Genesis in which Elohim is made singular are descended. I'm under the impression that many scholars believe that this Elohim represents the many personed god, which is a monotheistic revision of older Canaanite and Hebrew pantheons which included the chief god El and his wife ( Asherah ), transmuted at a later point into Sophia ( "Holy Wisdom ) and certain other formerly independent deities which became cognate with the Monotheistic Yahweh of the religion of the old testament.

Indeed this many personed god is really the forerunner of the later christian concepts of the three personed God, and may be behind some of the Christological tendencies to see Christ as having many emanations and several natures.

 

[JustAsking]

Or perhaps by the compilers of some mother text from which all versions of Genesis in which Elohim is made singular are descended. I'm under the impression that many scholars believe that this Elohim represents the many personed god, which is a monotheistic revision of older Canaanite and Hebrew pantheons which included the chief god El and his wife ( Asherah ), transmuted at a later point into Sophia ( "Holy Wisdom ) and certain other formerly independent deities which became cognate with the Monotheistic Yahweh of the religion of the old testament.

Indeed this many personed god is really the forerunner of the later christian concepts of the three personed God, and may be behind some of the Christological tendencies to see Christ as having many emanations and several natures.

I will have to ask my wife about this. She is currently reading The Evolution of God, by Robert Wright.

Suffice it to say that the notion of The Trinity (which I believe) and the human/divine nature of Christ is hopelessly mysterious. Each faith tradition puts a different spin on it.

 

[JustAsking]

People who insist that the Bible must be literally true word for word have never spent a moment in any of the concordances. For example, the NAS Concordance shows the following usage translations of the Hebrew word echad throughout the Bible:

151,450* (1), 41,500* (2), 61* (1), 61,000* (1), 621* (2), 721* (1), alike (1), all at once (1), alone (2), altogether (1), another (23), another into one (1), any (15), any one (2), any* (1), anyone* (1), apiece (1), certain (11), certain man (1), each (48), each one (4), each other (1), each* (4), eleven* (9), eleventh* (4), every (1), everyone (1), few (3), first (38), forty-first* (1), forty-one* (4), numbered (1), once (14), once* (4), one (586), one and on another (1), one and the other (2), one at the other (1), one can him who (1), one the other (1), one to another (1), one will to another (1), one another (4), one thing (2), one thing to another (1), one-tenth (1), one-tenth for each (1), only (2), other (27), other was one (1), outermost* (1), same (25), same one (1), single (15), some (2), thirty-first* (1), thirty-one* (3), together (3), twenty-first* (4), twenty-one* (4), uniformly* (2), unique (4), unison (1), unit (4), united (1), whom (1).

This is just one word! So imagine suggesting to a Bible translator that you will use the straight literal meaning of his translation as a guide to your worldview. I am willing to bet that there are no Bible translators who are Bible literalists.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

People who insist that the Bible must be literally true word for word have never spent a moment in any of the concordances. For example, the NAS Concordance shows the following usage translations of the Hebrew word echad throughout the Bible:

151,450* (1), 41,500* (2), 61* (1), 61,000* (1), 621* (2), 721* (1), alike (1), all at once (1), alone (2), altogether (1), another (23), another into one (1), any (15), any one (2), any* (1), anyone* (1), apiece (1), certain (11), certain man (1), each (48), each one (4), each other (1), each* (4), eleven* (9), eleventh* (4), every (1), everyone (1), few (3), first (38), forty-first* (1), forty-one* (4), numbered (1), once (14), once* (4), one (586), one and on another (1), one and the other (2), one at the other (1), one can him who (1), one the other (1), one to another (1), one will to another (1), one another (4), one thing (2), one thing to another (1), one-tenth (1), one-tenth for each (1), only (2), other (27), other was one (1), outermost* (1), same (25), same one (1), single (15), some (2), thirty-first* (1), thirty-one* (3), together (3), twenty-first* (4), twenty-one* (4), uniformly* (2), unique (4), unison (1), unit (4), united (1), whom (1).

This is just one word! So imagine suggesting to a Bible translator that you will use the straight literal meaning of his translation as a guide to your worldview. I am willing to bet that there are no Bible translators who are Bible literalists.

Well even if one takes in to account the natural adaptability of words this seems extraordinarily broad a field of translations.

Presumably it reperesents generations of personal interpretations of the one word compounded generation upon generation over time, mixed with the desire to read theological imperatives into an otherwise neutral or even contradictory text.