Religion

MineralMan

(147,576 posts)

6. "Nahmanides said, speaking of creation:"

Wed Mar 27, 2019, 08:27 AM

Mar 2019

Last edited Wed Mar 27, 2019, 09:13 AM - Edit history (1)

That would be more accurate if "said" were replaced with "speculated." At the time he wrote that, nobody knew anything about black holes or cosmological theories. People have been speculating about cosmic origins since humans first looked at the night sky. Almost any concept you can imagine has been thought of to explain it. It's not inspiration; it's just imaginative thinking. Cherry-picking uninformed speculations retroactively is not a logical process.

Your chromosome thing, though, is way off the mark.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

82 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What is the role of inspiration in the Bible? [View all] guillaumeb Mar 2019 OP

Whatever an individual chooses to assign it. Thomas Hurt Mar 2019 #1

An interesting answer. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #9

Its role is to be suppressed hurl Mar 2019 #2

In the 12th century, Nahmanides provided an explanation that is remarkably guillaumeb Mar 2019 #10

It's making connections where there are none. marylandblue Mar 2019 #3

The role of metaphoric language in the Bible. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #11

Now you are avoiding connections where they exist marylandblue Mar 2019 #16

There was no field of physics. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #17

No field of physics? What's this? marylandblue Mar 2019 #33

Get out of here with your facts! trotsky Mar 2019 #22

I swear, I only meant them as metaphors for other facts. marylandblue Mar 2019 #34

That's better! n/t trotsky Mar 2019 #36

Neither Lordquinton Mar 2019 #4

What's additionally upsetting is by doing this, guillaumeb is reinforcing sexist stereotypes... trotsky Mar 2019 #7

A very weak attempt at framing. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #15

The truth hurts, I understand. trotsky Mar 2019 #20

Yep Lordquinton Mar 2019 #21

XX/XY guillaumeb Mar 2019 #12

Wrong then and wrong now Lordquinton Mar 2019 #18

Argue with science. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #23

I don't have to argue with science Lordquinton Mar 2019 #40

Oh man you're still on that XY thing? trotsky Mar 2019 #5

"Nahmanides said, speaking of creation:" MineralMan Mar 2019 #6

Interestring that his speculation was so accurate. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #14

How is that interesting? MineralMan Mar 2019 #39

Metaphor. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #44

Your understanding of biology and sex chromosomes is laughably weak. trotsky Mar 2019 #8

Read: guillaumeb Mar 2019 #13

Sexist transphobic bullshit is not welcome here, g. trotsky Mar 2019 #19

Refute it. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #24

Refute what? trotsky Mar 2019 #25

Refute this actual science: guillaumeb Mar 2019 #26

The actual science is what refutes YOU. trotsky Mar 2019 #27

Unfortunately for your attempted point, guillaumeb Mar 2019 #29

Only you could argue with yourself and call it a victory. trotsky Mar 2019 #32

You seem to be ignoring intersex and androgen insensitivity. marylandblue Mar 2019 #35

So you artgue for a puppet master type god. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #43

No, that is the God presented in the Bible. marylandblue Mar 2019 #45

Adam and Eve were free to eat the apple. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #46

Speaking of a cruel and capricious universe marylandblue Mar 2019 #49

Do you argue for a sentient universe? guillaumeb Mar 2019 #51

No, I argue that God is a metaphor. marylandblue Mar 2019 #52

Interesting. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #54

I have faith that it is also your view. marylandblue Mar 2019 #61

I respect your faith based observation. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #66

No creator is required at all. MineralMan Mar 2019 #57

What constitutes evidence in the absence of knowledge of the Creator's nature? guillaumeb Mar 2019 #58

I don't know, Monsieur B. MineralMan Mar 2019 #59

But Trotsky Lordquinton Mar 2019 #42

If God we're said to have created Eve from Adam's little finger... FBaggins Mar 2019 #28

That also would argue for a metaphoric reading of the story. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #30

No it wouldn't FBaggins Mar 2019 #31

Metaphor is not a license to make interpretations wildly at variance marylandblue Mar 2019 #37

And not only is your science atrocious bullshit, your metaphor is as well. trotsky Mar 2019 #38

Genesis is arguably the worst part of the bible Lordquinton Mar 2019 #41

Misframing, part 2. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #48

QED Lordquinton Mar 2019 #62

Misframing, part 1 guillaumeb Mar 2019 #47

It's not a misframe. The story actually justifies patriarchical oppression marylandblue Mar 2019 #50

Or, it explains the family dynamic of Bronze Age humans. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #53

Yes, another one of nature's cruel ironies. marylandblue Mar 2019 #55

Very astute observation. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #56

Non-response, part 1593 from you. trotsky Mar 2019 #63

The ancient Indians spoke of the Unity of Creation thousands of years before. Their teachings c-rational Mar 2019 #60

I would never say that the Creator can only be found in the wrods of the Bible. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #68

G., I never mentioned a Creator, only Unity and Creation. c-rational Mar 2019 #81

True. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #82

God writes in English? edhopper Mar 2019 #64

But of course. English IS the language of the gods. MineralMan Mar 2019 #65

Well, we know edhopper Mar 2019 #67

Of course they did! MineralMan Mar 2019 #70

I write in English. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #69

But the story of Adam and Eve edhopper Mar 2019 #71

An interesting question. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #73

That is such a stretch edhopper Mar 2019 #75

No doubt. You are bilingual. MineralMan Mar 2019 #72

Google translate is an incredible resource. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #74

It is. However, poorly written original MineralMan Mar 2019 #76

As you well know, english speakers generally use very few verb forms when speaking. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #77

Yes. I'm always conscious of that when I write for translation MineralMan Mar 2019 #78

Here's a sentence in English I tested in a Google translation to French: MineralMan Mar 2019 #79

Excellent example. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #80