I need too look some things up, but this is too good not to share. The group of people who operate "Conservapedia" are looking for conservative scholars (sic) to translate the bible without liberal bias. When was it initially translated? Do you think the intent at that time was to be as literal as possible?
This perfectly illustrates the point that all religion is based on the words and perceptions of mankind.
http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project
Hmmmm .... Nowhere in that article do I see accuracy of translation from the original languages as a priority. :rant:
When I first became familiar with conservapedia, I was excited about it. Then after I started to TRY to utilize it, I became critical of it. They were TOO biased for me to totally trust it.
I am not oppposed to them translating the Bible, but I think as BoD pointed out, as long as they keep accuracy as a prioriety. I like the Bible Gateway website to use as a reference. They have serveral versions of scripture you can easily look at. This could be okay, but as the saying goes...."consider the source".
Holy cow! This part here is a flat out lie too:
"Isaac Newton, who was merely an average student, worked on translating the Bible and that gave him the inspiration and insight for inventing calculus and discovering gravity."
Quote from: Locutus on April 08, 2014, 11:58:54 AM
Holy cow! This part here is a flat out lie too:
"Isaac Newton, who was merely an average student, worked on translating the Bible and that gave him the inspiration and insight for inventing calculus and discovering gravity."
How so?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 08, 2014, 12:20:46 PM
How so?
Newton invented differential and integral calculus because he needed those tools to explain why planets have elliptical orbits as opposed to circular ones. It had nothing whatsoever to do with any "inspiration and insight" from the Bible.
Quote from: Locutus on April 08, 2014, 11:58:54 AM
Holy cow! This part here is a flat out lie too:
"Isaac Newton, who was merely an average student, worked on translating the Bible and that gave him the inspiration and insight for inventing calculus and discovering gravity."
Discovering gravity? Do they mean it didn't exist before Newton found it?
Quote from: Bo D on April 08, 2014, 12:33:01 PM
Discovering gravity? Do they mean it didn't exist before Newton found it?
:biggrin: :yes:
There are so many lies on Conservapedia that it's almost impossible to count them all.
Quote from: Locutus on April 08, 2014, 12:28:26 PM
Newton invented differential and integral calculus because he needed those tools to explain why planets have elliptical orbits as opposed to circular ones. It had nothing whatsoever to do with any "inspiration and insight" from the Bible.
I'm not sure you can say that it had NOTHING to do with inspiration and insight from the Bible. He was a theologian, and had a Christian Faith. He also believed in hidden messages in the Bible.
Quote from: Locutus on April 08, 2014, 12:37:41 PM
:biggrin: :yes:
There are so many lies on Conservapedia that it's almost impossible to count them all.
I won't even try to defend that statement..... :no: ;)
Quote from: Bo D on April 08, 2014, 12:33:01 PM
Discovering gravity? Do they mean it didn't exist before Newton found it?
;D
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 08, 2014, 01:17:57 PM
I'm not sure you can say that it had NOTHING to do with inspiration and insight from the Bible. He was a theologian, and had a Christian Faith. He also believed in hidden messages in the Bible.
I have read several pieces and biographies of Newton and his work, and I've
never seen the term theologian used to describe him.
Quote from: Locutus on April 08, 2014, 01:22:55 PM
I have read several pieces and biographies of Newton and his work, and I've never seen the term theologian used to describe him.
In the first sentence;
Isaac Newton (25 December 1642 – 20 March 1727)[1] was, as considered by others within his own lifetime, an insightful and erudite theologian.
Let alone the fact that he wrote tracts dealing with interpretation of the Bible both literal and symbolic; he never worked on actually translating the Bible. This work occurred in the 1690s well after his work with differential and integral calculus. That also shows that the original statement I cited is disingenuous at best and a flat out lie at worst.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 08, 2014, 01:25:35 PM
In the first sentence; Isaac Newton (25 December 1642 – 20 March 1727)[1] was, as considered by others within his own lifetime, an insightful and erudite theologian.
Source?
Quote from: Locutus on April 08, 2014, 01:28:25 PM
Source?
I meant to attach it the first time...
Here ya go... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_religious_views)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 08, 2014, 01:29:34 PM
I meant to attach it the first time...
Here ya go... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_religious_views)
Thank you. I have actually read that article before.
One other thing about Newton is that he was an amazing intellect. He definitely figured out laws of gravitation as stated in the Law of Universal Gravitation that's attributed to him. He figured out exactly how the moon goes around the earth, the earth goes around the sun, etc.
What he could not figure out were the series of tiny tugs that occur during the orbits as the Earth is sometimes closer to Mars and Jupiter than at other times in its orbit. Once he found the tugs, he decided that he couldn't stabilize the solar system and gave God the credit for keeping us the way we have been down through the eons. In other words, one of the greatest minds ever to walk on the planet invoked the "god of the gaps" when he reached the limit of his knowledge. :wink:
Quote from: Locutus on April 08, 2014, 01:28:13 PM
Let alone the fact that he wrote tracts dealing with interpretation of the Bible both literal and symbolic; he never worked on actually translating the Bible. This work occurred in the 1690s well after his work with differential and integral calculus. That also shows that the original statement I cited is disingenuous at best and a flat out lie at worst.
He was raised Anglican, so his inspiration to accomplish certain tasks could very well hold true........BUT, him actually translating the Bible is indeed disingenuous as you stated. He did translate the prophecies of Daniel from the original Hebrew....but NOT the entire Bible, that conservapedia may have been trying to indicate.
This is a good example as to why I am not a fan of them too.
The only "rewriting" of the "Bible" I'd support, is one that includes EVERY single line written by those included within the current version, as well as those unabridged works of additional authors that the "editors" of antiquity deemed unworthy of inclusion.
Outside of that, it is a book of parables. The "word of God" according to humankind. . .
As an aside, I did a little searching on Sir Isaac Newton and ran across this piece, written by Dr. Robert A. Hatch over a decade ago:
http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/ufhatch/pages/01-courses/current-courses/08sr-newton.htm (http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/ufhatch/pages/01-courses/current-courses/08sr-newton.htm)
And among the plethora of research and theory Newton achieved within his lifetime, I discovered this tidbit within the piece:
. . .Throughout his career Newton conducted research in theology and history with the same passion that he pursued alchemy and science. Although some historians have neglected Newton's nonscientific writings, there is little doubt of his devotion to these subjects, as his manuscripts amply attest. Newton's writings on theological and biblical subjects alone amount to about 1.3 million words, the equivalent of 20 of today's standard length books. Although these writings say little about Newtonian science, they tell us a good deal about Isaac Newton.
Newton's final gesture before death was to refuse the sacrament, a decision of some consequence in the 18th century. Although Newton was dutifully raised in the Protestant tradition his mature views on theology were neither Protestant, traditional, nor orthodox. In the privacy of his thoughts and writings, Newton rejected a host of doctrines he considered mystical, irrational, or superstitious. In a word, he was a Unitarian. . .
The writer goes on to state that . . ."Newton is as much an enigma to us as he was, no doubt, to himself.", and with this I have to agree, for I know a little of how Newton must have felt given that he was a man of science and mathematics, who also delved into religiosity as an aside.
While my formal education required my theological studies, I too approached them with what I have to say seems like a very similar goal to that which Newton aspired to achieve; and to this point I have to say I cannot say I've achieved anything more than discovering more questions than answers. Much as Newton seems to have achieved with his prolific studies and writings accomplished as part of this endeavor.
I have to say that my curiosity is piqued surrounding these "twenty books" worth of writing by Newton on the subject, and I now have this strong desire to read them and see where one who devoted far more effort toward finding a common ground between these centuries long adversaries, than I all these decades later have been able to.
I suspect I may find some very similar thoughts, and perhaps more than a few new ones to jump start my own desire to find an answer.
While it is no secret that I personally scoff at modern, organized religion and it trappings - teachings, it is also no secret that I continue to harbor a level of spirituality as well; that within our makeup that recognizes there is more to life, the universe, and infinity than can be found within the walls of a church, the boundaries of religion, and the present level of science and technology.
It would seem Sir Isaac Newton spent a much larger portion of his lifetime seeking the same, or at least similar answers to that which I myself question.
So, once again, I learned something today; and chose to try to learn something more in the process.
Quote from: Palehorse on April 08, 2014, 06:52:05 PM
As an aside, I did a little searching on Sir Isaac Newton and ran across this piece, written by Dr. Robert A. Hatch over a decade ago:
http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/ufhatch/pages/01-courses/current-courses/08sr-newton.htm (http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/ufhatch/pages/01-courses/current-courses/08sr-newton.htm)
And among the plethora of research and theory Newton achieved within his lifetime, I discovered this tidbit within the piece:
. . .Throughout his career Newton conducted research in theology and history with the same passion that he pursued alchemy and science. Although some historians have neglected Newton's nonscientific writings, there is little doubt of his devotion to these subjects, as his manuscripts amply attest. Newton's writings on theological and biblical subjects alone amount to about 1.3 million words, the equivalent of 20 of today's standard length books. Although these writings say little about Newtonian science, they tell us a good deal about Isaac Newton.
Newton's final gesture before death was to refuse the sacrament, a decision of some consequence in the 18th century. Although Newton was dutifully raised in the Protestant tradition his mature views on theology were neither Protestant, traditional, nor orthodox. In the privacy of his thoughts and writings, Newton rejected a host of doctrines he considered mystical, irrational, or superstitious. In a word, he was a Unitarian. . .
The writer goes on to state that . . ."Newton is as much an enigma to us as he was, no doubt, to himself.", and with this I have to agree, for I know a little of how Newton must have felt given that he was a man of science and mathematics, who also delved into religiosity as an aside.
While my formal education required my theological studies, I too approached them with what I have to say seems like a very similar goal to that which Newton aspired to achieve; and to this point I have to say I cannot say I've achieved anything more than discovering more questions than answers. Much as Newton seems to have achieved with his prolific studies and writings accomplished as part of this endeavor.
I have to say that my curiosity is piqued surrounding these "twenty books" worth of writing by Newton on the subject, and I now have this strong desire to read them and see where one who devoted far more effort toward finding a common ground between these centuries long adversaries, than I all these decades later have been able to.
I suspect I may find some very similar thoughts, and perhaps more than a few new ones to jump start my own desire to find an answer.
While it is no secret that I personally scoff at modern, organized religion and it trappings - teachings, it is also no secret that I continue to harbor a level of spirituality as well; that within our makeup that recognizes there is more to life, the universe, and infinity than can be found within the walls of a church, the boundaries of religion, and the present level of science and technology.
It would seem Sir Isaac Newton spent a much larger portion of his lifetime seeking the same, or at least similar answers to that which I myself question.
So, once again, I learned something today; and chose to try to learn something more in the process.
And for those amongst you that would question the validity / authority of Dr Hatch, here's his bio:
http://history.ufl.edu/directory/emeritus-faculty/robert-a-hatch/ (http://history.ufl.edu/directory/emeritus-faculty/robert-a-hatch/)
I too have done way more research on Newton than I ever have...and have come to the conclusion that he is/was indeed very interesting. I realize that seems like an understatement...based on who he was, but like PH said, his thoughts on theology were very deep and profound, yet had a very simple realization about it all.
Interesting article....
"In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God's existence."
This is what I meant by a simple realization about it all
Newton was known first and foremost, as an influential theorist rather than a theologian; moreover I suspect his efforts surrounding theology were more of a hobby that grew out of a inward desire to achieve reconciliation between the fact that his work as a theorist demanded that he approach it from a logical perspective at all times, and apply that logic toward his work at all times. This being the case he had no choice than to realize that logic forces anyone that learns to use it properly, to acknowledge that humankind's "God" is nothing if not illogical.
This places anyone brought up with humankind's religiosity immediately into personal and spiritual conflict; much the very same place I myself found myself. It is either that or abject denial.
I chose to make an attempt at reconciliation of the two, and since my studies within science were the real focus of my work, then I had to use my forced studies within theology as a means to delve as deeply into it as I could, in order to understand it.
Along the way it naturally led to investigating just how it was the "Bible" of christianity came to be, and therein I found the hidden fallacy of Christianity; the fact that the bible is written by humankind, edited by humankind, and thusly a manipulated and incomplete assemblage of parables that, as a result of the editing process, contradict one another and leave one at best confused.
At that point I found the whole idea of reconciliation a fallacy itself, and a pipe dream at best.
After consideration of Newton' efforts to, apparently, achieve the very same thing, and recognizing his obviously much higher level of intellect than that which I possess, I am now convinced that my initial conclusion is now a valid one.
Of course, reading what he wrote is still necessary to validate my conclusions; from a modern perspective of course.
What an interesting conversation! Thank you, Sandy for starting it. :yes: I've not had time to closely read everything written here, or think about it long enough to give an opinion all my own except to say that Newton was first and foremost a scientist. Here is how he's described in a current Astronomy text:
Newton,Isaac (1642-1727) English mathematician and physicist, developed three laws of motion and the law of universal gravitation, all published in The Principia (1687). Invented the reflecting telescope, determined that white light consists of all colors of the rainbow, and invented calculus. At age 27, became Lucasian Professor of mathematics at Cambridge University. Became Warden of the Mint in 1696; knighted in 1705.
-- Understanding the Universe: An Introduction to Astronomy, 2nd Edition, Professor Alex Filippenko, University of California, Berkeley
Quote from: Palehorse on April 09, 2014, 05:28:09 PM
Newton was known first and foremost, as an influential theorist rather than a theologian; moreover I suspect his efforts surrounding theology were more of a hobby that grew out of a inward desire to achieve reconciliation between the fact that his work as a theorist demanded that he approach it from a logical perspective at all times, and apply that logic toward his work at all times. This being the case he had no choice than to realize that logic forces anyone that learns to use it properly, to acknowledge that humankind's "God" is nothing if not illogical.
This places anyone brought up with humankind's religiosity immediately into personal and spiritual conflict; much the very same place I myself found myself. It is either that or abject denial.
I chose to make an attempt at reconciliation of the two, and since my studies within science were the real focus of my work, then I had to use my forced studies within theology as a means to delve as deeply into it as I could, in order to understand it.
Along the way it naturally led to investigating just how it was the "Bible" of christianity came to be, and therein I found the hidden fallacy of Christianity; the fact that the bible is written by humankind, edited by humankind, and thusly a manipulated and incomplete assemblage of parables that, as a result of the editing process, contradict one another and leave one at best confused.
At that point I found the whole idea of reconciliation a fallacy itself, and a pipe dream at best.
After consideration of Newton' efforts to, apparently, achieve the very same thing, and recognizing his obviously much higher level of intellect than that which I possess, I am now convinced that my initial conclusion is now a valid one.
Of course, reading what he wrote is still necessary to validate my conclusions; from a modern perspective of course.
I have to admit that, until I looked in on this very interesting thread, all I knew about Isaac Newton was that he was a scientist. Just goes to show that we all see the world and universe and each other through the lens of our own intellect, education, interests, association with others .. :idea3: :genius: :dance2: :read:.
Quote from: Palehorse on April 08, 2014, 06:52:05 PM
As an aside, I did a little searching on Sir Isaac Newton and ran across this piece, written by Dr. Robert A. Hatch over a decade ago:
http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/ufhatch/pages/01-courses/current-courses/08sr-newton.htm (http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/ufhatch/pages/01-courses/current-courses/08sr-newton.htm)
And among the plethora of research and theory Newton achieved within his lifetime, I discovered this tidbit within the piece:
. . .Throughout his career Newton conducted research in theology and history with the same passion that he pursued alchemy and science. Although some historians have neglected Newton's nonscientific writings, there is little doubt of his devotion to these subjects, as his manuscripts amply attest. Newton's writings on theological and biblical subjects alone amount to about 1.3 million words, the equivalent of 20 of today's standard length books. Although these writings say little about Newtonian science, they tell us a good deal about Isaac Newton.
Newton's final gesture before death was to refuse the sacrament, a decision of some consequence in the 18th century. Although Newton was dutifully raised in the Protestant tradition his mature views on theology were neither Protestant, traditional, nor orthodox. In the privacy of his thoughts and writings, Newton rejected a host of doctrines he considered mystical, irrational, or superstitious. In a word, he was a Unitarian. . .
The writer goes on to state that . . ."Newton is as much an enigma to us as he was, no doubt, to himself.", and with this I have to agree, for I know a little of how Newton must have felt given that he was a man of science and mathematics, who also delved into religiosity as an aside.
While my formal education required my theological studies, I too approached them with what I have to say seems like a very similar goal to that which Newton aspired to achieve; and to this point I have to say I cannot say I've achieved anything more than discovering more questions than answers. Much as Newton seems to have achieved with his prolific studies and writings accomplished as part of this endeavor.
I have to say that my curiosity is piqued surrounding these "twenty books" worth of writing by Newton on the subject, and I now have this strong desire to read them and see where one who devoted far more effort toward finding a common ground between these centuries long adversaries, than I all these decades later have been able to.
I suspect I may find some very similar thoughts, and perhaps more than a few new ones to jump start my own desire to find an answer.
While it is no secret that I personally scoff at modern, organized religion and it trappings - teachings, it is also no secret that I continue to harbor a level of spirituality as well; that within our makeup that recognizes there is more to life, the universe, and infinity than can be found within the walls of a church, the boundaries of religion, and the present level of science and technology.
It would seem Sir Isaac Newton spent a much larger portion of his lifetime seeking the same, or at least similar answers to that which I myself question.
So, once again, I learned something today; and chose to try to learn something more in the process.
:yes: :yes:
Just another example that you can't trust the RW/'Conservatives'. They are authoritarian ideologues to their very black hearts.
Quote from: Y on April 29, 2014, 09:24:14 PM
Just another example that you can't trust the RW/'Conservatives'. They are authoritarian ideologues to their very black hearts.
There you go lumping all into the same category again. You just can't do that because people are people and there is a mixture of all types in every group. I think that is what bothers me most about some of these conversations and irritates me no end.
Quote from: me on April 29, 2014, 10:17:21 PM
There you go lumping all into the same category again. You just can't do that because people are people and there is a mixture of all types in every group. I think that is what bothers me most about some of these conversations and irritates me no end.
What irritates you Baby Dolly? :confused: Put it on the table, don't let us have to guess what goes through that little bitty brain. :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :jc: