Evidence for God from Science

And is it good or bad?

I would say that it is following the letter of the law to the point that it becomes so dogmatic and legalistic that it is a means to it's own end.

I am not good on all these labels because I tend to have a natural resistance to being labelled.
I have been called a fundamentalist Christian by someone who is really more of a cultural Christian, but I am not convinced that I am. I see a fundamentalist (I am applying this term to Christianity whereas I know it can be applied to a great many other belief systems, etc) as someone who takes everything literally rather than consider figurative or metaphorical interpretations as well.

Is it good or not?

I had an interesting discussion on another forum where someone rather mischievously posted the following verse from the King James Version and linked it to a news item he had found somewhere.

Numbers 11:12 Have I conceived all this people? have I begotten them, that thou shouldest say unto me, Carry them in thy bosom, as a nursing father beareth the sucking child, unto the land which thou swarest unto their fathers?

The news item was about it being possible for male breast tissue to lactate, and it was suggested that men were capable of breast feeding back in Old Testament times as the verse quoted would indicate. Well, I do know that male breast tissue has been known to produce milk under certain circumstances, but it is rather a rare and unusual kind of thing all the same. It is far more usual for the better-equipped mother to attend to that kind of thing, the father usually having other matters to attend to instead. And of course, many men make that perfectly clear in the wee hours of the night as junior's hunger pangs make themselves known.

Anyway, I decided to look into the matter a little more closely.

The term "nursing father" does not appear in the NKJV, NASB or NIV and probably other versions which I didn't bother checking.

In the NKJV the words used are: Did I conceive all these people? Did I beget them, that You should say to me, 'Carry them in your bosom, as a guardian carries a nursing child,' to the land which You swore to their fathers?

In the NASB the words used are: "Was it I who conceived all this people? Was it I who brought them forth, that You should say to me, 'Carry them in your bosom as a nurse carries a nursing infant, to the land which You swore to their fathers'?

In the NIV the words used are: Did I conceive all these people? Did I give them birth? Why do you tell me to carry them in my arms, as a nurse carries an infant, to the land you promised on oath to their forefathers?

The Hebrew word from which "nursing father" came is denoted H539 in Strong's Hebrew Dictionary and means:

A primitive root; properly to build up or support; to foster as a parent or nurse; figuratively to render (or be) firm or faithful, to trust or believe, to be permanent or quiet; morally to be true or certain; once (in Isa_30:21; by interchange for H541) to go to the right hand: - hence assurance, believe, bring up, establish, + fail, be faithful (of long continuance, stedfast, sure, surely, trusty, verified), nurse, (-ing father), (put), trust, turn to the right.

I think it is safe to say that the term "nursing father" is meant to be translated figurately, not literally after all.

But the fundamentalist was proposing that men really did feed their infants once upon a time. Was he right? Does the Bible really suggest that?

Check out Isaiah 49:23 and Job 21:24 in the KJV as well.
In the Isaiah verse, the same Hebrew root word is involved.
In the Job verse, you get some very interesting variations on a theme.

The Job 21:24 quote is different again, and also quite interesting (well, to me anyway). Here is what happens to it - note the male preposition:

KJV: His breasts are full of milk, and his bones are moistened with marrow.

NIV: His body well nourished, his bones rich with marrow.
Footnote: The meaning of the Hebrew for this word (body) is uncertain.

NASB: His sides are filled out with fat, And the marrow of his bones is moist,

NKJV: His pails are full of milk, And the marrow of his bones is moist
(For "pails" the Septuagint and Vulgate translations read bowels; Syriac translations reads sides; Targum translations reads breasts.)

The Hebrew word from which "breasts" came is denoted H5845 in Strong's Hebrew Dictionary and it means:

From an unused root meaning apparently to contain; a receptacle (for milk, that is, pail; figuratively breast): - breast.

So yet again, we are probably supposed to understand the use of that word as figurative rather than to take the literal meaning.
Or are we? Maybe if you are a fundamentalist - I don't know.

Now all you blokes on here, what do you make of that?

Anyway, I believe I am not so much a fundamentalist but more of an evangelical and very definitely a conservative as opposed to a liberal revisionist.
We use a lot of terms around here - preterist, young earth creationist, calvinist, etc, etc.
I just think of myself as a Christian (and I know what I mean) and leave it at that. Labels both help and hinder us to understand each other. Really, I am a one off - myself. Er, whatever that is.

I haven't read a lot of different versions of bibles than NIV and another one that uses concise and simple English; the latter one was teaching materials when I was a student.

Do versions of bibles other than NIV bear statements reminding people of the uncertainty in translation? It looks NIV version is better. It presents the uncertainty from the manuscripts. I know bibles of versions like KJV are written in more poetic English. One has to be proficient in English to get to understand it though.

Oriental.

.

Oriental, I think the KJV is great if you have a good grasp of Shakespearian English. But most of us don't go around speaking in the same kind of phraseology with the same words and meanings so it can be a little hard to understand, I think.

I personally like the NIV. Canuckster said an absolutely terrible thing on this forum recently, giving the reading ages for which different versions were suited, and telling that the NIV was geered for the less advanced readers. Oh my!
Well, despite the reading age, I still prefer the NIV over all the others.
Americans I know seem to like the American versions - well, that is probably not surprising. I know they must be in a few classes ahead of me, but I swear their brains are wired differently from that of folks down the bottom of the planet, so I will personally stick to my lovely leather bound NIV study Bible.
Of course, I am only teasing about our Captain Canuck. I am sure it wasn't he who decided the reading ages of the various versions.

I am still interested to know which of the menfolk around here have decided they might try giving their wives a bit more of a hand, especially in the wee hours of the night, when the next new baby comes along.
It would be very Biblical of you, you know, lads.

Judah wrote:Oriental, I think the KJV is great if you have a good grasp of Shakespearian English. But most of us don't go around speaking in the same kind of phraseology with the same words and meanings so it can be a little hard to understand, I think.

I personally like the NIV. Canuckster said an absolutely terrible thing on this forum recently, giving the reading ages for which different versions were suited, and telling that the NIV was geered for the less advanced readers. Oh my!
Well, despite the reading age, I still prefer the NIV over all the others.
Americans I know seem to like the American versions - well, that is probably not surprising. I know they must be in a few classes ahead of me, but I swear their brains are wired differently from that of folks down the bottom of the planet, so I will personally stick to my lovely leather bound NIV study Bible.
Of course, I am only teasing about our Captain Canuck. I am sure it wasn't he who decided the reading ages of the various versions.

I am still interested to know which of the menfolk around here have decided they might try giving their wives a bit more of a hand, especially in the wee hours of the night, when the next new baby comes along.
It would be very Biblical of you, you know, lads.

I confess. It was me.

It wasn't directed as a negative however. I personally like the NIV and I think the NIV is probably still tops in the US among Protestant Churches.

When a translation is made, there is a determination on whether to go for ease of reading or technical preciseness. The difference may be slight in the eyes of the average reader, but in terms of studying and trying to keep the structure and emphasis of the original text where it is possible to do so with all the normal issues that come with a translation, there are many who value that over conversational english.

Judah wrote:I am still interested to know which of the menfolk around here have decided they might try giving their wives a bit more of a hand, especially in the wee hours of the night, when the next new baby comes along.
It would be very Biblical of you, you know, lads.

Can't I just use the powdered formula? Beside it's too hard to work the remote and do that at the same time.

FFC wrote:

Judah wrote:I am still interested to know which of the menfolk around here have decided they might try giving their wives a bit more of a hand, especially in the wee hours of the night, when the next new baby comes along.
It would be very Biblical of you, you know, lads.

Can't I just use the powdered formula? Beside it's too hard to work the remote and do that at the same time.

Always looking for the easy way out, huh? But I see your point with the remote.

Historically in the US anyway, Fundamentalism has equated with the acceptance of the doctrines as the "Fundamentals" of the faith and they were drawn up in the late 1800's early 1900's in response to what was perceived as Christian mainline denominations becoming too modern or liberal.

These are the primary issues which were originally declared to the be the fundamentals of the faith.

Inerrancy of the Scriptures
The virgin birth and deity of Jesus
The doctrine of substitutionary atonement
The bodily resurrection of Jesus
The bodily second coming of Jesus Christ

Anyone who subscribed to these was declared to be a fundamentalist.

The use has expanded. Now many see it as including dispensational eschatology, Pro-Life and any variety of other issues associated with what is called the "right-wing" Christiand demographic.

Many outside of Christianity use it as a perjorative intending to lump all conservative Christians into a single group.

Byblos wrote:

FFC wrote:

Judah wrote:I am still interested to know which of the menfolk around here have decided they might try giving their wives a bit more of a hand, especially in the wee hours of the night, when the next new baby comes along.
It would be very Biblical of you, you know, lads.

Can't I just use the powdered formula? Beside it's too hard to work the remote and do that at the same time.

Always looking for the easy way out, huh? But I see your point with the remote.

Well I don't have any kids so it is a mute point....excuse the pun.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Historically in the US anyway, Fundamentalism has equated with the acceptance of the doctrines as the "Fundamentals" of the faith and they were drawn up in the late 1800's early 1900's in response to what was perceived as Christian mainline denominations becoming too modern or liberal.

These are the primary issues which were originally declared to the be the fundamentals of the faith.

Inerrancy of the Scriptures
The virgin birth and deity of Jesus
The doctrine of substitutionary atonement
The bodily resurrection of Jesus
The bodily second coming of Jesus Christ

Anyone who subscribed to these was declared to be a fundamentalist.

The use has expanded. Now many see it as including dispensational eschatology, Pro-Life and any variety of other issues associated with what is called the "right-wing" Christiand demographic.

Many outside of Christianity use it as a perjorative intending to lump all conservative Christians into a single group.

So... if I am someone who claims to be able to say the Nicene and Apostles Creeds, then I am considered a Fundamentalist?

Yes, I mostly hear the term used as a perjorative, implying that one is some kind of nutter - or a "God Squadder" or "Bible Basher" - terms which seem interchangeable.

I really do prefer the word Conservative. It has implications that one is less of an extremist, I guess.
I hear use of the word Evangelical as well to mean much the same thing although I had always thought that was more to do with the description of somebody's behaviour, such as the degree to which one verbally witnesses the faith - or maybe a missionary. It was applied according to how long a Christian could go without bringing God into the conversation, or dropping a Bible verse on you, or offering to pray for you.

FFC and Byblos, why is it that so many males stake exclusive claims to ownership of the remotes?

Judah wrote:FFC and Byblos, why is it that so many males stake exclusive claims to ownership of the remotes?

It's been so long I haven't relinquished it that I don't even remember when I picked it up last. Was I born with it in hand? I think it's genetic, a mutation of some sort. I will elicit BGood's expertise on this one. BGood where are you?

Judah wrote:FFC and Byblos, why is it that so many males stake exclusive claims to ownership of the remotes?

It's a control thing. God forbid the clicker should land on Oprah or the Lifetime channel.