**** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ****
Gretzky兄,
[quote]my main reason of disputing the hypotheis is I have some reservation of the E source (we know v. little about E). I don't have a whole bunch of evidence to put off the whole hypothesis, but i would not jump right into the JEDP bandwagon. Remember, this is only a hypothesis, not a theory.....so far the findings on the E source are insufficient to support the hypothesis to a theory[/quote]
你睇過同接觸過既E source 既證據有幾多?
[quote]Do religion and science always need to be at war with one another? Are they intrinistically, and in their core principles, against the existence of each other?[/quote]
一日聖經被認為係神既話語, 一日科學都會"need to be at war with"聖經。理由就係因為"God is infallible"(神唔會錯)﹐而科學既論說係可以被否定既。
[quote]if you have a passage that you have doubts on the literally form...kindly quote the refrence and i will give you an answer to the best of my ability.[/quote]
俾0左啦。。。創世紀既"一日"係幾耐"? 點解?
**** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ****
１、上帝先造動物還是先造人？是同時造男造女還是先造男后造女？
說法一：〔創１：２３〕“神就造出大魚和水中所滋生各樣有生
命的動物，各從其類﹔又造出各樣飛鳥，各從其類。……是第五
日。”“于是神造出野獸，各從其類﹔牲畜，各從其類﹔地上一切昆
虫，各從其類。”“神就照著自己的形象造人，乃是照著他的形象造
男造女。……是第六日。”
說法二：〔創２：７〕“耶和華神用地上的塵土造人，將生氣吹
在他鼻孔里，
他就成了有靈的活人，名叫亞當。”“耶和華神說：‘那人獨居不
好，我要為他造一個配偶幫助他。’耶和華神用土所造成的野地各樣
走獸，和空中各樣飛鳥，都帶到那人面前看他叫什么。”“耶和華神
就用那人身上所取的肋骨，造成一個女人，領她到那人跟前。”
- ="...我只看到這..就看到geese..是...小學生嗎
我不信宗教...只是看了之後..為中文堂老師教教你這小學生
[耶和華神用土所造成的野地各樣走獸，和空中各樣飛鳥，都帶到那人面前看他叫什么]
看到.."帶"字嗎...是帶到面前...不是做了男人再"做"animal- ="..白痴
只看到這就夠...看下去會笑死
Gretzky兄,
a) [quote]Most of my readings are on secondary sources...one of my favourite scholar's work on the Pentateuch is David Clines's Theme of the Pentateuch. You can find bookreviews on his position on the documentary hypothesis.[/quote]
啱啱睇0左David Clines既一篇文﹐暫時覺得佢既觀點幾平衡﹐唔會嚴重偏袒任何一方。下面我引用0左幾段有關佢觀點同主張既例子。(註:我會將我覺得有point既部份highlight in Bold同Italics。原文係冇既)
取自于: [url]http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/academic/A-C/biblst/DJACcurrres/InterestedParties/IntParties9God.pdf[/url]
David J.A. Clines, Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers and Readers of the
Hebrew Bible (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 205;
Gender, Culture, Theory, 1; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), pp. 187-211.
[quote]They themselves, readings against the grain of the text, go against the grain also of the [b]central tradition in biblical scholarship[/b], which has generally striven for a [b] harmonizing and unifying depiction of the character of the deity in the Old Testament[/b], one indeed that [b]maximizes the compatibility of the portrait with that of the God of the New Testament and of Christian theology[/b].[/quote]
[quote]The God of the Pentateuch is a complex and mysterious character, passionate and dynamic but [b]by no means conformable to human notions of [i]right[/i] behaviour[/b]. He is not very lovable, but he must be obeyed. He has his plans, but they are not infrequently deflected. He does not do very much explaining, and he relates to people mostly by a system of threats and promises. He has his favourites, and he is fiercely loyal to them. He is hard to please. [/quote]
[quote]Reading against the grain implies that there is a grain. It implies that [b]texts have designs on their readers and wish to persuade them of something or other[/b]. It implies that there are ideologies inscribed in texts and that the readers implied by texts share the texts’ ideologies. But, as I have suggested earlier, [b]readers are free to resist the ideologies of texts, and, what is more, texts themselves sometimes provoke readers into resisting them by manifesting tensions immanent within the texts themselves[/b]. All the same, there is no obligation to resist, nothing wrong in adopting the ideology of one’s text. [b]All that is wrong is not knowing and admitting that that is what you are doing or not permitting other people to resist the ideology of the text[/b].[/quote]
至于佢對documentary hypothesis既主張﹐我暫時未揾到source。請問你有冇網址介紹佢呢方面既觀點?
[quote]I am assuming your view of the Christian God (or all gods) is that they are falliable and subject to the scrutiny of science and rational thinking, right?[/quote]
係。
[quote]hmm...may i ask whether you believe in absolute truth at all?[/quote]
睇0下你"絕對真相"既定義係乜啦。你問我信唔信已經假設0左:
1)有"絕對真相"呢樣嘢。
2)大家都知道"絕對真相"係乜嘢。
3)"絕對真相"同"現實世界"有唔同(如果唔係就唔使諗多呢個字眼出嚟啦)。
4)"絕對真相"係可以或者需要[b]信[/b]既(而唔係睇﹐聽﹐聞﹐食﹐諗既)。
你既問題引導性好強噃! :P
[quote]But not having answers doesn't mean there is no absolute truth. And that's why I would keep seeking. [/quote]
你0甘講以經假設0左有"絕對真相"啦。
全世界人都冇見過飛馬Pegasus唔代表冇﹐不如你尋求真相既時候幫我順便揾埋。
[quote]May I ask what is your ontology?[/quote]
如果我有權唔答既話你即管問啦! 哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈! :P
你假設0左我有存在本體論。我都唔知我有冇。。。
不如我0甘答你啦:
講真﹐我唔知我點解喺度﹐我甚至唔敢肯定我真係喺度。不過﹐既然我既五官話我知我"好似喺度"﹐0甘不如就喺呢段"好似喺度"既時間做0的"好似有建設性 "同"好似會開心"既事。記得冇錯既話﹐我0甘諗應該係存在主義(Existentialism)﹐不過我某程度上又認同宿命論 (Determinism)﹐而我又覺得佛教(Buddhism)同道教(Taoism)既理論都好有道理﹐再加上我認為儒家(Confucius)同墨家(Mo-tze)既思想都有好多可取之處。你可唔可以話俾我知我既ontology係乜?:cool:
[quote]Originally posted by [i]Avator[/i] at 2005-7-3 11:47 AM:
１、上帝先造動物還是先造人？是同時... [/quote]
先在此謝謝Avator兄教導我這白痴小學生!
我想在這再向Avator兄請教一下,
你在說法二：
〔創２：７〕“耶和華神用地上的塵土造人，將生氣吹
在他鼻孔里，
他就成了有靈的活人，名叫亞當。”“耶和華神說：‘那人獨居不
好，我要為他造一個配偶幫助他。’耶和華神用土所造成的野地各樣
走獸，和空中各樣飛鳥，都帶到那人面前看他叫什么。”“耶和華神
就用那人身上所取的肋骨，造成一個女人，領她到那人跟前。”
這段文字中,
何以見得不是做了男人再"做"animal???
煩請Avator兄再次指教!!
另外若小弟此貼引起那一位大大不快的話,
小弟在此誠心向各位致歉,
懇請原諒!
**** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ****
Gretzky兄,
乜我哋唔同OS咩?:P
我覺得似係一樣hardware(人腦)﹐一樣OS(思考)﹐一樣software(邏輯)﹐不過唔同input(背景﹐教育﹐朋友﹐家人﹐等等)。
[quote]There aren't many credible websites on the JEDP hypothesis...so maybe you can get the Clines book from a university liberary and have a look at his bibilo at the end of the book.[/quote]
你由頭都尾都冇答到我條問題噃。你冇用實際既證據去推翻"JEDP hypothesis"﹐而只係話呢個猜測唔夠證據支持﹐點樣唔夠你又唔講清楚﹐0甘我會覺得你冇認真0甘去嘗試過接受佢0架噃。再講﹐猜測(Hypothesis)係唔使好多證據支持0架﹐只要冇證據同個猜測既結論強烈矛盾﹐個猜測就唔會被推翻﹐最多係話佢唔可以信0西。
你可以用David Clines既觀點去批評JEDP hypothesis﹐不過唔好連你(同佢)既觀點都要我research埋好唔好? 你唔present你既立場你都唔該outline0下0丫。你連outline都唔outline既話都唔該你link0下0丫。你連link都唔link就0甘叫我去大學查我會覺得你好冇誠意0架噃! 我朝早下晝要番工﹐住得又離大學遠﹐網上面又冇大學圖書館既full article access﹐番到屋企好艱苦0甘用中文表達0左我既觀點(我打中文好慢﹐所以"好艱苦"))之後﹐你重要我去揾一大輪先*有可能*知道你想講乜﹐我真係好難做0架噃。
講出你諗緊乜﹐當幫幫手0丫。
我覺得聖經只係一本故仔書,唔需要理佢講d真係假
[quote]Originally posted by [i]inpennhouse[/i] at 2005-7-5 09:42 PM:
我覺得聖經只係一本故仔書,唔需要理佢講d真係假 [/quote]
yes, I agree with you
I don't quite believe in 聖經 anyway
[url]http://www.26fun.com/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=51047&fpage=3[/url]
看看吧!!異曲同工!不要只看表面!
20steven兄﹐
你究竟想講乜呢? 你想我睇你個link既邊部份? 關你個comment乜嘢事? 可以講清楚0的嗎?
[quote]
你由頭都尾都冇答到我條問題噃
[/quote]
mememe,係你繼續作討論之前, 我想問下你 fiasco點解
[[i] Last edited by research2005010 on 2005-7-8 at 09:42 PM [/i]]
research2005010兄﹐
[quote]我想問下你 fiasco點解[/quote]
定義喺呢度: [url]http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fiasco[/url]
請問有何指教?
[url]http://www.26fun.com/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=63755&fpage=1[/url]
如果你覺得呢度的討論係 heated religious fiasco, 你就繼續等答案, 如果你覺得唔算, 我勸你都係做其他野好過.
research2005010兄﹐
唔係好明你既意思。你既comment係咪丟轉0左?
我地本來傾得好開心, 忽然有人走去版務區度投訴呢個係religious fiasco???????好彩版主都係明事理之人
所以我想勸你, 如果你唔覺我地係嗰條link度傾的野係religious fiasco (其實我都唔知係甚麼), 你就無謂等下去... ... 有時放棄都係一種美德... ... 而且我覺得有d人長期語意不通, 我地係好難同佢溝通... ...
祝好運
research2005010兄﹐
明0西。多謝提點。
你有係衰0既.... 個topic 攪到咁大 實比d 教徒插到你飛起啦
其實你話 慢慢搵 聖經 地方出黎駁 駁一世你都駁唔完架啦
你駁 因為你唔信 教徒駁返你 因為佢地信
宗教呢d野 無得講 岩同錯架 只有講 信唔信架咋
你試下去 同個阿婆講 " 你打小人 咁迷信架 再大條道理同佢講 你咁唔科學架咁 "
我估個阿婆唔止好似上面0的教徒咁插你 起拖打你添啦 ^^"
再講多少少
小弟都曾經好似你咁 對聖經好多問題 ( 中一 二咁上下啦)
咁就局鬼氣 返教會同d 弟兄傾下 佢就叫左個職位高0既同我傾
咁我就係咁講我有咩問題呀咁...
例如話 上帝做得亞當出黎 明知佢會偷食禁果架啦 咁都仲要試佢0既 ?! 上帝同自己玩遊戲呀?
咁佢答我 : 我地係人 又點可以用人腦去猜度 神0既諗法呢
咁我即時收聲唔再問啦, 因為呢個答案太無敵....
所以無謂同 信0既人駁囉 你唔信就唔好信 人地信你就唔好攪人, 呢個宗教 道人向善咪得囉