Board logo

標題: 錯誤百出的聖經 [打印本頁]

作者: geese    時間: 2005-6-29 11:39 PM     標題: 錯誤百出的聖經

錯誤百出的聖經

我在網上宣揚了一下進化論,揭穿了某些神創論者的把戲,很讓
有些人頭疼。有信徒來信指教我:“不管你怎么說,進化論與聖經不
符,所以一定是錯的,因為聖經記錄的是上帝的話,一句頂萬句,句
句是真理。你現在膽敢為進化論辯護,乃是犯了大罪,將來是要下地
獄的,趕快懺悔,皈依我教,或許還有得救的可能。要皈依我教,第
一步就是要讀聖經。聖經的作者有四十幾位,但是實際作者只有一
個,那就是上帝。所以聖經的成書雖然長達一千多年,卻首尾一貫,
前后呼應,沒有一絲一毫的紕漏,這正是上帝存在的最好証明啊。”
說得我砰然心動,趕快借了本聖經來讀。這一讀不得了,人家說沒有
一絲一毫的紕漏,我怎麼盡看到前后不一致、自相矛盾、違反常識的
錯誤呢?屈指一算,有好几十處。定是我弱智,沒能領會上帝他老人
家的意思。我知道網上聖經專家不少,特提出我的疑問請專家們指
正。

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。”

比較一下,我們會發現,“創世紀”第一章、第二章有關上帝創
造萬物的順序的說法截然不同:

第一章:天地光→空氣水→植物→日月星→動物→人(有男有
女)
第二章:天地→男人→植物→動物→女人

神創論者是試圖用“創世紀”來代替進化論的,但這第一章和第
二章自相矛盾,不知道我們應該相信哪一章?

2、蛇吃土?

〔創3:14〕“神對蛇說:‘你既作了這事,就必受咒詛,比
一切的牲畜野獸更甚﹔你必用肚子行走,終身吃土。……’”

不必是動物學家,一般的人也知道蛇不吃土,難道上帝的咒詛一
點效用都沒有?

3、蝙蝠是鳥?

〔利11:13〕“(上帝對摩西、亞倫說)‘雀鳥中你們當以
為可憎不可吃的,乃是雕、狗頭雕、紅頭雕、鷂鷹、小鷹與其
類﹔……戴任與蝙蝠。”

〔申14:11〕“(摩西重復上帝的教導)‘凡潔淨的鳥,你
們都可以吃。不可吃的是雕、狗頭鷹、……戴任與蝙蝠。”

今天恐怕連小學生都知道蝙蝠是哺乳動物而不是鳥,當時的人不
知道不奇怪,但是上帝居然不知道!

4、兔子反芻?

〔利11:1〕“耶和華對摩西、亞倫說:‘你們曉諭以色列
人,在地上一切走獸中可吃的乃是這些:凡蹄分兩瓣、倒嚼的走獸,
你們都可以吃……兔子,因為倒嚼不分蹄,就與你們不潔淨。豬,因
為蹄分兩瓣,卻不倒嚼,就與你們不潔淨。這些獸的肉,你們不可
吃,死的你們不可摸,都與你們不潔淨。”

莫非當時的兔子乃是反芻(倒嚼)動物,現在進化了?另外,今
天的基督徒還有多少人遵循上帝的教導,不吃兔肉、豬肉,甚至連摸
一下都不可以?

5、昆虫四足?

〔利11:20〕“(上帝繼續說)‘凡有翅膀用四足爬行的
物,你們都當以為可憎。只是有翅膀用四足爬行的物中,有足有腿,
在地上蹦跳的,你們還可以吃。其中蝗虫、螞蚱、蟋蟀與其類﹔蚱蜢
與其類﹔這些你們都可以吃。”

不必上什么動物學課,小時候抓過上帝提到的蝗虫、螞蚱、蟋蟀
的人都知道它們是六足,而不是四足。上帝若非未卜先知,何不屈尊
抓一只蝗虫研究一下?

6、一對還是七對?

〔創7:1〕“耶和華對挪亞說:‘……凡潔淨的畜類,你要帶
七公七母﹔不潔淨的畜類,你要帶一公一母﹔空中的飛鳥,也要帶七
公七母,可以留種,活在全地上﹔……”
〔創7:8〕“潔淨的畜類和不潔淨的畜類,飛鳥并地上一切的
昆虫,都是一對一對的,有公有母,到挪亞那里進入方舟,正如神所
吩咐挪亞的。”

上帝明明說潔淨的畜類和飛鳥,要各帶七對,挪亞竟敢偷懶,只
各帶一對,然而卻說“正如神所吩咐挪亞的。”

7、天有柱、地有基?

〔伯:26:11〕“天的柱子因他(神)的斥責震動驚奇。”
〔伯:38:4〕“(上帝對約伯說)我立大地根基的時候,你
在那里呢?你若有聰明只管說吧!你若曉得就說,是誰定地的尺度?
是誰把准繩拉在其上?地的根基安置在何處?地的角石是誰安放
的?”

這一段,令人想起了中國的神話:天圓地方,天是靠四根柱子支
撐著的。原教旨主義者要我們相信聖經上的每一句話,看來連天文
學、地理學都得改寫了。

8、地球是平的?

〔太:4:8〕“魔鬼又帶他(耶穌)上了一座最高的山,將世
上的萬國與萬國的榮華都指給他看”

“萬國”,查英文版,指的是世上所有的王國(all the
kingdoms of the world)
。地球是球形的,不論站在多高的山上,都不可能看遍整個地球,只
有地球是平的才有可能。顯然聖經的作者認為地球是平的,但是遠在
此之前,希臘學者已經知道地球是球形的,并且准確地測出了它的半
徑。

9、上帝就是魔鬼?

〔撒下:24:1〕“耶和華又向以色列人發怒,就激動大衛,
使他吩咐人去數點以色列人和猶太人。”
〔代上:21:1〕“撒但起來攻擊以色列人,激動大衛數點他
們。”

根據上下文,這兩段話描述的是同一件事。這激動大衛的究竟是
耶和華還是撒但?或者耶和華就是撒但?

10、上帝能不能看見?

說法一:可見
〔創32:30〕“我面對面見了神,我的性命仍得保全。”
〔出24:9〕“摩西、亞倫、拿答、亞比盧,并以色列長老中
的七十人,都上了山。他們看見以色列的神,……他們觀看了神,他
們又吃又喝。”
〔出33:11〕“耶和華與摩西面對面說話,好象人與朋友說
話一樣。”
〔出33:23〕“(上帝對摩西說)然后我要將我的手收回,
你就得見我的背,卻不得見我的面。”
〔摩9:1〕“我看見主站在祭壇旁邊。”

說法二:不可見
〔出33:20〕“(耶和華)又說:‘你不能看見我的面,因
為人見我的面不能存活。”
〔約1:18〕“從來沒有人看見神,只有在父懷里的獨生子將
他表明出來。”
〔提前6:15〕“到了日期(最后審判),那可稱頌,獨有權
能的萬王之王、萬主之主,就是那獨一不死、住在人不能靠近的光
里,是人未曾看見、也是不能看見的,要將他顯明出來。”
作者: brightlee    時間: 2005-6-30 05:34 AM

don't just read one bible versus and say this and tis la..
if you are really interesting in bible, pls goto study in bible college,
this will kill so many people to have bias beahviours.....

................
作者: Gretzky    時間: 2005-6-30 06:12 AM     標題: Response to Q1

1. Comparing the passages on Gen 1:23 and Gen 2:7 and the order of creation.
To avoid further arguments, let me just say the Hebrew word (the original language of the Old  Testament) for ‘day’ has a two-fold meaning. It could mean a 24 hr day (just like ours) or simply a period of time.

The order of the creation is as such:
“Day” 1 in Genesis 1:-3-5 (appearance of light, division of light from darkness and naming of day and night)
“Day” 2 in Gen. 1:6-8 (makinf of expanse, division of lower waters from upper and naming of heaven)
“Day” 3 in Gen 1:9-13 (division of lower waters from dry land, naming of earth and seas, command to produce vegetation, resultant production of vegetation)
“Day” 4 in Gen. 1:14-19 (command that lights appear, stated their purposes, making the sun and moon)
“Day” 5 in Gen. 1:20-23 (command to produce fish and birds, resultant creation and blessing of the same)
“Day” 6 in Gen. 1:24-31(command to produce land animals and the decision to make human being; finally the provision of vegetation as food)
“Day” 7 is the ‘day’ God rested.

I don’t believe the bible is a chronological book in which the events unfolds like a history book. This book is not intended to be read as a novel because there are a lot of repetitions.  The account in Genesis 2:7 is not the exact duplication of the Genesis 1. ]You are right. Man simply means human beings that include male and female (Gen. 1:23). And Gen. 2:7 shows Adam was the first to be made….from 2:8-17 we have the creation of the Garden of Eden…and then Eve was created in 2:21ff. We never have any sayings in Genesis 1 that says God did all the creations in the 6 days in Gen. 1. Even old school scholars from Harvard Divinity school would believe creation is an on going process till today

[ Last edited by Gretzky on 2005-6-30 at 06:55 AM ]
作者: Gretzky    時間: 2005-6-30 06:52 AM     標題: Response to Q 2,3, and 4.

Question #2 Regarding the serpent eating dust in Genesis 3: 14-15

The Hebrew word ‘dust’ (abaq, apar in transliteration) is used literally and in similes to express: poverty, smallness and abasement. The culture of the Jewish people in the Old Testament would put ash/dust on the head as a sign of sorrow and sadness. As a matter of fact, Jewish still practice this today in their culture. This word ‘dust’ is not to be taken as real dust.

Question#3 Regarding the bat as a bird in Leviticus 11:13 and Deutornomy 14:11

Here the identification of the species listed may present a problem, but here ‘birds’ means birds of prey or eaters of carrion. In the classification of the Arabs, the bat is classed as a bird. We have to remember the Arabs and Israelites were in the same family originally.

Question#4 Regarding the rabbit chews the cud (反芻) in Leviticus 11:6

Do the rabbit really chew the cud in the scientific sense of having gastronomical system wherein several stomachs are used for processing food? It is believed cows, sheep and goats ‘regurgitated’ their food. That’s the normal meaning of ‘chew the cud’. The Hebrew expression for ‘chew the cud’ is literally ‘raising up what has been swallowed.’ But what does that mean? Surely there is the appearance of a cud-chewing process in the rabbit. In fact, so convincing was this appearance that Carolus Linnaeus, who invented the modern system of biological classification, first classified the coney and the rabbit as ruminants. I believe the claims of the rabbit chewing the cud is based on observation, not on the scientific refinements of classification. It is true that the camel, coney and rabbit go through similar motions as the cows, sheep and goats.

Leviticus is a book of instructions for the Israelites to do sacrifices to God in the Old Testament times. The meaning of the sacrifice is for the people to remember who God is to them (God doesn’t eat the food, nor does he need the food to feed his hunger!). Christians (Protestant and Catholics) don’t have to obey the sacrificial laws because they believe the death and resurrection of Jesus have already substitute the sacrifices.

[ Last edited by Gretzky on 2005-6-30 at 07:19 AM ]
作者: Gretzky    時間: 2005-6-30 07:14 AM     標題: Response to Q 5-6

Question #5 Regarding ‘all winged insects that walk on all fours’ in Lev. 11:20

The English translation of the Hebrew word ‘sherets’ (transliteration) is insects. The English word ‘insects’ means ‘swarming things’. They are small creatures that often occur in swarms and move to and form in haphazard fashion. “Sherets’ is a boarder term than the English translation. In Hebrew, “walking on all fours” is the opposite of walking uprightly: the number of legs is irrelevant.

Question #6 Regarding ‘one pair or seven pairs’ in Noah’s luggage in Gen 7:1-9

God’s command: seven pairs of every clean animal (v.2), two of (a pair) every kind of unclean animal (v.2), and seven of every kind of bird (v.3).

In v. 5 we see Noah ‘did all that God commanded him.”

Gen 7:8 says ‘Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures’. This simply means the animals are in pairs, not in singles. Even the often mistaken Chinese (Union Version) and English (New international Version) translations get this right. So I don’t understand what the fuzz about 1 pair and 7 pairs.

[ Last edited by Gretzky on 2005-6-30 at 07:19 AM ]
作者: Gretzky    時間: 2005-6-30 07:58 AM     標題: Responses to Q7-9

Question #7 & 8 Regarding Pillars of the sky and Flat Earth in Job 26:11, Job 38:4 and Matthew 4:8

Figure of speech is used here in all instances. The bible is composed of different genres (history, prophecies, narrative, laws, poetry, etc.). In both Job and Matthew the author used figurative speech of illustrate his point and did not mean literally the pillars of the sky and all kingdoms of the earth. I suppose we would not read 娛樂news with the same mindset of the editorials, right?

Question #9 on God as Satan in 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1

2 Sam. 24:1 says “Again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, ‘Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.’ “

1 Chronicles 21:1 says “ Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel.”

Both passages are indeed, recording the same incident. What does the word Satan mean?

Literally, the name Satan means ‘the accuser”. This ‘accuser’ is the Satan we know in our modern day portrayal of the ‘devil’ in the book of Job. The Hebrew word of ‘Satan’ in the book of Job is always preceded by the definite article. The meaning of ‘Satan’ is the ‘accuser’ in the book of Job. However, the Hebrew word ‘Satan’ in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles is not the same one as in the book of Job. The ‘definite article’ is not used there. I know that sounds confusing but if you can read the Hebrew translation you would know the difference. Our misunderstanding is like a foreigner trying the learn the difference between calling someone 大佬 and calling someone 呀哥 in Cantonese.

Let me just say a few words on the fundamentalist (原教旨主義者). It is true that they hold on to an extreme literal position of the bible. They believe the bible means literally everything (word for word). I want to point out most denominations of the Christian church don’t hold this strict point of view on the bible. In fact the fundamentalist point of view is dying as we speak today.
作者: hallo_chan1    時間: 2005-6-30 07:59 AM

wt the ---....my chinese are even better than yours..mate..read it again la...stupid GOOK..
作者: changes    時間: 2005-6-30 08:10 AM

你應該去聖經班讀下聖經先。你而家好似個小學生睇大學chemistry書一樣,表面睇落去就自己用自己既理論去理解。
如果你係o岩,你可以係聖經班度提出,係o岩既野始終都係o岩。
作者: Gretzky    時間: 2005-6-30 08:10 AM     標題: Response to Q 10

Question #10 Regarding ‘seeing’ God

According to the bible, God is holy and great so sinful people (like the Israelites) would die if they meet God face to face. But why would God allow people to see him and spare their lives (like Moses)?

The references on not being able to see God are there to illustrate God’s glory, pureness and holiness. This is done to show God is a holy God and he requires his creatures to be holy as well.

On the other hand, the bible also gives us the idea that God loves his people so much that he revealed himself to people directly (Moses, Samuel, David, etc.) and indirectly through nature and experiences (to all mankind throughout time). God’s purpose, according to the bible, is to love us (like how our parents are supposed to love us) , not to keep a distance from us. God has a standard (holiness) but he would shield that from his people (who will die according to God’s standard) so people can come direct to him and thus complete his promise to mankind.

作者: changes    時間: 2005-6-30 08:11 AM

不過我欣賞你對聖經的興趣!!
作者: Gretzky    時間: 2005-6-30 08:15 AM

To Bright, hallo_chan and changes,

Pls be kind to people asking questions or have doubts....most of the points above are simply careless reading of the passage and lack of understanding of the Hebrew language and culture. THIS MISTAKE IS ALSO COMMITTED BY MANY CHURCH GOERS TOO. I would strongly recommend the personal attacks TO BE STOPPED here.

To Geese,

Is this your  article? Are they your questions? Any responses?

Gretz.

[ Last edited by Gretzky on 2005-6-30 at 08:18 AM ]
作者: cymok3782    時間: 2005-7-1 12:28 AM

what i will say is... mistranslation do happen, 由其是translation過n次的聖經...
if you re interested, go read the orginal
作者: Gretzky    時間: 2005-7-1 02:07 AM

Originally posted by cymok3782 at 2005-7-1 12:28 AM:
what i will say is... mistranslation do happen, 由其是translation過n次的聖經...
if you re interested, go read the orginal
The most accurate version we now have is a 5th Century copy by the scribes in St. Petersberg, Russia.

hey Geese, is the article yours or you cut & paste from somewhere?
作者: karenmoe    時間: 2005-7-1 02:09 AM

Originally posted by cymok3782 at 2005-7-1 12:28 AM:
what i will say is... mistranslation do happen, 由其是translation過n次的聖經...
if you re interested, go read the orginal
咁請問現在的譯本邊度有錯?
作者: Gretzky    時間: 2005-7-1 02:30 AM

Don't necessary agree with the 'mistranslation' of the original canon....there are different interpretations of individual words (like the 'days' in Genesis 1..I mentioned in the response to Question 1)...but the translation from the Latin Vulgate(vulgate means 'common'), a translation done by Jerome around 400 AD, is highly accurate. If you ask someone in linguistics (語言學), the bible we have today has the highest accuracy rate of any ancient text. The Old Testament is about 95.7% and the New Testament is about 99.5%.

So the question rises: Where are the 'mistakes'? Are they important?

The above percentage is done by linguists who looks at every single word and puncuation of the text. They compare the original meaning of the word in the written period and the meaning to us in our language (in this case, English). Most of the 'mistakes' and 'unidentifible' words are single/plurals and puncuations. And these variations make up the percentage.
作者: shawnliau13    時間: 2005-7-1 11:35 AM     標題: 改了能信嗎?

你們以爲是教科書嗎?要改倒最新版本。。。
那還能信嗎?不喜歡的就改,那你喜歡咯。。。
作者: Gretzky    時間: 2005-7-1 01:35 PM

Originally posted by shawnliau13 at 2005-7-1 11:35 AM:
你們以爲是教科書嗎?要改倒最新版本。。。
那還能信嗎?不喜歡的就改,那你喜歡咯。。。
Ever done any translation work from another language to Chinese? How accurate can you go from the original to the translated version?

The reason of the updating is due to new discovery of the Hebrew and Greek languages as well as the cultures. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1940s gives us more Hebrew words than we originally thought and so the translation can be done in a better way for modern day English readers (and subsequently Chinese) to understand the scripture.

Ever heard of the Rosetta Stone? The language on the stone helped us understand the ancient Egyptian language/culture much better. The indirect result of the reading of the ancient Egyptian writing actually gives us verification of the person Joesph and Moses (both biblical characters who held high  offices in Egypt).

I just don't understand why you say不喜歡的就改,那你喜歡咯...there are actually so many passages in the bible we have problem explaining...and why didn't anyone took them out?

Any evidence? Pls kindly respond.
作者: mememe    時間: 2005-7-2 12:25 AM

a translation done by Jerome around 400 AD, is highly accurate.
呢篇文我本人認為唔錯﹐而且解答到好多人問既問題。
取自http://207.152.99.250/~myscience/magazine/200207/020720.htm

神创论能否是科学

作者 方舟子

原载《牛顿-科学世界》2002年第七期


  “我们从哪里来?”大概从人类诞生之日起,这个问题就在困扰着我们,而在科学产生之前,人们倾向于借助超自然的事物对此进行解释。因此几乎所有的民族,都曾有过创生的神话。这些神话尽管有的简单有的复杂,尽管有的已成为文化遗迹有的仍然有很多人相信,但从科学的角度看,都属于没有任何根据的幻想,彼此之间并无高低之分。今天之所以没有或很少有人像古代中国人那样相信盘古开天辟地,像古希腊人那样相信大地和海洋是盖娅女神形成的,像西非某部落那样相信世界是从蚂蚁的排泄物产生的,或者像印度安达曼岛的土著那样相信人的始祖是从竹子长出来的,而仍然有许多受过教育的人像野蛮人一样相信希伯莱创生神话,并不是因为希伯莱创生神话要比其他版本的神话更可靠、更动人,而是因为在历史上这个神话恰好成为一个强势文化的一部分,随之流传、扩张,并消灭了其他的文化,包括在20世纪初灭绝了安达曼岛人。但是强权并不等于真理。

  神话以及与之相关的宗教诉诸超自然事物,而科学排斥任何超自然的解释,因此在本质上,宗教和科学注定了无法调和。在彼此分开的领域它们还可能和平共处,而在那些交叉的领域,冲突无法避免。这正是进化论所面临的挑战。对那些固执地相信希伯莱《圣经》(或基督教《旧约》)的“创世记”是上帝的话语,是真实的历史记载而不是神话、寓言的原教旨基督徒来说,进化论试图对世界万物的由来做出完全自然的解释,一开始就已经错了。但是在宗教的多年打压下,进化论却从几个先驱者的天才发现变成了科学界的共识。对不抱偏见的人来说,科学所拥有的理性和实证远比盲目的信仰更有威力。原教职基督徒们也知道这一点,因此改变策略,也给自己的信仰披上科学的外衣。在20世纪60年代,一些美国原教旨基督徒发明了“科学神创论”,声称神创论不是宗教信仰,而是一种科学理论,最新的科学发现支持神创论而反对进化论。他们也知道,在科学界难以找到知音,对科学所知甚少的政客和大众才是他们所诉求的对象。他们也向其他国家渗透,包括中国。反进化论的论调一时在中国知识界也成为时髦。

  “科学神创论”的全部依据是《圣经·创世记》的前面几章,特别是第一、二章。而他们断定这些记载具有“历史的和科学的真实”的唯一理由,是相信《圣经》是“上帝的话语”。按照传统的说法,包括《创世记》在内的《圣经》首五卷,是摩西在上帝的启示下写的。细心的读者会发现摩西不可能是这五卷的作者,因为在《申命记》的最后记载了摩西之死。事实上,首五卷不是某个人的作品,而是在很长的历史时期内集体创作的产物。最开始很可能是通过口述流传,大约在公元前一千年间,才开始用莎草纸纪录下来。“圣经”一词源自Byblos,这是腓尼基一个制造和出口莎草纸的城市的名字,引申为一卷莎草纸。笔录虽然不像口述那样容易出现多种非常不同的版本,但是在印刷术还未发明的年代,靠传抄的方式仍然会不时出现错讹。而且,我们现在看到的希伯莱《圣经》,乃是由来源不同的文本综合、编辑而成的。现代研究《圣经》的学者通过分析首五卷的语言风格以及和其他文献相比较,认为它有四种文本来源,分别称之为:J,E,D,P。

  按照被《圣经》学术界普遍接受的看法,J文本是最古老的,大约在公元前10到9世纪出现于犹太国。当时所罗门王刚死不久,以色列分裂成在北边的以色列和南边的犹太两个国家。J文本的特征是将上帝叫做耶和华(德语写作Jahweh,因此被称为J文本。最早提出这个看法的是德国学者)。大约在公元前8世纪,在北边的以色列国出现了E文本,其特征是把上帝叫做伊洛希姆(Elohim),中文译做“神”。Elohim是一个复数名词,所以更恰当的翻译是“诸神”。这表明其起源其实是来自多神论的文献,做为一神论者的《圣经》作者们虽然尽量剔除了其多神论的内容,但像Elohim这种当时已被普遍使用的名词却无法改动,因此残留了多神论的痕迹(类似的痕迹还包括《创世记》所引用的上帝说的话,像“那人已经与我们相似,能知道善恶”、“我们下去,在那里变乱他们的口音”)。在公元前8世纪末,以色列国灭亡。公元前7世纪中叶,犹太国的祭司们将E文本与J文本糅合在一起,使他们祖先的故事更完整,但也因此有了重复,同一个故事有时会在《圣经》中出现两次。在公元前6世纪中叶,《申命记》(Deuteronomy)被加了进去,称为D文本。在公元前586年,新巴比伦国王尼布甲尼撒二世攻占耶路撒冷,将几万名犹太人掳往巴比伦,直到公元前538年波斯攻陷巴比伦,才把他们放回。这段历史时期,在犹太历史上称为“巴比伦囚虏”。在此期间或其前后,犹太祭司们受巴比伦神话影响创作了P版本(P指祭司Priestly,其特征也是将上帝称为Elohim)。最后,大约在公元前450到400年间,有人把所有这些版本做了编辑、加工,合在一起形成了和我们今天看到的差不多的版本,有时也称为R文本(R指redactor,即编辑)。

  希伯莱《圣经》的其他章节是何时被合在一起成为一本完整的书的,我们并不知道。希伯莱《圣经》的原始文本当然是希伯莱语,但是最早的版本并没有保留下来。现存最古老的希伯莱《圣经》是950年抄写的。1008年的另一种版本成为今天希伯莱《圣经》标准版本的基础。这些版本彼此之间都有所差异。1947 年在死海附近出土的“死海古经”中包括了一些希伯莱《圣经》的章节,大约抄写于公元前250年和公元135年间,与现在通行的希伯莱《圣经》版本相比,虽然差别很小,但差异还是存在的。“死海古经”中还包括最早的《圣经》希腊文译本的抄本,抄写时间大约在公元前2世纪。希腊文《圣经》相传是在公元前三世纪由72位犹太学者于亚历山大用72天译成的,被讲希腊语的犹太人普遍使用,包括大多数早期基督徒。它根据的是一个已不存在的希伯莱版本,包括了一些希伯莱《圣经》标准版本所没有内容。不同的希伯莱版本和译本,内容、语句有很多不同,甚至重大的不同。例如,希腊文译本《圣经·以赛亚书》预言道:“必有处女怀孕生子。”以希腊文译本为依据的早期基督徒据此编造了处女玛利亚生耶稣的神话。这真是个天大的误会,因为在希伯莱语版本中,说的实际上是“必有年轻妇女怀孕生子”。早在公元三世纪,一个叫奥利金的基督教神学家已意识到了《圣经》不同版本的重大差异问题,收集了六个希伯莱语和希腊语版本,将它们排列对照。在公元400年左右,另一个神学家哲罗姆根据希伯莱语、希腊语和阿拉姆语(古代西南亚的通用语)版本将《圣经》重译成拉丁语(在此之前已有被认为谬误很多的拉丁语译本)。在面对不同版本的差异时,他只能根据自己的判断做取舍,这种取舍当然往往是主观的。这个拉丁语版本后来在讲拉丁语的基督徒中变得很流行,称为“通俗拉丁文本圣经”。但在辗转传抄中又出现了许多错讹,直到1450-1452年,才由古腾堡首次将之印刷发行。在16世纪中叶,这个文本被天主教会确定为法定本。

  可见,今天我们看到的《圣经》,已经过了漫长的演变过程。在编辑、传抄、印刷、翻译过程中,积累了无数的错讹和自以为是的修改,出现了多种互不相同的版本。印刷术的出现大大减少了版本的差异,但也意味着只有某些版本被主观地选择为善本而大量印刷,其他的版本都被忽视。虽然有许多学者努力想恢复《圣经》原始版本的本来面目,但是这是一个不可能完成的任务。就算哪一天,《圣经》原始版本奇迹般地出土,要破译它也相当困难。早在公元前,古希伯莱语做为犹太通用语的地位已被阿拉姆语取代。许多希伯莱古语的准确含义今天已难以理解,学者有时要与其他闪语(例如阿拉伯语)比较,才能猜测其可能的意思。而且,古希伯莱语在书写时只写辅音,不写元音,光靠字面的记录要猜测词的完整拼法很困难。很显然,这种猜测很容易出现错误,最可笑的一个常见错误是希伯莱上帝的名字 “耶和华”。在希伯莱《圣经》中,上帝的名字仅记做YHWH。犹太教禁止口呼上帝的名字,读经读到YHWH时,改读成adhonay(意思是“吾主”),有时也把adhonay的元音符号写在YHWH下面。中世纪基督教神学家误以为这是标记YHWH的元音,于是将YHWH还原成Yehovah,即耶和华。根据近代学者的考证,正确的读法应是Yahweh,即雅赫维。至今几乎所有基督徒仍然不知或无视这个错误,这个错误看样子会一直持续下去,千百年来基督徒都读错了上帝的名字,妄称神之名。

  在今天广泛流传的各种《圣经》版本中,彼此之间仍然存在很大的不同,而且这种状况在未来也不可能有根本的改变。即使《圣经》真的是上帝的话语,历史也已证明上帝对保存、正确地翻译其话语漠不关心,听任种种谬误流传,甚至不介意信徒乱叫他的名字。原教旨基督徒要人们相信《圣经》字字皆真理,那么面对如此多的不同版本,人们该相信哪一种呢?

  不论是哪一个版本的《圣经》,本身都存在众多的自相矛盾之处,其中的许多错误,从《圣经》成书的那一天起,就已经存在。这是因为如我们在前面介绍的,《圣经》是根据不同的文本编辑而成的。编辑者虽然做了处理力图让内容保持一致,但矛盾之处仍然比比皆是。神创论者做为主要依据的《创世记》前两章,就讲了两个很不相同的神创故事。第一章和第二章的前三句及第四句的前半部分,被认为来自P文本,上帝被称为伊洛希姆(诸神),体裁类似于颂歌,是“巴比伦囚虏” 时期前后犹太祭司参照巴比伦神话创作的,被抽象成了一周七天内创世:

  第一日,神在黑暗、浑沌和水的大地创造光、昼夜。
  第二日,神创造天,将上面的水和下面的水分开。
  第三日,神分离陆地和海洋,创造出种子植物。
  第四日,神创造出日、月和星星。
  第五日,神创造出水生动物和飞鸟。
  第六日,神创造出牲畜、昆虫、野兽和男女。
  第七日,神安息了。

  从第二章第四句后半部分一直到这一章结束,是来自于更古老的J文本,其体裁类似于民间故事。它讲了一个完全不同的神创故事。上帝首次被称为雅赫维,而且没有提到创造的天数。有些学者因此认为在这个故事中,所有的创造都是同时发生的。但是根据叙述的语气和上下文关系,我们可以推导出如下的创造顺序:

  大地没有草木,也无人耕种。
  雅赫维用地上的尘土造出第一个人亚当。
  雅赫维建造伊甸园,创造出植物。
  雅赫维为不使亚当感到孤独,用土创造走兽和飞鸟。
  雅赫维用亚当的肋骨造出第一个女人夏娃。

  在这个版本中,没有提到创造光、水、天、陆地、日月星辰,暗示着它们已预先存在。然后,男人首先被创造出来,之后是植物、动物和女人。而在P版本中,生物被创造的顺序却是植物、水生动物和飞鸟,最后是其他动物和男女。

  早期基督教神学家已意识到这个矛盾,并试图使之调和。当时大多数神学家将七天创世采用为神创故事,而其他神学家则采用另一版本。后来,神学家们同意,既然《圣经》是上帝的话语,两个版本都必须被无条件地接受:我们必须同时相信上帝在六天之内和同一时间内创造世界万物。根据古罗马神学家奥古斯丁的看法,《圣经》的权威大于人类的智力,我们觉得两个创世故事相互矛盾是因为我们智力有限。换言之,上帝的意图非我们能够理解。这种态度,与科学无关。科学意味着用我们的智力去研究世界。因此,如果神创论者要把神创论打扮成科学,那就必须是人类智力所能理解的。那么,在两个矛盾的神创说法中,我们应该接受哪一个?它们或者都错,或者一对一错,而不可能同时成立。要做为科学理论,前提是必须在逻辑上是自恰的。神创论无法满足这一要求。

  做为一个科学理论,还必须是可以被检验和有证据支持的。“科学神创论”者也认同这一点,所以在他们的文章、著作中也罗列了许多他们自以为确凿的证据,用以否证进化论。且不说这些证据都是捏造的或经不起推敲的,即使它们能成立,即使进化论被推翻,也并不意味着神创论就因此成立了。除了进化论和神创论之外,关于世界的起源还有无数的“理论”,并不是非此即彼。要证明一个科学理论,不能仅靠攻击与之竞争的其他理论,而必须提供充分的证据直接做出证明,这恰恰是神创论者所无法做到的。有时候,他们会试图证明自然界充满了智能设计的迹象,因此必然存在智能设计者,也就是上帝。这种证明也是早已被充分驳斥过的,即使能够成立,也并不能证明这个智能设计者就是犹太-基督教的上帝,更不能证明世界就是如《圣经》所描述的那样被创造出来的。

  早在20世纪初期,已经有基督徒意识到,公然与有无数证据支持的进化论作对是愚蠢的。他们改变策略,试图调和、包容进化论。在他们看来,《圣经》不仅不与进化论相冲突,反而早就预示了进化论,进化论是在证实《圣经》的预言。他们认为,《创世记》所说的“一日”,并不是通常意义上的“一日”,而是漫长的地质时期。而上帝在不同时期创造不同事物,正是进化的体现。这种说法在现在还有许多基督徒认同,但是是经不起推敲的。这不仅是因为《创世记》反复地说“有晚上,有早晨,是第N日”,表明它说的的确是通常意义上的“一日”,而且其创造的顺序与科学所揭示的进化顺序完全不相容。就《创世记》提到的那些事物而言,进化论认为其出现的顺序应该是:

  星辰 → 日、地球、月 → 鱼 → 种子植物 → 昆虫 → 兽类 → 鸟类 → 人类

  这个进化顺序,是被无数证据所证实了的,以后新的发现也许会在局部上有所更动,却不可能有根本的变化,再怎么变也不可能像《创世记》第一章所说的那样,种子植物出现在有太阳之前,因为我们无法理解,没有阳光,种子植物怎么生存、繁衍?

  如果要接受进化论,就不能不承认《圣经》有错误,《创世记》只是神话、寓言,而不是科学、历史记载。有些人一方面接受进化论,一方面又想在进化图景中给上帝留个位置。这种所谓“有神进化论”,是当代天主教会所持的立场,也被许多自由派基督新教人士所认同。一种常见的说法是,上帝创造了进化的原则,然后生物再按这个原则进化。这种说法的错误在于,“上帝创造了进化的原则”是一个对科学研究不会起任何作用的多余的假设,因此没有必要有这一说明。而且,并不存在一条“进化的原则”。生物的进化并不像物理定律那样有特殊的、无法从逻辑推导的形式(例如,没人知道为什么万有引力与距离的平方成反比。按照宇宙大爆炸理论,物理定律是在宇宙诞生的早期产生的),而更像数学定理,是一个只要符合了条件(遗传、变异),就必然会发生的逻辑推论,并不需要被创造出来。生物符合遗传、变异的条件,所以必然会进化,而不必根据什么“进化的原则”。进化甚至并非在生物界才有,用计算机程序也可以模拟(所谓进化算法或达尔文算法)。虽然有很多人毫无根据地相信物理定律是上帝确立的,却很少有人会认为数学定理也是上帝的手笔。“有神进化论”的另一种说法是,上帝在不被我们觉察地引导着生物的进化。但是,既然这种引导是无法被我们觉察的,那么它的存在,对我们来说,就是没有任何意义的,因而也是一个多余的假设,对于科学研究来说仍然是毫无必要的。

  总之,神创论是一个盲目的宗教信仰,和建立于理性基础上的科学格格不入。它在神学或哲学上也许是可以成立的,在科学上却无法成立。如果有人非要信仰神创论,我们只能在尊重其信仰自由的权利的同时感叹其愚昧,而如果要给神创论披上科学的外衣迷惑人,就更有揭露的必要。

2002.6.17.
[ Last edited by mememe on 2005-7-2 at 12:37 AM ]
作者: Gretzky    時間: 2005-7-2 05:46 AM

JEDP theory has always been a hyothesis...not a theory for the canonization of the Pentateuch. Personally I don't agree with the JEDP theory.

Regarding the name of God...the article has a pretty good explaination already...good point mememe.

On the creation account in Genesis...I have already stated my understanding of the Hebrew word 'day'(see response to Q1). Mememe, pls read it and let me know what you think.

I don't believe the bible is the handbook for everything ever happened anyways....

Geese, Karenmoe and Shawn....any response to my answers?
作者: mememe    時間: 2005-7-2 06:20 PM

Gretzky兄,
Personally I don't agree with the JEDP theory.
點解呢? 你有理由或證據否定呢個理論?
Mememe, pls read it and let me know what you think.
我諗shawnliau13兄所講既"不喜歡的就改"係話聖經既意思之所以可以隨住時間既流逝同科學既進步而改變係因為解釋(Explanation)往往係Post-hoc Reasoning.(註:我諗shawnliau13兄想講既係解釋﹐而唔係翻譯)。

點解我話係Post-hoc Reasoning呢? 試想想﹐以前(尤其係中世紀時)既天主/基督徒全部都覺得聖經既話語係100%準確既 - 理由在于聖經係出自上帝既手筆﹐寫既嘢又點會錯呢?

不過﹐隨住科學既進步﹐有好多以前一句"人類智慧有限"就可以推搪既問題都變得異常棘手。就如geese兄所提出既好多點都係科學感覺到有問題﹐天主/基督徒先至意會到有問題﹐而尋找解釋。

例如:

聖經所講既七日創世﹐喺以前根本唔會係問題﹐因為冇進化論﹐冇人話恐龍係幾億年前既生物﹐更加冇人會對聖經既準確性存疑。

科學既進步令天主/基督徒分成兩批:

一批依然相信聖經係100%準確﹐而七日創世一0的問題都冇因為神係萬能既。我諗呢堆應該係你所講既Fundamentalists。對佢哋﹐我會問: Carbon Dating﹐進化論﹐考古地理學既好多好多跡象(例如:板塊移動)應作何解釋。佢哋會答:"唔知"

另一批則解釋話聖經既話語有好多時候並唔係字面解釋﹐所以一日並唔一定係一日。對佢哋﹐我想問: 如果創世紀中記載既"一日"並唔係我哋通常認為既一日(即24小時)﹐請問聖經中既"一日"又係幾耐呢? 跟住佢哋亦都會答:"唔知"。

如果聽日科學家發現地球由冇陸地﹐海洋同植物到有呢段時間需時X年﹐你會唔會就話創世紀中記載既"第三日"就係X年呢?到0個陣時﹐我諗可能會有好多天主/基督徒帶出一0的前所未見既資料同證據證明上帝早喺幾千年前已經記錄低"第三日等於X年"﹐不過係我哋以前死蠢唔識解碼啫。

如果後日科學家證實之前既發現有錯誤﹐天主/基督徒可能就會話其實0個0的資料同證據都有錯誤﹐所以我哋又再"唔知一日係幾耐"。

呢點咪係Post-hoc reasoning咯。依家就乜都唔知﹐等到知道真相時先至話"其實聖經都係0甘講"。如果錯0左既話就話"其實聖經真係冇0甘講﹐係我哋解釋佢既方式錯0左啫"。因為聖經字面含糊﹐要翻譯又有幾種語言任你揀﹐再加上"The bible is composed of different genres (history, prophecies, narrative, laws, poetry, etc.)",又可以用"figurative speech"(幾時用幾時唔用你又唔知)﹐你話係唔係"想點解釋﹐就點解釋"0勒?
作者: Gretzky    時間: 2005-7-2 07:54 PM

With the JEDP, as I stated already..it's a hypothesis..not a theory....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.

Contrary to most believers, doubts on the accuracy of the bible began at the patristic period (where the early church fathers lived)...the church fathers actually constantly have debates on issues (including accuracy of the bible scripture) and their letters on those debates are made public. So doubt did exist back then. On post-hoc reasoning...I totall agree with you on the analysis of the modern day fundamentalist position (100% accuracy and literal). I can understand your frustrations of the prove-text reasoning when some headless Christian give this kind of response. But I do want to state the different genres of the bible are not there to defend doubters as a trump card.  We can go on and on with that...I personally detest this 馬後泡  approach. If there is something the bible does not say explicitly (like how old the earth  is, dinosaurs in book of Job, coning, etc.), who am i to impose a position on it?

One more thought I always entertain:  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?

With the figurative speech...you've  said 幾時用幾時唔用你又唔知. Let me give you an offer here...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. You don't even have to tell me the rationale of yours behind the interpretation....once I give you an reply you can then judge me on whether I 'twist' the scripture to fit into my reasoning or else. :-)

Thanks for the reply and dialouge...let's continue with this level-headed communication.
作者: mememe    時間: 2005-7-2 11:58 PM

Gretzky兄,
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
你睇過同接觸過既E source 既證據有幾多?
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?
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。
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.
俾0左啦。。。創世紀既"一日"係幾耐"? 點解?
作者: Gretzky    時間: 2005-7-3 05:10 AM

a) 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.
b) Here I guess we are on different pre-suppositions:
- My view of the Creation is there is a god (regardness of who that g/God is) and this god created everything, including the physical world and the intellectual world (our rational mindset). So I guess our difference here is the views of God in the first place. 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?
- hmm...may i ask whether you believe in absolute truth at all? (absolute truth can be on science too)
c)I spent 10 yrs studying Hebrew and still can't figure out the meaning of 'day' in Genesis...as posted before, it can mean 24 hr day (日) or a period of time (楷斷...sorry for the mispelling). There are positions leaning towards both stands but no concluding arguments. I wouldn't admit there are answers on that (and I don't mind telling you I am perplexed too) at all. [color=green]But not having answers doesn't mean there is no absolute truth. And that's why I would keep seeking. In the meantime I would try my best not to let the personal bias affect my pursuit.

May I ask what is your ontology?
作者: Avator    時間: 2005-7-3 11:47 AM

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
作者: mememe    時間: 2005-7-3 12:00 PM

Gretzky兄,

a)
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.
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: http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/academ ... /IntParties9God.pdf

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.
They themselves, readings against the grain of the text, go against the grain also of the central tradition in biblical scholarship, which has generally striven for a harmonizing and unifying depiction of the character of the deity in the Old Testament, one indeed that maximizes the compatibility of the portrait with that of the God of the New Testament and of Christian theology.
The God of the Pentateuch is a complex and mysterious character, passionate and dynamic but by no means conformable to human notions of right behaviour. 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.
Reading against the grain implies that there is a grain. It implies that texts have designs on their readers and wish to persuade them of something or other. 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, 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. All the same, there is no obligation to resist, nothing wrong in adopting the ideology of one’s text. 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.
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?
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?
係。
hmm...may i ask whether you believe in absolute truth at all?
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"係可以或者需要既(而唔係睇﹐聽﹐聞﹐食﹐諗既)。
你既問題引導性好強噃!
But not having answers doesn't mean there is no absolute truth. And that's why I would keep seeking.
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。
May I ask what is your ontology?
如果我有權唔答既話你即管問啦! 哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈!

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:
作者: geese    時間: 2005-7-4 09:28 AM

Originally posted by Avator at 2005-7-3 11:47 AM:
1、上帝先造動物還是先造人?是同時...
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: Gretzky    時間: 2005-7-4 11:43 AM

Originally posted by geese at 2005-7-4 09:28 AM:


先在此謝謝Avator兄教導我這白痴...
喂!老友 (geese)!你有無睇我D reply 架!

To mememe 學長,Thanks for the diligent follow up of the Clines pt of view. I know we don't operate on the same "OS" but am so glad to have someone who can actaully have meaningful dialogues with. 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.

[ Last edited by Gretzky on 2005-7-4 at 11:51 AM ]
作者: mememe    時間: 2005-7-4 09:03 PM

Gretzky兄,

乜我哋唔同OS咩?
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)。
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.
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。
作者: inpennhouse    時間: 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
作者: slwong3    時間: 2005-7-5 10:17 PM

Originally posted by inpennhouse 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
yes, I agree with you

I don't quite believe in 聖經 anyway
作者: 20steven    時間: 2005-7-8 03:18 AM

http://www.26fun.com/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=51047&fpage=3
看看吧!!異曲同工!不要只看表面!
作者: mememe    時間: 2005-7-8 09:04 PM

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?
作者: research2005010    時間: 2005-7-8 09:40 PM

你由頭都尾都冇答到我條問題噃
mememe,係你繼續作討論之前, 我想問下你 fiasco點解

[ Last edited by research2005010 on 2005-7-8 at 09:42 PM ]
作者: mememe    時間: 2005-7-8 10:02 PM

research2005010兄﹐
我想問下你 fiasco點解
定義喺呢度: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fiasco

請問有何指教?
作者: research2005010    時間: 2005-7-8 10:10 PM

http://www.26fun.com/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=63755&fpage=1

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.
作者: mememe    時間: 2005-7-8 10:36 PM

research2005010兄﹐

唔係好明你既意思。你既comment係咪丟轉0左?
作者: research2005010    時間: 2005-7-8 10:58 PM

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
作者: mememe    時間: 2005-7-8 11:12 PM

research2005010兄﹐

明0西。多謝提點。
作者: ronychan    時間: 2005-7-9 12:04 AM

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 ^^"
作者: ronychan    時間: 2005-7-9 12:14 AM

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
作者: mememe    時間: 2005-7-9 12:45 AM

Ronychan兄﹐

你講得好啱﹐不過你好似忽掠0左一點: 人哋信咩有可能直接影響到你0架。

文明0的既就組團體向政府施壓通過0的佢哋覺得啱聽既法律。
冇0甘文明既就動刀動槍動毒氣或者炸你一鑊甘。

我唔信亦唔想搞人﹐但係冇辦法唔俾人搞呀。
作者: Gretzky    時間: 2005-7-9 04:25 AM

Originally posted by research2005010 at 2005-7-8 10:58 PM:
我地本來傾得好開心, 忽然有人走去版...
research 兄,

I just asked ceo to move the thread to 02 area 啫...if I have offended you...pls accept my apology. Sorry.


我D Chinese is not very good...I can only type a bit and I have no formal Chinese training after P.5...but I didn't mean to use my English as a dead weight to hit anyone.

I have to admit I do have some bias towards Mr. Cum...and that's probably why I overreacted. Once again, I hope you don't get upset at me.

Thanks.
Gretz.
作者: research2005010    時間: 2005-7-9 11:11 AM

who is mr. cum?
作者: Gretzky    時間: 2005-7-9 02:08 PM

甘....Mr. Cum...




歡迎光臨 娛樂滿紛 26FUN (http://26fun.com/bbs7/) Powered by Discuz! 7.0.0