From: 69jpil69@gmail.com
On Sat, 15 Nov 2025 10:04:19 -0600, RonO
wrote:
>On 11/15/2025 3:32 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Nov 2025 11:07:29 -0600, RonO
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/14/2025 9:26 AM, jillery wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 14 Nov 2025 08:41:09 -0600, RonO
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/14/2025 3:04 AM, jillery wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Nov 2025 17:51:59 +0000, Martin Harran
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Nov 2025 10:15:16 -0600, RonO
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Bible is just wrong about a lot of things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More accurately, the Bible is factually incorrect about a lot of
>>>>>> things.
>>>>>
>>>>> Same thing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Factually incorrect" is a verifiable, objective error ex. 2+2=33.
>>>> "wrong" can be an opinion, ex. slavery is acceptable, or an
>>>> irrelevance, ex. vegans like Beethoven. There are many ways
>>>> statements can be factually correct and wrong, or factually incorrect
>>>> and truthful.
>>>
>>> Just like I said, same thing, your opinion differs. It doesn't matter if
"wrong"
>>> could be an opinion when it was not meant as an opinion.
>>
>>
>> Who decides when "it" was not meant as an opinion? Who decides what
>> "it" is?
>
>The author, obviously. What examples have I always put up as the Bible
>being wrong about? None of them were opinions.
The context here is not what you, RonO, say about the Bible, but is
what *other people* say about it. You are being pointlessly defensive
here.
>>> The
>>> Bible is just wrong about a lot of things. These are factually
>>> incorrect statements. Anyone should have understood that I wasn't
>>> talking about opinions like whether some god exists or not. The Bible
>>> has just been found to be wrong about a lot of things that can be
>>> checked out. These have always been the things that have had to be
>>> reinterpreted or claimed to be metaphorical.
>>
>>
>> Consider: X says I owe X a bazillion dollars. In fact, I owe X a
>> thousand dollars. X's statement is factually incorrect as to the
>> precise amount. Nevertheless, X's statement is true that I owe X
>> something.
>
>Consider the context, and what I have always claimed. Your example is
>off base.
You claim above "factually incorrect" is the same as "wrong". My
example shows how they are different. Do you not recognize that a
statement's "truth" isn't necessarily related to its literal meaning?
When someone calls you "a piece of shit", do you really suppose they
mean you're composed of excrement?
>Ron Okimoto
>
>>
>> To X, the relevant part is the fact I owe X; the amount isn't relevant
>> to X. X might even consider a thousand dollars and a bazillion
>> dollars equivalent. That makes X's statement entirely accurate to X.
>>
>> So you say the Bible is wrong about a lot of things. Others say what
>> you say the Bible is wrong about, isn't relevant to them.
>>
>>
>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> No it's not - it's people who read the Bible wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Bible begs to be read wrong. More to the point, those who decide
>>>>>> the "correct" reading of the Bible historically are the ones who read
>>>>>> it wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>> There are so many "factually incorrect" statements in the Bible about
>>>>> nature (the creation) and a lot of them are unnecessarily included in
>>>>> the "metaphorical" presentation that it makes the Bible pretty much
>>>>> impossible to use as any type of narrative providing accurate depictions
>>>>> of nature.
>>>>>
>>>>> Saint Augustine was correct that no one should use the Bible to deny
>>>>> things about nature that we can figure out for ourselves.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>>
>>
>
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
