Boazy: << This is not about "me teaching" all youuz.. its about together.. examining some text, and seeing how far we can go before we diverge in our interpretation. >>

Isn't the sheer boofheaded arrogance sublime? Sunday bible class at OLO, led by Brother Boazy.

Go and teach your grandmother to suck eggs, you insufferable godbotherer.

Why is the word "secular" in the title of this thread? I don't see anyone putting their hands up to interpret any "secular" texts here (especially the original poster).

So why not let us interpret a text in its original format?

Everyone turn to page 7, Chapter 1, first paragraph.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=F373&pageseq=23

Now what do you think the author was pointing at here? Any ideas?

If you keep reading, I promise you..it's a goldmine.

Perhaps you could use some inductive method on it Boazy. What do you think the author was trying to say?

begin with the earliest evidence
As it is written in Isaiah , "Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way;
Mark is often accused of "error" in reference to (the citation is from Malachi rather than Isaiah),

note, the first two-[mark_1]-verses form’s a complete statement:
The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet.

with reference to Isaiah 40:9:
You who bring good tidings to Zion, go up on a high mountain. You who bring good tidings*

*"Good tidings" is euangelion (gospel) in Greek.

this verse is built out of Exodus 23:20 and a paraphrase of Malachi. 3:1.

Here is my herald whom I send on ahead of you

taken directly from the Greek of the Septaugint version of Exodus:

The passage in its entirety reads:
Exodus 23:20 "See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way.....since my Name is in him. (NIV)



Elijah will play an important role in the gospel of Mark.

v2: "the way." "The way" is an important motif in Mark.

Things are always happening "on the way." Isa 35:8, which appears to lie behind many of the healings in Mark, refers to "the holy way."

V 5. and so john came., then john died ,

then jesus came [god will not be thwarted]..

and they will call him emmanuEL=god with us

John1;1
in the beginning was the word and the word was =god with us
and the word was god

Through god all things were made
In him alone is life

And that life

Is the light unto men
His-[god's]-light shines in-the darkness

But the_darkness has-not understood
And there came a man john
To_testify concerning that light

His name was john>then>jesu
He himself was not the light
He_came only-as witness_to-THE-LIGHT

THE_true_light ,that gives_light as-was_and-is coming into the world

RE. 'Elijah will play an important role in the gospel of Mark.'

Or, 'Jews will play an important role in the gospel of Isiah.'

Lol. I think ET may be laughing at all of humanity, with each group swearing theirs the only road, while never knowing where any road is pointing.

And where is the road pointing?

EVO

Dear CJ... for one (you) who prides himself on pedantry, preciseness, prose and the absence of prejudice.... "you insufferable godbotherer" :) raises a few questions. I'm not sure how you thought that would help us reaching a concensus about how documents should be interpreted, but well.. there is more time yet.

PERICLES.. of all people in OLO, 'you' should be participating in this topic with considerable effort.. after all, it was you who said "You are not qualified to interpret texts" (perhaps you must mean 'their' texts?)

Either way, this thread should reveal the truth or lack thereof in your assertion.

BUGSY.. I'll happily take up your challenge, (after all..I began this topic by referring to both the crimes act and trust deeds..hardly 'Bible Study')

DARWIN.
<<No case is on record of a variable being ceasing to be variable under cultivation. Our oldest cultivated plants, such as wheat, still often yield new varieties: our oldest domesticated animals are still capable of rapid improvement or modification.>>

Ok.. it looks to me like he is referring to a class of plant life, and is saying that they don't remain static in biological make up when you repeatedly sow them generation after generation. His reference to 'new varieties' suggests this. He then carries the argument through to the animal world, and I would conclude that he is thus using both plant and animal life to support the assertion that 'Living things develop over time'....We could look more closely then, at exactly 'how' they 'develop'...but based on the text alone, there is not enough information to do that.

Any problems with my "interpretation" of that text?

As I said.. the point of the topic can be fulfilled equally be either secular or religious texts. I fail to see why when 'religious' texts are involved something seems to go haywire in some peoples brains.