Re: 25 Classic Books That Have Been Banned

On 03/06/2025 16:46, Paul S Person wrote:

On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 10:00:35 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
 

On 02/06/2025 16:15, Paul S Person wrote:

On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 03:16:02 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On 30/05/2025 16:37, Paul S Person wrote:

>
<snippo nonsense question I am responding to, and what led up to it>
>

OK. Why would what I merely /consider/ to be reality have to be
factual? It isn't as if I am claiming it really is reality, only  that
I consider it to be. Or do you want me to prove that I really do
consider to be reality what I consider to be reality?

>
If you consider it to be reality then you
presumably regard it as provable.

>
I think you are missing the thread here. Or maybe I am.
>
The question appears to be about "reality" as such. Not "the reality
of this" or "the reality of that" or even "the existence of reality",
but just "reality" -- and, even then, only what I consider to be
reality.
>
As I said, all that appears to be provable is that what I consider to
be reality really is what I consider to be reality. Since I make no
statement that it actually /is/ reality, what else is there to prove?
>
<snip-a-bit>
>

By the way - in that bible - there's a bit
about God creating things, including plants
on land, animals in the waters - but no plants
to live in water.  They seem to be around now,
!though.  Just a point to consider.  Did I
overlook that, or did God?  Did he fix it later
when no one was watching?

>
This is where one of Robert Graves suggestions comes in handy:
>
that the various sets of things created were assigned by the pagans to
various deities, and the account in Genesis is intended to say "no,
God, the God of Israel, did that".
>
In that case, the lack of aquatic vegetation mignt be taken to mean
that there was no pagan deity responsible for having created it.
>
Alternately, we could discuss the problems with scribes hand-copying
manuscripts -- for example, drop-outs.
>
There are (IIRC) two versions of this account (one in Psalms, one in
Proverbs -- IIRC) but, IIRC, they end early in the process (Earth,
Sun, Moon, Stars) and say nothing about days. This raises the
possibility of later additions in Genesis 1 to the original account.

>
Do you mean Psalm 104?  That has a bit that
I had lost track of - that God is responsible
for stopping the sea tide from flooding the
land - again - and keeping it where it belongs.

 Perhaps; there are several other references that are often considered
related to the Gen 1 creation story (including the crocodile and
hippopotamus in Job) and, if this isn't what I was thinking of, it
could still be related.
 

On biblical truth, I'll just point out that
we do see the waters of the sea flooding over
land from time to time.

 And we see them retreating and then staying where they belong for a
while afterwards.
 But the version I found online appears to be referring to the initial
corralling of the water, so that the dry land appeared.
 Keep in mind that the Psalms were songs to be sung, and so "poetic
license" might be playing a role. Or not.

That interpretation disregards Noah's flood.
Psalm 104 also describes a fixed earth, so you
could take it as a catalogue of its author's
ignorance of the natural world.  And history.  :-)
The NET Bible has God in Psalm 104 shouting to
make the water go away.  While in Genesis 8:1,
"God caused a wind to blow over the earth and
the waters receded."  Maybe that's the same
event.  In a modern understanding of the world,
where the waters went is a problem.  Water
doesn't compress.  Its volume varies with
temperature, a little.

<snippo reference to Jesuits which, frankly, appears to be
unnecessarily argumentative here; "jesuitical thinking" generally
refers to being able to justify /any/ action if you think about it
long enough and hard enough, not explanations of Ps 104 -- if it is Ps
104 in the RC bible and not Ps 103 or Ps 105. Psalm numbers vary a
bit.>