The King James Bible

[AV1611VET]

You know, for a 2¢ supposition, you guys sure are ooking and eeking a lot.

I have a feeling this is just the kind of entertainment we provide you guys.

I'd hate to see how you guys would act if I said Jesus came out of a borrowed tomb after being dead for three days and three nights.

On second thought though...

 

[Delphiki]

Like I said, then you tell me what language you think Adam spoke; and if you don't believe Adam ever existed, then I won't even consider the validity of your point, as it renders the point a strawman (or red herring).

You're beginning to sound more and more that you are admitting your beliefs are merely imaginary.

Also, please learn what both a red herring and straw man argument are before using the terms.

A "red herring" is when someone brings up something completely irrelevant and unrelated to the topic of discussion, sometimes in attempt to confuse or distract your opposition or observers from the topic. (like when you bring up the moon, Pluto, or thalidomide in topics that have nothing to do with them)

A "straw man" is when someone invents or distorts a view of their opponent to argue against them. (like when creationists say things like "evolution is wrong because I didn't come from no monkey!" -- it's a straw man because evolution doesn't say we came from monkeys.)

 

[AV1611VET]

You're beginning to sound more and more that you are admitting your beliefs are merely imaginary.

I already called it a 2¢ supposition; care to try again?

Also, please learn what both a red herring and straw man argument are before using the terms.

A "red herring" is when someone brings up something completely irrelevant and unrelated to the topic of discussion, sometimes in attempt to confuse or distract your opposition or observers from the topic. (like when you bring up the moon, Pluto, or thalidomide in topics that have nothing to do with them)

A "straw man" is when someone invents or distorts a view of their opponent to argue against them. (like when creationists say things like "evolution is wrong because I didn't come from no monkey!" -- it's a straw man because evolution doesn't say we came from monkeys.)

You mean like someone saying, "I don't believe Adam existed, but I'm wondering if you could tell me what language he spoke?"

That sort of thing?

 

[Delphiki]

I already called it a 2¢ supposition; care to try again?

You mean like someone saying, "I don't believe Adam existed, but I'm wondering if you could tell me what language he spoke?"

That sort of thing?

No. Saying "I don't believe Adam existed" is not a straw man.

If I were to say "The first human didn't speak English because Adam West didn't exist back then," that would be a straw man, because you don't believe Adam was Adam West.

The only way it could possibly be a straw man is if you consider their assumption that you believe Adam actually spoke at all but you didn't... Which, one could logically deduce you do believe Adam spoke because he speaks to God in the bible, and you believe the bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

No. Saying "I don't believe Adam existed" is not a straw man.

Good -- because I didn't say that.

I said, if you don't believe Adam existed, then discussing what language he spoke is either a strawman or red herring (or whatever) -- a waste of time.

Unless, of course, that's your idea of entertainment; in which case I'll gladly provide for the asking.

With a couple of exceptions, I don't hide what I believe.

 

[ryeaber]

Hypothetically, if Adam existed, he spoke Hebrew. Genesis 2:23 – "Isha" is a Hebrew word, not English. Also "Chava" in Genesis 3:20.

 

[Delphiki]

Good -- because I didn't say that.

I said, if you don't believe Adam existed, then discussing what language he spoke is either a strawman or red herring (or whatever) -- a waste of time.

Unless, of course, that's your idea of entertainment; in which case I'll gladly provide for the asking.

With a couple of exceptions, I don't hide what I believe.

Just because someone doesn't believe the same thing you do, it doesn't restrict them from asking a question. If they believed what you believed, they wouldn't even have to ask you the question. Perhaps they were asking you to avoid making a straw man argument int he future, have you considered that?

They asked you because you believe Adam existed and wanted to know what language you believe Adam spoke.

It's a completely valid question.

 

[Phred]

Yes, I do get it -- a lot better than you do.

Says who? you?

What you're saying to me is: English didn't make a reappearance until well into the first millennium.

No, that's not what I'm saying. That's idiotic.

 

[Phred]

I suppose Adam was American too. And he drove a Chevy and lived in a condo. But those things didn't reappear until much later.

 

[CabVet]

You know, for a 2¢ supposition, you guys sure are ooking and eeking a lot.

I have a feeling this is just the kind of entertainment we provide you guys.

I'd hate to see how you guys would act if I said Jesus came out of a borrowed tomb after being dead for three days and three nights.

On second thought though...

Are you really comparing the core of Christian faith to a supposition that Adam spoke English? I have an answer for you, one is Biblical, the other is not, in other words, at least for one of them you could use the argument that God says so.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, that's not what I'm saying.

I know that's not what you're saying; it's what I'm saying.

That's idiotic.

What isn't, to you guys?

Jesus walking on water? feeding 5000 people with a 2-piece fish dinner? turning water into wine? Elijah outrunning a chariot? Noah's Ark? the parting of the Red Sea? anything?

 

[CabVet]

Jesus walking on water? feeding 5000 people with a 2-piece fish dinner? turning water into wine? Elijah outrunning a chariot? Noah's Ark? the parting of the Red Sea? anything?

Again, you can claim that "God said so" for all of the above since they are in the Bible. You can't do that for Adam speaking English.

 

[Phred]

I know that's not what you're saying; it's what I'm saying.

What isn't, to you guys?

Jesus walking on water? feeding 5000 people with a 2-piece fish dinner? turning water into wine? Elijah outrunning a chariot? Noah's Ark? the parting of the Red Sea? anything?

Don't you dare conflate your idiotic contention that Adam spoke English with actual scripture.

Again, English didn't form until well after the Bible was written. You're simply and provably WRONG. Can't you ever admit it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you really comparing the core of Christian faith to a supposition that Adam spoke English?

To some, it's just a matter of degrees, isn't it?

I've espoused basic doctrine here, and taken flack for it.

Core doctrine, basic doctrine, suppositions -- it's all goofy to you guys, isn't it?

Or do you pick and choose?

 

[AV1611VET]

Again, you can claim that "God said so" for all of the above since they are in the Bible. You can't do that for Adam speaking English.

I can't do that for Adam speaking anything, can I?

Like I said, any answer would seem just as foolish to you guys as English, wouldn't it?

Or do you pick and choose?

 

[CabVet]

I can't do that for Adam speaking anything, can I?

Like I said, any answer would seem just as foolish to you guys as English, wouldn't it?

Or do you pick and choose?

How about picking one that was spoken at the estimated time when he lived? Maybe that would be plausible.

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't you dare conflate your idiotic contention that Adam spoke English with actual scripture.

As long as I don't break any rules, I'll do as I see fit, thank you.

Again, English didn't form until well after the Bible was written.

I know that -- but you're comparing post AD 96 formed English to BC 4004 embedded English.

Ours was indeed 'formed' -- Adam's was created.

You're simply and provably WRONG.

You're a little short on evidence, chief; and about half as convincing.

Can't you ever admit it?

Admit what?

Give me something to admit, and I will.

 

[AV1611VET]

How about picking one that was spoken at the estimated time when he lived? Maybe that would be plausible.

Be my guest, if you think you can.

 

[selfinflikted]

Core doctrine, basic doctrine, suppositions -- it's all goofy to you guys, isn't it?

Yes.

 

[Phred]

As long as I don't break any rules, I'll do as I see fit, thank you.

I know that -- but you're comparing post AD 96 formed English to BC 4004 embedded English.

Ours was indeed 'formed' -- Adam's was created.

You're a little short on evidence, chief; and about half as convincing.

Admit what?

Give me something to admit, and I will.

You sir, are simply making stuff up as you see fit. So it really doesn't matter what you think. Ok, Adam spoke English. He drove a Chevy. He used Duracell batteries in all his kid's toys. Those would be EMBEDDED batteries in EMBEDDED toys.

Then all that disappeared and reappeared a few thousand years later.

Who needs evidence chief! You sure don't. Whatever you imagine is true! Adam wore Jockey underwear. Boxers no less!

No wonder Noah could build that ark. He had Milwaukee Power Tools! Hell, they had a nuclear generator in Jerusalem. The instructions were in ENGLISH!!!