So apparently nobody actually believes in creationism.

[AV1611VET]

What does "spiritually discerned" even mean? Does that mean you heard a voice tell you that Adam and Eve spoke English, or ...? (this is a serious question, btw).

Something that is spiritually discerned is something that can only be understood in its fullest by the aid of the Holy Spirit.

From a natural standpoint, it doesn't make sense; but by applying spiritual principles to the equation, it becomes clearer.

Creatio ex nihilo is a good example of spiritually understanding something.

Looking at it naturally doesn't make sense, but when you apply God's omnipotence to the equation, then even a child can understand it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Something that is spiritually discerned is something that can only be understood in its fullest by the aid of the Holy Spirit.

Well, that rules you out.

From a natural standpoint, it doesn't make sense; but by applying spiritual principles to the equation, it becomes clearer.

And the difference between "spiritual principles" and a few shots of Tequila is...?

Creatio ex nihilo is a good example of spiritually understanding something.

Looking at it naturally doesn't make sense, but when you apply God's omnipotence to the equation, then even a child can understand it.

Fairy tales have the same effect -- I mean really, why was the big bowl of porridge too hot, the middle one too cold, and the smallest one just right? Shouldn't they all have cooled proportionally to their sizes?

 

[selfinflikted]

Something that is spiritually discerned is something that can only be understood in its fullest by the aid of the Holy Spirit.

This is the part I don't understand. How does the Holy Spirit help? Voices? Feelings? I have never understood this concept, especially because the Holy Spirit seems to never "tell" two different people the same piece of information. If it did, everyone claiming a relationship with god (and that's a LOT of people) would know that English was the spoken language in the Garden. As it turns out, you are the ONLY one I've ever heard espouse this idea, yet you claim the Holy Spirit led you to this conclusion. I would like to know, how?

 

[AV1611VET]

Would it be fair to say that you have no scriptural basis for these beliefs? Otherwise, how do you claim to know this? Also, why are these beliefs not standard Christian doctrine?

What beliefs are you talking about, LHM?

Am I going to have to parse my own post?

I can't answer for what happened after the Tower of Babel.

This means I can't answer for what happened after the Tower of Babel ... I don't know how all the different languages first scattered, then began to intermix, culminating in English.

Holy men spake (i.e. wrote) as they were inspired to do so by God.

This is definitely basic doctrine, LHM ... qv please:

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The 25¢ term for it is: verbal plenary inspiration.

The three major languages were Hebrew, Aramaic and [Koine] Greek.

Even you said that yourself.

If my memory serves me correctly, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, with Daniel 2 - 7 written in Aramaic; the New Testament was written in Koine Greek, the language of the common people.

That's standard knowledge.

After the completion of the Scriptures in A.D. 96, God superintended a few versions, while the English language was making a comeback.

The Scriptures are said to have been completed in AD 96, when John wrote the book of Revelation.

From there, and in accordance with God's promise to preserve His Word, we got the following line of translations:

1. AV350 Gothic Version
2. AV700 Anglo-Saxon Version
3. AV1389 Wycliffe Version
4. AV1534 Tyndale Version
5. AV1560 Geneva Bible
6. AV1568 Bishop's Bible
7. AV1611 King James Version

Not one of the above versions came from anything Wescott & Hort came out with.


Again, if my memory serves me, Augustine (or Constantine ... I get the two mixed up) conscripted Eusebius to make 50 copies of the Scriptures somewhere around 325 or so, and Eusebius did so.


Of those 50 copies, none of which God had a hand in, 48 of them were destroyed and 2 survived: one found in a trash can at the base of Mt. Sinai, and one found hidden in the Vatican.


These two copies we consider to be pure trash ... written by a procedure we call Diabolical Plagiarism; and from them come virtually every "better version" known to man: the NIV, the NASB, the TEV, the this and the that.


The protected line, in the meantime, came through the assistance of the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus.


Again, I said all this so you will see that I am not making any of this up.


It is basic knowledge.

Finally, in 1607-1611, God visited England* and reunited His Word with the Heavenly language and gave us the AV1611 King James Bible.

The King James Bible was written, with God's help from 1607 to 1611 -- It was 4 years in the making.


The bit about the Heavenly language being English is based on my assumption that a copy of the King James Bible -- (actually the King James Bible is a copy of It) -- will be used to judge us in the hereafter.


Does this answer your points?

 

[AV1611VET]

As it turns out, you are the ONLY one I've ever heard espouse this idea, yet you claim the Holy Spirit led you to this conclusion. I would like to know, how?

Link please?

I don't remember saying the Holy Spirit led me to that conclusion.

I do remember saying something about it being an assumption on my part ... an educated guess.

 

[selfinflikted]

Link please?

I don't remember saying the Holy Spirit led me to that conclusion.

The Bible was written in English, right up to Genesis 11, when English disappeared off the face of the Earth for thousands of years.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Something that is spiritually discerned is something that can only be understood in its fullest by the aid of the Holy Spirit.

There ya go. (that sums it up in a nutshell. I realize I snipped parts from your original posts, but I haven't taken anything out of context, I don't believe)

 

[mkatzwork]

The King James Bible was written, with God's help from 1607 to 1611 -- It was 4 years in the making.


The bit about the Heavenly language being English is based on my assumption that a copy of the King James Bible -- (actually the King James Bible is a copy of It) -- will be used to judge us in the hereafter.


Does this answer your points?

What do you have to say to the point that if God helped with the KJV, he was fond of 17th Century English colloquialisms instead of his own original Hebrew, irrespective of accuracy?

eg: Genesis 25:8 "Then Abraham gave up the ghost" - when the Hebrew simply says "Then Abraham died". etc. etc. etc.

Why does KJV have Jesus barking orders at Mary - "Touch me not"? The Greek simply said "Do not cling to me", which makes considerably more sense...he didn't want her hanging onto him and impeding his way, but the idea that he was not to be touched?

Why does the KJV have actual, factual mistakes in translation? Eg: 1 Kings 10:28, the whole issue over Quwê being a clear mistranslation where they put the two words together, giving "linen yarn" instead of the location where Solomon got his horses...amongst lots of others.

Why the typographical errors, due to the simple fact that Erasmus was rushing?

Why the translation of Revelations first from Latin to Greek, and then to English from that Greek translation with the myriad errors?

Why English? Why not Chinese?

It is such an extraordinary notion that God picked English, and surprise, surprise - this is usually - probably always - only an opinion espoused by English-speaking Christians.

If God was once again involved, we can only be deeply unimpressed by his abilities to get a grip on the situation, something that really should not be difficult for him given his awesome power and all that...

 

[mkatzwork]

The King James Bible was written, with God's help from 1607 to 1611 -- It was 4 years in the making.

ps I think you muddled up your 4 and your 7 - twice. It was started in 1604 and finished in 1611 - 7 years in the making.

 

[mkatzwork]

(ps - let us also not forget God's newly found 17th Century potty mouth:

eg. 2 Kings 18:27

"Hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] with you?

and so on...

How would "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]" be a better word than "urine", since the Hebrew is clearly translated as "the water of their feet", a euphemism?)

EDIT: SEE? Even this forum won't allow me to quote a simple Bible verse from the KJV....

 

[AV1611VET]

ps I think you muddled up your 4 and your 7 - twice. It was started in 1604 and finished in 1611 - 7 years in the making.

... You're right! Thanks for the correction!

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

What beliefs are you talking about, LHM?

Am I going to have to parse my own post?

Golly AV, do I have to spell it out for you?

I want your scriptural and/or other reasons to believing:

After the completion of the Scriptures in A.D. 96, God superintended a few versions, while the English language was making a comeback.

Finally, in 1607-1611, God visited England* and reunited His Word with the Heavenly language and gave us the AV1611 King James Bible.

and

I believe those books are the 66 books of the King James Bible; thus in Heaven, I believe there's a copy of the AV1611 Bible.

Basically the whole "The KJB is in heaven and Adam wrote the first few chapters in English, a language that hadn't been invented yet."

 

[mkatzwork]

Oh I forgot: we have to add one more scientific field of study that AV dismisses in its entirety, given the fact that he thinks English existed, died out, then magically reformed itself with exactly the semantics, etymologies and derivations (despite those derivations having not existed in the first place): therefore the entirety of

Linguistics

Is wrong. Oops!

Add this to:

Geology, Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Cosmology, and so on and so forth...

It'd be interesting to see how many people, of how much intelligence, have worked for how many years on PhD's that are clearly entirely wrong, thanks to this mode of thinking...

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh I forgot: we have to add one more scientific field of study that AV dismisses in its entirety, given the fact that he thinks English existed, died out,

'Died out?'

Link, please?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I'm not really interested in your lack of understanding; since you're an atheist, I would expect you not to understand; but for the record, you're not even trying to.

Well, understanding that someone holds a completely unjustified and frankly plain silly belief is the easy bit, understanding why is what escapes me. Your 'interesting' attempts to explain why believe what you do about the English language are not doing anything but showing what you don't know rather than what you do.

Labeling a basic doctrine 'barmy' doesn't make it 'barmy', either.

I chose barmy as a kind word.

And why doesn't question 2 make any sense?

Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Are you saying that the idea that there is a Bible in Heaven is foreign to you?[/

The premise, which is obviously real to you in your fantasy world, just doesn't apply. It's the same mistake you make when you accuse atheists of hating god. It's a personal interpretation of how you think atheists must think but based on the false premise that what you believe must apply to them. It doesn't. Atheists don't secretly believe God exists really. There is just nothing there. You are accusing of us feeling something about something that doesn't exist. And your question doesn't make sense because you are asking me if I believe a there is a particular version of a book in a place that doesn't exist. What am I supposed to say other than that the question is ridiculous? No, I don't secretly believe that heaven exists really. I'm aware of the reasons that people want and need to believe it is real for them, but then I'm also aware of why people need and want to believe in astrology and ghosts and mediums and conspiracy theories. I still don't, however, know why you believe what you do about the English language and the bible.

 

[mkatzwork]

'Died out?'

Link, please?

I'll just quote you from a few pages back:

when English disappeared off the face of the Earth for thousands of years.

Died out, disappeared. It was gone for thousands of years...and then came back. Semantics.

Now's when you try and wiggle out of it.

Ps noticed you ignored the points re KJV...

 

[AV1611VET]

Died out, disappeared. It was gone for thousands of years...and then came back. Semantics.

Then let's skip the semantics and go to theologics, shall we?

God took away English at the Tower of Babel, and replaced it with n-different languages.

Does it make sense now?

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Then let's skip the semantics and go to theologics, shall we?

God took away English at the Tower of Babel, and replaced it with n-different languages.

Does it make sense now?

It would only make sense if we had any evidence that modern English has been around longer than about one thousand years, but we don't. So your "theologics" is rubbish.

 

[AV1611VET]

It would only make sense if we had any evidence that modern English has been around longer than about one thousand years, but we don't. So your "theologics" is rubbish.

You don't even have evidence of a global flood that just preceded the Tower of Babel ... so are you making some kind of point or something?

And if you don't believe in the Tower of Babel incident in the first place; what difference does it make what language we believe they spoke before it occurred?

It would still be 'rubbish' to you, would it not?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

You don't even have evidence of a global flood that just preceded the Tower of Babel ... so are you making some kind of point or something?

And if you don't believe in the Tower of Babel incident in the first place; what difference does it make what language we believe they spoke before it occurred?

It would still be 'rubbish' to you, would it not?

This is just incoherent babble now.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

You don't even have evidence of a global flood that just preceded the Tower of Babel ... so are you making some kind of point or something?

And if you don't believe in the Tower of Babel incident in the first place; what difference does it make what language we believe they spoke before it occurred?

It would still be 'rubbish' to you, would it not?

Correct, we don't have evidence for a global flood, tower of babble, or English having existed before one thounsand years ago. So any fabrication suggesting otherwise is, rubbish.