So apparently nobody actually believes in creationism.

[AV1611VET]

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.

Good -- then any points you might have to make to the contrary can take a hike.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Good -- then any points you might have to make to the contrary can take a hike.

Along with history, reason, logic, science and plain common sense, then.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

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?

So wait, you believe that 1600s-era English was spoken 6 thousand years ago, and that it was replaced at the Tower of Babel, but then arose again in the 1600s in England*?

Why..........? What leads you to believe this?

*If I am wrong, please correct me, but please don't get in a fit about me trying to put words in your mouth or something. I ask questions to check my understanding of what you're saying, not to misrepresent you.

 

[AV1611VET]

So wait, you believe that 1600s-era English was spoken 6 thousand years ago, and that it was replaced at the Tower of Babel, but then arose again in the 1600s in England*?

Why..........? What leads you to believe this?

*If I am wrong, please correct me, but please don't get in a fit about me trying to put words in your mouth or something. I ask questions to check my understanding of what you're saying, not to misrepresent you.

And I ask questions for a reason as well.

Namely, what version of the Bible is in Heaven, in your opinion?

I think the KJV is ... thus God wouldn't start Adam & Eve off speaking in tongues.

Does it make sense to you that God would have Adam & Eve, ff. writing a language that doesn't exist as yet?

But all that aside for now ... I'd like to know what version of the Bible you think (or think we think) is in Heaven?

 

[CaliforniaSun]

So wait, you believe that 1600s-era English was spoken 6 thousand years ago, and that it was replaced at the Tower of Babel, but then arose again in the 1600s in England*?

Why..........? What leads you to believe this?

*If I am wrong, please correct me, but please don't get in a fit about me trying to put words in your mouth or something. I ask questions to check my understanding of what you're saying, not to misrepresent you.

Basically, he worships the KJB, so he believes god does too. And if god worhips the KJB, then English must have been the language Adam wrote the bible in. Then god magicked it to heaven, confused the language of these guys trying to build a really tall tower, and didn't let be used by people until about four thousand years ago, and then waited about four hundred years before he magicked the KJB back to earth, becuase all the silly humans started diabolicaly plagiarising their own bible.

Are we clear?

ETA: Oh, and some gal named Gail also believes this too.

 

[madaz]

You want an extraordinary statement and irrational statement?

Jesus walked on water, healed the sick, raised the dead, died on a cross, and arose three days later.

How do those statements strike you?

Yes, I'm serious that they are my opinions.

Those statements above are written in the scriptures, we can understand why you might want to believe them.

But most of your other preposterous statements have NO basis whatsoever.

They are NOT christian doctrines!

We do not understand why you believe the following....

1. Why you believe Adam wrote Gen 1-3?
2. Why you believe the bible was originally written in English?
3. Why you believe a book existed before Earth?
4. Why you believe a book exists in Heaven?

Please give us the common courtesy of explaining why you believe these things?

 

[AV1611VET]

Please give us the common courtesy of explaining why you believe these things?

How about you give yourself the common courtesy of reading what I wrote?

QV please: 344

You're welcome --

 

[madaz]

How about you give yourself the common courtesy of reading what I wrote

Believing in the absurdities written in scriptures is to some extent understandable, but creating further myths without any valid reason whatsoever is certainly delusion at its finest.

I have read what you have written, it does not make sense, the more of your garbage I read, the more I realise you are confused, stop being an ignorant xenophobic zealot and give a logical reason as to why you in believe these absurdities.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

And I ask questions for a reason as well.

Namely, what version of the Bible is in Heaven, in your opinion?

When I was a Christian, I never thought that there was a copy of the Bible in Heaven, but that the Bible was man's written account of interacting with God. Why would God need a copy of the Bible? The Bible is not the entirety of God's character or plan or intentions, right? It'd be like an experienced surgeon having a copy of Gray's Anatomy in every OR. Why would he or she need it?

I think the KJV is ... thus God wouldn't start Adam & Eve off speaking in tongues.

But why do you think such a copy is in Heaven? There is no Scriptural support for such an idea as far as I know. I never heard such an idea when I was a church-goer. How did you come up with it?

Does it make sense to you that God would have Adam & Eve, ff. writing a language that doesn't exist as yet?

It does not make sense, which is why it makes no sense that they wrote the KJB in 1600s-era English when 1600s-era English did not exist back then.

Claiming 1600s-era English existed back then is like claiming there were rabbits in the precambrian when we don't find a single one there.

 

[Catherineanne]

I not only believe Adam wrote Genesis 1-3, I believe he wrote it in English.

What kind of English?

 

[AV1611VET]

Here we go again.

What kind of English?

King James English, which some call a Heavenly language.

 

[Catherineanne]

Here we go again.

King James English, which some call a Heavenly language.

'King James English' is not a recognised variant of English. If you intend to refer to the language used in the King James Bible, which in turn relies very much on the language of the Tyndale Bible then that would be Modern English. (What we have now is New, not Modern.)

Therefore, in your view, which you rightly say you are entitled to hold, the Modern English of the King James Bible is a heavenly variant of language, used in heaven, used in the Archetypal Bible in Heaven, and used by Adam in the Garden of Eden.

I accept that you can believe this if you want to. However, I am intrigued as to why you believe it. If you regard the KJV as a heavenly book, then where in that heavenly book can we find the justification for saying that Adam spoke Modern English? Remember, if it is not in the KJV, then there is no need for anyone to believe it. So where exactly is this written?

Also, the Word that was with God from the beginning was a 'he' and took flesh. Do you really think this denotes the Bible, or could it denote Christ himself, do you think? After all, the Nicene Creed tells us that Christ was in the beginning with God, and does not say that the Bible was. Could it be that you are a little muddled on this one, or do you think that Nicene is muddled?

 

[Norman321]

(What we have now is New, not Modern.)

Do the English speak English or is that something else?
Because whatever they speak over there, is a lot different then we speak over here.

 

[AV1611VET]

'King James English' is not a recognised variant of English.

You know, Catherine, I really don't care.

I know what I believe, and if I can't explain it to your satisfaction, that's too bad.

But for the record, I believe Adam wrote Genesis 1-3 in English, and if that isn't good enough, then praise God for the first 10 amendments to our Constitution -- they just might come in handy one of these days in protecting us from people who think like you do.

Also, the Word that was with God from the beginning was a 'he' and took flesh. Do you really think this denotes the Bible, or could it denote Christ himself, do you think? After all, the Nicene Creed tells us that Christ was in the beginning with God, and does not say that the Bible was. Could it be that you are a little muddled on this one, or do you think that Nicene is muddled?

You must have me mixed up with the person who later chimed in and quoted John 1:1.

Could it be that you are the 'muddled' one?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do the English speak English or is that something else?
Because whatever they speak over there, is a lot different then we speak over here.

It's either Gail Riplinger or Peter Ruckman (or both) that point out that the English of the King James Bible is unique -- not even Shakespeare used it.

They say it is a Heavenly language.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Here we go again.

King James English, which some call a Heavenly language.

Some are pretty ignorant.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It's either Gail Riplinger or Peter Ruckman (or both) that point out that the English of the King James Bible is unique -- not even Shakespeare used it.

Well of course it's unique -- it's an attempt to translate Hebrew into 17th century English -- Shakespeare never did that.

They say it is a Heavenly language.

They say nonsense; but you believe it, so bully for you.

 

[Catherineanne]

Do the English speak English or is that something else?
Because whatever they speak over there, is a lot different then we speak over here.

Yes, we speak English. But there are many different varieties of English even just in England, let alone elsewhere.

Standard British English is not the same as Standard American English, if that is what you mean. They are what could be called mutually intelligible varieties, and to that extent share a great deal of commonality, as indeed do other variants of English worldwide.

It might be worth remembering that in Anglo Saxon times Old Germanic, Old English and Old Norse were also mutually intelligible. In time they diverged into distinct languages. This may well not happen with the current Standards because of modern mass communication, but otoh, it may.

 

[EddyMabo]

Here we go again.

King James English, which some call a Heavenly language.

So just to be clear - not only was English used and then forgotten. You also think virtually all theologians across any discipline are wrong in saying that the Bible was translated from dead languages, right?

 

[Catherineanne]

It's either Gail Riplinger or Peter Ruckman (or both) that point out that the English of the King James Bible is unique -- not even Shakespeare used it.

Shakespeare was not writing Scripture. His language is the earthy language of soap opera, not the elevated poetry of Scripture.

However, about 85% of the KJV derives from Tyndale, which hardly makes it unique; if anyone is unique it is Tyndale himself. I recommend that you acquire a Tyndale Bible. It might change your mind about which version is in heaven.

They say it is a Heavenly language.

'They' are wrong. It is late 16th/early 17th century English. Nothing magical, nothing heavenly, just English as it was spoken four hundred years ago.