Why does "15 Questions for Evolutionists" brochure confuse the meaning of "evolution?

[46AND2]

I've been after him to tell me what gender he says Nymphas was in...

Colossians 4:15 Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.

... but he claims to be a paid translator; so I think he's waiting for his 2¢.

He already told you that the Greek was ambiguous.

 

[RainbowDashIsBestPony]

I'm not sure what your obsessive compulsive disorder has to do with anything. But, anyway.

Go easy on him. I'm...er...70% sure he actually believes what he says.

 

[AV1611VET]

I find it interesting that AV insists on a literal reading of Genesis,

That's right.

... but when it comes to other parts of the Bible, he is perfectly willing to throw in his own interpretations like Noah in New Jersey, Adam in China, flood water on Neptune, the periodic table, evolution, etc.

What other parts of the Bible?

As I have said over and over, you guys are too smart to ask us questions that you know are covered by direct quote in the Scriptures. Instead, you grill us on such topics as, "Where did the water go after the Flood?"

Things that aren't covered in the Scriptures.

And I'm not afraid to speculate.

What you guys probably want to hear from us is, "I don't know," so you can use that against us; and I'm not going to give you guys the satisfaction if I can speculate.

You want me to be a freak in a freak show, I'll make sure you get every penny's worth.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not sure what your obsessive compulsive disorder has to do with anything. But, anyway.

It means I'll take your, 'You never have...' with a grain of salt.

You don't know everything I've ever said here, and I don't know everything you've ever said here.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Go easy on him. I'm...er...70% sure he actually believes what he says.

I do try to, believe it or not. But point taken.

 

[AV1611VET]

He already told you that the Greek was ambiguous.

I know he did.

That's why I'm asking him what word he uses ... when he's paid to translate.

 

[AV1611VET]

Go easy on him. I'm...er...70% sure he actually believes what he says.

Make it 100% and you've got a deal.

 

[RainbowDashIsBestPony]

What you guys probably want to hear from us is, "I don't know," so you can use that against us; and I'm not going to give you guys the satisfaction if I can speculate.

You want me to be a freak in a freak show, I'll make sure you get every penny's worth.

I don't know about the others, but I would gain a lot of respect for you if you admitted to not knowing some things. Saying you don't know is a much better answer than making strange speculations. The only better phrase than "I don't know" is "Let's find out."

 

[46AND2]

I don't know about the others, but I would gain a lot of respect for you if you admitted to not knowing some things. Saying you don't know is a much better answer than making strange speculations. The only better phrase than "I don't know" is "Let's find out."

+1

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't know about the others, but I would gain a lot of respect for you if you admitted to not knowing some things.

I'm sure you would, but I'm not going to trade respect for speculation when I'm being asked questions where the questioner knows it isn't covered in the Scriptures.

If preceding a speculation with "in my opinion" isn't good enough to gain respect, then I don't want your respect.

If you think about it, you can take every verse in the Bible and question a believer about it, until he says, "I don't know."

That's one of the reasons I usually put a halt to questions after so long, by saying something to the effect of, "I don't need an inquisition."

Saying you don't know is a much better answer than making strange speculations. The only better phrase than "I don't know" is "Let's find out."

88

 

[AV1611VET]

+1

QV please:

Beats me

Beats me

Beats the snot outta me!

What science I debate against, Thaumaturgy? I thought I made it plain here that I do not debate science.

When I take questions on the Creation, which I have clearly stated (and proven) has no science behind it, and people like you jump on here and start shoving science down my throat, I'm not going to take it lightly.

Believe me, you don't want to engage me in a scientific discussion on anything, as all you'll get are, "beats me", blank stares, crickets chirping, and shrugs of the shoulder.

I defy you to find one thread in which I've ever debated science; one radio program, one TV appearance, one Q & A in a lecture hall, one anything.

Beats me,

There ... now do I have your respect?

 

[46AND2]

QV please:





There ... now do I have your respect?

Long as you quit with the wild speculations.

 

[verysincere]

He already told you that the Greek was ambiguous.

And it is a very interesting context, 46AND2. I received a private message from a forum participant about this issue just last week. Here's a copy of my reply:


Yes, the copyists were clearly confused by the ambiguities of gender involving Nymphas and so various Greek mss. reflect that ambiguity on how they handle the pronoun which follows. (Of course, we can have exactly the same kind of ambiguity in English sentences containing ambiguous names like Terry, Kerry, Francis, and Kim. If you don't happen to know Terry et al personally, you may be prone to speak very carefully so as to not imply the wrong gender. Indeed, because of the gender neutral movement underway in modern English, we are seeing "their" standing in place of "his" and "her" where neutrality is the goal. This has posed additional complications for Bible translators.)

I recall one Greek mss. which uses the wording "Nymphas and the church at THEIR house." Obviously, not all Greek mss. of the New Testament have the exact same wording. And sometimes translating from one language to another can almost force one to make various grammatical decisions (such as those surrounding gender) which were NOT necessary in the source language.

By the way, one such ambiguity of a LEXICAL type which I had to address yesterday involved the Hebrew word in the Noah account that has traditionally been translated in many of the older Bibles as "mountains". But one problem with that is that the SAME Hebrew word can refer to BOTH hills and mountains. So in that case, the single Hebrew word can be "mapped" into TWO different words in English which convey a relative size comparison which the Hebrew original doesn't address. That is, the source word simply means an elevated topographical feature, both those which are relatively small (which in English we tend to call "hills") and relatively larger (which in English we tend to call "mountains".) So what does the translator do when the English vocabulary choices encourage a choice---between "hill" and "mountain" in relation to the height of Noah's flood waters---that is not sufficiently specified in the original Hebrew text? One looks for as many contextual clues as possible as well as help from secondary sources like rabbinical commentators and ancient translations (such as the Greek Septuagint translation, the LXX, when dealing with the Hebrew Masoretic Text of the Old Testament.) Indeed, the techniques one uses are as complex and varied as the particular situation and many weighty tomes have addressed these topics.

By the way, I recall one project where I rendered Colossians 4:15 via "and Nymphas and the church that meets at Nymphas' house." This was among the most "neutral" ways to resolve the issue because one doesn't want to ADD concepts which do NOT appear in the original language text even while avoiding excessive awkwardness in the wording. Indeed, while reading a King James Bible you may have noticed various words italicized. That font style tends to indicate an additional word added by the translator to address issues of this sort, so that a knowledgeable reader does not naively assume that the Hebrew or Greek source word that typically produced that rendering was present to produce a 1-to-1 translation mapping. Of course, in my Nymphas passage rendering above, I did NOT add any non-mapped word. I simply took the Greek pronoun which REFERS to "Nymphas" and replaced it with Nymphas itself. (That is, rather than use a he/she/it pronoun referring to the antecedent, I supplied the antecedent directly.) It is probably the least controversial solution because there's nothing for anyone to fight over. Everybody agrees that Nymphas' house is where that church group met.

By the way, the italicize font style that many King James Bible use to indicate "inserted" words that don't map 1-to-1 have disappeared from many translations. Why? Because it is impossible to use them consistently and meaningfully (see KJV!) because language translation is NOT a mathematical one-to-one equivalency process--- and it creates a lot of misunderstandings when one reinforces a popular myth like that. Mappings from the source semantic domain to the target semantic domain (e.g. Hebrew Old Testament to English Bible translation) always involves a complex mixture of 1:1, 1:N, and N:1 mappings! And the vast majority of Bible readers have a very poor understanding of what "literal" even means. Yes, we see that nonsense on these forums regularly when people try to argue for "literal interpretations" and "the obvious, plain, and natural reading of the text." Whenever you see someone use those kinds of terms emphatically, you can figure they are Bible and translation novices. (A lot of the posts on these forums are not only not educational, they can actually significantly reduce one's knowledge of the Bible if one reads and believes them.)

 

[46AND2]

And it is a very interesting context, 46AND2. I received a private message from a forum participant about this issue just last week. Here's a copy of my reply:


Yes, the copyists were clearly confused by the ambiguities of gender involving Nymphas and so various Greek mss. reflect that ambiguity on how they handle the pronoun which follows. (Of course, we can have exactly the same kind of ambiguity in English sentences containing ambiguous names like Terry, Kerry, Francis, and Kim. If you don't happen to know Terry et al personally, you may be prone to speak very carefully so as to not imply the wrong gender. Indeed, because of the gender neutral movement underway in modern English, we are seeing "their" standing in place of "his" and "her" where neutrality is the goal. This has posed additional complications for Bible translators.)

I recall one Greek mss. which uses the wording "Nymphas and the church at THEIR house." Obviously, not all Greek mss. of the New Testament have the exact same wording. And sometimes translating from one language to another can almost force one to make various grammatical decisions (such as those surrounding gender) which were NOT necessary in the source language.

By the way, one such ambiguity of a LEXICAL type which I had to address yesterday involved the Hebrew word in the Noah account that has traditionally been translated in many of the older Bibles as "mountains". But one problem with that is that the SAME Hebrew word can refer to BOTH hills and mountains. So in that case, the single Hebrew word can be "mapped" into TWO different words in English which convey a relative size comparison which the Hebrew original doesn't address. That is, the source word simply means an elevated topographical feature, both those which are relatively small (which in English we tend to call "hills") and relatively larger (which in English we tend to call "mountains".) So what does the translator do when the English vocabulary choices encourage a choice---between "hill" and "mountain" in relation to the height of Noah's flood waters---that is not sufficiently specified in the original Hebrew text? One looks for as many contextual clues as possible as well as help from secondary sources like rabbinical commentators and ancient translations (such as the Greek Septuagint translation, the LXX, when dealing with the Hebrew Masoretic Text of the Old Testament.) Indeed, the techniques one uses are as complex and varied as the particular situation and many weighty tomes have addressed these topics.

By the way, I recall one project where I rendered Colossians 4:15 via "and Nymphas and the church that meets at Nymphas' house." This was among the most "neutral" ways to resolve the issue because one doesn't want to ADD concepts which do NOT appear in the original language text even while avoiding excessive awkwardness in the wording. Indeed, while reading a King James Bible you may have noticed various words italicized. That font style tends to indicate an additional word added by the translator to address issues of this sort, so that a knowledgeable reader does not naively assume that the Hebrew or Greek source word that typically produced that rendering was present to produce a 1-to-1 translation mapping. Of course, in my Nymphas passage rendering above, I did NOT add any non-mapped word. I simply took the Greek pronoun which REFERS to "Nymphas" and replaced it with Nymphas itself. (That is, rather than use a he/she/it pronoun referring to the antecedent, I supplied the antecedent directly.) It is probably the least controversial solution because there's nothing for anyone to fight over. Everybody agrees that Nymphas' house is where that church group met.

By the way, the italicize font style that many King James Bible use to indicate "inserted" words that don't map 1-to-1 have disappeared from many translations. Why? Because it is impossible to use them consistently and meaningfully (see KJV!) because language translation is NOT a mathematical one-to-one equivalency process--- and it creates a lot of misunderstandings when one reinforces a popular myth like that. Mappings from the source semantic domain to the target semantic domain (e.g. Hebrew Old Testament to English Bible translation) always involves a complex mixture of 1:1, 1:N, and N:1! And the vast majority of Bible readers have a very poor understanding of what "literal" even means. Yes, we see that nonsense on these forums regularly when people try to argue for "literal interpretations" and "the obvious, plain, and natural reading of the text." Whenever you see someone use those kinds of terms emphatically, you can figure they are scripture and translation novices.

Sounds reasonable to me.

 

[verysincere]

Sounds reasonable to me.

Unfortunately, we have a number of Bible-mockers and Bible-scoffers here who oppose anything that gets too reasonable for them. They believe "Reasonable ideas can take a hike!"

They oppose the idea of a Biblical text in Hebrew or Greek that they can't arbitrarily override with their own preferred traditions. They would rather use the Bible as a source of invectives where they can simply "fill in the blanks" (even though no blanks appear in the text) and use the passage to attack whatever and whoever they want. Thus, we observe them overriding the Apostle Paul's words about first century church doctrinal issues like early-Gnostic leanings and Jewish folk traditions and genealogies and instead declaring "Paul was talking about the theory of evolution!" Fortunately, most Bible-affirming Christians as well as non-Christians reject such carnal nonsense and refuse to insult the scriptures in that manner. But the Apostle Paul warned that the flesh is prone to such attacks in denying the truth.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Unfortunately, we have a number of Bible-mockers and Bible-scoffers here who oppose anything that gets too reasonable for them. They believe "Reasonable ideas can take a hike!"

They oppose the idea of a Biblical text in Hebrew or Greek that they can't arbitrarily override with their own preferred traditions. They would rather use the Bible as a source of invectives where they can simply "fill in the blanks" (even though no blanks appear in the text) and use the passage to attack whatever and whoever they want. Thus, we observe them overriding the Apostle Paul's words about first century church doctrinal issues like early-Gnostic leanings and Jewish folk traditions and genealogies and instead declaring "Paul was talking about the theory of evolution!" Fortunately, most Bible-affirming Christians as well as non-Christians reject such carnal nonsense and refuse to insult the scriptures in that manner. But the Apostle Paul warned that the flesh is prone to such attacks in denying the truth.

It does make you wonder why Paul was more concerned with a scientific theory that wouldn't appear for 1900 years, and has no bearing on the message of Christ, rather than competing religious doctrines that were threatening the early Church

 

[verysincere]

It does make you wonder why Paul was more concerned with a scientific theory that wouldn't appear for 1900 years, and has no bearing on the message of Christ, rather than competing religious doctrines that were threatening the early Church

Indeed. But in the case of one of the sources of the silliest comments, absurd claims and interpretations are simply a way to get attention. But some of the peanut gallery members here are legitimate. They've been reading "creation science" websites for so many years that they've lost touch with both reality and basic reading comprehension skills when it comes to the Bible. (Many will believe anything and everything that Ken Ham tells them.)

 

[AV1611VET]

It does make you wonder why Paul was more concerned with a scientific theory that wouldn't appear for 1900 years,

Do you know the difference between the theory of evolution and [prescient] evolution? which is what I actually said?

 

[46AND2]

Do you know the difference between the theory of evolution and [prescient] evolution? which is what I actually said?

Did you notice that VS gave you an answer for how he translated the verse you requested? Does it seem reasonable to you?

 

[AV1611VET]

Did you notice that VS gave you an answer for how he translated the verse you requested?

No, I didn't ... reps for pointing it out.

Does it seem reasonable to you?

No ... it is not sufficient to claim the KJV is in error.

If that is indicative of how Mr. Sincere does his work, then I submit he is not translating, per se ... he is paraphrasing.

Like the J.B. Phillips paraphrase, or the Living Bible, or Good News for Modern Man.