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

[TheBear]

He can go ahead and use the Internet, spoken of in the oldest book of the Bible ...

Job 38:35 Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?

Oh. That passage was about the internet? I thought it was describing a transporter room. How were you able to figure out that the passage was about the internet, and not a transporter room?

 

[verysincere]

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

AV defies translation procedures, and claims that the 1611 KJV is superior to the Hebrew and Greek texts on which it was based.

Also, because the KJV adds wording that does not appear in the original texts, he will try to cope with that by saying that because I refuse to add to the text in accordance with his traditions, I am translating "wrong".

Of course, AV is monolingual and has absolutely no translation or linguistic skills, he will insist that his superior abilities are based on an inside track with God which all Christians who don't revere the 1611 KJV as superior thereby lack. (That's how it tends to work with traditional creationists: If you don't agree with them, you are an enemy of God. Sometimes he'll even call you an "internet scientist"----whatever that is.)

Yet, we will never see any of the peanut gallery dare to critique my translation commentary point by point. They'll simply declare me "wrong"---even though they haven't a clue what's going on and will never explain to you WHY I am wrong. (If you ever had one of your children or grandchildren turn two, you know the syndrome. They simply say "No!" to everything while curling their lower lip to look defiant. Very cute.)

By the way, if you wanna play with their heads sometime, show them some examples where the KJV Bible paraphrases instead of translates.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh. That passage was about the internet? I thought it was describing a transporter room. How were you able to figure out that the passage was about the internet, and not a transporter room?

From the Defender's Study Bible:

One of the most remarkable discoveries of modern engineering science is that electrical currents may be used (radio, television, etc.) to transmit information with "lightning" speed.

 

[TheBear]

Same goes with transporter rooms. I'm still not sure how you made the distinction, from that passage. The only thing I can think of is a form of cold reading.

 

[AV1611VET]

Same goes with transporter rooms. I'm still not sure how you made the distinction, from that passage. The only thing I can think of is a form of cold reading.

The passage is written in such a way as to cover all forms of electronic communication as they are invented; not just one specific one.

Thus, when the telegraph came out, they could cite that passage.

Later, when the telephone came out, same thing.

And same thing later for radio, walkie-talkies, SSB transmissions, transceivers, transmitter-receivers, cell phones, Internet and yes ... maybe even your transporter in the future.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

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

Actually I do, but I suspect you do not. I gave you the benefit of the doubt. My bad.

 

[TheBear]

The passage is written in such a way as to cover all forms of electronic communication as they are invented; not just one specific one.

Thus, when the telegraph came out, they could cite that passage.

Later, when the telephone came out, same thing.

And same thing later for radio, walkie-talkies, SSB transmissions, transceivers, transmitter-receivers, cell phones, Internet and yes ... maybe even your transporter in the future.

Like I said - cold reading.

 

[verysincere]

Oh. That passage was about the internet? I thought it was describing a transporter room. How were you able to figure out that the passage was about the internet, and not a transporter room?

This is a good illustration of why so many creationists REFUSE to interpret the Bible literally----despite their feigned emphasis on "literal interpretation". The Job passage uses the Hebrew word for LIGHTNING. Why? Because the passage is referring to lightning. That is the "literal meaning".

But when they think of something they wish to INSERT in the Biblical text, they just find some passage and plug it in. Lightning has no linguistic relationship to the Internet or anything electronic. But they enjoy pretending. They actually think they are "helping God out" by making the Bible say anything they wish. (Thus, inserting "evolution" into the a first century letter by the Apostle Paul.)

The Book of Proverbs describes them well.

 

[46AND2]

This is a good illustration of why so many creationists REFUSE to interpret the Bible literally----despite their feigned emphasis on "literal interpretation". The Job passage uses the Hebrew word for LIGHTNING. Why? Because the passage is referring to lightning. That is the "literal meaning".

But when they think of something they wish to INSERT in the Biblical text, they just find some passage and plug it in. Lightning has no linguistic relationship to the Internet or anything electronic. But they enjoy pretending. They actually think they are "helping God out" by making the Bible say anything they wish. (Thus, inserting "evolution" into the a first century letter by the Apostle Paul.)

The Book of Proverbs describes them well.

To be fair, they are trained to do so. The Bible is touted as God's communication with his children, and we are encouraged to attempt to see what God is teaching us each day and how the Bible passages can relate to our lives...they just take it too far.

 

[USincognito]

How did this thread go from being about the "15 Questions for Evolutionists" brochure to AV?

Oh, that's right...

 

[Tomk80]

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

Oh boy, is he on about that again? Dumb, dumb AV.

I am going to point and laugh now, because this is just to dumb.

 

[AV1611VET]

Lightning has no linguistic relationship to the Internet or anything electronic.

Gonna hafta disagree as usual, chief.

You may want to check up on the relationship between lightning and electricity.

Lightning is one of the most dramatic effects of electricity.

SOURCE

Note: I know, you said 'linguistic relationship,' but as Inspector Callahan said, 'Too much linguini can hold you back.'

 

[KWCrazy]

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

Methnks he doth just press thy buttons. Everyone knows Noah was from Michigan. Paul Bunyan himself cut down the trees to make the ark, and he hauled them back to the mill with Babe, the Great Blue Ox. When the ark was closed and the flood waters came, Ol' Paul skeedaddled for Montana. The last thing he said as the water splashed over his nose was. "What MORON said this was gunna be a local flood?"

Them's da true words. I know, 'cause I read 'em on the internet.

 

[AV1611VET]

Methnks he doth just press thy buttons.

Methinks thou dost err.

 

[verysincere]

Gonna hafta disagree as usual, chief.

You may want to check up on the relationship between lightning and electricity.
SOURCE
'

Once again AV confuses a particular resulting PHENOMENON with its cause. The Job text describes what we know to be an EXPLOSION involving air molecules (strangely lacking on the Internet and in cell phones.)

But this does illustrate the contempt he has for literal interpretation of the Bible. The text says lightning----not digital circuitry and future technology. What happened to that "slippery slope" argument which fundamentalists usually worry about? If I were to play AV's hermeneutical game, I would insist that the resurrection of Jesus Christ ACTUALLY referred to our "coming alive" in modern times as we learn new science and then we bring new technology to life! (Isn't that the kind of "liberal" Bible interpretation which fundamentalists usually abhor?)

Yes, if a Biblical text can mean ANYTHING we want it to mean, that text actually tells us virtually nothing. Does every word of the Bible become a Rorschach test where the Bible reader can let his mind use it to take him in every and any direction? Perhaps the story of Noah's Flood, where a deluge of water destroyed Noah's world, is ACTUALLY talking about our allowing things in our lives to OVERWHELM us. So Noah's message of repentance was ACTUALLY a word to the wise to "slow down and take life easier so that you don't get overwhelmed by stress." (Fine with AV, perhaps, but not with me. I have more respect for the scriptures.)

Yes, if a plain Hebrew word for "lightning" was actually meant to refer to all sorts of future electronics technology, then where does this "words can mean anything I want" nonsense end?

Once again, we see the innate hypocrisy and steady dose of contradictions from those with contempt for the Biblical text.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, if a plain Hebrew word...

Try the whole verse ... in English.

Job 38:35 Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?

5. God told Job in 1500 B.C.: “Can you send lightnings, that they may go, and say to you, Here we are?” (Job 38:35). The Bible here is making what appears to be a scientifically ludicrous statement—that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech. But did you know that radio waves travel at the speed of light? This is why you can have instantaneous wireless communication with someone on the other side of the earth. Science didn’t discover this until 1864 when “British scientist James Clerk Maxwell suggested that electricity and light waves were two forms of the same thing” (Modern Century Illustrated Encyclopedia).

Scientific Facts in the Bible

 

[KWCrazy]

Methinks thou dost err.

Maybe about pressing the buttons, but even you must agree that the Paul Bunyan story has more validity than molecules-to-man.

Actually the ark was made out of gopher wood, which Michigan has very little of. In fact, nobody I knew who did any logging even knew what it was. The ark was either 437 feet long or 512 feet long, depending on whether you used the OT definition of a cubit (17.5") or the Egyption royal cubit (20.5"). Since Moses was educated in Egypt, it's likely that he meant the larger one. No other ship so long was ever uilt until the 19'th century, so Noah either was a nautical genius or he had help from a greater intelligence. Even with the smaller dimension the ark would have 1,518,750 cubic feet.

Only air-breathing animals needed to be included on the Ark Fish would do just fine. There are fewer than 18,000 species of mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians living in the world today. The the ark could hold 125,000 sheep. Since most animals are smaller than a sheep there is plenty of room for even twice that many. If in fact Noah only took two of every kind, he had plenty of room for food and for a shuffleboard court on deck.

 

[KWCrazy]

Here is a topographical map of the Middle East.

As you can see, it is NOT surrounded on all sides by mountains and there is no place where a torrential deluge would not drain into the sea. Therefore to disprove claims of a LOCAL flood, one has to merely look at a map. You cannot stack water over the mountains in one place without it simply washing away to the lowest ground. The only way you can flood land that opens to the sea is to raise the level of the sea as well.

 

[KWCrazy]

Those high, gray mountain peaks are the top are the mountains in Turkey. The ark came to rest in the mountans of Ararat, in Turkey.

 

[Loudmouth]

Therefore to disprove claims of a LOCAL flood, one has to merely look at a map.

To disprove a recent global flood, one has to merely look at geology. There is no evidence for a recent global flood, and in fact there is mountains of evidence that directly contradicts a recent global flood. For example, we have hundreds of thousands of years worth of annual ice layers that are not interrupted by any floods. We also see that the fossil record is distributed over hundreds of millions of years. The fossil record was not deposited by a single catastrophic event, nor could it be.