Charles Robert Darwin

[Tone]

Indeed... and I have to say, the reviews for the book you posted come off sounding like a load of sour grapes from those who don't.

Sour Grapes of Wrath...

 

[Tone]

Just FYI, Tone, Darwin is one of them.

How many heads does the beast have?

 

[Tone]

Did you know 22 percent of all living things fall into the beetle family, making them the most successful group. Thier pretty cute too.

I prefer the Stones...

 

[Tone]

The other six being Karl Marx, Julius Wellhausen, John Dewey, Sigmund Freud, John Maynard Keynes, and Soren Kierkegaard.

I can name a few dozen more, if you like..

"John saw it "rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy."" (Revelation 13:1)
The Beast (Revelation) - Wikipedia

 

[TLK Valentine]

"John saw it "rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy." (Revelation 13:1)
The Beast (Revelation) - Wikipedia

Yes, that is a verse from the Bible.

What's your point?

 

[Tone]

Yes, that is a verse from the Bible.

What's your point?

Just shuffling around some information, seeing if something takes shape.

 

[Tone]

Well, you got the first part of the sentence right.

You got to stir it up, so the process doesn't take billions of years...

 

[TLK Valentine]

Just shuffling around some information, seeing if something takes shape.

Well, the number seven has always had a particular significance in Western civilization... I suspect that the author of the book was counting on that significance (particularly in the same context you used) to limit his scope to only seven individuals.

Personally, I'd have gone with a much higher number (20-30, perhaps) and chosen just a brief introduction to each one. But, to each his own.

 

[Tone]

Maybe run all their names through the gematria calculator...and divide by seven...

 

[AV1611VET]

If I thought it had educational value, I'd consider it.

I'd much rather show a production of Inherit the Wind, and have my students research the real Scopes trial, to see how fact and fiction can get commingled.

In fact, I've done that.

I would have liked to have been Harrison Brady in that show.

Incidentally, have you considered doing the same with Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed?

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe run all their names through the gematria calculator...and divide by seven...

If my memory serves me correctly, doesn't this gematria compute the number of the beast as 616?

If so, that's a serious mistake that exposes this gematria as bologna.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I would have liked to have been Harrison Brady in that show.

Matthew Harrison Brady? Don't you mean William Jennings Bryant?

It's darn near impossible to find, but there was a 1999 cable version with George C. Scott playing that role... one of the few remakes I think is better than the original.

Incidentally, have you considered doing the same with Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed?

Again, if I thought it had educational value..

 

[TLK Valentine]

Maybe run all their names through the gematria calculator...and divide by seven...

Add three... carry the one... multiply by the square root of pi...

Eventually you'll get the 666 you're looking for... just keep juggling.

 

[Tone]

If my memory serves me correctly, doesn't this gematria compute the number of the beast as 616?

If so, that's a serious mistake that exposes this gematria as bologna.

Actually, I think the original symbols used in that passage, does come out to 616...I got to do some more digging though. Safest thing to do is watch out for both.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually, I think the original symbols used in that passage, does come out to 616...I got to do some more digging though. Safest thing to do is watch out for both.

Just FYI, KJVO here.

 

[Tone]

Just FYI, KJVO here.

Ohhh, okay...the evolutionary apex, as it were.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ohhh, okay...the evolutionary apex, as it were.

Evolution's worst enemy.

 

[Tone]

Evolution's worst enemy.

So, you believe KJ English is clearer than the Hebrew for conveying the message of the Bible? If so, it could follow that you believe language is evolving, i.e., becoming more complex for the better?

 

[AV1611VET]

So, you believe KJ English is clearer than the Hebrew for conveying the message of the Bible?

Affirmative.

If so, it could follow that you believe language is evolving, i.e., becoming more complex for the better?

Negative.

Jacobean English died out after God used it to give us the KJB.

 

[Tone]

Affirmative.Negative.

Jacobean English died out after God used it to give us the KJB.

So you don't use any reference tools such as exhaustive concordances or lexicons, etc...?