Darwin - Half Right

[Hans Blaster]

I think you're getting the "originals" mixed up with the "autographs."

The "originals" are copies of the autographs.

The autographs were the source documents, written in the secretaries' own handwriting.

Adam wrote Genesis 1 in Jacobean English, then Moses redacted it with his Hebrew.

Can anyone join in this conversation or do you need a certificate?

 

[AV1611VET]

Can anyone join in this conversation or do you need a certificate?

Jump right in.

The water's good and warm!

 

[sjastro]

Jacobean English made a slow comeback AFTER the Tower of Babel incident, culminating in the writing of the 1611 KJB.

Your chart shows how that happened, starting in 200 BC (assuming your chart is accurate, which I will).

It's a nice chart and all, but it doesn't answer this question:

What was that language mentioned here?

Genesis 11:1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

Given my last post was written in plain modern English you don't have an excuse for misunderstanding by answering a question with a question.

Here is the Indo-European language family tree of which the history of English is a very small subset. Red indicates extinct or dead languages.

Let me ask you again; if Jacobean English is the progenitor language why does the evidence put it at the bottom of the tree rather than the top?

 

[AV1611VET]

Let me ask you again; if Jacobean English is the progenitor language why does the evidence put it at the bottom of the tree rather than the top?

Have a nice day, sjastro.

When I see a light bulb come on, we can talk further.

 

[sjastro]

Have a nice day, sjastro.

When I see a light bulb come on, we can talk further.

Yes when the light bulb does come on and you are no longer in the dark you will appreciate evidence will trump making up stories any day.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

What was that language mentioned here?

Genesis 11:1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

With all the procreating going on it would have to be the language of lurve.

How many languages was that one language?

Genesis 10:5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.

 

[AV1611VET]

With all the procreating going on it would have to be the language of lurve.

Cute. Is this your way of saying you don't understand?

How many languages was that one language?

Genesis 10:5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.

From Adam Clarke's Commentary:

This refers to the time posterior to the confusion of tongues and dispersion from Babel.

From Matthew Poole's Commentary:

i.e. according to their several languages, into which they were divided at Babel. By which it appears that this division, though mentioned before, was not executed till after the confusion of languages at Babel.

From Patrick/Lowth/Whitby/Lowman Commentary:

The same is said (ver. 20, and ver. 31) of the posterity of Ham and Shem. Which signifies they did not all speak the same language, but doth not prove that any one of the forementioned people had a language peculiar to themselves, distinct from the rest, and not understood by them. As, when Ahasuerus is said to have caused letters to be written to a hundred and twenty-seven provinces, according to their language and their writing Es 8:9, it doth not prove there were so many several sorts of writing, and so many several languages in his empire; but only that to each of them was directed a letter, in that language which they spake.

 

[AV1611VET]

Let me ask you again; if Jacobean English is the progenitor language why does the evidence put it at the bottom of the tree rather than the top?

1. Adam ↔ (Jacobean English) ↔ Tower of Babel

2. Tower of Babel ↔ (multiple languages) → Your Chart

3. Your Chart → Jacobean English reemerges briefly

Like a submarine going across the Atlantic on the surface, until it reaches a point, submerges and is gone, then reappears briefly on the surface farther down the way, then submerges and isn't seen again.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Cute. Is this your way of saying you don't understand?From Adam Clarke's Commentary:From Matthew Poole's Commentary:From Patrick/Lowth/Whitby/Lowman Commentary:

Nice. The special pleading defence - don't address the problem, just pretend the bible doesn't say what it says.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nice. The special pleading defence - don't address the problem, just pretend the bible doesn't say what it says.

And what "problem" would that be specifically?

 

[sjastro]

1. Adam ↔ (Jacobean English) ↔ Tower of Babel

2. Tower of Babel ↔ (multiple languages) → Your Chart

3. Your Chart → Jacobean English reemerges briefly

Like a submarine going across the Atlantic on the surface, until it reaches a point, submerges and is gone, then reappears briefly on the surface farther down the way, then submerges and isn't seen again.

The lights are still out...............
I asked you for evidence not a repeat in storytelling.
The chart is a family tree for languages based on archaeological evidence.
Show us the archaeological evidence for a Bible in Jacobean English written before 1700 BC which predates the Anatolian language of the Hittites.

Furthermore the chart contradicts the Tower of Babel story where all languages are contemporary given a very simple example of classical Greek being extinct for centuries before the development of English.

 

[AV1611VET]

Show us the archaeological evidence for a Bible in Jacobean English written before 1700 BC which predates the Anatolian language of the Hittites.

You know as well as I do that any pre-tower autographs would have crumbled to dust.

The only thing written in Jacobean English in the handwriting of the human authors now comprise Genesis 1 - 10.

Anything after Genesis 10 would not have been written in Jacobean English.

To expect a Jacobean writing to have been dug up somewhere is just ludicrous.

 

[Oneiric1975]

1. Adam ↔ (Jacobean English) ↔ Tower of Babel

2. Tower of Babel ↔ (multiple languages) → Your Chart

3. Your Chart → Jacobean English reemerges briefly

Like a submarine going across the Atlantic on the surface, until it reaches a point, submerges and is gone, then reappears briefly on the surface farther down the way, then submerges and isn't seen again.

This is very interesting. Obviously no evidence of any sort and certainly nothing in the Bible to support this but very interesting nonetheless.

I wonder why AV is so obsessed with Jacobean English. Yes it was used for the KJV translation which is obviously the holiest of holy books, but it certainly isn't the first English translation of the Scriptures and certainly we KNOW that that Secretaries who worked for King James use non-English source materials. But why would it be necessary for the LOST ORIGINALS (which have NEVER BEEN SEEN BY ANYONE WHO HAS RECORDED THE EXPERIENCE) to be written in Jacobean English.

I "get" embedded age (it helps align the OBVIOUS data of deep time and a literal interp of Genesis) but I do NOT "get" the Jacobean English Original Bible Stories hypothesis.

 

[Oneiric1975]

To expect a Jacobean writing to have been dug up somewhere is just ludicrous.

...so close!

 

[AV1611VET]

I wonder why AV is so obsessed with Jacobean English.

He says it's because the King James Bible is the final work in God's program of verbal plenary translation:

Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

He thinks the translation sequence goes as follows:

1. AV330 Gothic Version
2. AV700 Anglo-Saxon Version
3. AV1389 Wycliffe
4. AV1525 Tyndale
5. AV1560 Geneva Bible
6. AV1568 Bishop's Bible
7. AV1611 King James Bible

 

[AV1611VET]

Nice. The special pleading defence - don't address the problem, just pretend the bible doesn't say what it says.

What "problem"?

The only ones who can make problems out of things are scientists, who can make problems out of everything from a tooth to a planet.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

He says it's because the King James Bible is the final work in God's program of verbal plenary translation:

Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

He thinks the translation sequence goes as follows:

1. AV330 Gothic Version
2. AV700 Anglo-Saxon Version
3. AV1389 Wycliffe
4. AV1525 Tyndale
5. AV1560 Geneva Bible
6. AV1568 Bishop's Bible
7. AV1611 King James Bible

It is weird to see an American be so fixated on a very specific English translation of the Bible.

 

[Oneiric1975]

He says it's because the King James Bible is the final work in God's program of verbal plenary translation:

Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

He thinks the translation sequence goes as follows:

1. AV330 Gothic Version
2. AV700 Anglo-Saxon Version
3. AV1389 Wycliffe
4. AV1525 Tyndale
5. AV1560 Geneva Bible
6. AV1568 Bishop's Bible
7. AV1611 King James Bible

...But Psalms would have been written AFTER the Tower of Babel which means that they would not have been written in Jacobean English, so how do you know that the Psalmist was not referencing the language THEY were familiar with?

I guess the most bizarre aspect of this is that for some reason vernacular English has become, TO YOU, the most important thing to have happened. But we know that the KJV was predicated on non-English source material. While they may have utilized something from the Geneva, Tyndale and Wycliffe etc. versions, the KJV was a NEW translation at the time with an eye toward being as close to the ORIGINALS (ie non-English versions) as possible if I recall my reading of "God's Secretaries" by Nicolson.

If Jacobean English was the hallmark of perfection in Bible language why does the only KNOWN Jacobean English version of the Bible utilize SO HEAVILY non-English source material?

If you say it is because the "Adam-era" Jacobean English writings were all lost to time, then how do you know that the 1611 Jacobean translation was accurate if it had NOTHING whatsoever to do with some unseen Adam-Era Jacobean writings?

(Do you see the question there?)

 

[AV1611VET]

...so close!

Only a scientist or college student would expect to be presented that kind of evidence.

They can't find evidence of two million Israelites having lived in the Sinai Pennisula, yet they expect to have a small book comprising three chapters in Adam's handwriting presented to them as such.

Solid aurum.

 

[Oneiric1975]

It is weird to see an American be so fixated on a very specific English translation of the Bible.

Some sects are extremely picky about the translation of the Bible for obvious reasons. If someone gets a word wrong things might be mixed up and the "truth" be made murky. (Like the "almah" maiden/virgin in Isaiah which may have resulted in a later person coming up with the idea of "virgin birth" for Jesus when Isaiah may have only meant an unmarried young woman. Questions like that can arise when limited by translation.)

I understand how important it is to set a flag on a point and claim it is the be-all and end-all to discussion. But one other danger is that over the course of hundreds of years as language changes suddenly the holy book no longer "speaks" to modern readers or it is very difficult for them to read. So along comes a new modern translation like the NRSV which is actually READABLE.

I guess the real problem is God couldn't figure out a better way to communicate absolute truth than through the faulty error-prone human languages. It's frustrating.