What about the differences between chimps and humans?

[Psalm 27]

Always this silly equivocation game with " faith",
as if faith in God is exactly the same as faith that
your shoes are still tied when you glance away.

 

[Astrid]

Maybe next time don't bother to say anything if you've
nothing to say.

 

[Psalm 27]

Th

Maybe next time don't bother to say anything if you've
nothing to say.

That was all I wanted to say

 

[DamianWarS]

why can't a reasonable person conclude that similarities between our species are the result of common design

because a designer can't be reconciled through science (but a common ancestor can be)

 

[AV1611VET]

because a designer can't be reconciled through science (but a common ancestor can be)

Only on paper.

 

[VirOptimus]

Only on paper.

The bible, as its a book, is only on paper.

 

[AV1611VET]

The bible, as its a book, is only on paper.

The Bible is a gestalt, meaning Its whole is greater than the sum of Its parts.

 

[VirOptimus]

The Bible is a gestalt, meaning Its whole is greater than the sum of Its parts.

Thats a claim without any evidence or data supporting it.

But I know your stance and wont debate this further. My point is made.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thats a claim without any evidence or data supporting it.

But I know your stance and wont debate this further. My point is made.

Fair enough: point noted.

 

[Gottservant]

Thats a claim without any evidence or data supporting it.

But I know your stance and wont debate this further. My point is made.

Your stance is that God can't be produced and packaged on a warehouse shelf.

 

[Bradskii]

The Bible is a gestalt, meaning Its whole is greater than the sum of Its parts.

Adam would have known that. Seeing as it's a German word.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Adam would have known that. Seeing as it's a German word.

"*not* have known that", maybe?

 

[Bradskii]

"*not* have known that", maybe?

Actually no. AV is of the opinion that Adam was instrumental in writing the bible - in Jacobean English (and no, I'm not making this up). And Tyndale, who is recognised as the translator of the King James version (by everyone except by AV) relied heavily on Saxon terms and vocabulary:

'Daniell notes that Tyndale wrote in “short Saxon sentences with largely Saxon vocabulary, a manner like proverbs.” ' William Tyndale: The Father of Modern English

Saxon is a Germanic language. So if Adam wrote it then he was more than familiar with the German language. It seems therefore a good bet that he'd have been familiar with the word 'gestalt'.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Actually no. AV is of the opinion that Adam was instrumental in writing the bible - in Jacobean English (and no, I'm not making this up). And Tyndale, who is recognised as the translator of the King James version (by everyone except by AV) relied heavily on Saxon terms and vocabulary:

'Daniell notes that Tyndale wrote in “short Saxon sentences with largely Saxon vocabulary, a manner like proverbs.” ' William Tyndale: The Father of Modern English

Saxon is a Germanic language. So if Adam wrote it then he was more than familiar with the German language. It seems therefore a good bet that he'd have been familiar with the word 'gestalt'.

Sorry, but no. Tyndale started translating the Tyndale Bible (the translation was finished by Myles Coverdale) 100 years before Richard Bancroft's team came up with the KJV.

KJV does not contain any Saxon phrases and does not require knowledge of other Germanic dialects.

Gestalt is also a modern German word from about 1890.

 

[Bradskii]

Sorry, but no. Tyndale started translating the Tyndale Bible (the translation was finished by Myles Coverdale) 100 years before Richard Bancroft's team came up with the KJV.

KJV does not contain any Saxon phrases and does not require knowledge of other Germanic dialects.

Gestalt is also a modern German word from about 1890.

I should have said the original translation, not the KJV. But as I originally told this to someone who thinks that the first bible was written in Jacobean English, I didn't feel the need to be 100% accurate when I first presented it.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I should have said the original translation, not the KJV. But as I originally told this to someone who thinks that the first bible was written in Jacobean English, I didn't feel the need to be 100% accurate when I first presented it.

I don't like supporting AV, but your hypothesis is still faulty. As I said in my previous post, KJV does not require knowledge of other Germanic dialects. AV says Jacobean English was Adam's language - ignoring the ignorance of such a claim, Adam would not have needed to understand anything other than the written vernacular of a bunch of well-to-do 17th century Londoners.

 

[Bradskii]

I don't like supporting AV, but your hypothesis is still faulty. As I said in my previous post, KJV does not require knowledge of other Germanic dialects. AV says Jacobean English was Adam's language - ignoring the ignorance of such a claim, Adam would not have needed to understand anything other than the written vernacular of a bunch of well-to-do 17th century Londoners.

Well, that's let the cat out of the bag. And I can't believe we're actually discussing what form of 17th century English Adam would have had to have known in order to write the bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, that's let the cat out of the bag. And I can't believe we're actually discussing what form of 17th century English Adam would have had to have known in order to write the bible.

For the record, Brad, Adam only wrote Genesis 1-4; not the whole Bible.

The authors in Genesis are separated by what is called toledoth colophons.

Which plays a big part in the Wiseman hypothesis

 

[Phred]

For the record, Brad, Adam only wrote Genesis 1-4; not the whole Bible.

The authors in Genesis are separated by what is called toledoth colophons.

Which plays a big part in the Wiseman hypothesis

So why are there over 25,000 differences between the earliest versions of the Bible and the versions we have today? You know, if some supernatural power is in charge and protecting "his word" against such changes?

 

[AV1611VET]

So why are there over 25,000 differences between the earliest versions of the Bible and the versions we have today? You know, if some supernatural power is in charge and protecting "his word" against such changes?

Because this "supernatural power" is in charge of His own words. Not academia's.

God doesn't firewall any of those Alexandrian translations.

Instead, He preserves His Antiochian ones.