Answering questions on Evolution

[AV1611VET]

What I mean was if the German says one thing and the English says another, then why is the English automatically right?

If I answer this, will you promise not to laugh?

Because it's a doosey of an answer.

 

[Psudopod]

If I answer this, will you promise not to laugh?

Because it's a doosey of an answer.

I won't laugh, but I'm probably not going to buy it!

 

[Freodin]

[/COLOR]

German’s no good for me as a dyslexic. The more letters in a word the more likely I am to get some of them in the wrong place! But my point wasn’t really about whether German was better as a language, or anyone’s translating skills. What I mean was if the German says one thing and the English says another, then why is the English automatically right? (Although in this case it’s that the German says one thing clearly, and the English word either says the same or something different, as the language is more ambiguous.)

Haven´t you heard? The English version is "purified" by God, while the German version is only a diabolical copy.

 

[Psudopod]

Haven´t you heard? The English version is "purified" by God, while the German version is only a diabolical copy.

German is diablolical, but then so is French. And English is a mongrel languague.

 

[AV1611VET]

I won't laugh, but I'm probably not going to buy it!

I need to run this by my pastor, but I don't think the KJV is English, either.

I think it is close to English, but deep down in my heart, I think the KJV is God's own special language.

I certainly can't prove it, and it's certainly conjecture on my part, but it's just a pet theory (or "hypothesis" to the educated elite) of mine.

 

[TheReasoner]

I need to run this by my pastor, but I don't think the KJV is English, either.

I think it is close to English, but deep down in my heart, I think the KJV is God's own special language.

I certainly can't prove it, and it's certainly conjecture on my part, but it's just a pet theory (or "hypothesis" to the educated elite) of mine.

So why do you think it is? Surely you must have some reason for this conclusion?

 

[VirOptimus]

I need to run this by my pastor, but I don't think the KJV is English, either.

I think it is close to English, but deep down in my heart, I think the KJV is God's own special language.

I certainly can't prove it, and it's certainly conjecture on my part, but it's just a pet theory (or "hypothesis" to the educated elite) of mine.

Wouldnt this kind of reasoning mean that the bible was imperfect from the beginning and that therefore that god has made an imperfect thing?

 

[Psudopod]

I need to run this by my pastor, but I don't think the KJV is English, either.

I think it is close to English, but deep down in my heart, I think the KJV is God's own special language.

I certainly can't prove it, and it's certainly conjecture on my part, but it's just a pet theory (or "hypothesis" to the educated elite) of mine. I need to run this by my pastor, but I don't think the KJV is English, either.

I think it is close to English, but deep down in my heart, I think the KJV is God's own special language.

I certainly can't prove it, and it's certainly conjecture on my part, but it's just a pet theory (or "hypothesis" to the educated elite) of mine.

Well, I didn’t laugh. It’s an interesting theory, though I’m not sure why the closest to God’s language would be 17th century English.

Afterall, everyone knows English achieved perfection in 1954 and has been going back downhill since.

 

[Freodin]

Well, I didn’t laugh. It’s an interesting theory, though I’m not sure why the closest to God’s language would be 17th century English.

Afterall, everyone knows English achieved perfection in 1954 and has been going back downhill since.

It is a theory that would result in some interesting - and, for the Creationists rather embarrassing - conclusions about "God´s ways".

English - old, 17th century and modern - is an evolved language. All languages are - they change, and adapt and get selected. English did not exist in a form recognizable to modern speakers a thousand years ago. The "common ancestor" that AV cites in his line of "divine purification" includes Gothic... an early germanic language which has as many simmilarities to modern German than it has to modern English... perhaps even more to German, which isn´t as latinized as English.
This method even includes the most despised "enemy" of Creationist`s God: death. Old terms get out of use, grammatical constructs get abandoned and simplified... language dies and it reborn in its successors. The fight between words and constructs is also there: different terms compete for use in everyday speech, and succed or are forgotten.

Yet by this means of "linguistcal evolution" God arrives at exactly the result he wants: 17th century English, which is as close to "God´s own language" that it is virtually indistinguishable.

It seems to me that this "purification" is no different from the process that Theistic Evolutionists claim for human origin.

God would not use Evolution? It seems he does.

 

[AV1611VET]

The "common ancestor" that AV cites in his line of "divine purification" includes Gothic... an early germanic language which has as many simmilarities to modern German than it has to modern English... perhaps even more to German, which isn´t as latinized as English.

FYI, here's the entire line:

1. AD96 = Scriptures are completed
2. AV100 Koine Greek
3. AV350 Gothic
4. AV700 Anglo-Saxon
5. AV1395 Wycliffe
6. AV1525 Tyndale
7. AV1568 Geneva = God's choice for the Pilgrims
8. AV1611 King James

 

[Split Rock]

No ameoba has evolved into a dinosaur.
No earthworm has evolved into an eagle.
No ape has evolved into a human, either.

Of course not. Individuals do not evolve, populations evolve. In addition, earthworms are not our ancestors, though we share a common worm-like ancestor in the distant past. Humans are apes, but no modern species is our ancestor either. Once again, we share a common ancestor with the gorilla, chimpanzee and orangutan.

But yes, GOD's creations were designed to *proliferate with increasing species-specific diversity*, to PRAISE God!
.

OK

ok, my serious question is: How many 'missing-links',
starting with the book "Billions of missing-links" by Dr. Simmons M.D., are you able to explain?

All of them. What is your question?

 

[Split Rock]

I need to run this by my pastor, but I don't think the KJV is English, either.

I think it is close to English, but deep down in my heart, I think the KJV is God's own special language.

I certainly can't prove it, and it's certainly conjecture on my part, but it's just a pet theory (or "hypothesis" to the educated elite) of mine.

You know, AVET... the more I learn about the way you interpret scripture the more convinced I become of the following:

1. Your interpretation is riddled with incorrect assumptions and errors.

2. You are not being guided by any higher being in your interpretation (at least not a benevalent one).

3. You will never learn of your errors as long as you continue to assume you are incapable of making mistakes in your interpretation of scripture.

4. You are no authority on interpreting the Bible correctly.

 

[Mike Elphick]

GOD's creations were designed to *proliferate with increasing species-specific diversity*, to PRAISE God!

Now then let me see ... God said "go forth and multiply" (or was it "be fruitful and multiply"), but I can't find anything about "increasing species-specific diversity"? It doesn't even SOUND like it came from the Bible and it's such a mouthful too — maybe it came from some very modern translation or something...

Where in the Bible might we find such a directive: to go forth and proliferate with increasing species-specific diversity?

 

[Cabal]

I'm somewhat staggered no-one has laughed yet.

 

[hangback]

Which American politician said, “If English was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for Texas”? at least I think it was a politician.

 

[MoonLancer]

You know, AVET... the more I learn about the way you interpret scripture the more convinced I become of the following:

1. Your interpretation is riddles with incorrect assumptions and errors.

2. You are not being guided by any higher being in your interpretation (at least not a benevalent one).

3. You will never learn of your errors as long as you continue to assume you are incapable of making mistakes in your interpretation of scripture.

4. You are no authority on interpreting the Bible correctly.

You too? i have come to a similar conclusion. He is not a very good theologists. Actually he is a very bad one.

 

[MoonLancer]

Which American politician said, “If English was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for Texas”? at least I think it was a politician.

lol... wha?

 

[Sanguis]

You know, AVET... the more I learn about the way you interpret scripture the more convinced I become of the following:

1. Your interpretation is riddles with incorrect assumptions and errors.

2. You are not being guided by any higher being in your interpretation (at least not a benevalent one).

3. You will never learn of your errors as long as you continue to assume you are incapable of making mistakes in your interpretation of scripture.

4. You are no authority on interpreting the Bible correctly.

Thirded.

Not been here particularly long, but already, even I can see how painfully true those statements are.

 

[AV1611VET]

You too? i have come to a similar conclusion. He is not a very good theologists. Actually he is a very bad one.

Let me guess --- the difference is whether or not we embrace evolution --- correct?

Here's a simple little exercise for you.

Without naming names, can you find a "good theologian" and tell me where he/she stands on:

1. creation
2. evolution
3. the flood
4. where the flood water went
5. the Bible
6. inspiration, preservation, and translation

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that you guys know (or think you know) exactly where I stand on everything from where Adam came from to where the entire universe is going --- and the more you know, the less you like.

In short, in you guys eyes, the only good theologian is one you don't know.

That's why Theistic Evolutionists are right at home here; you can't tell them apart from atheists.

 

[TheReasoner]

Which American politician said, “If English was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for Texas”? at least I think it was a politician.

If I were to hazard a guess I'd say Bush. Possibly Quayle or Palin though they are not from Texas. *googles*

Ah... Well, google says what google says.