Darwin - Half Right

[Hans Blaster]

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's too bad they stopped translating it in 1611. The word usage is often archaic and leads to misunderstandings.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Fine -- I can live with that.

If you have a better idea, let's hear it.

What specifically was that single language mentioned here?

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

Was it Hebrew? Greek? some Heavenly language? Egyptian? Swahili? Latin? Chamorro?

What exactly?

Very likely not any language since we have no evidence to support a universal language before anything else.

It's just you using post hoc logic.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's too bad they stopped translating it in 1611. The word usage is often archaic and leads to misunderstandings.

Then academians would be harping that He either miscounted or lied to us in Psalm 12.

And knowing how trigger-happy academians are to use the word "lie," I think I know which of the two would prevail.

 

[AV1611VET]

Very likely not any language since we have no evidence to support a universal language before anything else.

Then it wouldn't matter, would it?

Any language I believed would be construed as "very, very, very, VERY weird," wouldn't it?

You guys quit ACTING like you're so surprised I believe it is Jacobean English.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then it wouldn't matter, would it?

Any language I believed would be construed as "very, very, very, VERY weird," wouldn't it?

You guys quit ACTING like you're so surprised I believe it is Jacobean English.

It would matter because it's you making something up for something that isn't supported by any evidence that we have in the world to fit your a priori belief in the Bible.

And no, it's not acting like I'm surprised. I am surprised and always will be that you think Adam spoke Jacobean English, since it's so bloody strange!

 

[Hans Blaster]

Then academians would be harping that He either miscounted or lied to us in Psalm 12.

And knowing how trigger-happy academians are to use the word "lie," I think I know which of the two would prevail.

I don't know what archaic translations or "academians" have to do with P-salm #12. That seems to be about those who "speak wickedly". I don't see anything about "counting" at all. Maybe it's your translation that's off.

 

[sjastro]

Then get a Biblical education, instead of railing against those who have one.

How long have you been a Christian now (praise the LORD)?

And none of my responses make any sense?

Hebrews 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

Your responses make no sense because you use the Bible as a substitute for thinking as exemplified in your post.
What's even worse is you don't quote the Bible for it states but as an exercise to fit in with your own narrative.
This results in nonsense such as Jacobean English being the original language amongst other things.

 

[AV1611VET]

What's even worse is you don't quote the Bible for it states but as an exercise to fit in with your own narrative.

Then don't ask questions you KNOW aren't covered by Scripture, thinking you're making some kind of "gotcha point."

I'm not saying you do that -- (my memory isn't that good) -- but some do.

 

[Oneiric1975]

One doesn't need to know the ins and outs of evolution, if one believes evolution's antithesis.

If one wishes to supplant evolution with a "better" hypothesis one better know the ins and outs of what is being supplanted.

 

[Oneiric1975]

Are you familiar with this verse?

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

If so, do you know what is meant by the word of God being "quick"?

It is just as pertinent for us today as the day It was written.

And we will not only be judged from It in Heaven, but we will judge angels from It.

It is exactly what I would assume anyone writing about their conception of God and His Holy word would say about God and his Holy Word.

 

[AV1611VET]

If one wishes to supplant evolution with a "better" hypothesis one better know the ins and outs of what is being supplanted.

The Bible isn't a Book of hypotheses. It is a Book of plain truth.

 

[stevil]

One doesn't need to know the ins and outs of evolution, if one believes evolution's antithesis.

I don't have to know what a "least common ancestor" is, if I believe in creation.

There are many religious people and religious organisations that believe in creation as well as evolution.
They have taken the time to understand evolution and have agreed that they need to accept it rather than reject it. However for them they also hold onto creation as well.

It seems that their faith is strong enough to incorporate and accommodate science as well, rather than to wear blinkers.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is exactly what I would assume anyone writing about their conception of God and His Holy word would say about God and his Holy Word.

Then it's in the Koran? the Bhavagad-gita? and others?

 

[AV1611VET]

There are many religious people and religious organisations that believe in creation as well as evolution.
They have taken the time to understand evolution and have agreed that they need to accept it rather than reject it. However for them they also hold onto creation as well.

And Paul warns about that too.

In fact, his warning at the time was to those who "hold the truth in unrighteousness."

How many people have you met that said, "I was a Christian once, until I learned they lied to me about evolution"?

 

[Bradskii]

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

Oh, the irony...

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, the irony...

LOL ... I had to laugh at that one.

Maybe I shoulda worded it differently?

 

[Bradskii]

One doesn't need to know the ins and outs of evolution, if one believes evolution's antithesis.

I don't have to know what a "least common ancestor" is, if I believe in creation.

Roger that. So don't let me catch you arguing against something which you don't understand.

 

[AV1611VET]

Roger that. So don't let me catch you arguing against something which you don't understand.

Aren't we all entitled to argue against something at our own level of understanding?

 

[Bradskii]

Aren't we all entitled to argue against something at our own level of understanding?

Feel free. But don't think to bring your lack of knowledge to any discussion which supersedes your 'level of understanding' and argue with people who are well versed in the subject. If the discussion exceeds your level of knowledge (and that would virtually cover any debate on any aspect of evolution) then the polite thing to do would be to keep quiet and let the grown ups talk. Then you might learn enough to join in a later discussion.

I spent a few years discussing evolution on Catholics Answers. And one person in particular held quite fundamentalist views. But...he was very well versed in the evolutionary process and could hold his own in any discussion. He used actual science where it was applicable to back up his ideas.

You, on the other hand, know next to nothing about it and continue to exhibit that fact with so many of your posts.

Stick to the bible. You can't go wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

Feel free. But don't think to bring your lack of knowledge to any discussion which supersedes your 'level of understanding' and argue with people who are well versed in the subject.

Fine. I won't argue with them. I'll tell it like it is, and they can decide for themselves.

If the discussion exceeds your level of knowledge (and that would virtually cover any debate on any aspect of evolution) then the polite thing to do would be to keep quiet and let the grown ups talk.

I never argue with a collegian. He will drag me down to his level and beat me up with his knowledge.

Then you might learn enough to join in a later discussion.

No, thanks. There's not a single knowledgeable Christian I've seen get respect for arguing against evolution.

Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, anyone.

I spent a few years discussing evolution on Catholics Answers. And one person in particular held quite fundamentalist views. But...he was very well versed in the evolutionary process and could hold his own in any discussion. He used actual science where it was applicable to back up his ideas.

Ya ... and you're still an atheist. Why is that?

You, on the other hand, know next to nothing about it and continue to exhibit that fact with so many of your posts.

That's right.

But you don't get it, do you?

A little child should be able to tell an evolutionist he is wrong.

Stick to the bible. You can't go wrong.

I plan to.

In the meantime, don't try to Sanballat me. It won't work.