Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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
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?
Then academians would be harping that He either miscounted or lied to us in Psalm 12.It's too bad they stopped translating it in 1611. The word usage is often archaic and leads to misunderstandings.
Then it wouldn't matter, would it?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.
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.
Your responses make no sense because you use the Bible as a substitute for thinking as exemplified in your post.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.
Then don't ask questions you KNOW aren't covered by Scripture, thinking you're making some kind of "gotcha point."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.
One doesn't need to know the ins and outs of evolution, if one believes evolution's antithesis.
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.
The Bible isn't a Book of hypotheses. It is a Book of plain truth.If one wishes to supplant evolution with a "better" hypothesis one better know the ins and outs of what is being supplanted.
There are many religious people and religious organisations that believe in creation as well as evolution.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.
Then it's in the Koran? the Bhavagad-gita? and others?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.
And Paul warns about that too.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.
LOL ... I had to laugh at that one.Oh, the irony...
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.
Aren't we all entitled to argue against something at our own level of understanding?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?
Fine. I won't argue with them. I'll tell it like it is, and they can decide for themselves.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.
I never argue with a collegian. He will drag me down to his level and beat me up with his knowledge.Bradskii said: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.
No, thanks. There's not a single knowledgeable Christian I've seen get respect for arguing against evolution.Bradskii said:Then you might learn enough to join in a later discussion.
Ya ... and you're still an atheist. Why is that?Bradskii said: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.
That's right.Bradskii said:You, on the other hand, know next to nothing about it and continue to exhibit that fact with so many of your posts.
I plan to.Bradskii said:Stick to the bible. You can't go wrong.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?