dr. dino's point of view

[Deamiter]

Oh archaeologist, do your own research once in a while! The inclusion of the Comma in the KJV is well-documented and the reasons for its exclusion from subsequent translations are equally well-documented. It's also far off topic so if you want to get into a detailed defense of the Comma's inclusion, you might do it in another forum as it doesn't really belong in Origins Theology.

Just do a search in Google for "KJV Comma" and you'll find plenty all by yourself!

 

[KerrMetric]

do we? besides wikipedia provide some scholarly sources and links, please.

You must be very new to Christianity or did not receive a classical education.

The Johannine Comma is a very well known topic - an extremely useful one as well to bash the silly KJV or nothing brigade with.

 

[Willtor]

Archie, I pointed to the Wiki site, not only for the nice, readable overview, but for the fact that sources are frequently cited within the article. You can't beat that kind of resource. The Catholic Encyclopedia ref, for example, has some great discussion. I also found this nifty discussion on the Textus Receptus in the list of sources for the article.

Basically, as a summary, the comma was inserted as a later addition. Not that it isn't true (I am, in fact, a Trinitarian), but it isn't original to the text. As far as I know, this isn't really disputed - even the guy who made the translation (Erasmus) thought it wasn't original and only included it in a later version.

 

[archaeologist]

Oh archaeologist, do your own research once in a while! The

sorry, you brought it up, you prove that contention is true. and i do not mean proving that erasmus wrote it but that it should not be in the Bible period.

You must be very new to Christianity or did not receive a classical education.

assumptions, assumptions. always will get you in trouble.

 

[archaeologist]

You can't beat that kind of resource

sure you can.

but it isn't original to the text. As far as I know, this isn't really disputed - even the guy who made the translation (Erasmus) thought it wasn't original and only included it in a later version

having studied ancient greek and the book of 1 john was the one the professor used, such an idea never came up that i recall.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

...

having studied ancient greek ... .

Archie, have you really studied ancient Greek?

 

[Willtor]

sure you can.

Are you just being contrary?

having studied ancient greek and the book of 1 john was the one the professor used, such an idea never came up that i recall.

It doesn't appear in any of the ancient greek manuscripts.

 

[busterdog]

lol! It can be hard to detect sarcasm sometimes

Not all the time.

It was really more ironic. Biblical concepts do translate. The assumption that "spica" was not a translation from an earlier language is really the issue. Upon what proposition do we exclude that possibility, or we do so at our own peril? Certainly "virgo" translated the same way it does today at the time the latin writers booked "spica" as this oddly-named star comprising the constellation of the virgin. Somebody apparently had a reason in Roman times. The fact is we have the odd coincidence of the pregnant virgin surviving to this day. That is odd enough to take notice.

You can argue that Babylonians either ripped off or originated the concept of the pregnant virgin, but this is another example of an assumption that betrays bias.

The position of "spica" does not prove a single Biblical doctrine. But, it deserves notice because it corresponds to Biblical teaching. That happens enough that I also argue, it is not only worth of notice, it is worthy of being the basis for cautioning the reader against assuming that the historical pattern and even the idioms we use today were not ordained by God, but rather were the invention of men.

 

[busterdog]

will you provide some examples please. i am not into symbology.

this is an interesting topic to explore, it is highly possible and the devil could have distorted it by having people 'predict' the future with those symbols giving it a bad connotation so that people would not see the truth of the stars. but i would need a lot more objective material to read giving me both sides before saying much more on it.

http://www.letsrollforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2731&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=70

Let's take the enduring image of prostition. Biblically, it is a very useful image.

To what extent does that image endure?

The above site goes through a long list of biblical and mythic symbols adopted by European government. Is that by accident? As an inerrantist, I just have to ask what the heck they were thinking in modeling themselves after Babel?

Symbolically, it is quite clear what they were thinking:

Jer 17:5 Thus saith the LORD; Cursed [be] the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.

I am not even going to hedge and say that this is worthy of consideration. No. I am right. The EU is telling you, "to heck with the God of Israel, we are going to do this ourselves."

Note I have avoided any "left behind" type language.

The statue of (the rape of) Europa is also telling.

First of all, we have the bulls that are an enduring image of Ba'al. Now have a look at the babe on the bull. What is she communicating? What makes her such a powerful babe? Well, this big, tough critter wants her in a bad way, because she is such a hotty, who apparently knows how to deliver. Prostitution is the image Europe chose. Why? You can connect the dots from there.

 

[theFijian]

Why am I not surprised that when people are duped by the pseudoscience of Creationism they will believe the utter hogwash that the EU will become the seat of power for the coming antichrist and similar nonsense. What definitely isn't a coincidence is that modern creationism and wacko dispensationalism both arose at the same and in the same place.

 

[archaeologist]

thanks for the link, buster

Are you just being contrary?

yes & no. i do nopt accept wikipedia as a scholarly or academic source as it contains elements which undermine any such standard.

Why am I not surprised that when people are duped by the pseudoscience of Creationism they will believe the utter hogwash that the EU will become the seat of power for the coming antichrist and similar nonsense. What definitely isn't a coincidence is that modern creationism and wacko dispensationalism both arose at the same and in the same place

so much for the credibility of your science--no objectivity, preconceived ideas etc.

creationism isn't a pseudo-science, it is a belief that creation was a one time act which was completed in 6 24 hour days.

such a model does not fit the requirements of secular science which cannot ascertainthe truth nor is even allowing the data , which can correct secular science's endeavors, to enter into its lair.

whether creationists use science as defined by the dictionary or not is not the issue, what is the issue is that secular science has no authority to dictate what can or can't be declared science.

they do not have the truth nor can they see clearly , through deceivement andother results of the devil's work, to be in a position to be able to make any declarations let alone-- what is or isn't science.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

....
creationism isn't a pseudo-science, it is a belief that creation was a one time act which was completed in 6 24 hour days.

... .

TheFijian's point has clearly passed you by.

You might like to re-read it. Here it is:-

Why am I not surprised that when people are duped by the pseudoscience of Creationism they will believe the utter hogwash that the EU will become the seat of power for the coming antichrist and similar nonsense. What definitely isn't a coincidence is that modern creationism and wacko dispensationalism both arose at the same and in the same place

 

[archaeologist]

not at all. this is an origins thread not an end times one plus i am ignoring his insult

seems like a TE'r can say whatever they like and get awy with it while complaing about being told they are deceived.

Why am I not surprised that when people are duped by the pseudoscience of Creationism they will believe the utter hogwash that the EU will become the seat of power for the coming antichrist and similar nonsense. What definitely isn't a coincidence is that modern creationism and wacko dispensationalism both arose at the same and in the same place

{bold mine} i expect to hear no complaints from fijian again.

if you haven't looked at the news lately, america is waning, its dollar value has plummeted, its reputation sacked, its integrity gone along with its character and so on

whereas the euro is the 2nd strongest monetary unit behind the pound, is developing strong economic ties throughout the world and other aspects as well.

they have succeeded in muzzling the true church, promoted evolution to where it is more accepted than creation (which bodes well for secularism) and gives every indication that it will replace america as the dominate force on the planet.

 

[Willtor]

One can only hope they will be more responsible with the power than we have been.

 

[staveoffzombies]

Sooo, because America might not be the most powerful nation on earth...this means we're in the end times?

How does that work? Taking a look at recorded human history shows that empires come and go..and while America isn't an "Empire" per se, it still wouldn't suprise me if a more powerful nation (or collection of nations) supplants it as the most powerful civilization on earth. It's just something that happens.

Also, you mentioned that secular scientists can't determine what is science and what isn't...well, you're completely wrong. Good science is good science, bad science is bad science...you can't just throw anything against the wall and call it "science". Furthermore...what does "secular science" even mean? Science is science...it either is science or it isn't...religion has nothing to do with it.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

....
..... Furthermore...what does "secular science" even mean? Science is science...it either is science or it isn't...religion has nothing to do with it.

You are not the first to ask that question and a decent definition is awaited.

 

[Gwenyfur]

i had the misfortune to enroll in a seminary which used kent hovind's seminar as a text** needless to say, he had/has an interesting point of view.

what reminded me of hovind, {i know he is in jail, unless they gave hm early release} was a book i bought today entitled, 'The Nephilim and the Pyramid of the Apocalypes' by Patrick Heron.

i was reading it on my way back, as i was caught in the usual weekend exodus from Seoul and traffic was not moving that well (understatement).

on page 50 of this book, i came across the author's idea, which is almost an exact copy from Hovind's seminar, that God placed the Gospel and other events in the astrological signs...

Umm...Having watched all 15 of his seminar videos adn topical discussions, and having completed his CSE 101-104 I can tell you...nowhere does he state he believes the Gospel was in the astrological signs....nowhere.

But the difference between Hovind and myself is simply this: I take Creation on faith. I really don't care about the science...the "proof" the whatever you want to call it....

I take it on faith that G-d was able to speak *all* of creation into being, in 6 literal days, and sanctify the 7th as a day of rest for mankind...

I don't need science to tell me if I'm right or wrong...I have the Bible...scientifically correct or not, if you choose to accept that it's the inerrant word of G-d, then it is...and the rest...is just faith

 

[busterdog]

Why am I not surprised that when people are duped by the pseudoscience of Creationism they will believe the utter hogwash that the EU will become the seat of power for the coming antichrist and similar nonsense. What definitely isn't a coincidence is that modern creationism and wacko dispensationalism both arose at the same and in the same place.

I don't think its a coincidence either. As for the wacko part, I guess we will find out soon enough.

By the way, I never said a word about the AC. I was speaking of Babel, Ba'al and prostitution -- all such things are in evidence in the foundation of the EU. Whether this is a biblical echo of the final empire or the final empire itself is not something I am definitive about.

I will say one thing for words like "wacko", it does help me save time in posting here. I mean, really, what is the point of continuing? Archie could probably learn that lesson.

 

[busterdog]

You are not the first to ask that question and a decent definition is awaited.

Secular science measures at all does by itself as the highest authority.

Creation scientists believe the Word of God is a higher standard than human science. It measures its science against that Word, and not vice versa.

 

[busterdog]

Sooo, because America might not be the most powerful nation on earth...this means we're in the end times?

How does that work? Taking a look at recorded human history shows that empires come and go..and while America isn't an "Empire" per se, it still wouldn't suprise me if a more powerful nation (or collection of nations) supplants it as the most powerful civilization on earth. It's just something that happens.

But one of these days it will stop happening. Since it is inevitable, it is worth looking to see if we have any guidance about when that might happen. You may recall that we are commanded to "watch".

The Bible says that the beginning and the end have been declared. Since science presumes to be able to derive our origins and our future (as a big rip, big cruch or whatever), perhaps what God says is relevant:

Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

There is no comfortable isolation of human knowledge from the knowledge (Revelation) of God. The presumption that the boundary exists is called hubris.

We all understand that science has its own human authorities and their methods apply for matters of testing, tenure and publication. But in your heart, no such rule can be pre-eminent, unless you let it be.