Evolution is DEscriptive not PREscriptive

[AV1611VET]

You see the word "evolution" in there?

No.

Do you see the word "fetus" here?

Ecclesiastes 11:5 As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No.

Do you see the word "fetus" here?

Ecclesiastes 11:5 As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.

Another name for a child in the womb is a fetus. I've been over this with you before.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No.

Do you see the word "fetus" here?

Ecclesiastes 11:5 As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.

Nope , but the context is clear here.

In the previous example, you're arguably pulling context out of your hat.

 

[Gottservant]

Yeah fine, you make arguments that justify a difference between description and prescription - BUT THEN you prescribe not making prescriptions.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No.

Do you see the word "fetus" here?

Ecclesiastes 11:5 As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.

Since "fetus" is a word of Latin origin, I thought I'd check to see if it was in the *Latin* version of this verse. I think the version I found was the Latin Vulgate, and...

*fetus* or any other equivalent for "child" was not to be found.

The only reason "child" appears in this passage is because old "King" James's translators used a euphemism for "pregnant woman" as "her that is with child". (Prudes!)

A rough translation of that section would be closer to "grow in a pregnant woman's belly".

[Bonus irony: We actually *do* know how the bones grow during pregnancy.]

 

[AV1611VET]

The only reason "child" appears in this passage is because old "King" James's translators used a euphemism for "pregnant woman" as "her that is with child".

And what was the reason "old John Wycliffe" used it in the 14th century?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yeah fine, you make arguments that justify a difference between description and prescription - BUT THEN you prescribe not making prescriptions.

No, just no. I'm describing descriptions, nothing more.

 

[Bradskii]

The only reason "child" appears in this passage is because old "King" James's translators used a euphemism for "pregnant woman" as "her that is with child". (Prudes!)

I'm somewhat perplexed that AV didn't pull you up on the fact that your claim fails completely because he holds that there were no 'King James' translators' in the first instance. The bible was originally written in 17th century English doncha know.

 

[AV1611VET]

The bible was originally written in 17th century English doncha know.

Do you have a link for this?

 

[Bradskii]

Do you have a link for this?

I'll leave it to you to amaze everyone with your theory of biblical origins. Although why you simply didn't clarify your position immediately has me puzzled.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll leave it to you to amaze everyone with your theory of biblical origins. Although why you simply didn't clarify your position immediately has me puzzled.

What position are you talking about?

You know as well as I do that I don't believe "the Bible" was originally written in Jacobean English.

Just the first ten chapters of Genesis.

Is that what you're referring to?

 

[Bradskii]

Just the first ten chapters of Genesis.

I don't know what I was thinking. Who could possibly think that the rest of Genesis was written in Jacobean English...

Everyone must think I'm an idiot.

 

[Astrid]

I don't know what I was thinking. Who could possibly think that the rest of Genesis was written in Jacobean English...

Everyone must think I'm an idiot.

Now, you are just repesting what other people say

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't know what I was thinking.

I do.

Who could possibly think that the rest of Genesis was written in Jacobean English...

You thought I did.

Everyone must think I'm an idiot.

Fool.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now, you are just repesting what other people say

-- Solid aurum.

See what you started, Brad?

Ignorance is contagious, isn't it?

 

[Bradskii]

You thought I did.

Imagine me thinking that you thought chapters 11 onwards were originally written in English. How dumb is that...

 

[AV1611VET]

Imagine me thinking that you thought chapters 11 onwards were originally written in English. How dumb is that...

Hey ... you warned yourself against talking to me, did you not?

How many times did you vacate a thread to "keep your head from exploding"?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Hey ... you warned yourself against talking to me, did you now?

How many times did you vacate a thread to "keep your head from exploding"?

Nah, it's just that male pattern baldness is cause by friction as shown in this video:

 

[Bradskii]

Hey ... you warned yourself against talking to me, did you now?

I read quite a lot. And looking at it one way, it's kinda depressing to know how much I don't know (to echo Socrates). It keeps reminding me of the fact that I'm not as smart as I thought I was. But then someone posts something really nonsensical on the forum and I think - hey, but then again maybe I'm not as dumb as I feared.

I'd prefer it if you posted things that would make me think. That would remind me that there was so much more to learn. That would make me want to investigate a subject in greater detail. But you don't.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'd prefer it if you posted things that would make me think. That would remind me that there was so much more to learn. That would make me want to investigate a subject in greater detail. But you don't.

Well, I certainly apologize for keeping you ignorant.

Let me remind you though that twice you ran out of a thread, claiming your head was about to explode.