How do American creationists feel about this?

[Greg1234]

Greg:
This is totally meaningless gibberish.

You typing "this is totally meaningless gibberish" is actually the utilization of this premise. First came the thought, then coding, your choice being english. If you knew Chinese you would have said it in such. But any code it is manifested in, it is the same idea. Which is universal.

 

[Tomatoman]

Oh, ok, i see what you were trying to convey. As soon as you said 'the mind is universal' I thought you'd gone off on some new age nonsense, instead of meaning that everyone thinks in the same way.

Fair enough.

 

[lucaspa]

Not one of the people mentioned in the bible (including God) spoke English.

This means that every word you read that was attributed to a person that person (or God) never actually said those words,
what you read is what some one thought they said or were trying to say.

That's going a little too far. The Hebrews in the OT spoke Hebrew and God spoke to them in Hebrew. The people in the NT spoke Aramaic and/or Greek. Jesus spoke Aramaic. You can see this in the first word of the Lord's Prayer, which is in Aramaic in the original texts: abba.

Obviuosly when we read the Bible in English we are reading a translation from the Hebrew or the Greek. Translations are not as arbitrary as you imply. But yes, there can be errors of translation.

For instance, in Genesis 1:25 and 2:7, the same word "adamah" is used but translated as "mankind", "man", and "ground". The word "elohim" is used in Genesis 1 and Genesis 6. In Genesis 1 it is translated as "God" and in Genesis 6:2 and 6:4 as "sons of God".

 

[lucaspa]

But any code it is manifested in, it is the same idea. Which is universal.

Not necessarily. Language constrains thought. It is debatable whether we can have a thought for which there is no word or language.

For instance, Spanish has the word "sympatico". There really is no equivalent in English. We need several words in English to even approximate what is meant by the word "sympatico", and English never does capture the thought entirely.

A lot of the problem in explaining Trinity to people is that the original formulation is in Greek and uses the words "personas" and "ousia". There are no equivalent words in English. Often "personas" is stated as "persons", but that is not quite right and leads to lots of confusion.

Also consider the problems of explaining Relativity without using the math. Yes, we can use English "coding", but that is only an approximation of the mathematics. And sometimes a very misleading approximation at that. So the ideas are not always the same if you use different "codings".

 

[Naraoia]

Semantics. Does it hurt your butthole that a Muslim was trying to defend American Christians?

Oh, AV loves semantics. Better get used to it if you are here to stay

This sub forum is used mosty by American Christian creationists, what should I do list every country by name?

How 'bout not listing any by name? Did that unfathomably complicated solution ever occur to you?

 

[Riski]

Oh, AV loves semantics. Better get used to it if you are here to stay

How 'bout not listing any by name? Did that unfathomably complicated solution ever occur to you?

Yes it did and it's what I should have done, hindsight is good but forsight is better.

 

[Greg1234]

Not necessarily. Language constrains thought. It is debatable whether we can have a thought for which there is no word or language.

There are. There are people who have undergone certain experiences who could not find words for the idea. Even when encoded, it diminishes the effect. The Nazarene often used parables and metaphors "the kingdom of heaven is like..." etc to convey a particular message.

For instance, Spanish has the word "sympatico". There really is no equivalent in English. We need several words in English to even approximate what is meant by the word "sympatico", and English never does capture the thought entirely.

A lot of the problem in explaining Trinity to people is that the original formulation is in Greek and uses the words "personas" and "ousia". There are no equivalent words in English. Often "personas" is stated as "persons", but that is not quite right and leads to lots of confusion.

Also consider the problems of explaining Relativity without using the math. Yes, we can use English "coding", but that is only an approximation of the mathematics. And sometimes a very misleading approximation at that. So the ideas are not always the same if you use different "codings".

There are numerous examples of such. But just because it remains in the original code, does not mean that the idea cannot be explained, or that the individual must remain un programmed to decode this particular line. In Germany, there is the word "schadenfreude" (pronounced shahd-n-froi-duh). In English, it remains "schadenfreude" but the idea can be explained through the usage of other words so that the intent can be reaped from the code.

 

[driewerf]

Not one of the people mentioned in the bible (including God) spoke English.

This means that every word you read that was attributed to a person that person (or God) never actually said those words,
what you read is what some one thought they said or were trying to say.

This might interest you
http://www.christianforums.com/t7486820/

I know the King James Bible is the word of God because it was translated under a king.

The new "bibles" are the work of MEN, but the KJV is a divine work of the Holy Spirit. The term "Authorized" has traditionally been applied to the King James Version alone, for this is the one Book which the Holy Spirit has blessed and used for so long. The fact that it bears no copyright allows printing ministries throughout the world to print millions of copies each year for the mission field. I know the King James Bible is the word of God because it has no copyright.

 

[theFijian]

This might interest you
http://www.christianforums.com/t7486820/

I guess when you have a conversation with yourself you can know for sure that the other person is speaking at your level, eh consol?

 

[Riski]

This might interest you
http://www.christianforums.com/t7486820/

Who would tell them this garbage? and worst still who would believe it? what on earth is wrong with these people?

 

[theFijian]

Who would tell them this garbage? and worst still who would believe it? what on earth is wrong with these people?

Do you actually believe your sockpuppets are different people?

 

[Riski]

Do you actually believe your sockpuppets are different people?

Why don't you just come out and tell us what's troubling you? you keep chipping in with the most stupid comments, Why?

 

[theFijian]

Why don't you just come out and tell us what's troubling you? you keep chipping in with the most stupid comments, Why?

Oh nothing's troubling me consol, I just find it amusing how you think your sockpuppets fool anybody.