If evolution is not valid science, somebody should tell the scientists.

[rmwilliamsll]

Wrong again-- maybe you should humble your self and read that arch nemesis of yours and the folks at talkorigns--Henry Morriss book entiteld "The Genesis Flood"

200 years ago geology and hydrology and anthroplogy and archeology were babies and had little to work with.

But ZI doubt you spend the few days it would take to read that work because you just do not want ot accept the bible true as written in these areas. It seems you are like the crowd that Sagan said befoire he die--- (i paraphrase) I don't care oif they find Noahs ark and parade it down main street USA, I will never believe in a global flood!

I read Morris' _The Genesis Flood_ in 1978 and have lots of YECist material since. The issue is what the Bible says, what understanding and interpretation God intends for us to learn from it. You seem to think that your hermeneutic is bullet proof, infallible, and directly revealed from God, it is not, rather it is very time and culture bound. It originates in Princeton Seminary in the early 19thC as conservatives began to deal with both the documentary hypothesis and the scientific data from geology and the rise of deism. It relies heavily on Scottish Common Sense philosophy and reaches a peak in Hodge and Warfield.

It is a particular hermeneutic that simply doesn't work on Gen 1. or Gen 6 for example.

 

[shernren]

Has anyone else noticed a pattern of nolidad's posts getting more and more abusive?

Benford's Law of Controversy explains it:

Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available.

or, with a slight modification, my corollary:

Passion is inversely proportional to the rate of influx of fresh, accurate information on a topic.

 

[nolidad]

mrwilliams writes:

I read Morris' _The Genesis Flood_ in 1978 and have lots of YECist material since. The issue is what the Bible says, what understanding and interpretation God intends for us to learn from it. You seem to think that your hermeneutic is bullet proof, infallible, and directly revealed from God, it is not, rather it is very time and culture bound. It originates in Princeton Seminary in the early 19thC as conservatives began to deal with both the documentary hypothesis and the scientific data from geology and the rise of deism. It relies heavily on Scottish Common Sense philosophy and reaches a peak in Hodge and Warfield.

It is a particular hermeneutic that simply doesn't work on Gen 1. or Gen 6 for example.

Well I agree that the modern creation science movement had its seeds in the 19th century and the rise of the "schools of higher biblical criticism" and the growing popularity of evolutionary philosophy inscience. That is just simply called God raising up a standard when wroing comes in.

It is a particular hermeneutic that simply doesn't work on Gen 1. or Gen 6 for example.

Well if it was good enough for the Jews and the greek speaking churches and the bible beleiving churches down through the centuries-it is good wnough for me. Also the geologuic evidence supports genesis 6-9 being global.

[QUOTEHas anyone else noticed a pattern of nolidad's posts getting more and more abusive?][/QUOTE]

Almost exclusivey to Assyrian. For that I aspologize-- I should have started writng in response to him about 10 pages ago. He is very disengenious at worst or just very uneducated in grammar at best. I am now determined to ignore him until he has something concrete to write.

Shernren writes:

Benford's Law of Controversy explains it:

Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available.

or, with a slight modification, my corollary:

Passion is inversely proportional to the rate of influx of fresh, accurate information on a topic.

\
So shall I go back many pages and repost teh mocking done by several on your side of this debate and conclude that is when you stopped offering anything substantive to this debate?? I just resent someone to my face twisting my words or being presumptious of my words as has been done. If you wish to think that is because I have no facts to offer then fine, I shall bd yiou adieu as well.


But just so you know that a global flood has long been taught as the biblical view here are but a few websites, they all hold to a world wide flood, Jewish and Christian thought are included here. The fact that it was taught globally is not in dispute to the Jews and Chrisatians. The local flood theory was almost (note the word almost) nonexistent in Jewish and Christian cirles until the 19the century.

Even the 225+ spin off tales of the flood all say global from teh gilgamesh epic to the hawaiian accounts.

http://www.chabad.org/calendar/view/day.asp?AID=211011

http://www.chabad.org/calendar/view/day.asp?AID=233728

http://www.chabad.org/calendar/view/day.asp?AID=215606

http://ga3.org/protectingcreation/alert-description.tcl?alert_id=3480198

http://www.answers.com/topic/noah

http://www.shalomctr.org/node/269

http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehardeah/noah.html

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_flood.html

http://www.2s2.com/chapmanresearch/user/documents/noah.html


http://www.algemeiner.com/generic.asp?id=37

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/global10.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/flood.asp

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c005.html

 

[Assyrian]

Or like Goldscmidts hopeful monster theory when a lizard laid an egg and a bird came out?? If you want ot get into nitpicking I can come up with real ddozies on the evolution side and use that to say evolutionists aren't real scientists as well. Balls in your c ourt

Unfortunately we were playing darts. Your answer has nothing to do with the point we were discussing. We were looking at you claim that creationism was a valid science. Behe has shown under cross examination and under oath, that he could only claim to be scientific by completely redefining the meaning of scientific theory. Creationism is scientific the way ufology, pyramidology and astrology are. If we broaden the definition of science enough, we can even fit in knitting.

Well here is the verse again:

24Rise ye up, take your journey, and pass over the river Arnon: behold, I have given into thine hand Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon, and his land: begin to possess it, and contend with him in battle. 25This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the nations that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear report of thee, and shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee

The only reason why this is not considered global is because of the limiting clause-- "who shall hear report of thee", but then why would i expect you to know that silly little piece of grammar?? If that limiting clause were removed then the passage would be global and even still-- the potential of this being global is there for Gods command is that every tribe on the planet who hears a report of Israel will God put fear of Israel in them.

Restrictive clauses don't have a comma. Put a comma in and you get a non restrictive clause. ...peoples who are under the whole heaven who shall hear the report... means only the ones who hear the report. ...peoples who are under the whole heaven, who shall hear the report... means every nation will hear the report. Now Hebrew doesn't have commas, but every translation I have looked at have gone for a non restrictive punctuation.

If you ignore their view and interpret it as a restrictive, then 'under the whole heaven' becomes meaningless , everyone on the whole planet, just as long as they live close enough to Canaan to hear about the Israelite invasion. Gaebelein's Expositor's Bible Commentary makes much more sense. 25 is an idiomatic hyperbole signifying all the nations in the vicinity; that is, at least from horizon to horizon (under heaven).

That is what under the whole heaven would have meant in Genesis, to people who would have understood God's definition, it meant under the flat expanse of the sky above their heads from horizon to horizon.

email Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum at www.ariel.org and ask him ( anative hebrew speaker) what the phrase under the whole heavens means in Hebrew and then get back to me. Or you can conjure up teh ghost of Delitszch and see what he might have to say.

Maybe you should get your Arnold Fruchtenbaum to write to Zondervan and tell them they should correct the Expositor's Bible Commentary. The Deuteronomy section was written by Earl S. Kalland who only had three doctorates, was Emeritus Professor of Old Testament at Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary in Denver, whose Chair of Old Testament is named after him, who was a contributor to the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament and one of the translators of the NIV. I am sure Zondervan will be very interested in your friend's MA in Hebrew and correct the next edition.

Well that it sounds like eisegesis to you is no surprise to me!! Once agaqin it is limited by a modifying clause--but that is simple grammar and on this thread that has escaped you time and time again!!

It can hardly be said to be limited if the clause was non restrictive.

Well duh- how big did they think the world was? If I get a theistic evolutionist who beleives the flood was global will that win it for me like you thnk this wins it for you????

Isaiah 13:5 They come from a distant land, from the end of the heavens, the LORD and the weapons of his indignation, to destroy the whole land. Who was going to come from the end of the heavens? The Medes, verse 17. Come on you haven't given any evidence for your claim people in the OT believe in a global flood.

Is that your opinion or do you have fact to back it up

You are asking me to prove a negative? Come on you have your bible, you know it quite well. Show me where the writers interpreted the Genesis flood as global? My 'fact' it that it isn't there.

Nope--exegesis is when you look up meaing of words--translate tehm faithfully and then look at context not only in the poaragraph but the whole section that verse is written in. Also exegesis says that teh primary listinigs are the usual normal expected definitions unless the context shows it to be a secondary or teritary definition of the word (all concordances, lexicons and expositories that I know of list definitions in their primary orders) and then basing you rconclusion on those physical methods of translation. Also when idioms are used- it greatly helps to know how the idioms were used in varied contexts.

So when the King James concordance lists the meaning erets as
land, 1509
earth, 712
ground, 97
country, 92
countries, 48
lands, 34
world, 4
way, 3
common, 1
field, 1
nations, 1
this tells us we should probably translate erets in the flood account as the land? If we look at the context of the whole section we see that in the Genesis account of mankind before the flood, erets means a region? How about the way in Genesis the heavens simply meant the spread out expanse above their heads, and Moses could use 'under the whole heavens' when he was talking about a local region. Even in the time of Isaiah 'the end of the heavens' could simply mean Persia, just the other side of Mesopotamia.

I have shown you what the idiom 'dying you will die' means, but you rejected it because it didn't fit your theology. I have shown you what 'the heavens and the earth' means in 2 Peter but you reject that because it would mean the kosmos that was flooded wasn't referring to the globe.

Eisegesis on the other hand is going into a verse with a pre formed opinion and just loosely following grammar and taking every opportunity to reinterpret words out of their context to fortify ones opinion instead of letting the word form ones opinion.

Exactly. Do you think anything in the bible could shift you from your preformed opinion?

Well that is because you don't understand the word perceive PAul wrote-- it means to know fully . And no the atheist cannot understand nature for when he can look at uit and say this gfot here through millions of years of random chaotic mutations and that the universe is the way it is through billions of years of unordered order-- then yes the evolutionist does not perceive the things of God at all. He can read that God spoke and the animals instantaneously came to be--but if He does not beleive that--He does not fully understand nature! He may delve deep into subatomic particles and molecular biology but it dsoes not bring him closer to God as the scriptures say it should if he was pursuing it with an iopen heart!!

It is amazing the way you can turn Paul's words around backwards when it suits you. Somehow you go from the natural man being unable to understand spiritual truths, to him being quite able to understand the bible, but not being able to understand science. It doesn't say much for you ability to perceive the meaning of Genesis.

Yeah we can--it does not matter how far Noah thought the world e3xtended--God told HIm it destroyed everything and it did!!

Given that God was talking to Noah, why do you think this means how you understand it, rather than how Noah would have understood it?

I am surprised you would even have the audacity toi bring thatup with your defense of not all animals were vegetarian for Genesis 1:29!

Any particular reason for saying that?

And once again -- you cannot even read a simple statement of mine without twisting it!

But why should you care what teh bible says about it?? The bible also says God created everything in six 24 hour days and then rested but you reject that!

I though your sarcastic comment about God going on holiday, was actually quite near to how the bible describes God's seventh day rest. Certainly the writer of Hebrews understood God's seventh day rest was still going on today. We can enter in as long as we are living in the day we call 'Today'.

But if God seventh day has been going on, even from a YEC count of 6009 years, the other six days in God's week are hardly literal 24 hour days.

He did aqnd if you had basic language skills you would see that he did.

Instead of ad homs, you might be better off trying to support your interpretation of 2Peter.

Well remove the logs and see the splinters then!! Tehy more this thread goes on the more I wonder if you even have a basic greasp of rules of english grammar. If theis were a legal document do you realize I could win a libel case against you for misrepresenting my words as consistently as you do??? But do not worry no matter how silly you devolve the grammar in this thread to - I wouldn't sue a brother for it is prohibibted in the Bible. YO udo beleive that passage true don't you??

Misrepresent you? Moi? No, I just point out the difficulties in what you say.

But I assume you are talking about Dover here. You mentioned 1Cor 6. How do you read it? Was Paul simply saying not to sue? Or was he telling believers not to resort to worldly laws and government powers to try to win an argument between Christians? Can a believer use the apparatus of the secular state to to force his religious doctrine on other Christians?

When the creationists organised a takeover of the school board to force their religious dogmas onto the curriculum, into the education of the children of Christians who did not share their particular views, they were pushing their argument using the secular legal system. The Christians who sued them simply used the same secular legal system the creationists had chosen, to stop them. Even Paul used the legal system when it was used against him.

Assyrian

 

[nolidad]

assyrian incorrectly asserts:

If you ignore their view and interpret it as a restrictive, then 'under the whole heaven' becomes meaningless , everyone on the whole planet, just as long as they live close enough to Canaan to hear about the Israelite invasion. Gaebelein's Expositor's Bible Commentary makes much more sense.

Wrong again! Teh phrase as it stands means onthe planet (or more literally anywhere there is sky). By adding the phrase "who shall hear reprot of thee" The what is being limited is to WHO God will put the fear of Isralel into--not WHERE! The where is everywhere! It is only limited everywhere to those who hear the report!!! So if the tribes Moses knew about living in Northern Russia heard about Israel--God would put the fear and dread of Israel into them. The expositors is adding limitations not found in the language but deduced by the commentators apart from the language of the text. This is an expample of eisegesis. the phrase translated into English (as has bone done by native hebrew speakers) would be thus:

Today, every nation that hears reports of you on the whole earth, will I put the fear and dread of you and they shall tramble and be anguished because of you.

Maybe you should get your Arnold Fruchtenbaum to write to Zondervan and tell them they should correct the Expositor's Bible Commentary. The Deuteronomy section was written by Earl S. Kalland who only had three doctorates, was Emeritus Professor of Old Testament at Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary in Denver, whose Chair of Old Testament is named after him, who was a contributor to the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament and one of the translators of the NIV. I am sure Zondervan will be very interested in your friend's MA in Hebrew and correct the next edition.

Dr. Kalland is a keen Christian intellect witrhout a doubt and I appreciate many of the contributions he has done. One big problem is that if I remember correctly none of the esteemed proffesors doctorates arein Hebrew! (Dr. Fruchtenbaum holds 2 doctorates, 1 masters in Hebrew linguistics and 1 bachelros in Biblical archeology as well as bewing a converted Jew who is a natural Hebrew speaker).

The biggest problem is one of conservative vs. liberal thought.

Conservatives accept the language as written

Liberals accept it as written and filtered through ANE cosmology.

These two accounts we are debating are both statements issued by God and thus the cosmological understanding of the audience has little revelance to the meaning of the phrase. I Agree that the ancient elect of God had little to no understanding of the physical earth. They knew not fo the continents (just that the land mass split apart during pelegs time), they didnt know the temperature zones, or th ecircumfernce of the earth as well as many more things. They didn't know the eareth tilted on its axis. But God knew and when He declarted someothng as under the whole heavens-- it meant the planet and that is why the super majority of Hebrew speakers today translate it that way as meaning the planet. Once again Deuteronomy is limited by the clause who shall hear of thee. Commas were not part of the ancient texts but were added by the translators! So the context is the anywhere on the planet where tribes will heasr of Israel God will put the fear of Israel into those tribes. di dthat mean if word had fgotten out to the mongol tribes in Siberia? Yes! Did the Hebrews know fo people living in Russia? Yes! Why? Genesis 10. We see te forming of the gentile nations written about by Moses! These include Russia, Geremany, the turkestan nations, much of Europe and Northern Africa and the Western Horn of Africa. This was the same MOses who penned the qoute from God in Deut. 2:25, so now the under the heavens would have to include now all of Europe, Asia, the middle east, and at east the upper half of Africa in you rrestricted use of the word, for all these were lands known by the Jews definitvely in print at teh time of the writing of Deut. 2., I Am sorry but your argument is based on commentary (ANd I am not questioning the intellect of the commentators), and not translation. And many of the commetnators ytou cite and I suspect would cite base their information on the ANE cosmology you hold to which I know is well accepted and beleived int eh liberal and nominally Christian academic circles but is rejected almost caltegorically in the more conservative academic circles.

Behe has shown under cross examination and under oath, that he could only claim to be scientific by completely redefining the meaning of scientific theory. Creationism is scientific the way ufology, pyramidology and astrology are. If we broaden the definition of science enough, we can even fit in knitting.

Well they should include these! Because aftrer all they broadened it enough to include evolution!!!

 

[nolidad]

Just a quick P.S. before I am off to work today:

If these esteemed compilers oft he NIV though tunder the whole heaven meant a region why did they not do so in their translation??

Genesis 7:

4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."

2 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. [b] , [c] 21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind.

22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

Deut. 2:

25 This very day I will begin to put the terror and fear of you on all the nations under heaven.

The NIV was not a rigid word for word translation but a translation that also modernized euphemisms that are unused today into phrases known by the readers. Why did the committee leave these passages alone? Anyone reading Gods Word from here could only come away with the thought that the flood destropyed the whole earth!!!

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

[Behe could only make ID a science by using a definition that includes ufology, pyramidology, astrology...]
Well they should include these! Because aftrer all they broadened it enough to include evolution!!!

Now that you've made a joke and laughed at it, do you have a substantial response?

 

[The Lady Kate]

Now that you've made a joke and laughed at it, do you have a substantial response?

My experience with this kind of YEC tells me that this is his substantial response...

 

[Willtor]

The biggest problem is one of conservative vs. liberal thought.

Conservatives accept the language as written

Liberals accept it as written and filtered through ANE cosmology.

That's kind of funny because from where I'm standing, it looks like the problem is in thinking about things in terms of "conservative" and "liberal." You're so busy taking the opposite stance from the liberals that you've forgotten to look for the truth, as it is.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Conservatives accept the language as written

really? language existing in this social, cultural abstraction that happens with the "just me and my Bible" hermeneutic looks more influenced by your common sense and cultural background than the context of the original readers of the Bible.

Liberals accept it as written and filtered through ANE cosmology.

text without context is pretext.

 

[Assyrian]

Wrong again! Teh phrase as it stands means onthe planet (or more literally anywhere there is sky). By adding the phrase "who shall hear reprot of thee" The what is being limited is to WHO God will put the fear of Isralel into--not WHERE! The where is everywhere! It is only limited everywhere to those who hear the report!!! So if the tribes Moses knew about living in Northern Russia heard about Israel--God would put the fear and dread of Israel into them. The expositors is adding limitations not found in the language but deduced by the commentators apart from the language of the text. This is an expample of eisegesis. the phrase translated into English (as has bone done by native hebrew speakers) would be thus:

Today, every nation that hears reports of you on the whole earth, will I put the fear and dread of you and they shall tramble and be anguished because of you.

Interesting, we have a clause at the end of sentence that says who hear report of you and trembled and been anguished, yet your translator wants to chop this up and put the who hear report of you back into the first part of the sentence and leave the trembling and anguish hanging on their own at the end. I will stick with all the bible translators who simply read it as a non restrictive clause.

The who hear report of you and trembled and been anguished, tell us what was happening to 'every nation under the whole heaven'. It is not an attempt to restrict the meaning in an 'any colour as long as it's black' self contradiction double talk that renders 'under the whole heaven' meaningless.

Do you seriously think when news of fall of Jericho reached the hill tribes in the Zagros mountains, those hairy mountain men fell trembling at the knees of the travelling merchants who carried the tale? Distant tribes in Russia lie awake at night trembling when the story reaches them through some wandering muleteer selling bronze broaches and needles? Yeah right. And God would do this why?

I don't think God interpreted it that way. Deut 11:25 No one shall be able to stand against you. The LORD your God will lay the fear of you and the dread of you on all the land that you shall tread, as he promised you.
Exodus 15:14 The peoples have heard; they tremble; pangs have seized the inhabitants of Philistia. 15 Now are the chiefs of Edom dismayed; trembling seizes the leaders of Moab; all the inhabitants of Canaan have melted away.

Dr. Kalland is a keen Christian intellect witrhout a doubt and I appreciate many of the contributions he has done. One big problem is that if I remember correctly none of the esteemed proffesors doctorates arein Hebrew! (Dr. Fruchtenbaum holds 2 doctorates, 1 masters in Hebrew linguistics and 1 bachelros in Biblical archeology as well as bewing a converted Jew who is a natural Hebrew speaker).

If Kalland was on the translation committee of the NIV I doubt somehow he was a novice. But how much Hebrew do you need to translate it? Looking a number of different translations, they all sound very similar which suggests there are no deep mysteries in grammar or linguistics there. The difficulty is the seeming contradiction between the apparent scale of the promise and the narrow geographical limitation of it's fulfilment. This is something to solve not in some hidden intricacy of grammar that only a double doctorate in Hebrew could fathom (which would exclude Fructenbaum anyway as he only has a Masters in Hebrew), the answer lies in understanding the culture and thought of OT Israel, which is why our triple doctorate emeritus professor of OT studies Kalland is so good a source.

The biggest problem is one of conservative vs. liberal thought.

Conservatives accept the language as written

Liberals accept it as written and filtered through ANE cosmology.

And the Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary in Denver is a nest of screaming liberals?

These two accounts we are debating are both statements issued by God and thus the cosmological understanding of the audience has little revelance to the meaning of the phrase. I Agree that the ancient elect of God had little to no understanding of the physical earth. They knew not fo the continents (just that the land mass split apart during pelegs time), they didnt know the temperature zones, or th ecircumfernce of the earth as well as many more things. They didn't know the eareth tilted on its axis. But God knew and when He declarted someothng as under the whole heavens-- it meant the planet

You are assuming God would not speak to the ancients in terms the ancients could understand .When he said 'under the whole sky' he was being a good communicator using the phrase in the sense it meant to the people he spoke to, just as he did when he described the Medes coming 'from the end of the heavens' in Isaiah 13:5. Instead you assume God really meant what the phrase means to you today.

and that is why the super majority of Hebrew speakers today translate it that way as meaning the planet.

That sounds like you mean 'interpretation' rather than a translation. The translation is 'under the whole heaven' its meaning is another matter. Incidentally the JPS Jewish Publication Society bible opt for the non restrictive punctuation for the ", who, when they hear the report of thee, " clause.

Once again Deuteronomy is limited by the clause who shall hear of thee. Commas were not part of the ancient texts but were added by the translators!

I did mention the fact that Hebrew doesn't have commas when I brought this up. The translators understood the grammar and could tell the difference between restrictive and non restrictive clauses, they also who knew enough about English grammar to know that is they left out the commas they would render the clause restrictive, and put them in instead.

So the context is the anywhere on the planet where tribes will heasr of Israel God will put the fear of Israel into those tribes. di dthat mean if word had fgotten out to the mongol tribes in Siberia? Yes! Did the Hebrews know fo people living in Russia? Yes! Why? Genesis 10. We see te forming of the gentile nations written about by Moses! These include Russia, Geremany, the turkestan nations, much of Europe and Northern Africa and the Western Horn of Africa. This was the same MOses who penned the qoute from God in Deut. 2:25, so now the under the heavens would have to include now all of Europe, Asia, the middle east, and at east the upper half of Africa in you rrestricted use of the word, for all these were lands known by the Jews definitvely in print at teh time of the writing of Deut. 2., I Am sorry but your argument is based on commentary (ANd I am not questioning the intellect of the commentators), and not translation. And many of the commetnators ytou cite and I suspect would cite base their information on the ANE cosmology you hold to which I know is well accepted and beleived int eh liberal and nominally Christian academic circles but is rejected almost caltegorically in the more conservative academic circles.

Now at last you turn you back on argument by commentary. We are making progress

But though you may claim your argument is based on translation, it is not, it is based on interpreting the words and phrases in terms of what they mean to you today steeped in modern science, or at least the bits of modern science you decide to accept. So you read your modern concepts back into the ancient texts, which is eisegesis. At least I have backed my interpretation, no only with the wisdom of the professor of OT studies, but with the use of heaven from Gen 1 where it was defined by God as the flat expanse over people's heads, to Isaiah's 'end of the heavens'. I have show how the fulfilment of the prophecy referred to the people in that local area.

Well they should include these! Because aftrer all they broadened it enough to include evolution!!!

So you are with Behe then Creationism is a science just like like astrology

Just a quick P.S. before I am off to work today:

If these esteemed compilers oft he NIV though tunder the whole heaven meant a region why did they not do so in their translation??

Genesis 7:

4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."

2 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. [b] , [c] 21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind.

22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

Deut. 2:

25 This very day I will begin to put the terror and fear of you on all the nations under heaven.

The NIV was not a rigid word for word translation but a translation that also modernized euphemisms that are unused today into phrases known by the readers. Why did the committee leave these passages alone? Anyone reading Gods Word from here could only come away with the thought that the flood destropyed the whole earth!!!

Perhaps because the NIV is not a paraphrase? We see the same thing when Jesus tells us about the Queen of Sheba. The NIV saysThe Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon's wisdom, More paraphrased versions like the NLT paraphrases it she came from a distant land and the CEV She traveled a long way. You don't really think Sheba is really the 'ends of the earth'?

Blessings Assyrian

 

[nolidad]

assyrian misqoutes:

Interesting, we have a clause at the end of sentence that says who hear report of you and trembled and been anguished, yet your translator wants to chop this up and put the who hear report of you back into the first part of the sentence and leave the trembling and anguish hanging on their own at the end. I will stick with all the bible translators who simply read it as a non restrictive clause.

Well again you rword twisting is readily apparent! Well of course you are free to read it anyway you wish, but I will choose to stick to natural Hebrew linguistic experts who know how to construct Hebrew to English. You have mentioned names but have yet to show one piece of work formthem supporting your hypothesis. If you want credibility show their exegesis and parsing of this verse and why they do not think the "who hear report of thee" does not restrict which nation s will have fear and anguish and trembling.

The who hear report of you and trembled and been anguished, tell us what was happening to 'every nation under the whole heaven'. It is not an attempt to restrict the meaning in an 'any colour as long as it's black' self contradiction double talk that renders 'under the whole heaven' meaningless.

Again you are wrong! Do you not ever tire of being so wrong so oftern?? If the passage said "every nation under the whole heavens ONLY" Then every nation wouls have fear and trembling of Israel. But because God added "who hear report of thee" then the fear and trembling is limited ONLY to teh tribes who hear of Israel. You need to check with your translators-- for the who hear report of thee is a limiting clause-which limits how far the fear and anguish will spread--it is only to those who hear report of Israel!! Really this is third grade grammar!!!

Do you seriously think when news of fall of Jericho reached the hill tribes in the Zagros mountains, those hairy mountain men fell trembling at the knees of the travelling merchants who carried the tale? Distant tribes in Russia lie awake at night trembling when the story reaches them through some wandering muleteer selling bronze broaches and needles? Yeah right. And God would do this why?

Well I can't speak to how their fear and anguish was worked out inthe physical, and I cannot speculate! But I do know that unless there is a clause given by God later on in the OT negating this clause (and there is) then if they heard the report while this command from God was in effect-then yes they had a sense of dread and fear of Israel--How it worked out physically I have no news of but they would have been in some sort of fear for it was the command of God!!! But then again Assyrian you have negated so many passagfes of Gods Word that this command would be easy to say --no it doesn't mean what it says-God wasn't really serious.

I don't think God interpreted it that way. Deut 11:25 No one shall be able to stand against you. The LORD your God will lay the fear of you and the dread of you on all the land that you shall tread, as he promised you.

Well that is not surprising you think God said one thing and meant something else entirely. Once again even here you continue to ignore context and qualifying verses in that context and then say no nations fell in fear of Israel. Well were you there to say these nations didn't?? Do you have access to some ancinet documetns that make this command from God (with its caveats mentioned int he context you neglected) that others are not privy too???

It really is sad that you treat grammar so poorly and violate rules of grammar to try to support altering the word of God!!

I don't think God interpreted it that way. Deut 11:25 No one shall be able to stand against you. The LORD your God will lay the fear of you and the dread of you on all the land that you shall tread, as he promised you.
Exodus 15:14 The peoples have heard; they tremble; pangs have seized the inhabitants of Philistia. 15 Now are the chiefs of Edom dismayed; trembling seizes the leaders of Moab; all the inhabitants of Canaan have melted away.

Again you err because you are a careless student of the word Assyrian! You appear to be qoutring from the NASB here which make it seem to be a past tense but it is not past tense-- it is called the perfect tense and because it is prophecy (as no nation had heard yet- but they will hear) it is called colloquially the prophetic perfect meaning it is spoken as a done deal even though it has not happened in real time yet.

If Kalland was on the translation committee of the NIV I doubt somehow he was a novice. But how much Hebrew do you need to translate it? Looking a number of different translations, they all sound very similar which suggests there are no deep mysteries in grammar or linguistics there. The difficulty is the seeming contradiction between the apparent scale of the promise and the narrow geographical limitation of it's fulfilment.

I never said Kalland was a novice and if memory serves correct teh NIV is translated using Nestles 23rd greek grammar and the OT comes from teh Greek not the Hebrew-- so teh NIV OT is a translation of a translation. I am not saying it should be chucked (for I use it alot also as millions of others) but when you have a third generation document-- errors occur

That sounds like you mean 'interpretation' rather than a translation. The translation is 'under the whole heaven' its meaning is another matter. Incidentally the JPS Jewish Publication Society bible opt for the non restrictive punctuation for the ", who, when they hear the report of thee, " clause.

Well then post where you got this and let us all see what they say!!! And then what they commetn on it afterwards.

That sounds like you mean 'interpretation' rather than a translation. The translation is 'under the whole heaven' its meaning is another matter. Incidentally the JPS Jewish Publication Society bible opt for the non restrictive punctuation for the ", who, when they hear the report of thee, " clause.

That is why I said super majority for I know some will interpret it differently. But no it is translation form Hebrew to modern english. Exactly the same way that pomme de terre in french is translated potato in English. Its literal translation is fruit of the earth but that fruit of the earth is the potato so it is translated as potato.

I did mention the fact that Hebrew doesn't have commas when I brought this up. The translators understood the grammar and could tell the difference between restrictive and non restrictive clauses, they also who knew enough about English grammar to know that is they left out the commas they would render the clause restrictive, and put them in instead.

So is that why most English translations set it up a s a limiting passage and why most Hebrew speakers would colloquially say that th is verse says "every wwhere on teh earth that people get word of Israel, God will put the fear and anguish of Israel in those mnations trhat hear this??Again the where on the planet is limited to those who hear. If the phrase those who hear was not there then every tribe everywhere ont eh planet would have had the fear of Israel placed in them!! Really give it up!

Past up you r "experts" who say this phrase does not place a limit on where the fear of Israel will go. Fish or cut bait!!!

So you are with Behe then Creationism is a science just like like astrology

Well for trhe rest of the folks here I say not in the least!!! Creation cannot be proved scientifically just like evolution cannot be proved sceintifically because they botrh occurred outside of being to observe and test them! that is the requirement for something ot be provewn scientifically. No one ever saw a reptile turn to a bird nor did anyone see God speak and the earth suddenly becoem loaded with diverse beasts. Both are theoretical models of origins( and you know that) and both have supporting theories and hypotheses that can be studied scientifically. But neither are truly within the realm of science but are philosophical models of the universe, that can either ber supported or rebutted by the sceintific method.

Perhaps because the NIV is not a paraphrase? We see the same thing when Jesus tells us about the Queen of Sheba. The NIV saysThe Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon's wisdom, More paraphrased versions like the NLT paraphrases it she came from a distant land and the CEV She traveled a long way. You don't really think Sheba is really the 'ends of the earth'?

Well again you err because you select only one of many meanings to a word and then hang on foolishly to a foolish concept,

The words "uttermost parts" is the greek word peras and is defined basically thus:

extremity, bound, end

a) of a portion of space
1) boundary
2) frontier
3) the ends of the earth
4) the remotest lands b) of a thing extending through a period of time


Now let us put in its context (I am sorry you dont like to do that but I do)! Historic realites:

1. Jesus and the Jews knew Sheba was not even close to the ends of the earth- so that rules out that definituion or usew of the word.
They knew there were lands farther out.

2. They knew Sheba was not a frontier land -ruling that out

3. Sheba was a bounday nation for the persian gulf at the time but that is a very twisted translation so I rule that out.

4. Sheba was an end nation fo the empire and one of the last nations before Asia and that is a real possibility

4. That leaves the natural alternative that Sheba was a distant land from Israel and she travelled a great distance to hear the wisdom of Solomon.

So in what we can know for sure of the ANE of Jesus times Yes I do beleive that Sheba was the "ends of the earth" in the limited senses that that phrase can and was used often.

 

[nolidad]

That's kind of funny because from where I'm standing, it looks like the problem is in thinking about things in terms of "conservative" and "liberal." You're so busy taking the opposite stance from the liberals that you've forgotten to look for the truth, as it is.

Well in this case conservative vs. liberal does fit aptly becausegenerally speaking conservative beleivers seek to understand the words of God as is and accept them as such while liberal thinkers generally tend to take the word of God and understand in light of current science or social or cultural ideas.

Hence woman pastors are ok
evolution is okay
even abortion is okay
joining gay couples is okay
and on and on it goes.

mrwilliams writes:

really? language existing in this social, cultural abstraction that happens with the "just me and my Bible" hermeneutic looks more influenced by your common sense and cultural background than the context of the original readers of the Bible.

I dont have a clue as to what youa re tryiung to infewr, but I form my doctrinal opinions and understanding of passages like Deut.2:25 based on linguistics, hermeneutics and word usage and meanings from the language of the testament.

Now that you've made a joke and laughed at it, do you have a substantial response?

Well Robert--evolution and creation are both outside the realms of science. I speak of what is called macro evolution- for it has never been seen, has been unable to be tested and of course is unrepeatable. Creation is the same, but both philosophies of science (for that is what tehy are they are philosophies by which scientists view the evidence) can be looked at from the realm of sscience, they both make predictions, they both offer hypotheses and they both have similarities as well as their enormous differences.

The biggest problem that skews TE's and Evos is that the real work of science is not about ancestral lineage but how things function and why.

Every theory governing evolutionary thought is loaded with untestable assumptions in ordewr to make it appear "true".

The lie that evolutionists only think on speciation is a lie. for if it werwe true they would not be so busy looking for the transitionals between genra. They offer a hypothesis of how reptiles changed to birds but the evidence is unconvictable in a court of law and public opinion.

Evolution no more advances science than creationism does. They are both outside the rigid realm of what makes science science and you should know that.

My experience with this kind of YEC tells me that this is his substantial response...

So let me see if I understand your rules Lady Kate--yoru side can mock the YEC side and that is okay. Your side can make little sarcastic jokes and that isd okay. Your side can butcher grammar, ignore context, and associated revelant verses and that is okay. You rside can have hoaxes and frauds and errors in thinking and that is okay. But when YEC folk mock back and joke-that is all we have for response. We follow grammar and even post the grammar over and over but that doesn't matter. Our side has people make mistakes and we are roundly condemned. I understand now--your rules for your side and a different set for the other side!!

mrwilliams writes:

text without context is pretext.

Well at least someone on your guys side ofthis debate knows the rule--Now please get Assyrian to understand that and maybe he wont trash passages so badly.

,

 

[Willtor]

Well in this case conservative vs. liberal does fit aptly becausegenerally speaking conservative beleivers seek to understand the words of God as is and accept them as such while liberal thinkers generally tend to take the word of God and understand in light of current science or social or cultural ideas.

Hence woman pastors are ok
evolution is okay
even abortion is okay
joining gay couples is okay
and on and on it goes.

I'd like post numbers for these points. The only one I've read in any of these threads is that Scripture does not prohibit evolution. I seem to have missed all the stuff about abortion, gay couples, etc.

At any rate, I am a fan of neither the self-professed conservative nor the self-professed liberal Church. I am far more concerned with what is orthodox. Where the Church (universal; in space and time) holds a consensus (e.g. a figurative interpretation of Genesis), and where scholarship agrees, I have a hard time disagreeing. That is not to say orthodoxy has always been right on everything, but it seems to me that it takes more than a wave of the hand and a reference to "liberalism" to refute it.

 

[Scholar in training]

Well in this case conservative vs. liberal does fit aptly becausegenerally speaking conservative beleivers seek to understand the words of God as is and accept them as such while liberal thinkers generally tend to take the word of God and understand in light of current science or social or cultural ideas.

Hence woman pastors are ok
evolution is okay
even abortion is okay
joining gay couples is okay
and on and on it goes.

I'm conservative, and I accept the theory of evolution. There are many conservatives who do -- the fact that most of them don't live in America doesn't change the fact that they exist in other parts of the world.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Benford's Law of Controversy explains it:

Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available.

or, with a slight modification, my corollary:

Passion is inversely proportional to the rate of influx of fresh, accurate information on a topic.

Ah, well... that explains it.

 

[nolidad]

willtor writes:

I'd like post numbers for these points. The only one I've read in any of these threads is that Scripture does not prohibit evolution. I seem to have missed all the stuff about abortion, gay couples, etc.

I did not accuse anyone on these threads of bewleiving in these points, I will clarify so as not be misconstrued.

From where I reside, (the northeast) the vast majoprity of churches outside of catholicism that have accepted teh doctrines of evolution hasve also either in part or in total have grasped onto and hold to stuff about abortrions, gays in the church and ministry and marriage, and ordaining women in to the pastorate! It is not true for all but a general rule.

At any rate, I am a fan of neither the self-professed conservative nor the self-professed liberal Church. I am far more concerned with what is orthodox. Where the Church (universal; in space and time) holds a consensus (e.g. a figurative interpretation of Genesis), and where scholarship agrees, I have a hard time disagreeing. That is not to say orthodoxy has always been right on everything, but it seems to me that it takes more than a wave of the hand and a reference to "liberalism" to refute it.

So does that mean that you would reconsider the physical resurrection of Jesus? Three respected denominations (E-free, UCC, and Methodist if I remember this one correctly) HAve professors who have published works that deny the physical resurrection of Jesus (He rose only spiritually) ands they are considered within the mainstream of orthodoxy. That encompasses nearly 20 million professing Christians.

HAving people reach a consensus does not make their opinion biblically true. All it makes it is their agree interpretation. Their is consensus in parts of the church for TE and scholars agree but remember it is not because of what is written in the Scriptures but a reinterpretation of what is written.

Teh task of the church is to preserve and pass on scripture not reinterpret it from varied generations. What is a consensus to day was not 2 centuries ag o and may not be a century from now! Does that mean Gods word has changed or just what individuals want to beleive no matter what the word says??

scholar in training writes:

I'm conservative, and I accept the theory of evolution. There are many conservatives who do -- the fact that most of them don't live in America doesn't change the fact that they exist in other parts of the world.

Well so as to be clear, I am not talking about political but theological bent here. And if you are as well and hold to TE that would make you a moderate or conservative-moderate at the most as far as your right leanings.

 

[Willtor]

I did not accuse anyone on these threads of bewleiving in these points, I will clarify so as not be misconstrued.

From where I reside, (the northeast) the vast majoprity of churches outside of catholicism that have accepted teh doctrines of evolution hasve also either in part or in total have grasped onto and hold to stuff about abortrions, gays in the church and ministry and marriage, and ordaining women in to the pastorate! It is not true for all but a general rule.

I don't have numbers for this, so I can't say. At any rate, if these things are all associated, and if their "opposites" are all associated it sounds like polarization to me.

So does that mean that you would reconsider the physical resurrection of Jesus? Three respected denominations (E-free, UCC, and Methodist if I remember this one correctly) HAve professors who have published works that deny the physical resurrection of Jesus (He rose only spiritually) ands they are considered within the mainstream of orthodoxy. That encompasses nearly 20 million professing Christians.

I think Christ physically rose from the dead. But I try to consider all possibilities. After all, if I am wrong about a thing, how can I go before God and say, "it seemed too liberal," or, "it seemed too conservative," or, "the plain reading showed me otherwise"?

HAving people reach a consensus does not make their opinion biblically true. All it makes it is their agree interpretation. Their is consensus in parts of the church for TE and scholars agree but remember it is not because of what is written in the Scriptures but a reinterpretation of what is written.

Teh task of the church is to preserve and pass on scripture not reinterpret it from varied generations. What is a consensus to day was not 2 centuries ag o and may not be a century from now! Does that mean Gods word has changed or just what individuals want to beleive no matter what the word says??

In my experience the consensus is that Genesis should be interpreted literally, historically. I grew up in the conservative Church. As you say, the consensus is not always right. However, there are possibilities besides simply accepting the consensus or simply throwing it out, all because it is the consensus.

Keep in mind that every time we approach the Scriptures, every time we treat every single word, we are doing interpretation. Whether it is a different interpretation from what is orthodox is another question. For that, we have to read the works of those who came before. More than that, we have to explore how our reasoning has changed over the centuries. Today, we think of a round Earth, and it is "plain" and "obvious." But it wasn't always so. Augustine works really hard to try to stop Christians from arguing that the Earth is flat. Apparently, they're using their "plain" and "obvious" readings of Scripture to prove it. The realization that the Earth is round means that we look at Scripture differently from many of Augustine's contemporaries.

The question is not what changes and what stays the same. The Word remains the same, and we hope that new insights will more clearly reveal him. But it doesn't help to hold onto misconceptions for the sake of a perceived truth. What matters is the truth itself.

 

[Assyrian]

assyrian misqoutes:

Well again you rword twisting is readily apparent! Well of course you are free to read it anyway you wish, but I will choose to stick to natural Hebrew linguistic experts who know how to construct Hebrew to English. You have mentioned names but have yet to show one piece of work formthem supporting your hypothesis. If you want credibility show their exegesis and parsing of this verse and why they do not think the "who hear report of thee" does not restrict which nation s will have fear and anguish and trembling.

Well unlike your friendly bible translator, none of the bible versions I have looked at feel the need to rearrange the order of the clauses in the verse, and you accuse me of word twisting?

Again you are wrong! Do you not ever tire of being so wrong so oftern??

If you are going to keep ranting about how often I am wrong, at least get the spelling right.

If the passage said "every nation under the whole heavens ONLY" Then every nation wouls have fear and trembling of Israel. But because God added "who hear report of thee" then the fear and trembling is limited ONLY to teh tribes who hear of Israel. You need to check with your translators-- for the who hear report of thee is a limiting clause-which limits how far the fear and anguish will spread--it is only to those who hear report of Israel!! Really this is third grade grammar!!!

If it said, "every nation under the whole heavens who shall hear report of thee" it would be limited. As I have pointed out all the bible translators chose to avoid a limiting clause. They separated the clauses. 'Who shall hear of you' is a separate clause that tells us what is going to happen to all these nations.

Well I can't speak to how their fear and anguish was worked out inthe physical, and I cannot speculate! But I do know that unless there is a clause given by God later on in the OT negating this clause (and there is) then if they heard the report while this command from God was in effect-then yes they had a sense of dread and fear of Israel--How it worked out physically I have no news of but they would have been in some sort of fear for it was the command of God!!! But then again Assyrian you have negated so many passagfes of Gods Word that this command would be easy to say --no it doesn't mean what it says-God wasn't really serious.

So your interpretation of the passage has absolutely nothing to back it up, no fulfilment mentioned in scripture, just your utter self confidence that God must have done it that way because that is the way you read the verse. But it is the same with all the other passages you accuse me of twisting, you cannot support them but I must be twisting the scriptures because you know your tradition must be right.

God was serious. That doesn't mean he meant it the way that suits your theology, we need to understand God meant.

Well that is not surprising you think God said one thing and meant something else entirely. Once again even here you continue to ignore context and qualifying verses in that context and then say no nations fell in fear of Israel. Well were you there to say these nations didn't?? Do you have access to some ancinet documetns that make this command from God (with its caveats mentioned int he context you neglected) that others are not privy too???

It really is sad that you treat grammar so poorly and violate rules of grammar to try to support altering the word of God!!

I would have though you would believe scripture interprets scripture (though your practice is in fact tradition interprets scripture.) Here we have a verse that explains just who was going to be overcome with fear and dread. Not every nation under nolidad's idea of the whole heaven, but every nation where the Israelites walked. It is so simple. But all you can do is rant about violating the rules of grammar.

God didn't say one thing and mean something else, he meant what he said. Deut 11:25 tells us what he meant. It wasn't what you think God said, but that is another matter.

Again you err because you are a careless student of the word Assyrian!

Again you rant, it's getting a bit old nolidad.

You appear to be qoutring from the NASB here which make it seem to be a past tense but it is not past tense-- it is called the perfect tense and because it is prophecy (as no nation had heard yet- but they will hear) it is called colloquially the prophetic perfect meaning it is spoken as a done deal even though it has not happened in real time yet.

And it being a prophecy helps you how? God was tell us exactly who was going to be overcome with terror, written very graphically in the perfect as though it had already happened. No mention of Scythians seized with trembling or Cushites being dismayed. Moses' prophetic hymn seems to ignore your interpretation of what was supposed to happen.

I never said Kalland was a novice and if memory serves correct teh NIV is translated using Nestles 23rd greek grammar and the OT comes from teh Greek not the Hebrew-- so teh NIV OT is a translation of a translation. I am not saying it should be chucked (for I use it alot also as millions of others) but when you have a third generation document-- errors occur

It was translated from the Masoretic.

Well then post where you got this and let us all see what they say!!! And then what they commetn on it afterwards.

I have the JPS Tanach on e-sword, you can dig it out online if you want.

That is why I said super majority for I know some will interpret it differently. But no it is translation form Hebrew to modern english. Exactly the same way that pomme de terre in french is translated potato in English. Its literal translation is fruit of the earth but that fruit of the earth is the potato so it is translated as potato.

I don't really how this is supposed to help you. The translation is 'under the whole heaven'. You just assume the translation matches your interpretation of the translation. It is clear from scripture who exactly God meant to tremble in fear, and from that we can see what 'under the whole heaven' meant.

So is that why most English translations set it up a s a limiting passage and why most Hebrew speakers would colloquially say that th is verse says "every wwhere on teh earth that people get word of Israel, God will put the fear and anguish of Israel in those mnations trhat hear this??Again the where on the planet is limited to those who hear. If the phrase those who hear was not there then every tribe everywhere ont eh planet would have had the fear of Israel placed in them!! Really give it up!

Show me your translations that set it up as a limiting clause. All the ones I've seen set it up as non limiting.

Past up you r "experts" who say this phrase does not place a limit on where the fear of Israel will go. Fish or cut bait!!!

I've given you Moses and Isaiah aren't they good enough? Luke 16:31 He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'

Well for trhe rest of the folks here I say not in the least!!! Creation cannot be proved scientifically just like evolution cannot be proved sceintifically because they botrh occurred outside of being to observe and test them! that is the requirement for something ot be provewn scientifically. No one ever saw a reptile turn to a bird nor did anyone see God speak and the earth suddenly becoem loaded with diverse beasts. Both are theoretical models of origins( and you know that) and both have supporting theories and hypotheses that can be studied scientifically. But neither are truly within the realm of science but are philosophical models of the universe, that can either ber supported or rebutted by the sceintific method.

Sounds like you don't know what science or theory actually mean. If you want to talk about proof, you need to look at mathematics, philosophy or alcohol. Science deals with evidence. A theory is accepted if the evidence supports and if it gives a coherent explanation for the data, that is why scientists accept evolution and creationism and astrology doesn't get a look in.

Well again you err

Don't you get tired of this?

because you select only one of many meanings to a word and then hang on foolishly to a foolish concept,

The words "uttermost parts" is the greek word peras and is defined basically thus:

extremity, bound, end

a) of a portion of space
1) boundary
2) frontier
3) the ends of the earth
4) the remotest lands b) of a thing extending through a period of time


Now let us put in its context (I am sorry you dont like to do that but I do)! Historic realites:

1. Jesus and the Jews knew Sheba was not even close to the ends of the earth- so that rules out that definituion or usew of the word.
They knew there were lands farther out.

2. They knew Sheba was not a frontier land -ruling that out

3. Sheba was a bounday nation for the persian gulf at the time but that is a very twisted translation so I rule that out.

4. Sheba was an end nation fo the empire and one of the last nations before Asia and that is a real possibility

4. That leaves the natural alternative that Sheba was a distant land from Israel and she travelled a great distance to hear the wisdom of Solomon.

So in what we can know for sure of the ANE of Jesus times Yes I do beleive that Sheba was the "ends of the earth" in the limited senses that that phrase can and was used often.

Sheba wasn't anywhere near the Roman empire and wasn't one of the last nations before Asia. It is fascinating the lengths and contortions you will go to. The simplest answer is that 'ends of the earth' was a figure of speech, a hyperbole meaning a distant land, but only paraphrases put it that way, not idiomatic or dynamic equivalence translations like NIV. They translate 'ends of the earth' and 'under the whole heaven' literally without interpreting it for us.

Blessings Assyrian

 

[Scholar in training]

Well so as to be clear, I am not talking about political but theological bent here.

I understand that.

And if you are as well and hold to TE that would make you a moderate or conservative-moderate at the most as far as your right leanings.

According to whom? This definition of conservative only makes sense when applied in the U.S.; it makes even less sense to reject the theory of evolution on the grounds that it is "liberal". The point is that the theory of evolution is not incompatible with conservatism.