Mikecpking
Senior Member
- Aug 29, 2005
- 2,389
- 69
- 60
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
And where did they get their material from to make these translations?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Without looking it up, I believe it was either the AV1568 Bishop's or the AV1534 Tyndale.
Here's the line, Mike:And where did they get their material from to make these translations?
Here's the line, Mike:
- AV350 Gothic
- AV700 Anglo-Saxon
- AV1389 Wycliffe
- AV1534 Tyndale
- AV1560 Geneva -- (God's choice for the Pilgrims)
- AV1568 Bishop
- AV1611 King James
No he didn't.No... Behe tried to show irreducibly complex structures and failed.
These are already given. From Design detection - ConservapediaSo far there aren't any. And you have yet to show a "theory of intelligent design" or any evidence for such a thing. You haven't shown us what this "intelligent design" states, what it calls for or what it predicts. Basically, you just keep using those two words together as if it means something.
No we haven't, you are the one who needs to provide evidence that purely naturalistic processes creates life. Not only has intelligence been made accountable, but the feasibility of purely naturalistic processes are being relegated through testing, observation and documentation.And at every turn creationists have been thwarted in their attempts to show design in living systems. The Kitzmiller trial was particularly damaging.
Darwinism is the idea random mutation and natural selection created all forms of life in existence today.I know you like to say "Darwinism" but there isn't such a thing. Darwin wrote a couple of books that set us on this trail but much of his work has been eclipsed already. There isn't an 'ism' involved in accepting evolution.
FRUIT FLIES SPEAK UPWhat tests? I'm going to insist that you show us these or stop lying about their existence.
Yes we have. Intelligence adequately accounts for irregularity (which is relegated through intelligent design) and the relegation of purely naturalistic processes.But we have found no evidence of any need for an intelligence.
Intelligence is an observed phenomenon through the physical senses.No evidence of any intelligence.
There is intelligence at work.No evidence of anything but natural processes at work.
Whether one desires it or not, intelligence is required.So what requirement of an intelligence are you referring to? Your desperate desire to find one? That's the only thing I can think of.
The evidence says otherwise. Intelligence is a phenomenon which has been observed capable of assembling the complexity found in living systems. Irregularity is also fully in compliant with such an agent and so is the relegation of chance through observation of it's short term effect. You make the claim that purely naturalistic processes created life contrary to all physical experimentation and metaphysical analysis. The onus is on you to provide evidence for this.You make these things up and profer them as if they are real. There is no need of an independent outside force and no evidence of one having acted at any point in the history of this planet.Unless you'd like to provide that evidence?
It does.It would, if it existed.
It's not - if it were, we could agree on itIn this case, the good is absolute.
Assuming "the heavens" is everything in the universe that isn't the earth, sun or moon - and if you create the sun before the heavens, there's nowhere to put it -, there aren't many logical possibilities, are there? You managed to phrase the question in a way that practically precludes an answer.Try, what would you create first if you are in charge of doing it from the beginning? If you don't create "the heavens and the earth", how would you do in different?
As far as I know, it was the AV96 Koine Greek completed Scriptures.So, there would have been 7 translations one after the other.
Even the Gothic tyranslation would have been tranlated from a source.
As far as I know, it was the AV96 Koine Greek completed Scriptures.
When one line of translations stands out head-and-shoulders above the others as far as wording is concerned, that's a good tip that the Arab phone didn't ring much.
If I told you I was in the construction business, and my trademark was blue houses, I'd say if you entered my neighborhood, you could spot my houses from those who build houses of various colors.
What did you expect?11 pages and nothing more than word games by YECs.
Looks like you knew the answers before you even asked the question.I don't mean the typical YEC approach of "The Bible said it, the Bible is the word of God, so the Bible is right" (even though the use of the Bible as a defense of something as dishonest as YEC is near blasphemy). Nor do I mean taking something about the ToE that we don't fully understand yet and God of the Gaps-ing it. And not something that just shows you have a misconception of evolution (i.e. giving examples of crabs or whatever that haven't evolved for millions of years).
I'm curious and would like to hear evidence for YEc.
What else have they got besides words? words are all they can play with.11 pages and nothing more than word games by YECs.
5 + 4 = 6 + 3I don't mean 9 -- and I don't want to see "nine" -- and please don't use Roman numerals or anything that represents the number 9, but I want to know what you think 5 + 4 equal.
Simply put, they can't. "God did it, I believe it, that's that" is essentially all they really need, and it's the best you'll really get from them.wensdee said:I would also like to see someone try to defend creationism without resorting to magic.
That's the best we have; and although I don't like to pull rank on them with that, I will if I have to.Simply put, they can't. "God did it, I believe it, that's that" is essentially all they really need, and it's the best you'll really get from them.
Sometimes I feel like a visitor to a psychiatric hospital.Simply put, they can't. "God did it, I believe it, that's that" is essentially all they really need, and it's the best you'll really get from them.
You've certainly found an outlet for those with multiple personalitiesSometimes I feel like a visitor to a psychiatric hospital.
It's not - if it were, we could agree on it
Assuming "the heavens" is everything in the universe that isn't the earth, sun or moon - and if you create the sun before the heavens, there's nowhere to put it -, there aren't many logical possibilities, are there? You managed to phrase the question in a way that practically precludes an answer.
Tolkien still managed to answer it, though. In the Ainulindale, the first things to be created (by the master deity) are the gods. (Who then proceed to sing heaven, earth and all that jazz into being)
The Greeks did start with the earth - but it was the earth that created the sky.
In many origin myths, a world ocean was there from the beginning, and never really created.
I've personally used the "in the beginning, the gods" scenario in a creation story I wrote. So I guess that's my answer to "what would you create first". I'd create a bunch of lesser gods, order them around and sit back with a bowl of popcorn to watch my world unfold.
Well i wouldn't create light on the first day and the source on the fourth, that is for sure.
You do not understand light. Those two lights are different lights. One is x-ray or more energetic, one is visible light.
It demonstrates the genesis account is really coming from God rather than human.
What's wrong? don't like the order of the Creation week?It demonstrates that the Genesis account is backwards.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?