Lines of Evidence

[TLK Valentine]

"Fetus" is Latin for "Small Child".

And "rapture" comes from the Latin word "rapere" -- to seize or take forcibly -- which also gives us the word "rape."

 

[TLK Valentine]

It's funny how scientists started speaking this Latin, right around the time abortion became a hot topic.

Now the immoral public prefers the Latin to the English.

I wonder why that is, eh?

What are you babbling about? Latin has been the lingua franca of science, law, and academia for centuries.

Do you simply not care about the truth, or do you only subconsciously block it out, AV?

 

[lasthero]

"Fetus" is Latin for "Small Child".

No, it isn't.

The word fetus (plural fetuses) is from the Latin fētus (“offspring”, “bringing forth”, “hatching of young&#8221.[4][5]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus

But please, don't let facts get in the way.

 

[lasthero]

Also, funnily enough, the ACTUAL word that translates to 'small child' is 'infant'.

Strange how you mixed that up.

EDIT: Actually scartch that, it's something else. Not even close to 'fetus', though

 

[AV1611VET]

What are you babbling about? Latin has been the lingua franca of science, law, and academia for centuries.

So are "fetus" and "child" the same thing?

Or can lingua franca take a hike?

 

[TLK Valentine]

So are "fetus" and "child" the same thing?

As lasthero pointed out, no, they're not.

Skywriting made a mistake, you latched onto it, and the rest of us are waiting to see which of you has the Christian humility to admit to being wrong before the other.

 

[JacksBratt]

Hi JB,

Thank you for asking. (read below for my reply)





Shemjaza is correct.

If you've read anything by (Prof) Gail Riplinger, you'll understand that those who believe "KJV is a supernaturally perfect version of the bible... and possibly the original version from heaven" (Shemjaza) -- tend to also believe that any other translations are dangerous New Age Bibles. New Age Bible Versions: An Exhaustive Documentation of the Message, Men & Manuscripts Moving Mankind to the Antichrist's One World Religion: G. A. Riplinger

The arguments for the King James Only position, is actually quite dense. My neighbor (a sweet old Dutch lady) lent me some books by David Otis Fuller (i.e. True Or False, Which Bible, Counterfeit or Genuine) & I went on to study a chart by Jack Moorman, and a book by Samuel Gipp entitled 'An Understandable History of the Bible' as well as another called 'The King James Defended' by Edward F. Hill (quite a good study of the difficult passages in the NT. - but not a very deep one!) -- as well as a tape set of the audio version of the KING JAMES BIBLE read by Alexander Scourby (an enchanting and mesmerizing voice) , coupled with a lot of reading and study of Dr. DA Waite's site BIBLE FOR TODAY, and hours spent reading from DEAN BURGON SOCIETY -- I was very impressed by all I read, and when I started reading Gail Riplinger's site AV PUBLICATIONS, I realized there must be something very, very wrong with the translations after the King James 1611. She presented very convincing arguments.

Fortunately, I was studying the work of Gordon H. Clark (Dr. Christian Philosophy) and after reading 'Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticism' -- I saw that he was very impressed with the translation work (other than the King James)

Eventually in July 2007, while I was driving out to collect my glass copies of my new CD and listening to a four part set of lectures by Dr. DA Carson : SACRED AND SURE, the penny dropped. (refer BETHINKING - A 4 part series)

A friend (a real scholar of the Bible) sent me a copy of D.A Carson's book entitled 'THE KING JAMES DEBATE' A Plea For Realism (1979) -- I had been blind for too long, and suddenly it were as if the whole world, the Bible and Science now became an open door I could go through and grown and learn.

My break from Young Earth Creationism, took a lot longer -- and involved two years between 2010 and 2012 -- and questions back and forth in a Natural Science forum. Eventually with the kind words and helpful guidance of Christians who were called Theistic Evolutionists and scores of helpful ATHEISTS TOO! -- I was able to let go of the indoctrination afforded me by Jack Chick comics, Kent Hovind and Henry Morris -- that's another story for another time, but it was great to just find I could enjoy a subject I'd been afraid of -- You know Evolution is evil and Darwin is the devil etc. Well, I hope that has cleared this up.

I'm hoping to write about this, but I think that if earnest seekers are looking for a good read -- I'd highly recommend Karl Giberson's little book Saving Darwin



NB. While I was looking up the various links, I discovered what looks to me like a worthwhile website addressing in far more detail the sort of arguments that are presented by some of the authors I've referred to above. KJV Only Debate Blog

If you are a King James Only-person and would like to talk to be about this, please feel free to p.m me.

I am not a KJV only person but you will never convince me that the Genesis account of creation is not literal.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I am not a KJV only person but you will never convince me that the Genesis account of creation is not literal.

And what are you hoping to convince people of?

 

[AV1611VET]

As lasthero pointed out, no, they're not.

Then let me make this perfectly clear:

According to the Bible, it is a babe/child in the womb, not a fetus.

So "fetus" can take a hike.

It's just some speak-in-tongues attempt at deceiving the general public into supporting abortion on demand.

 

[MissRowy]

Yes thats the Bible.....And I object to your claims about the general public being deceived about abortion on demand. I for one don't support abortion except in cases of life endangerment and rape, and I am sure there are a lot of other Christians who probably feel the same way as I do.

 

[Kylie]

Yes thats the Bible.....And I object to your claims about the general public being deceived about abortion on demand. I for one don't support abortion except in cases of life endangerment and rape, and I am sure there are a lot of other Christians who probably feel the same way as I do.

Ah, but the Bible outweighs science, doncha know...

 

[MissRowy]

Sarcasm.........stings like a bee......liking you KTS!! Ahem...anyway....I could throw textbooks of facts and I would still get the same response back...

 

[faroukfarouk]

Sarcasm.........stings like a bee......liking you KTS!! Ahem...anyway....I could throw textbooks of facts and I would still get the same response back...

In the end it's not about facts, it's about mindset. Even though Christianity is objectively true.

 

[MissRowy]

Point taken....sorry faroukfarouk....im trying to point out that yes the Bible does state about a babe in the womb but we are also talking about real life here as well...

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes thats the Bible...

Then that settles it, as far as I'm concerned.

One can choose what they want to call it: "fetus" or "babe in the womb."

I would venture to say that there would be a lot less abortions-on-demand, if what was being aborted was considered a "babe in the womb."

Thanks to science though, it's just a "routine surgical procedure to remove unwanted tissue."

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah, but the Bible outweighs science, doncha know...

Yes, indeed, It does.

 

[AV1611VET]

I could throw textbooks of facts and I would still get the same response back...

They did that to Frances Kelsey too, and they got the same response back.

She ended up getting the President's Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I am not a KJV only person but you will never convince me that the Genesis account of creation is not literal.

I said the same sort of thing to the students at our church, when they gently tried to pry my hands off my great big old King James Bible. (okay, some laughed behind my back) One thing I love about this pathway we're on, is that just like Einstein and St. Paul stated -- there are some things we understand, some we don't and a whole lot more that we won't understand until we can ask the Progenitor.

Jack, the goal of this thread was not to address my KJO-YEC, but rather the 'Lines of Evidence' for Evolution -- but thanks for allowing me to share an aspect of my own journey out of "literal" blindness, which enabled me the freedom to question things that others blindly believe without question.

Even the late professor of linguistics (?) C.S. Lewis, knew well enough not to move to fast from belief in God to belief in the Son of God. Yet he was eventually convinced by the compassion showed him by his peers -- Tolkien and Dyson, and even the late GK Chesterton's 'Everlasting Man' played a significant role in helping him move forward to a more pliable and less dogmatic view of the Genesis account.

If you hold to a literal view of the book of Genesis, I'd hate to know how you have managed the book of Revelation. Another discussion for another thread -- much the same as these discussions about 'words and the meanings of words' which have/are tying up this thread and missing the opportunity to talk about Fossils and Human Evolution - something which Darwin didn't write much about, but for which we now have quite a considerable collection of human fossils.

I'll hold back and see if anyone of the bright Evolutionists, or Theistic Evolutionists can venture some sort of guidance with regard to the evidence for the Fossil record with regard to Human Evolution. (read back for my summary thread - which seems to be drowning under a flood of cupidity)

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

And what are you hoping to convince people of?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO4X8_c80kg

 

[Kylie]

Yes, indeed, It does.

SARCASM