My Ten Tribes Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Fetus came before child in the womb, especially since we know you're using the KJV of the Bible.

And back when it was the KJV, and long before it too, there weren't scientists, just philosophers.

Looks like the KJV's predecessor, the AV 330 Gothic, has your 14th century word beat.

Luke 1:44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Looks like the KJV's predecessor, the AV 330 Gothic, has your 14th century word beat.

Luke 1:44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

King James Version was 17th century, not 14th. Fetus is Latin, so that means it was used by the Romans, and also used since then to refer to... ahem, a child in the womb.
Gosh-golly-gee, look at that.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Looks like the KJV's predecessor, the AV 330 Gothic, has your 14th century word beat.

Luke 1:44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

That doesn't look very Gothic. Looks like (early) modern English to me.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ah, forget it. Joke failed. Apparently you can't copy and paste fonts.

 

[AV1611VET]

King James Version was 17th century, not 14th.

Let's try this again, shall we?

Fetus = late 14th century

King James = early 17th century

BUT, before you claim victory, look behind you.

Gothic = mid 4th century

 

[AV1611VET]

That doesn't look very Gothic. Looks like (early) modern English to me.

Yes ... that's the best I could do in the time I did it.

Use your high-powered research tools and complete the picture.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Let's try this again, shall we?

Fetus = late 14th century

King James = early 17th century

BUT, before you claim victory, look behind you.

Gothic = mid 4th century

Fetus is a Latin word, created by the Romans, so used WAAAY before the 14th century.

And it was interchangeable with child in the womb. Because it meant the exact same thing back then, and still does today. It's just a more clinical and specific term.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Looks like the KJV's predecessor, the AV 330 Gothic, has your 14th century word beat.

Luke 1:44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

Ovid's Metamorphoses (8AD) has your AV330 Gothic batted out of the park.

625 nec fuit arborei studiosior altera fetus

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes ... that's the best I could do in the time I did it.

Use your high-powered research tools and complete the picture.

Using the tool you also have available (google) the best I could find is that this "AV 330 Gothic" version you refer to is one or more 4th century manuscript copies in the gothic language. It certainly isn't "published" or even a "version" just a translation for a particular targeted community.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Using the tool you also have available (google) the best I could find is that this "AV 330 Gothic" version you refer to is one or more 4th century manuscript copies in the gothic language. It certainly isn't "published" or even a "version" just a translation for a particular targeted community.

Here it is

 

[AV1611VET]

Using the tool you also have available (google) the best I could find is that this "AV 330 Gothic" version you refer to is one or more 4th century manuscript copies in the gothic language. It certainly isn't "published" or even a "version" just a translation for a particular targeted community.

Sorry about your luck then.

Looks like you're SOL: (Short On Luck).

 

[AV1611VET]

Here it is

That's the one I copy-and-pasted from.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Here it is

Thanks, of course I was trying to find the "AV 330" gothic, but that notation is a figment of someone's imagination.

sai allis, sunsei warþ stibna goleinais þeinaizos in ausam meinaim, lailaik þata barn in swigniþai in wambai meinai.

That's so much better in proper Gothic.

 

[Kylie]

Speaking of tarring, the Bible's claims are a real pain in science's side, aren't they?

Nope. Science has no obligation to work from the assumption that the claims in the Bible are real.

Science is only obligated to work from the assumption that what can be demonstrated with real world evidence is real (since, y'know, reality probably isn't going to be wrong).

Now, if you can show that some claim in the Bible is supported by evidence from the real world, then science will have to take that into account. And then maybe you'd have a point. But for right now, you have nothing.

 

[Kylie]

Thanks for the advice, but science certainly comes to the rescue of someone having cognitive dissonance against clear-cut issues in the Bible.

Do you think, for example, that Roe v Wade would have gotten passed, had not science plutoed "child in the womb" to "fetus"?

How about in Numbers 5:11-31, where God gives Moses instructions on how to determine if a woman is lying about committing adultery, and this purity test will cause the woman to have an abortion if she is guilty?

Or in Isaiah 13:18, when God gets mad says he will get the Medes to attack and even kill the unborn babies?

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope. Science has no obligation to work from the assumption that the claims in the Bible are real.

Then why did they traipse out to the Sinai peninsula two hundred years ago to look for evidence of the Exodus?

And why are they -- (this one kills me) -- looking for Noah's Ark?

Mention an image appearing on the side of a building, piece of toast, or some burial cloth, and they flock to it like water being flushed down a commode to investigate it with their high-tech equipment.

It's like they're on standby for another close encounter or something.

 

[AV1611VET]

How about in Numbers 5:11-31, where God gives Moses instructions on how to determine if a woman is lying about committing adultery, and this purity test will cause the woman to have an abortion if she is guilty?

Ya -- it's called a "lie detector test."

And it was quite effective.

 

[Kylie]

Then why did they traipse out to the Sinai peninsula two hundred years ago to look for evidence of the Exodus?

Because the scientists are human and they let their personal beliefs override their rational thinking?

And why are they -- (this one kills me) -- looking for Noah's Ark?

Because the scientists are human and they let their personal beliefs override their rational thinking?

Mention an image appearing on the side of a building, piece of toast, or some burial cloth, and they flock to it like water being flushed down a commode to investigate it with their high-tech equipment.

And why would they not want to check to see if it is valid or if there is some other explanation? I would have thought believers would welcome such investigation. Surely, they want to make sure that there isn't some everyday explanation for the thing they are touting as a miracle?

 

[Kylie]

Ya -- it's called a "lie detector test."

And it was quite effective.

And if she was lying it killed an innocent baby!

Or perhaps you are saying that abortion is acceptable if a married woman cheats on her husband and gets pregnant with the other guy's kid?

By the way, how do you know it was effective? Do you have records of the results from this test? What part of the Bible is that in?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Then why did they traipse out to the Sinai peninsula two hundred years ago to look for evidence of the Exodus?

Why do you keep saying "200 years ago"?

The main surveys of the Sinai that exclude the Exodus (as written) were conducted about 50 years ago when the State of Israel occupied that part of Egypt.