Question for evolutionist

[Tiberius]

Of course the trouble with literalness is that it completely misses things like slang, metaphors, figures of speech etc. If aliens were to translate an everyday conversdation into their language, they might be perplexed by people referring to eating warm canines when they rarely see people consuming them, but that is because they translated the term "hot dog" literally.

So you can't always be sure that you are getting the intended meaning from a literal translation.

 

[Greg1234]

Of course the trouble with literalness is that it completely misses things like slang, metaphors, figures of speech etc. If aliens were to translate an everyday conversdation into their language, they might be perplexed by people referring to eating warm canines when they rarely see people consuming them, but that is because they translated the term "hot dog" literally.

So you can't always be sure that you are getting the intended meaning from a literal translation.

Interpretations denote an increase in metaphysical activity for an event recorded, not less.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course the trouble with literalness is that it completely misses things like slang, metaphors, figures of speech etc.

Either that, or scientists show up to ridicule them into thinking a passage here or there teaches geocentrism or flat earth or an earth that doesn't move in space, etc.

 

[Lillen]

I bet that scientists at NASA has experiemented with an asbergers world view...

 

[Belk]

Either that, or scientists show up to ridicule them into thinking a passage here or there teaches geocentrism or flat earth or an earth that doesn't move in space, etc.

Yes, isn't it amazing how people have translated the bible and insist that they have it 100% correct even though all the evidence shows their interpretation to be in error?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, isn't it amazing how people have translated the bible and insist that they have it 100% correct even though all the evidence shows their interpretation to be in error?

Well, I know how most of you guys translate It.

That's why I've said before that if this world was ran like you guys interpret the Bible, we'd all be in trouble.

 

[createdtoworship]

Of course the trouble with literalness is that it completely misses things like slang, metaphors, figures of speech etc. If aliens were to translate an everyday conversdation into their language, they might be perplexed by people referring to eating warm canines when they rarely see people consuming them, but that is because they translated the term "hot dog" literally.

So you can't always be sure that you are getting the intended meaning from a literal translation.

Bullinger wrote a book on figures of speech, pretty good from what I understand. Haven't read it but it's a classic.

 

[Belk]

Well, I know how most of you guys translate It.

That's why I've said before that if this world was ran like you guys interpret the Bible, we'd all be in trouble.

And if it was run how you interpret it we would still be in caves wondering how fire works. Guess it's a good thing no one "runs the world" the way bibles are interpreted huh?

 

[AV1611VET]

And if it was run how you interpret it we would still be in caves wondering how fire works.

Nope -- that too is you guys' interpretation.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Interpretations denote an increase in metaphysical activity for an event recorded, not less.

Because interpretations denote a lack of understanding, and a need to express an event in understandable terms.

 

[Belk]

Nope -- that too is you guys' interpretation.

Nope. That is historical precedent. We have seen what happens when those who would limit knowledge to only what conforms to their ideology gain power.

 

[AV1611VET]

We have seen what happens when those who would limit knowledge to only what conforms to their ideology gain power.

Ya -- people blow up on throttle-up, or are born horribly disfigured.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Ya -- people blow up on throttle-up, or are born horribly disfigured.

Or worse -- become literalists.

 

[Belk]

Ya -- people blow up on throttle-up, or are born horribly disfigured.

People die for presenting evidence that does not conform to the only allowed narrative.

 

[AV1611VET]

People die for presenting evidence that does not conform to the only allowed narrative.

Well, thank Heavens I don't provide any, eh?

QV my profile please.

 

[Belk]

Well, thank Heavens I don't provide any, eh?

QV my profile please.

Why would I bother digging through your profile? I have seen your posts. They provide plenty of evidence. If you feel there is something relevant in your profile feel free to present it.

 

[AV1611VET]

They provide plenty of evidence.

Ain't too smart, are they?

People die for presenting evidence that does not conform to the only allowed narrative.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Well, thank Heavens I don't provide any, eh?

Pride and cowardice rarely go together -- for good reason.

 

[Belk]

Ain't too smart, are they?

Depends on the post, I find some of them quite astute. I doubt that your adherence to your stance derives from lack of intellect.

 

[Assyrian]

If I understand your question right, you are asking if the authorship of mark is legitimate. I would say yes, it has language that is more authentic than the other Gospels and it was written first I believe date wise. As for shakespearian language in the gospel of mark. I would say yes there is a presence in all the books of the KJV bible. Maybe not as much like you say in the gospels than in the poetic books. Wasn't shakspearian language a romance language? If so some of the poetic books may read smoother.

No the authorship of Mark isn't the issue, in fact it highlights the issue. According to early church writers, Mark's gospel came from Peter's stories about Jesus as Mark worked alongside Peter. The unpolished style of the Greek is what you would expect from Mark and Peter. That is not a problem remember Jesus chose rough Galilean fishermen to be his witnesses. The problem, if it is even that, is that in giving the language Jacobean polish, you lose some of the rough simplicity of the text.