Question for evolutionist

Tiberius · Feb 25, 2011

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 · Feb 25, 2011

Tiberius said:
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 · Feb 25, 2011

Tiberius said:
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 · Feb 25, 2011

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

Belk · Feb 25, 2011

AV1611VET said:
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 · Feb 25, 2011

Belk said:
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 · Feb 25, 2011

Tiberius said:
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 · Feb 25, 2011

AV1611VET said:
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 · Feb 25, 2011

Belk said:
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 · Feb 25, 2011

Greg1234 said:
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 · Feb 25, 2011

AV1611VET said:
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 · Feb 25, 2011

Belk said:
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 · Feb 25, 2011

AV1611VET said:
Ya -- people blow up on throttle-up, or are born horribly disfigured.

Or worse -- become literalists.

Belk · Feb 25, 2011

AV1611VET said:
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 · Feb 25, 2011

Belk said:
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 · Feb 25, 2011

AV1611VET said:
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 · Feb 25, 2011

Belk said:
They provide plenty of evidence.

Ain't too smart, are they?

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

Nathan Poe · Feb 25, 2011

AV1611VET said:
Well, thank Heavens I don't provide any, eh?

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

Belk · Feb 25, 2011

AV1611VET said:
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 · Feb 25, 2011

gradyll said:
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.

Question for evolutionist

Well-Known Member

In the beginning was El

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Lillen

Guest

Senior Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

In the grip of grace

Senior Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Senior Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency