The 'Macro-Micro' thing....again..

[PsychoSarah]

Remember my analogy about the Leprechaun tying a ribbon around every tree in the forest?

Vaguely

 

[AV1611VET]

I am not talking about logic errors,

Logic errors???

(I could go somewhere with this, but I'll pass.)

 

[PsychoSarah]

Logic errors???

(I could go somewhere with this, but I'll pass.)

A virgin having a child is illogical, but I won't get into that either. I am talking about strait up translation errors.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why would god have a bible anyway,

To show us in Writing that we are sinners ... for one thing.

Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

I say those books are the sixty-six books of the 1611 KJB.

What say you?

 

[Riberra]

Hate to be nitpicky, but it is just apatosaurus now. The brontosaurus was an accident when people put the head of one species accidentally on the body of another. Sometimes they goof up, but it was an honest mistake, how were they to know the head right by the body was from another dinosaur and that the actual head was way off away from the body before they dug up the right head?

Hey! Thanks for pointing this out.Did not know about that .

 

[AV1611VET]

I am talking about strait up translation errors.

Like saying Mary was a virgin?

 

[PsychoSarah]

To show us in Writing that we are sinners ... for one thing.

Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

I say those books are the sixty-six books of the 1611 KJB.

What say you?

I say that I am not really the one to make a call on what books make up scripture, but I will say that, considering god makes the rules, god wouldn't need anything to justify itself, especially not its own doctrine.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Like saying Mary was a virgin?

No, if that is a translation error I wasn't aware of that one. I usually think of the rough translation of the term submit (which, in the language of the original text, better translates as a mutual submission and isn't one way) and other words and terms that just don't translate well into English.

 

[Smidlee]

There are too many bible versions -_-

KJV version is an actual word for word translation (why KJV has words in italics- they are added in) while others are interpretations. There is nothing necessary wrong with interpretations as this is what a pastor does every Sunday.

 

[PsychoSarah]

KJV version is an actual word for word translation (why KJV has words in italics- they are added in) while others are interpretations. There is nothing necessary wrong with interpretations as this is what a pastor does every Sunday.

He uses the 1611 version, which has a lot of errors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can't show you God, either.

What's your point?

You have given insufficient evidence to support your claim. The only reason you like the KJV is because of personal prejudice and has very little to do with the accuracy of the translation.

There are more accurate translations now than there was at King James' time.

 

[biggles53]

Ummm.....bible versions...?

This will somehow find a biological mechanism that halts evolution...?

 

[createdtoworship]

Problem is what ever part of taxonomy you want to put kind at it won't work, because make it to broad it includes humans, make it to narrow it doesn't include things you want. Are foxes/wolves and such same kind? Because that puts them closer to family with wolves.

Kind is a meaningless word because it just means what ever someone wants it to mean to prove a point.

How do creationists explain things like chromosone 2 fusion in humans from 2 chimp chromosones?

foxes and wolves are different genra so I would expect them not to be able to reproduce offspring (non sterile). "Kind" means that they could reproduce amongst themselves, compatible if you will.

 

[createdtoworship]

Actually evolution can be experimented upon it doesn't require that the original event be repeated via experiment just that the methods used to discover something can be repeated, like DNA tests, comparative anatomy and so on. Just as a crime scene investigation doens't require that the original crime be repeated, just the tests that were used to determine guilt or innocence be repeatable and testable by anyone.

here you say that events can be repeated, but then go on to illustrate DNA, which is not an event but an experiment. I am not sure what you are saying is logical.

 

[createdtoworship]

Chimps and humans evolving from a common ancestor is microevolution?

that is a first mention of this topic, and no it's macro.

 

[createdtoworship]

okay great then you can provide an evolutionary transition that links between two separate genus in the fossil record yes?

because THAT is evolution (macro)

still waiting for one testable hypothesis or observable evidence for macro evolution, evolution between to genus level organisms.

 

[Riberra]

I am not talking about logic errors, I just mean it has the most dissimilar wording from the source text.

What is the original source text that you are talking about?

English Bible was originally translated from Old Latin ...Original scripts were written in Hebrew (Moses) , Aramaic by Jesus Apostles and in Greek.

 

[Riberra]

You have given insufficient evidence to support your claim. The only reason you like the KJV is because of personal prejudice and has very little to do with the accuracy of the translation.

There are more accurate translations now than there was at King James' time.

Have you verified the original Bible texts written in Hebrew and Aramaic to be so affirmative?

Adulterations in the Newer Bible Versions (NIV, NASB...); Proof that the King James Bible (KJV) is the True Word of God

 

[Dizredux]

Have you verified the original Bible texts written in Hebrew and Aramaic to be so affirmative?

This is a point that I am interested in. As I understand it, we do not have the original manuscripts of the Bible. If this is true then for some reason God has decided to withhold them from us. I have long been interested in why God did this. I doubt that I will never know but it is an interesting question.

Dizredux

 

[AV1611VET]

As I understand it, we do not have the original manuscripts of the Bible. If this is true then for some reason God has decided to withhold them from us. I have long been interested in why God did this. I doubt that I will never know but it is an interesting question.

Maybe Mother Nature came and got them, like she did my favorite car?

Were you expecting a repeat of this miracle?

Deuteronomy 29:5 And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot.