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

[Loudmouth]

what is your evidence that lucy walked upright, lets start with that. Because I believe she was a knuckle walker.

The evidence is that Lucy's pelvis had more in common with modern humans than with any other ape. The short, broad pelvis and inward angled femurs are adaptations for walking upright. Lucy also had wrist adaptations for knucklewalking. It's almost as if Lucy's species was making a transition. . .

 

[Loudmouth]

it's the competition, and in many ways more honest.

That's the biggest lie you have told so far.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The evidence is that Lucy's pelvis had more in common with modern humans than with any other ape. The short, broad pelvis and inward angled femurs are adaptations for walking upright. Lucy also had wrist adaptations for knucklewalking. It's almost as if Lucy's species was making a transition. . .

Precisely, we can tell from bones how an animal moves. It works so well that we can actually tell if a person rode horses a lot by certain wear and tear on their bones, particularly in the leg and hip regions. Even handed ness can often be seen in skeletons, as the increased use of one arm over the other gradually makes it a little bit longer than the nondominant arm.

 

[createdtoworship]

Lets see...
The good old Authorized King James Version Bible (also called the 'KJV' or the 'AV') -was- translated from the Received Text or Textus Receptus
WHILE
The NEW King James Version Bible NKJV... NIV(as well as all other newer versions(1881-1990's to this day) are utilizing the corrupt Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Manuscripts.
-It is a fact that the NEW King James Version Bible (as well as all other newer versions or the NIV, NASB, NRSV, NAB, RSV, CEV, TEV, GNB, Living Bible, The Word, New Jerusalem, New Century, The Message, The People's Bible..) were prepared from DIFFERENT manuscripts than the regular King James Version (which used the Received Text - Textus Receptus) was translated from. They call their Manuscripts the "Majority of Texts," but that is a misleading statement.

What are the so-called 'majority of texts' mentioned in the footnotes of the newer Bible versions?:Back to Table of Contents at top of page
There has been a fraud perpetrated on the Bible reader. What many of the newer Bible versions do is to place the correct reading into the Scripture but they refer the reader to the margin or a foot note that says something like " This verse (or word) does not appear in any of the best manuscripts, or (not in the oldest manuscripts), or (not in the majority of Manuscripts)." When they do that they are basically telling the reader to disregard that particular verse or word.
However, what they are really saying is that the verse or word is in the Manuscripts that the King James Bible was translated from (in 1611), but it is not in the manuscripts that they are translating their newer version from (in 1881-1990's). They had to make mention of this because in fact the newer version Bibles are 10% shorter than the King James Version. In fact, the NIV version has 64,098 less words than the King James Bible! So instead of admitting that their Bibles have gross omissions, they make it look like the King James Bible added a bunch of stuff about Jesus Christ, God, The Trinity, salvation by faith...
It is a fact that the NEW King James Version Bible (as well as all other newer versions) was prepared from DIFFERENT manuscripts than the regular King James Version (which used the Received Text - Textus Receptus) was translated from. They call their Manuscripts the "Majority of Texts," but that is a misleading statement. Let me explain.
The New King James Version (NKJV) footnotes erroneously point to a 'majority of texts', when they are in fact only referring to the faulty Greek Text According to the majority by Hodge and Farstad. It falls far short of a full collation of manuscripts since it is based primarily on Von Soden's collation of only 414 of the over 5000 manuscripts! So when they say the majority, what they are in essence saying is the majority of 414 texts, not the majority of the over 5000 Texts available. And if you guessed that their 414 are all from the same corrupt tree out of Alexandria Egypt you would be correct. They are corrupt copies of corrupt copies.
The percentage of extant (existing) Manuscripts in pyramid graph at right:

• Original autograph (the actual first manuscript) - None Extant.
• Light colored blocks = Accurate copies - 95% of 5,309 manuscripts.
• Dark colored blocks = Corrupted copies - 5%of 5,309 manuscripts.

ACCURATE COPIES (Light colored blocks)
These manuscripts represent the manuscripts from which the 'Textus Receptus' or the Received Text, was taken. They are the majority of Greek manuscripts which agree with each other and have been accepted by Bible-believing Christians down through the centuries. It is from these manuscripts that the King James Bible was translated in 1611.
CORRUPTED COPIES (Dark colored blocks)
These manuscripts represent the corrupted copies of the Manuscripts, also known as the Alexandrian manuscripts. These manuscripts, many times, do not even agree with each other. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are part of this group. These are the manuscripts on which Westcott and Hort and the modern versions rely so heavily.
There are 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. These manuscripts agree together 95% of the time with the Received text of the King James Version. The other 5% (Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus...) accounts for the differences between the King James and the modern versions.
The modern versions had to use the Textus Receptus readings in many places because their corrupt manuscripts were incomplete. The problem is that when the Textus Receptus disagreed with the Vaticanus or the Sinaiticus, they preferred these corrupted manuscripts PLUS the Textus Receptus. That accounts for the 5%corruption in the modern versions. Even these two manuscripts agree with the Textus Receptus much of the time. When they do not agree, it is because Marcion (A.D. 120-160), Origin (A.D. 184-254), Westcott & Hort (1853), and others CORRUPTED them.
And it is just not that the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus (newer Bible version manuscripts) disagree with the Textus Receptus (King James version manuscript). But they do not agree with EACH OTHER either! In just the four Gospels alone (Matthew - John) the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus disagree with EACH OTHER in over 3,000 places! Let's take a closer look at these two Manuscripts that all the newer Bible versions are based upon.
The dubious origin of Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus:Back to Table of Contents at top of page
The Vaticanus:
It was written on fine vellum (tanned animal skins) and remains in excellent condition. It was found in the Vatican Library in 1481 AD. In spite of being in excellent condition, it omits Genesis 1:1-Gen. 46:28, Psalms 106-138, Matt. 16:2-3, the Pauline Pastoral Epistles, Hebrews 9: 14-13:25, and all of Revelation. These parts were probably left out on purpose.
Besides all that - in the Gospels alone it leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses and 748 whole sentences, which hundreds of later copies agree together as having the same words in the same places, the same clauses in the same places and the same sentences in the same places. Something is not right here!
The Vaticanus was available to the translators of the King James Bible in 1611, but they didn't use it because they knew it is unreliable.TheVaticanus also contains the Apocrypha. Which are pre-New Testament writings that do not appear in the Hebrew Old Testament. The Apocrypha cannot be considered realiable Scripture as a whole, but it is included in the Catholic Bible to this very day.
The Sinaiticus:
The Sinaiticus is a manuscript that was 'found' in 1844 in a trash pile in St. Catherines Monastery near Mt. Sinai by a man named Mr. Tischendorf. It contains nearly all of the New Testament plus it adds the to the New Testament, the "Shepherd of Hermes" (which reads that we are to take the mark of the beast!) and the "Epistle of Barnabas."
As stated, in the Sinaiticus Manuscript (newer Bible version Manuscripts) there appear two spurious books that do not appear in the Textus Receptus (King James Bible manuscripts), they are the: "Shepherd of Hermas," and the "Epistle of Barnabas."

• In the Shepherd of Hermas, it states: "I gave myself up to the beast", and in another place it says: "Receive his name".
• In the Epistle of Barnabas, it states: "Satan...is Lord".

There is an effort underway to remove the book of "Revelation" in the newer Bible versions (the vaticanus does not have it) and replace it with "Shepherd of Hermas." need anymore be said on that? Christian beware! Our own so-called people are selling us out to satan!
The Sinaiticus is extremely unreliable, proven by examining the manuscript itself. John Burgon spent years examining every available manuscript of the New Testament. He writes about the Sinaiticus:

"On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters, words or even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause proceeding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament."
​

On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people. Some of these corrections were made about the same time that it was copied (probably in the 4th Century), but most of them were made in the 6th or 7th century.

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

who told you NKJV used sinaiticus? or vaticanus? Thats blaitantly wrong. Yes it's a modern translation but not considered one because it used the AV manuscripts of the recieved text from the byzantine tradition.

 

[createdtoworship]

The evidence is that Lucy's pelvis had more in common with modern humans than with any other ape. The short, broad pelvis and inward angled femurs are adaptations for walking upright. Lucy also had wrist adaptations for knucklewalking. It's almost as if Lucy's species was making a transition. . .

you have any evidence for the hip bones existence most of lucy, or A.afarensis are incomplete and none have a hip bone like a human. It matters not that there was a anglud femur. If there is no angled joints to accomodate for that. Secondly, the angle could simply mean that it knuckle walked. There is no evidence of bipedal motion with these creatures, simply a more advanced knuckle walking.

 

[createdtoworship]

Precisely, we can tell from bones how an animal moves. It works so well that we can actually tell if a person rode horses a lot by certain wear and tear on their bones, particularly in the leg and hip regions. Even handed ness can often be seen in skeletons, as the increased use of one arm over the other gradually makes it a little bit longer than the nondominant arm.

I haven't seen any that have a human like hip bone or bepedal feet that reveal walking upright in any of these transitions of lucy or A. Afarensis.

ICR sources some studies by evolutionist researchers that convince that Lucy was not a human ancestor:

"However, there are some evolutionists, such as Charles Oxnard and Lord Zuckerman, whose studies convinced them the Australopithecines did not walk upright in the human manner and thus were not human ancestors."

many monkeys walk upright for small periods of time to stretch or what not, but are still considered knuckle walkers and among which are aboreal in nature, not spending time walking around as it doesn't benefit their body style to be bipedal.

http://www.icr.org/article/not-leg-stand/

 

[EternalDragon]

The evidence is that Lucy's pelvis had more in common with modern humans than with any other ape. The short, broad pelvis and inward angled femurs are adaptations for walking upright. Lucy also had wrist adaptations for knucklewalking. It's almost as if Lucy's species was making a transition. . .

Because an ape hip bone looks more like a human's hip bone means nothing other than they were similar. The idea that they were transitional or adaptations in the process of evolution are loose assumptions at best.

"It's almost as if.." is not evidence. It is conjecture.

 

[Riberra]

who told you NKJV used sinaiticus? or vaticanus? Thats blaitantly wrong. Yes it's a modern translation but not considered one because it used the AV manuscripts of the recieved text from the byzantine tradition.

Then how do you explain that newer version Bibles are 10% shorter than the King James Version. In fact, the NKJV...NIV version has 64,098 less words than the King James Bible?

What are the so-called 'majority of texts' mentioned in the footnotes of the newer Bible versions?

 

[createdtoworship]

Then how do you explain that newer version Bibles are 10% shorter than the King James Version. In fact, the NKJV...NIV version has 64,098 less words than the King James Bible?

What are the so-called 'majority of texts' mentioned in the footnotes of the newer Bible versions?

I heard the NIV has added thousands more words than the king james because it explains it out for you. But thats unnessesary. The NKJV has added wordage but not nearly as much as NIV and other translations. The ESV is also a fairly decent translation. But there are some issues with it. I stick to the KJV and NKJV.

(update: I checked out how many words in NIV and KJV and you are correct the NIV is missing words). But that could be that it is simply ommitting sections like the long ending of mark and or johannian comma. Which is not good IMO. But the NKJV doesn't do that.

also I did check some other books and there it seems the NIV is added wordage for clarity,

http://www.cob-net.org/compare_wordcount.htm

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because an ape hip bone looks more like a human's hip bone means nothing other than they were similar. The idea that they were transitional or adaptations in the process of evolution are loose assumptions at best.

"It's almost as if.." is not evidence. It is conjecture.

You missed the point. We can tell from a bone how it was used. We can show how apes went from knuckle walkers to upright walkers. "Lucy" was more of an upright walker than a knuckle walker, but she still did a bit of it.

You are trying to cram your God into a smaller and smaller gap.

 

[Riberra]

I heard the NIV has added thousands more words than the king james because it explains it out for you. But thats unnessesary. The NKJV has added wordage but not nearly as much as NIV and other translations. The ESV is also a fairly decent translation. But there are some issues with it. I stick to the KJV and NKJV.


(update: I checked out how many words in NIV and KJV and you are correct the NIV is missing words). But that could be that it is simply ommitting sections like the long ending of mark and or johannian comma. Which is not good IMO. But the NKJV doesn't do that.

also I did check some other books and there it seems the NIV is added wordage for clarity,

Comparing Translations: Counting The Words

1. Some glaring omissions from the corrupted 'newer' Bible versions and their corrupt Manuscripts​

This whole sordid matter should give new urgency to the warning in the last few verses of the Bible:

Rev 22:18-19
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (KJV)
​

As well as the Old Testament warning:

Deut 4:2
2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (KJV)
​

Look how the NIV rendered that verse:

Deut 4:2
2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you. (NIV)

*Can you see the difference here, the lessoning of the power of the statement, and the de-emphases of not changing the written Word of God? In the NIV version of the verse, it seems to the reader that it is making two separate independent statements: 1): Don't add or subtract from the things that God commanded; and 2): Follow God's commands. But in the KJV we see that we are not to remove or add anything from God's Word so that in having the whole Word of God we can know to keep all the commandments of God. There is a difference.
​

Stick to your Authorized King James Version Bible (KJV), it has been the standard workhorse of Scriptures for four-hundred years, and it will be the standard till the end! Don't sacrifice accuracy for 'easier to understand' newer versions, for what good is understanding, if what you are understanding is not completely accurate?
The newer versions, with their critical omissions are becoming more and more, with each newest version

 

[Justatruthseeker]

1. Some glaring omissions from the corrupted 'newer' Bible versions and their corrupt Manuscripts​

This whole sordid matter should give new urgency to the warning in the last few verses of the Bible:

Rev 22:18-19
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (KJV)
​

As well as the Old Testament warning:

Deut 4:2
2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (KJV)
​

Look how the NIV rendered that verse:

Deut 4:2
2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you. (NIV)

*Can you see the difference here, the lessoning of the power of the statement, and the de-emphases of not changing the written Word of God? In the NIV version of the verse, it seems to the reader that it is making two separate independent statements: 1): Don't add or subtract from the things that God commanded; and 2): Follow God's commands. But in the KJV we see that we are not to remove or add anything from God's Word so that in having the whole Word of God we can know to keep all the commandments of God. There is a difference.
​

Stick to your Authorized King James Version Bible (KJV), it has been the standard workhorse of Scriptures for four-hundred years, and it will be the standard till the end! Don't sacrifice accuracy for 'easier to understand' newer versions, for what good is understanding, if what you are understanding is not completely accurate?
The newer versions, with their critical omissions are becoming more and more, with each newest version

Actually the only approved version is the original Hebrew scriptures that it was written in. What, you think the authors of the KJV didn't add or take out stuff themselves? If they didn't put their own two cents in most people wouldn't have a wrong view of Hades and Sheol. Hell as a place of eternal torment is taught NOWHERE in the original texts. Neither the Old Testament Hebrew or the New Testament Greek.

Take Haya, one of the first words in the second verse of genesis. Wrongly translated in the KJV and most others as well as "was", when it clearly means "to become."

 

[PsychoSarah]

I haven't seen any that have a human like hip bone or bepedal feet that reveal walking upright in any of these transitions of lucy or A. Afarensis.

ICR sources some studies by evolutionist researchers that convince that Lucy was not a human ancestor:

"However, there are some evolutionists, such as Charles Oxnard and Lord Zuckerman, whose studies convinced them the Australopithecines did not walk upright in the human manner and thus were not human ancestors."

many monkeys walk upright for small periods of time to stretch or what not, but are still considered knuckle walkers and among which are aboreal in nature, not spending time walking around as it doesn't benefit their body style to be bipedal.

Not A Leg To Stand On

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus) look to the right and you can see that we have more than enough of Lucy's hip to know how this creature walked. Those bones are too short and wide, and the opening where the leg connects to the hip is also positioned for upright walking. Creatures with these kinds of hips not only can walk upright, but it strains their bodies not to do so. Also, while Lucy's feet might not have been perfectly like humans, that is partly the point; if this is a part of the human evolutionary timeline, Lucy should have some human and some nonhuman traits, which it does.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Actually the only approved version is the original Hebrew scriptures that it was written in. What, you think the authors of the KJV didn't add or take out stuff themselves? If they didn't put their own two cents in most people wouldn't have a wrong view of Hades and Sheol. Hell as a place of eternal torment is taught NOWHERE in the original texts. Neither the Old Testament Hebrew or the New Testament Greek.

Take Haya, one of the first words in the second verse of genesis. Wrongly translated in the KJV and most others as well as "was", when it clearly means "to become."

Correct, translation unfortunately can lead to very unfortunate mistranslations, and English is by no means an easy language to translate texts into. Worse, Hebrew is known for using certain words for multiple meanings and in ways that have no equivalent in English, making translating from Hebrew to English pretty difficult. For instance, the Hebrew word translated to "submit" in English is basically incorrect because what the word means in Hebrew has no equivalent word in English as it is use when referring to women "submitting" to men. The best way I think I can communicate what the Hebrew means in English is "submit to each other", in other words, while submit is always a one way action in English, the rough term in Hebrew is both ways; both parties mentioned do the submitting.

 

[Subduction Zone]

you have any evidence for the hip bones existence most of lucy, or A.afarensis are incomplete and none have a hip bone like a human. It matters not that there was a anglud femur. If there is no angled joints to accomodate for that. Secondly, the angle could simply mean that it knuckle walked. There is no evidence of bipedal motion with these creatures, simply a more advanced knuckle walking.

ICR is not a valid source. They avoid real peer review. That means that they are lying and they know it.

As much as creationists don't like real peer review they cannot show that it is biased. When a paper is written and it is put up for peer review if it is rejected the reasons are given. In serious papers they are very often rejected the first time due to errors. After the errors are corrected it is checked again and eventually it passes and is published if the writer can correct his errors. All they need to do is to get one of their supposed scientists to write a valid article. If it is wrongfully rejected they would have a valid claim that they could show to the world.

Why don't they do this? Why do they insist on publishing a bogus journal instead?

The fact is that Lucy's hip bones are closer to human than they are to chimps. They are exactly what is to be expected in a transitional form.

 

[PsychoSarah]

ICR is not a valid source. They avoid real peer review. That means that they are lying and they know it.

As much as creationists don't like real peer review they cannot show that it is biased. When a paper is written and it is put up for peer review if it is rejected the reasons are given. In serious papers they are very often rejected the first time due to errors. After the errors are corrected it is checked again and eventually it passes and is published if the writer can correct his errors. All they need to do is to get one of their supposed scientists to write a valid article. If it is wrongfully rejected they would have a valid claim that they could show to the world.

Why don't they do this? Why do they insist on publishing a bogus journal instead?

The fact is that Lucy's hip bones are closer to human than they are to chimps. They are exactly what is to be expected in a transitional form.

I know, from the teeth to the brain capacity to the hip bones, I don't think Lucy could be much more inbetween human and chimp.

 

[Riberra]

Actually the only approved version is the original Hebrew scriptures that it was written in.

Where are they ?Have they survived the deterioration these original manuscripts?

What, you think the authors of the KJV didn't add or take out stuff themselves? If they didn't put their own two cents in most people wouldn't have a wrong view of Hades and Sheol. Hell as a place of eternal torment is taught NOWHERE in the original texts.
Neither the Old Testament Hebrew or the New Testament Greek.

That is what the preachers,pastors, Catholics priests are saying about it.I don't think it is write that way in KJV.

Take Haya, one of the first words in the second verse of genesis. Wrongly translated in the KJV and most others as well as "was", when it clearly means "to become."

Not exactly,..."became" is the word.
was is the English translation of a Hebrew word (hayah) which means Became. In other words, the earth was not created without form and void, but that it became that way at some point in time after it was created.

If you are interested to know why
http://biblestudysite.com/begin.htm



​

 

[createdtoworship]

Actually the only approved version is the original Hebrew scriptures that it was written in. What, you think the authors of the KJV didn't add or take out stuff themselves? If they didn't put their own two cents in most people wouldn't have a wrong view of Hades and Sheol. Hell as a place of eternal torment is taught NOWHERE in the original texts. Neither the Old Testament Hebrew or the New Testament Greek.

Take Haya, one of the first words in the second verse of genesis. Wrongly translated in the KJV and most others as well as "was", when it clearly means "to become."

eternality of hell is not a part of this thread. Otherwise I would debate you on this very issue. Secondly you said "version" while the original hebrew writtings would not be considered a "version" or even a "translation." the original writtings are just that "the originals." But the only problem is that papyrus is perishable. Not as much as writing in wax or other means of writting but it did decay. I believe it was imported from egypt as is a pain to make. So it would be the most expensive media at the time for writting scrolls. I agree the original dialogue is the perfect word of God and the translations are guided by the Holy Spirit however. If God wrote the original on papyrus He wouldn't allow it to perish if He didn't plan on making a preservation commitment to follow the copies down through history. I believe He Has preserved His word through the scribes.

 

[createdtoworship]

ICR is not a valid source. They avoid real peer review. That means that they are lying and they know it.

As much as creationists don't like real peer review they cannot show that it is biased. When a paper is written and it is put up for peer review if it is rejected the reasons are given. In serious papers they are very often rejected the first time due to errors. After the errors are corrected it is checked again and eventually it passes and is published if the writer can correct his errors. All they need to do is to get one of their supposed scientists to write a valid article. If it is wrongfully rejected they would have a valid claim that they could show to the world.

Why don't they do this? Why do they insist on publishing a bogus journal instead?

avoiding peer review and being rejected by peer review is another story. I have heard stories of peer reviews being rejected mainly because it has Creationist or ID content. This has forced many like ken ham and others to start their own peer review boards. Or simply alter the subject from directly Creationist or ID to major in something else, and minor in ID. IF you know what I mean. But this is bad as well because you have less peer reviews on the topic of ID.

The fact is that Lucy's hip bones are closer to human than they are to chimps. They are exactly what is to be expected in a transitional form.

for one, the scientific method doesn't prove facts, at the best it proves a specific natural law in hypothesis.

secondly even if it were a fact there would be numerous examples of pictures, dialogues and scientists claiming that Lucy's hip were humanized. And you have to date provided none of the above.

 

[bhsmte]

avoiding peer review and being rejected by peer review is another story. I have heard stories of peer reviews being rejected mainly because it has Creationist or ID content. This has forced many like ken ham and others to start their own peer review boards. Or simply alter the subject from directly Creationist or ID to major in something else, and minor in ID. IF you know what I mean. But this is bad as well because you have less peer reviews on the topic of ID.

Kenny Ham????????