Why does "15 Questions for Evolutionists" brochure confuse the meaning of "evolution?

OllieFranz · Dec 7, 2012

verysincere said:
1) But you've simply pushed the question back a step. WHY do you believe Revelation 20:12 refers to the KJV Bible which wouldn't be produced for another 1500+ years???? Also, why do you deviate from the usual interpretation that RV 20:12 refers to the salvation status of people and the WORKS they did in their lifetimes upon which they are judged?

2) More importantly, the King James Bible of 1611 consisted of 80 books, not 66!

.
My theory remains that AV simply comes up with bizarre claims in order to get attention---and it usually works. (Just like his Noah's ark pine pitch came from New Jersey story.)

.

That's right. As of 1611, the Apocrypha had been reduced to secondary status, but not yet excised from the volume.

kiwimac · Dec 7, 2012

AV1611VET said:
Because I believe the "books" in...

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.

... are the 66 books of the King James Bible.

This means I believe they will speak [divine] Jacobean in Heaven, where the Babel Effect doesn't apply.

Just out of curiosity, what language do you assume Adam spoke?

Whatever language Cro-Magnon man spoke.

AV1611VET · Dec 7, 2012

verysincere said:
WHY do you believe Revelation 20:12 refers to the KJV Bible which wouldn't be produced for another 1500+ years????

Wasn't John the [fundamental independent] Baptist the last and greatest of the Old Testament prophets?

Matthew 11:11a Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist:

By the same token, the KJV is the last and greatest of the Bibles.

Remember the Author ...

Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

In short, I believe God's word was written down in Heaven, before It was written down on earth ... and I believe the King James Version is God's word.

AV1611VET · Dec 7, 2012

kiwimac said:
Whatever language Cro-Magnon man spoke.

Cro-magnon and Neanderthal men were real citizens at one time, whom God placed bone-altering "wonderful" plagues upon as a judgement for sin.

Deuteronomy 28:59 Then the LORD will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance.

verysincere · Dec 7, 2012

AV1611VET said:
Wasn't John the [fundamental independent] Baptist the last and greatest of the Old Testament prophets?

Matthew 11:11a Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist:

By the same token, the KJV is the last and greatest of the Bibles.

Remember the Author ...

Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

In short, I believe God's word was written down in Heaven, before It was written down on earth ... and I believe the King James Version is God's word.

But you still haven't addressed WHY. None of your "reasons" appear in the Bible. And we all know that the KJV is NOT "the last" of all of the Bibles----regardless of whether someone thinks it is the greatest.

And why would ENGLISH have such primacy in human (and eternal) history. Are there other "special Bible translations" with similar status to the KJV? How do you know?

Where do you get these bizarre ideas? (You sound very much like a modern day relativist where "Truth is whatever I declare to be my truth. I don't need evidence or solid reasons."

And WHICH of the many editions/versions of the 1611 KJV is the "special one"? And what do you do with the textual insertions in SOME of those versions which have no legitimate basis? Are you saying that God intended for various people to contrive and insert scriptures of their own creation centuries after Christ?

sfs · Dec 7, 2012

AV1611VET said:
In short, I believe God's word was written down in Heaven, before It was written down on earth ... and I believe the King James Version is God's word.

Interesting. That's a characteristically Muslim belief, rather than a Christian one (the bit about scripture written in heaven, that is). But as verysincere says, the question isn't whether you believe this; it's why you believe it.

46AND2 · Dec 7, 2012

verysincere said:
But you still haven't addressed WHY. None of your "reasons" appear in the Bible. And we all know that the KJV is NOT "the last" of all of the Bibles----regardless of whether someone thinks it is the greatest.

And why would ENGLISH have such primacy in human (and eternal) history. Are there other "special Bible translations" with similar status to the KJV? How do you know?

Where do you get these bizarre ideas? (You sound very much like a modern day relativist where "Truth is whatever I declare to be my truth. I don't need evidence or solid reasons."

And WHICH of the many editions/versions of the 1611 KJV is the "special one"? And what do you do with the textual insertions in SOME of those versions which have no legitimate basis? Are you saying that God intended for various people to contrive and insert scriptures of their own creation centuries after Christ?

I also find it amusing that when he quotes the Bible, he never quotes from the 1611 KJV, but rather later editions of the KJV.

46AND2 · Dec 7, 2012

46AND2 said:
I also find it amusing that when he quotes the Bible, he never quotes from the 1611 KJV, but rather later editions of the KJV.

For example, this is Genesis 1:1,2 from the 1611 KJV:

1 In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth.

2 And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darkenesse was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters.

AV1611VET · Dec 7, 2012

46AND2 said:
I also find it amusing that when he quotes the Bible, he never quotes from the 1611 KJV, but rather later editions of the KJV.

70

46AND2 · Dec 7, 2012

AV1611VET said:
70

I'm aware of the justification. But it's wrong. There were more than just grammatical fixes.

You know that verse that you gave VS to translate, and wouldn't accept him using the proper noun instead of the pronoun? There are instances where the 1769 edition changed pronouns. l

At least VS didn't change the meaning of the verse.

verysincere · Dec 7, 2012

AV1611VET said:
Cro-magnon and Neanderthal men were real citizens at one time, whom God placed bone-altering "wonderful" plagues upon as a judgement for sin.

Deuteronomy 28:59 Then the LORD will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance.

Why do you think that God somehow retroactively applied back into the past these plagues described in Torah law?

Where do you get this bizarre stuff? Do you just let your mind wander as you read the Bible and any thought that pops into your head is deemed "God talking to me!" ??

verysincere · Dec 7, 2012

46AND2 said:
I'm aware of the justification. But it's wrong. There were more than just grammatical fixes.

You know that verse that you gave VS to translate, and wouldn't accept him using the proper noun instead of the pronoun? There are instances where the 1769 edition changed pronouns. l

At least VS didn't change the meaning of the verse.

AV has NO KNOWLEDGE of any of these topics, especially where they involve the original texts. So he has no idea that the King James Version is sometimes far closer to a paraphrase than I personally allow in my own translation work. Indeed, he accused me of paraphrasing when I simply preserved the ambiguity of the text---and AVOIDED the flip-of-the-coin approach that the KJV translators used in such cases. (For example, if I can't determine from the original text the gender of a word, I usually look for an English rendering that is equally ambiguous. That is, I try to avoid situations where my translation provides MORE detail ---or resolves some ambiguity--- compared with the original. I don't want to ADD or DELETE from the Biblical text. AV didn't like the fact that I refused to be as "reckless" as the KJV so often was, because they added and deleted quite often, sometimes by design but sometimes by relative incompetence.)**

I do NOT wish to give the impression that the KJV translators were trying to do a bad job or were somehow deviously motivated. I think they did a reasonably good job for what they had to work with at the time. If I had to grade the, I'd even give them a B- and perhaps even a B. (Had they done their work TODAY, I would give the translation a D-, but that's not fair, obviously. They had very little to work with at that time. For example, with the New Testament, they had between two and six manuscript sources, depending upon the passage. But they worked under huge disadvantages in terms of lexical resources and they struggled CENTURIES before the papyrii of Egypt were discovered that made such a huge difference in resolving so many Koine Greek issues---and that really didn't begin until around WWI. And Biblical linguistics hardly started impacting Bible translation until the 1970's. Of course, mostly the KJV translators just plagiarized from the previous Bibles, especially for what are today considered the most "grand" and elevating KJV passages!)

AV thinks that a good translator somehow removes all questions and ambiguities from the original text---but that is what sells PARAPHRASES! As usual, AV has his facts wrong by 180 degrees. To him it is unthinkable that God would allow the Bible to leave any ambiguities in a translation or allow for mysteries in the grammar or word choices. But such is INHERENT to language. And the Bible itself reminds us of those mysteries and ambiguities! ("We see through a glass but darkly.") And the disciples even complained to Jesus that he spoke in parables---and Jesus replied and shocked them by saying that God intentionally obscures various truths and withholds understanding!

The worship of the imagined supremacy of the KJV has always amazed me---but it is important to also keep in mind how much the KJV was hated in its own day as a dangerous "modern translation" that was allegedly trying to undermine the truths of the Bible! Tradition always works that way---just as the tradition-lovers in every age can never come up with reasons why their view is the only correct one. (Just watch AV mumble and squirm whenever we ask to explain WHY he believes various things. He can't tell us the "why" because he himself has no idea. Of course, with much of his bizarre stuff, he simply throws out nonsense to get attention and we all know it is just a joke. He enjoys it.)

But I'm sure the Christians in China were I recently completed work on a new New Testament translation in Chinese with notes would be flabbergasted if I tried to explain to them AV's views on the superiority of Jacobean English and its special role, allegedly, in God's plan of history. I have sometimes wondered if there are similar "traditionalists" in China who insist that some archaic version of Mandarin was the language of Adam or the throne of God---but when I've asked questions like that of my international colleagues, they think I'm joking. (As one said with a laugh, "Only America has super-crackpots like that!")

If I really thought that visitors to these threads were taking him seriously, I would exegetically shred his pseudo-exegesis word-by-word. But because his knowledge of Hebrew and Greek is just about as non-existent as his mangling of basic English Bible reading comprehension, it would be an exercise in futility. A Proverbs 22:10 ending would take a while, no doubt. AV's unfamiliarity with even the most basic lexicographic tools of translation led him to shoot off his own foot today when he challenged my use of the standard abbreviation of Danker's latest edition of the Bauer lexicon. That tells me he doesn't even have the knowledge of a first semester Bible college Greek student. (Not that I would even expect him to pass the qualifying exams for admission to a solid M.A./NT program.) Dunning-Kruger is a massive problem among the creationists who heckle in these threads and AV is their poster child.

AV1611VET · Dec 7, 2012

46AND2 said:
I'm aware of the justification. But it's wrong. There were more than just grammatical fixes.

You know that verse that you gave VS to translate, and wouldn't accept him using the proper noun instead of the pronoun? There are instances where the 1769 edition changed pronouns. l

At least VS didn't change the meaning of the verse.

Here's the controversy with Colossians 4:15 ... it has nothing to do with the proper noun.

Colossians 4:15 [KJV] Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.

Colossian 4:15 [NIV] Give my greetings to the brothers and sisters at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house.

I can't remember how VS worded it, but basically, in order to avoid gender confusion, he paraphrased the verse, rather than translated it.

verysincere · Dec 7, 2012

AV1611VET said:
Here's the controversy with Colossians 4:15 ... it has nothing to do with the proper noun.

Colossians 4:15 [KJV] Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.

Colossian 4:15 [NIV] Give my greetings to the brothers and sisters at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house.

I can't remember how VS worded it, but basically, in order to avoid gender confusion, he paraphrased the verse, rather than translated it.

Now AV is simply lying. (In fact, he even admits that he can't remember how I worded it!)

Yes, true to form, AV never cares about pesky things like FACTS and evidence. (So he didn't have to know what I wrote to know that he opposed it. Wouldn't it be amusing to watch him try to explain WHY he thinks I erred by paraphrasing?)

Of course, it is always possible that AV doesn't understand the meaning of the word "paraphrase." (In fact, the above proves it, if he is being honest in the post. But a lot of his comments are parody and posturing. So one never knows what is "for real", just like the New Jersey pine tar parody he posted.)

I was personally involved with one of the NIV projects--- so I had to chuckle when AV quoted the NIV above. (He no doubt thinks the NIV did a better job than I did because they appear to "resolve" the ambiguity---yet the fact that translatioins disagree on the rendering should tell him something!) The committee was torn on whether to render the pronoun by "his" or "her". The "vote" was certainly not unanimous. (That's public knowledge so I can freely admit that. But most translation projects place restrictions on consultants and what we can say publicly in commenting on translation decisions. But surely even AV has noticed that many Bible translations have a footnote at the bottom of the page which provides the alternative translation wording. Others make no mention of the disagreement and ambiguity in their Bible but they will put the translation notes in a translation commentary published soon after. I suppose AV wants the FACTS hidden from the average reader so that they will develop a false sense of assurance, much like he has.)

Of course, speaking generally and not about a particular passage, I will tell you this: Many of these types of "ambiguity resolutions" in translation are made NOT so purely on the available evidence. They are made in deference to favored TRADITIONS and what the marketplace will most favor! Yes, publishers often tell us, "If you correct the translation of that passage, the crackpots will be protesting in front of the Bible bookstores! Don't do it! We can't afford it!"

But tell me, AV, considering how you are ignorant of the Biblical languages, exegesis, and translation procedures, how can you critique my work and say that I erred by "paraphrasing". (Indeed, I am POSITIVE that AV has insufficient understanding of translation to recognize paraphrase vs. translation in such contexts. And that is why he got it backwards above.) And why not show us how do translate properly by (1) giving us your "translation", (2) but only if you can EXPLAIN each of your choices, and (3) tell us why your version is a "true translation" and not a paraphrase. [I know you can't do it but it would be fun to watch you try.]

46AND2 · Dec 7, 2012

AV1611VET said:
Here's the controversy with Colossians 4:15 ... it has nothing to do with the proper noun.

Colossians 4:15 [KJV] Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.

Colossian 4:15 [NIV] Give my greetings to the brothers and sisters at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house.

I can't remember how VS worded it, but basically, in order to avoid gender confusion, he paraphrased the verse, rather than translated it.

This is how VS worded it:

and Nymphas and the church that meets at Nymphas' house."

All he did was use the proper noun instead of the pronoun...like I said. There is no difference in meaning here.

However, if you compare the 1611 and 1769 editions of Ezekiel 24:7, I wonder if you could tell me if she poured her blood on the ground, or didn't pour it on the ground?

Split Rock · Dec 7, 2012

verysincere said:
But tell me, AV, considering how you are ignorant of the Biblical languages, exegesis, and translation procedures, how can you critique my work and say that I erred by "paraphrasing"

Pretty much the same way he critisizes scientists without knowing anything about science. I think it has to do with "boolean standards."

verysincere · Dec 7, 2012

Split Rock said:
Pretty much the same way he critisizes scientists without knowing anything about science. I think it has to do with "boolean standards."

Yeah, his "boolean standard" claim cracked me up. As usual, he hasn't a clue what the words mean.

(If I were a creationist, I would assume that AV is a "mole" sent by the other side to make people chuckle at "those silly creationists". Seriously, I remain good friends with many Young Earth Creationists and I attend church with many of them. They don't deserve to be mocked and satirized as AV enjoys doing. Of course, his mockery of the Bible itself irritates me far more. His "pine tar from New Jersey" nonsense was one of his more recent examples where his parody went over the top and exposed his agenda.)

Split Rock · Dec 7, 2012

AV1611VET said:
In short, I believe God's word was written down in Heaven, before It was written down on earth ... and I believe the King James Version is God's word.

I suspect that this is because you were raised with the KJV bible... were you?

AV1611VET · Dec 7, 2012

46AND2 said:
This is how VS worded it:

"and Nymphas and the church that meets at Nymphas' house."

Thank you ... I appreciate you looking it up for me.

46AND2 said:
All he did was use the proper noun instead of the pronoun...like I said.

Yes ... I'm familiar with what he did.

46AND2 said:
There is no difference in meaning here.

Yes there is a difference ... a major difference.

The gender has been removed.

Paul is identifying Nymphas by gender, as well as name; since some names, like "Chris," are gender-free.

If I asked you to visit Terry's house, and there were two Terrys in town, one male and one female, you would need further clarification.

But if I asked you to visit Terry's house and tell him 'hello' for me, you would know which Terry I'm talking about.

46AND2 said:
However, if you compare the 1611 and 1769 editions of Ezekiel 24:7, I wonder if you could tell me if she poured her blood on the ground, or didn't pour it on the ground?

Without even looking, my advice is to go with the 5th edition.

As Gail Riplinger so aptly put it: God created a Diamond in 1611, and then polished It five times to a high gloss.

AV1611VET · Dec 7, 2012

verysincere said:
His "pine tar from New Jersey" nonsense was one of his more recent examples where his parody went over the top and exposed his agenda.)

That 'pine tar from New Jersey' came from Wikipedia, chief; not the Bible.

Why does "15 Questions for Evolutionists" brochure confuse the meaning of "evolution?

Senior Member

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Exegete/Linguist

Senior Member

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

Exegete/Linguist

Exegete/Linguist

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Exegete/Linguist

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

Conflation of Blathers

Exegete/Linguist

Conflation of Blathers

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency