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

[AV1611VET]

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

Yes, I was raised with the KJV; but that's not the reason I'm KJVO.

As I have said before, the KJVO movement did not get started because other versions showed up on the market; the KJVO movement got started because people claimed they are superior to the KJV, when in reality, they cater to New Age philosophies.

 

[46AND2]

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

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

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.

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.

So, the 1611 version can have a completely opposite meaning from the 1769, and there's no problem, but VS leaves out a gender which was ambiguous in the first place, and that's a no go?

Don't bother answering. I've seen all I need to.

 

[verysincere]

So, the 1611 version can have a completely opposite meaning from the 1769, and there's no problem, but VS leaves out a gender which was ambiguous in the first place, and that's a no go?

Don't bother answering. I've seen all I need to.

Yes, I seriously doubt that AV means what he wrote. It obviously makes no sense.

His Terry illustration completely backfired on him. We DON"T know the "Terry" in the Nymphas passage! So we can't solve it by lying! (The gender is ambiguous. That is why various translations choose "his" or "her" without consistency.) So AV prefers LYING to the user about "Terry".

Where does that church group meet? At Terry's house.

Do we need to know whether Terry is a man or woman? No. In the case of the Colossians, they knew "Terry" and even where his house was located. They probably knew LOTS of things about their "Terry" (Nymphas) that Paul had no reason to mention and we have no reason to know or need to know. So AV is simply being silly again.

If AV can come up with EVIDENCE of why I should translate the passage as "his house" instead of Nymphas' house" , he is welcomed to explain it to us. Of course, he doesn't and won't. Like an attention-wanting two-year old, he says "NO!" to my translation because that gives him a feeling of importance. He simply chooses a gender based on what some men decided in 1611---and they had FAR LESS DATA available to them than we do today. (Of course, AV has never demonstrated to us WHY the KJV decision should be considered superior and he never will. To him AV, "because I said so" is enough of a standard.)

But it also illustrates what disgusts me about those with such a low view of the Biblical text. They would rather LIE to the reader and pretend we KNOW things which we don't. Considering Jesus' emphasis on TRUTH, it is shocking that someone would advocate that I should arbitrarily select a gender that I can't be sure about (or flip a coin?) rather than honestly PRESERVE the ambiguity of the Greek text.

When someone favors dishonesty over truth, you can't reason with them.

(And I am ALWAYS willing to revise my translations and exegesis when I'm given better data. Show me better textual criticism analysis; show me an Early Church Father who provides convincing information about the gender of Nymphas; point out a morphological, grammatical, or syntactical clue that I've previously missed. I will gladly follow THE TRUTH. I will not publish A LIE simply because it suits and harmonizes somebody's favorite tradition from his church or favorite author.)

But isn't it amazing how AV has such a contempt for LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE?!


.

 

[AV1611VET]

Considering Jesus' emphasis on TRUTH, it is shocking that someone would advocate that I should arbitrarily select a gender that I can't be sure about (or flip a coin?) rather than honestly PRESERVE the ambiguity of the Greek text.

Speak of flipping a coin, translator, how do you para ... er ... translate John 5:4?

 

[verysincere]

Speak of flipping a coin, translator, how do you para ... er ... translate John 5:4?

How do YOU translate it and why?

On the Colossians passage you negatively critiqued my translation without providing a meaningful explanation and you dodged my request to supply your own exegetical analysis.

So if you want me to tutor you, I expect you to give it a try yourself---first. If you dodge it, I'll assume you don't care what the Bible says in John 5 and I won't waste my time.

So show us once and for all that your opinions really do mean something because you are able to demonstrate competence in terms of Bible translation skills. Show us how it should be done.

[READERS: As you would expect, AV chose John 5:4 for a KJV-related reason.<edit> But it can be a worthwhile exercise because John 5:4 provides a good case study in why and how English Bible translations differ. It also provides an excellent example of the considerable disadvantages facing the 1611 KJV translators. They did a reasonable job based on what little they had---and no doubt would be shocked and perhaps even amused that some in our day would actually believe that theirs was the "ultimate" Bible translation of all time! <edit>]

 

[AV1611VET]

How do YOU translate it and why?

You couldn't pay me to translate it.

I would need to be led of the Holy Spirit for that.

I don't copyright God's word.

 

[USincognito]

Then I must ask, "Who's god?" Not mine. My God gave me a personal letter that says He created everything in six days and rested on the seventh. My God tells me that He made man on the fifth day of all creation, not after billions of years or after millions of years of evolution. My God says He made man in His image and in His likeness, not in the image of a unicellular organism then multi then fishy then amphibians then reptiles then mammal then.....

So I would ask you, "Who's god did it the way you suggest?" It most certainly is not the God of the Jews or the God of Christians or even the god of the Muslims.

Your God also gave you the Creation to study and a brain with which to comprehend it. Shame you reject those personal letters.

 

[USincognito]

The Bible is the claim, the map is the evidence. There is no way water could have risen to even 1,000 feet anywhere in the area because it would run off. A localized flood is not possible. The Bible states that the ark came to rest in the mountains of Ararat, which comparitively speaking is not too far to drift in a year. HOWEVER, a local flood should have carried the ark southward, to the sea. That it drifted northward would indicate that there was no natural current. The planet was flooded.

You were doing so good until the last bit. There's no evidence that the entire planet was flooded as a hyper-literalist interpretation of Genesis 11 would have one believe. Conversely there's literally mountains of evidence supporting conventional geology, biology and anthropology.

 

[good brother]

Yes, it is the ever popular, always-traditional, "If you disagree with me about what the Bible says, it doesn't matter because God is on my side!"

And Good Brother, if you can't find the sabbatical year and Jubilee year passages of the Torah Law, I've told you before: get yourself a Bible concordance OR simply learn to use the Google search engine. You always want me to do your Bible tutoring for you. I realize that these concepts are new to you but trust me: type "sabbath year" or "sabbatical year" or "Jubilee year" together with the word "Bible" into Google and you will have enough tutoring material to keep you off the streets for many many YOMs!

(And if you ever get to the point where you are open to learning about the Bible, research how both ancient and modern Hebrews define a 24hour day. No, it is not evening through morning. It runs from sunset to sunset!)

Tradition may be comforting to you. But eventually you should investigate what the Bible actually states in the Hebrew text. Even if you are afraid to venture into other Hebrew language literature of ancient times, the TANAKH itself (that is, the Old Testament in Hebrew) uses the word YOM for meanings besides 24-hour day.) Yes, shaking loose from tradition can be scarey---especially when you are likely to be shunned by your peers. But which is more important: peer acceptance or what God's Bible actually says?

Huh, I didn't see any real response here, and certainly this was no "rebuttal" of any sort. Why don't you go ahead and show me where in Exodus 20 God says anything about about seven years or seven weeks of years. In fact, why don't you show me ANY place in the Bible where God specifically refers to Genesis 1 for a reference like He did in Exodus 20. He said "you shall work six days and rest on the seventh just like I made the world in six days and rested on the seventh." He used the SAME word YOM there as in Genesis 1.

 

[RickG]

70

So the errors and inconsistency's in the bible were due man. Thanks for making that clear and demonstrating that throughout the history of written scripture that errors were made by man. When are the current errors going to be fixed, another 2 or 3 thousand years?

 

[RickG]

You were doing so good until the last bit. There's no evidence that the entire planet was flooded as a hyper-literalist interpretation of Genesis 11 would have one believe. Conversely there's literally mountains of evidence supporting conventional geology, biology and anthropology.

If I may add as well, the idea that God removed all the evidence is contradictory to scripture which states that God put a Bow (rainbow) in the sky to remind everyone of the flood.

Also, KW and GB need to be reminded that the field of geology grew out of the physical search by 17th & 18th century naturalists and "clergy" to find evidence of the flood. If a fully global flood had occurred, the geological evidence would be there and God would want us to see it.

 

[AV1611VET]

So the errors and inconsistency's in the bible were due man.

No, they were made by God.

Thanks for making that clear and demonstrating that throughout the history of written scripture that errors were made by man.

I'm sure you can think of better man-made errors.

Do the Challenger, the Deepwater Horizon, and L'Aquila come to mind?

When are the current errors going to be fixed,

As far as I'm concerned, the 5th edition is the final edition.

... another 2 or 3 thousand years?

That contradicts the doctrine of immanent return.

 

[good brother]

If I may add as well, the idea that God removed all the evidence is contradictory to scripture which states that God put a Bow (rainbow) in the sky to remind everyone of the flood.

Also, KW and GB need to be reminded that the field of geology grew out of the physical search by 17th & 18th century naturalists and "clergy" to find evidence of the flood. If a fully global flood had occurred, the geological evidence would be there and God would want us to see it.

Hi Rick. Am I correct in believing you are a geologist or at least have some training in that field? I thought you and I talked about that once. If I am correct in that thinking I have an honest question or two for you.

Where are all the fossils that have been made without liquified sediment burying them? That is to ask: "How many fossils were made without the aid of water loosening and liquifying the earthen material to cover them so they could be preserved?"

Are there any ancient fossils that were made without the aid of water laden sediment?

Again, thank you for your time to read this and for your response. I know we may not agree, but I respect you in that you have never tried to belittle or berate those who disagree with you.

God bless you.

In Christ, GB

 

[AV1611VET]

If I may add as well, the idea that God removed all the evidence is contradictory to scripture which states that God put a Bow (rainbow) in the sky to remind everyone of the flood.

Don't forget ... just like the creation week you deny ... He also recorded what He did, when He did it, where He did it, why He did it, what order He did it in, how long it took Him to do it, when it started, when it finished, and who the eyewitnesses were.

 

[Split Rock]

Don't forget ... just like the creation week you deny ... He also recorded what He did, when He did it, where He did it, why He did it, what order He did it in, how long it took Him to do it, when it started, when it finished, and who the eyewitnesses were.

Can we speak to these "eyewitnesses?" Can we read their affidavit as to the events in question? No? If not, then they are little use as "eyewitnesses."

 

[verysincere]

Don't forget ... just like the creation week you deny ... He also recorded what He did, when He did it, where He did it, why He did it, what order He did it in, how long it took Him to do it, when it started, when it finished, and who the eyewitnesses were.

<edit>

In much of the Bible, including most certainly the "creation week" account, God did NOT record the what, when, where, why, how long it took him to do it, when it started and finished----and even the chronological order is not necessarily recorded. (There is a great deal of disagreement as to whether or not Genesis 1 is chronological. But that is another debate. Even if it WAS intended to be understood chronological, it doesn't change the ambiguities just mentioned.)

Indeed, if God had provided those kinds of details in Genesis 1 which AV imagines, there would not be SO MUCH DISAGREEMENT EVEN AMONG YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISTS ABOUT THOSE DETAILS!

For example, Genesis 1 says NOTHING about WHY the universe was created. It doesn't say WHEN. It doesn't describe the WHAT of the processes utilized.

Of course, we don't expect Genesis 1 to provide those details because it is not a scientific document. It is a theological document intended to emphasize the WHO of "creation week", that is, GOD as CREATOR.

<edit>

 

[good brother]

In much of the Bible, including most certainly the "creation week" account, God did NOT record the what, when, where, why, how long it took him to do it, when it started and finished----and even the chronological order is not necessarily recorded.

For example, Genesis 1 says NOTHING about WHY the universe was created. It doesn't say WHEN. It doesn't describe the WHAT of the processes utilized.

Of course, we don't expect Genesis 1 to provide those details because it is not a scientific document. It is a theological document intended to emphasize the WHO of "creation week", that is, GOD as CREATOR.

These questions are all answered in Genesis 1 and 2:
WHO: God.
WHEN: In the beginning.
HOW: God said (and it happened)
WHY: Because He loved us (He made us in His image, the highest form of flattery is imitation).
AMOUNT OF TIME TAKEN: Six days.

 

[RickG]

Don't forget ... just like the creation week you deny ... He also recorded what He did, when He did it, where He did it, why He did it, what order He did it in, how long it took Him to do it, when it started, when it finished, and who the eyewitnesses were.

As recorded by the fallible word of man.

 

[verysincere]

WHEN: In the beginning.

Funny. Reasoning with such a mindset is futile. It goes like this:

Q: "When was the universe created?"

A: "At the time of creation."

Q: "But WHEN was that?"

A: "In the beginning!"

Q: "Uhhhh....OK. But that "beginning" that you are talking about. When was it?"

A: "When the universe was created!"

Q: "Yes, you already said that. But I'm asking you WHEN the events of Genesis 1 took place?"

A: "I already told you! IN THE BEGINNING!"


It is much like trying to play the "Who's on First?" game of Abbot & Costello. It is equally frustrating but NOT nearly as funny. It is a childish game with no purpose.

No wonder the Young Earth Creationist movement has developed a reputation for such nonsense. Rather than admitting honestly, "I don't know the answer to that question.", they dig themselves in deeper and bring contempt upon a Biblical text that does NOT deserve blame for their childish obfuscation.

Meanwhile, Good Brother continues to dodge my question of whether he could even DARE deviate from his "party line" position on this forum without being fired from his job as a youth pastor. How much credibility can one place in a debate participant if that participant is NOT AT LIBERTY TO THINK AND FREELY ASSESS THE EVIDENCE? (Good Brother knows that if he were to even appear to subject his Young Earth Creationist "theories" to honest scrutiny, he would be fired. He just won't admit it to us.)

 

[46AND2]

Hi Rick. Am I correct in believing you are a geologist or at least have some training in that field? I thought you and I talked about that once. If I am correct in that thinking I have an honest question or two for you.

Where are all the fossils that have been made without liquified sediment burying them? That is to ask: "How many fossils were made without the aid of water loosening and liquifying the earthen material to cover them so they could be preserved?"

Are there any ancient fossils that were made without the aid of water laden sediment?

Again, thank you for your time to read this and for your response. I know we may not agree, but I respect you in that you have never tried to belittle or berate those who disagree with you.

God bless you.

In Christ, GB

This Rhino ancestor was found in subaerial polyclastic rock, which is formed by a volcano blast, much like Mt. Vesuvius.

PLOS ONE: A Rhinocerotid Skull Cooked-to-Death in a 9.2 Ma-Old Ignimbrite Flow of Turkey