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

[AV1611VET]

Of course, it is also rubbish. I left the young earth creationist and "creation science" movement because once I developed enough fluency in the Hebrew language and linguistics in general, I began to rely upon what the Bible ACTUALLY states----as opposed to what your TRADITIONS demand that I believe.

Ya ... I've see an example of your 'fluency in the Hebrew language and linguistics in general.'

That's why you don't know if Nymphas was a "he" or a "she," do you?

 

[Split Rock]

Ya ... I've see an example of your 'fluency in the Hebrew language and linguistics in general.'

That's why you don't know if Nymphas was a "he" or a "she," do you?

So VS would be more "fluent" if he just decided out of hand that Nymphas was "he?"

 

[AV1611VET]

So VS would be more "fluent" if he just decided out of hand that Nymphas was "he?"

No ... I have a feeling his gender recognition problem in Colossians 4:15 is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[verysincere]

So VS would be more "fluent" if he just decided out of hand that Nymphas was "he?"

Sounds like someone who is clueless in the original Greek texts is nevertheless pontificating again. One would think that ambiguous-gender names like "Terry" and "Jean" in the English language would help the monolingual to understand. But no. (Tradition is not prone to digest new information.)

I prefer honesty in my scholarship. So when the Greek texts are not clear on the gender of Nymphas, I'm certainly not going to presume to be their superior and personally DECLARE a gender for Nymphas. I lack that kind of hubris.

This provides yet another example of the many problems of placing TRADITION over the Biblical text. Tradition doesn't care about the 9th Commandment. But many of us do.

 

[sfs]

Ya ... I've see an example of your 'fluency in the Hebrew language and linguistics in general.'

That's why you don't know if Nymphas was a "he" or a "she," do you?

How would the translation of a Greek text say anything at all about his knowledge of Hebrew?

 

[AV1611VET]

One would think that ambiguous-gender names like "Terry" and "Jean" in the English language would help the monolingual to understand. But no. (Tradition is not prone to digest new information.)

You aren't being asked to supply the pronoun. The pronoun is already supplied for you. You're just being asked to translate it.

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

If you claim the pronoun is 'too ambiguous,' then don't think for one minute I'm going to subordinate the KJV to your inability to ascertain gender.

The King James translators came to a conclusion, what's your problem?

You remind me of the Internet scientists here, who think I should subordinate my beliefs to theirs; thinking, for example, I should quit believing that God created our moon ex nihilo and start believing one of their six different models as to how we got it.

It ain't gonna happen.

 

[Split Rock]

No ... I have a feeling his gender recognition problem in Colossians 4:15 is just the tip of the iceberg.

Not everyone makes stuff up when they don't have an answer.

 

[AV1611VET]

How would the translation of a Greek text say anything at all about his knowledge of Hebrew?

That's a good point; but for the record, I did ask him what the Tabernacle in the Wilderness was made of ... badger skins or dolphin skins ... but he probably had me on IGNORE by then.

He's a smart man.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not everyone makes stuff up when they don't have an answer.

That's fine ... but then don't tell me those who do have an answer are inferior, and expect me to believe it.

KJV says "his".

VS doesn't know if "his" is right or not, then expects me to believe the KJV is inferior.

As Judge Mathis would say, "Sir, she gave me an exact amount that you owe her, and you claim you don't know how much you owe her; so guess which one of you I'm going to go with?"

VS is saying, in effect, "I don't know, and neither should you."

 

[Split Rock]

That's fine ... but then don't tell me those who do have an answer are inferior, and expect me to believe it.

KJV says "his".

VS doesn't know if "his" is right or not, then expects me to believe the KJV is inferior.

As Judge Mathis would say, "Sir, she gave me an exact amount that you owe her, and you claim you don't know how much you owe her; so guess which one of you I'm going to go with?"

VS is saying, in effect, "I don't know, and neither should you."

The KJV could well be inferior, and be wrong about the gender in this case. Or it could be non-inferior and still be wrong about the gender. I think you are correct, that he is saying there is no way to be certain... thus, certainly is incorrect in this example.

 

[46AND2]

You aren't being asked to supply the pronoun. The pronoun is already supplied for you. You're just being asked to translate it.

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

If you claim the pronoun is 'too ambiguous,' then don't think for one minute I'm going to subordinate the KJV to your inability to ascertain gender.

The King James translators came to a conclusion, what's your problem?

You remind me of the Internet scientists here, who think I should subordinate my beliefs to theirs; thinking, for example, I should quit believing that God created our moon ex nihilo and start believing one of their six different models as to how we got it.

It ain't gonna happen.

You realize that pronouns don't work the same in other languages as they do in English, right? And that translations are not word for word transfers, right? Are you sure that the Greek gives the pronoun? You don't read Greek. How would you know?

 

[AV1611VET]

The KJV could well be inferior, and be wrong about the gender in this case.

Thinking that is not an option that's available to me; but let's say, just for fun, that you're correct.

1. It would take a time machine to find out who's wrong and who's right.
2. It will take more than someone telling me the word is ambiguous.

 

[Radagast]

You aren't being asked to supply the pronoun. The pronoun is already supplied for you. You're just being asked to translate it.

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

Various Greek texts have "his house" (οικον αυτο&#965, "her house" (οικον αυτη&#962, or "their house" (οἶκον αὐτῶ&#957. Most good modern translations have "her house."

 

[AV1611VET]

Most good modern translations have "her house."

Correct me, if I'm wrong; but I don't think you've been to his house, have you?

 

[Radagast]

Correct me, if I'm wrong; but I don't think you've been to his house, have you?

I don't think you've been to their house, either; what's your point?

Look, I'm tired of your unhelpful comments. I'm putting you back on ignore.

 

[verysincere]

I don't think you've been to their house, either; what's your point?

Look, I'm tired of your unhelpful comments. I'm putting you back on ignore.

I've done likewise with AV. (Back to the ignore list.) He plays the contrarian just to get attention. Notice how many threads are diverted by him. It is always the same pattern.

For those who are genuinely curious about the NYMPHA/NYMPHAS question, I'll share publicly for this final post what I have stated in private messages:

Bible translations differ on the his house/her house because the Greek manuscripts are in disagreement. To appreciate the ambiguities, one needs to understand how Greek nouns are inflected. Because NYMPHAS is in the accusative case, we can't determine whether it is masculine or feminine. Is it from NYMPHA (feminine) or is it a shortened form of Nymphadorus (masculine). (Either "nymph" or "gift of nymphs".) The oldest and best Greek manuscripts generally used the pronoun with "house" to indicate "her house". But the latest manuscripts (the ones used by the KJV) showed "his house". But in reviewing ALL of the textual evidence as well as the grammatical evidence, it is CLEAR THAT COPYISTS THROUGH THE CENTURIES WERE TROUBLED BY THIS DETAIL. They wanted to trust the oldest manuscripts which had the HER HOUSE reading---but many, perhaps most, of those copyists didn't know about the possibility of the Nymphadorus contracted form. And when the Greek manuscripts began to show diacritical marks, the fun multiplies further.

As a translator, I solve the problem by NOT introducing any more assurance than what is in the original Greek texts. I prefer to avoid potential paraphrase by rigidly adhering to the text as much as is honestly possible with something like this:

"Give my greetings to the brothers and sisters at Laodicea, and to Nymphas and the church in Nymphas' house."

[It is not perfect and no translation claims perfection.]

If I had to include a second choice, my alternate would be:

"Give my greetings to the brothers and sisters at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house."

.....because if I had to weigh the relative merits of the various Greek manuscript, the "his house" manuscripts are late and of weaker quality.

I could say far more about the verse ---and plenty of journal articles have spent many pages on this one issue---but it would take us into a lot of tediously technical material.

Clearly AV wants to tout "his house" because his 1611 KJV uses that wording----and to him, that is "an argument" in his mind. It also gives him an excuse to opine upon his misunderstanding of paraphrase vs. translation. (And he ignores the many contexts where the KJV explores some of the most exaggerated paraphrases.)

The reason I bothered with this was to illustrate how ambiguities like this arise OFTEN in the Biblical texts and can make the translator's job very difficult. And yet 99% of the time they are just as insignificant and trivial as this one. [PREDICTION: AV will insist that the gender of NYMPHAS/NYMPHA is crucial in some amazing way. Remember, playing the contrarian is how a troll gets attention. So I will cease feeding the trolls.] I shredded his claim that the NIV revisions were done for no other reason than justifying new copyright protection periods---so he has to move on to other hand-waving challenges. Goodbye, AV.

 

[Radagast]

The oldest and best Greek manuscripts generally used the pronoun with "house" to indicate "her house". But the latest manuscripts (the ones used by the KJV) showed "his house".

Very well explained, and I like your translation choice. The Codex Sinaiticus and some other ancient manuscripts actually have "their house" (οικον αυτω&#957, just to add to the complexity. See the bottom of the third column here: Codex Sinaiticus - See The Manuscript | Colossians |

...
αϲπαϲαϲθε τουϲ εν
λαοδικια αδελφουϲ
και νυμφαν και
την κατ οικον αυ
των εκκληϲιαν
και οταν αναγνω
ϲθη παρ υμιν η επι
ϲτολη ποιηϲατε ϊ
να και εν τη λαοδι
καιων εκκληϲια

But like you say, it doesn't really matter.

 

[verysincere]

Very well explained, and I like your translation choice. The Codex Sinaiticus and some other ancient manuscripts actually have "their house" (οικον αυτω&#957, just to add to the complexity..

Yes indeed, it gets interesting when one starts comparing mss. and seeing what the early copyists must have struggled with. And then as some of the alternate renderings got added in the footnotes---only to later get inserted back into the text----it is a wonder that the texts didn't get mangled. But it certainly shows that most copyists weren't just robotically writing. They tried to think through the text such that when something didn't seem to fit, we can see their wrestling with the accuracy.

It is sad that those who know little of the text assume that the text got butchered beyond understanding----when in fact it is incredibly well preserved. The fact that we find ourselves focusing on tiny details like NYMPHAS says a lot.

 

[AV1611VET]

The fact that we find ourselves focusing on tiny details like NYMPHAS says a lot.

If 'tiny details like NYMPHAS' bothers you, I can certainly up the ante.

Just say the word.

 

[46AND2]

It is sad that those who know little of the text assume that the text got butchered beyond understanding----when in fact it is incredibly well preserved. The fact that we find ourselves focusing on tiny details like NYMPHAS says a lot.

Sure it has been well preserved from the point in time in which we have our existing manuscripts. I don't think any reasonable skeptic will debate this.

However, the manuscripts we have are typically from 150 to 800 years after the originals were written, and we STILL find some interpolations, even though the books were reasonably well established by that time.

What we can't know is how much was interpolated between the authorship and the youngest manuscripts, except in rare cases when the interpolation just doesn't fit, and is obviously an addition.

How likely is it that interpolations during that time were more prevalent while the books were just starting to circulate, were not yet firmly established, and traditions of the churches were still quite varied due to limited exposure to the actual message?

I think it is likely that what we have is pretty close to the originals, but it's hardly beyond reasonable doubt. I think this is certainly something that has to be considered.