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

[pgp_protector]

It's because of this kind of mindset that the KJVO movement got started.

Please answer me this:

Does the 1611 KJV say Jesus was born of a virgin?

Can you answer that YES or NO, without going through the usual song-and-dance clarification routine that scientists usually take?

Exactly that? No it doesn't say "Jesus was born of a virgin" in the 1611 KJV.
BibleGateway - Quick search: "Jesus was born of a virgin"

 

[AV1611VET]

Exactly that? No it doesn't say "Jesus was born of a virgin" in the 1611 KJV.
BibleGateway - Quick search: "Jesus was born of a virgin"

I'll make a KJVO literalist out of you yet!

 

[verysincere]

Besides, the prophet didn't say "virgin" anyway. It's remarkably clear that the "prophecy" was relating to an ongoing event - not some distant messiah. The boys who wrote the Gospels spent a great deal of time trying to connect Jesus to some rather vague, ancient prophecies, which varying levels of success.

Yes, even the English Bible reader of Isaiah 7 can't miss the contemporary meaning.

And Christian theologians have long been comfortable with the idea that many of the Old Testament prophecies quoted in the Gospels had both contemporary and future meanings. That is, the original contexts were clearly speaking of a contemporaneous meaning, such as the young woman conceiving and giving birth to a son. Just verses later in Isaiah 7:16, the prophet says, "For before the child knows to reject the bad and choose the good, desolation will come upon the land of the two kings before whom you now cower." So OBVIOUSLY the original intent of Isaiah's statement applied to geopolitical conditions of that day.

So then, why did Matthew apply the passage to the birth of Jesus? He was emphasizing Immanuel, "God with us." The prophecy was cited to drive home the point that the birth of Jesus was TRULY "God with us" in a literal way that history had never before known.

How sad that many Christians continue to use Isaiah 7:14 as the ultimate "translation test" ----claiming that any rendering expect "virgin" is a sinister effort to undermine the divinity of Jesus. Ironically, if one insists upon "virgin" instead of "young woman" in Isaiah 7:14, one is claiming that Jesus is not unique as "virgin born"---since the child mentioned in Isaiah 7:16 and who was known to the royal household of that day would have to share that same trait. So, as so often happens, emotive claims tend to overshadow what the Bible actually says.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV's statement is quite telling though, isn't it? He quite clearly states that he values simplicity over what the documents in the bible really said originally. Since the latter is too hard for him, he'd rather have a simple, but wrong answer than a somewhat harder but correct one.

Either that, or I'm KJVO.

I realize that's a hard concept to swallow, but nevertheless, 'tis true.

 

[pgp_protector]

I'll make a KJVO literalist out of you yet!

Of course is also doesn't say "The Whole World Was Flooded" or "God is Real" or "Jesus is God"

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course is also doesn't say "The Whole World Was Flooded" or "God is Real" or "Jesus is God"

Man, you're on a roll!

I'm getting goosebumps!

 

[pgp_protector]

Man, you're on a roll!

I'm getting goosebumps!

So do you agree that given it's not in the 1611KJV
The Whole World Was not Flooded, and that God isn't real, & that Jesus isn't God?
After all it isn't in the 1611KJV Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

So do you agree that given it's not in the 1611KJV
The Whole World Was not Flooded, and that God isn't real, & that Jesus isn't God?
After all it isn't in the 1611KJV Bible.

Nice try ... but for the record, I do see the point you're making.

 

[RainbowDashIsBestPony]

There are 333 miracles listed in the Bible. I wonder how many of them our disbelieving believers believe actually happened.

Now that you mention it, 333 x 2 = 666.

Suspicious.

 

[USincognito]

There are 333 miracles listed in the Bible. I wonder how many of them our disbelieving believers believe actually happened.

This is post #895. Since that time, I haven't seen a single one actually addressing the topic of this thread - Why does "15 Questions for Evolutionists" brochure confuse the meaning of "evolution"?

 

[AV1611VET]

This is post #895. Since that time, I haven't seen a single one actually addressing the topic of this thread - Why does "15 Questions for Evolutionists" brochure confuse the meaning of "evolution"?

940 posts now, and you expect us to still be on topic?

 

[LadyOfMystery]

Mod Hat On

This thread has under gone a thread clean up. Please get back onto the original topic and refrain from calling out other members. If you have a problem with a member please put them on ignore or talk to a staff member about it.

Flaming and Harassment
● Do not insult, belittle, mock, goad, personally attack, threaten, harass, or use derogatory nicknames in reference to other members or groups of members. Address the context of the post, not the poster.
● If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button. Do not report another member out of spite.
● Do not state or imply that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian.
● Those who do not adhere to the Statement of Faith are welcome as members and participants in discussions, but you are required to respect these beliefs, even if you do not share them.
● Do not make another member's experience on this site miserable. This includes, making false accusations or persistently attacking them in the open forums.
● Respect another member's request to cease personal contact.


Mod Hat Off

 

[verysincere]

There are many Christians who reject a literal interpretation of the Old Testament (such as verysincere). Why? Because it's just silly. There's no need to single out atheists.

I actually grimace at the term "literal interpretation" because very few of my Christian brethren even understand what it means. I've written long articles on that topic so I won't attempt even a summary here. But as an example, what many Christians think is a "literal interpretation" of a passage is simply an acceptance of a TRADITIONAL VIEW of a text which has become so familiar to them that they have no idea that the original language text may not be accurately rendered by the most popular traditional translations.

For example, many assume that "earth" (ERETZ) in the Noah's flood account is referring to the modern concept of PLANET EARTH. But in the Hebrew text ERETZ is simply the opposite of SKY ("the heavens" HASHAMAYIM) and refers to "land", "country", "region", and sometimes "soil" (to mention just a few of the LITERAL meanings of ERETZ.) ERETZ, like many other Hebrew words, has MULTIPLE definitions---all of which could be called "literal".

Needless to say, most Bible readers are ignorant of linguistics and the exegetical factors behind translation. And what may seem "obvious" from a particular English Bible translation appears so obvious because the other possibilities/nuances have been eliminated by the translation process. Accordingly, "literal" interpretation that is based on an English translation is NOT what Bible scholars work from---because the Genesis text was written in Hebrew and that is our focus.

 

[mzungu]

I'll make a KJVO literalist out of you yet!

WOW! Sounds painful! :o What are the side effects

 

[Subduction Zone]

WOW! Sounds painful! :o What are the side effects

The first is severe loss of gray matter. But don't worry, that makes the rest of the change much less painful