Why Evolution is True (3)

[morse86]

I gave you the translations of the Name over time through several langauges. If you had bothered to read it you would understand. Are you under the delusion that Yeshua and his disciples spoke English?

"Wickedpedia" LMAO!!! Doesn't the demonization of things make you feel oh so much more righteous???


Try Aramaic. The actually language that "Jesus" and His disciples spoke.

Acts 4:10
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
“Let this be known to you and to all the people of Israel, that in the name of Yeshua The Messiah, the Nazarene, him whom you have crucified, whom God has raised from among the dead, behold, in it and by him this man stands before you whole.”

Acts 2:1-4:
And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

If you think modern hebrew and ancient hebrew sound the same......you must really be a fool. You blindly trust the wicked philosophers of this world...just look at how much the english language has changed in 200 years. The hebrew language has been dead for almost 2000 years!

I don't read the armanic bible...I got the real Holy Bible instead. Hebrew language was dead for 2000 years.

 

[createdtoworship]

I gave you direct verses from the word of God.

You gave me mans opinion/garbage from wordly sources like wickedpedia.

Romans 1:22: Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

yes, it is wickedpedia, I will remember that one thanx, here is more on the factual inaccuracies of wikipedia (which is public edited).

Most Wikipedia entries about companies contain factual errors, study finds -- ScienceDaily

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia - Conservapedia

BBC News - Trust your doctor, not Wikipedia, say scientists

Study Finds 90% of Health-Related Wikipedia Articles Contain Errors - iHealthBeat

 

[createdtoworship]

Another fail on your part. If anything that is a verse that refers to you.

ironic you speak of failing, when you yourself contradicted in several post on the last thread evolution 2

http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960-post66200778
http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960-8/#post66196231
http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960-47/#post66171951
http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960-48/#post66171514
http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960-13/#post66191413
http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960-13/#post66191405
http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960-34/#post66183936
should I search for more?

 

[createdtoworship]

Scientists are not limited to your very limited definition of observation.

We can observe evolution in the fossil record, we can observe evolution in DNA. We can observe evolution in the many independent phylogenetic trees that we can see.

And everything we observe is not necessarily evidence.

Clearly you need to learn what scientific evidence is too.

The classroom is always open.

fossil record has no monkey men like I asked or whale dogs, or birdy dino's . phylogenetic trees beg the question as to if evolution is in fact true, and DNA supports the fact that we are more similar to cats than monkeys anyway. So I am unsure if any of your brief attempts at evidence qualify as science as they are unobserved or outright misleading.

 

[createdtoworship]

And you are simply uninformed.I just love transliterations of translations of translations, don't you? Have some etymology!Etymology and origins: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_(name)The proper name Jesus /ˈdʒiːzəs/ used in the English language originates from the Latin form of the Greek name Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous), a rendition of the Hebrew Yeshua (ישו&#1506, also having the variants Joshua or Jeshua.[1][2] In a religious context the name refers to Jesus, the central figure of Christianity.The word Jesus used in the New Testament comes from the Latin form of the Greek name Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous), a rendition of the Hebrew Yeshua (ישו&#1506, also used as Joshua or Yesua.[1][2] The name is thus related to the Hebrew consonantal verb root verb y-š-ʕ (to rescue or deliver) and the Hebrew noun yešuaʕ (deliverance).[4] There have been a number of proposals as to the origin and etymological origin of the name Jesus (cf. Matthew 1:21). The name is related to the Hebrew form [Yehoshua`] יְהוֹשֻׁעַ Joshua, which is a theophoric name first mentioned within the Biblical tradition in Exodus 17:9. This name is usually considered to be a compound of two parts: יהו Yeho, a theophoric reference to YHWH, the name of the God of Israel, plus Hosea a form derived from the Hebrew triconsonantal root y-š-ʕ or י-ש-ע Numbers 13:16 "to liberate, save". There have been various proposals as to how the literal etymological meaning of the name should be translated, including: YHWH saves, (is) salvation, (is) a saving-cry, (is) a cry-for-saving, (is) a cry-for-help, (is) my help.[5][6][7][8][9]This early Biblical Hebrew name יְהוֹשֻׁעַ Yehoshua` underwent a shortening into later Biblical יֵשׁוּעַ Yeshua`, as found in the Hebrew text of verses Ezra 2:2, 2:6, 2:36, 2:40, 3:2, 3:8, 3:9, 3:10, 3:18, 4:3, 8:33; Nehemiah 3:19, 7:7, 7:11, 7:39, 7:43, 8:7, 8:17, 9:4, 9:5, 11:26, 12:1, 12:7, 12:8, 12:10, 12:24, 12:26; 1 Chronicles 24:11; and 2 Chronicles 31:15 – as well as in Biblical Aramaic at verse Ezra 5:2. These Bible verses refer to ten individuals (in Nehemiah 8:17, the name refers to Joshua son of Nun). This historical change may have been due to a phonological shift whereby guttural phonemes weakened, including [h].[10] Usually, the traditional theophoric element Yahu יהו was shortened at the beginning of a name to יו Yo-, and at the end to יה -yah. In the contraction of Yehoshua` to Yeshua`, the vowel is instead fronted (perhaps due to the influence of the y in the triliteral root y-š-&#703. During the post-Biblical period the further shortened form Yeshu was adopted by Aramaic and Hebrew speaking Jews to refer to the Christian Jesus, however Yehoshua continued to be used for the other figures called Jesus.[11]Historical fact: No one called Him Jesus while he was alive. They called him Yehoshua which means "God the Father saves" which agrees with the rest of the bible. "Jesus" is a culturally meaningless name, quit convenient for wrapping around false doctrine and perverted dogma for the enslaving of man."EE-yo-shu-ah" is not "Gee-zus" .You might not be concerned with the actual meaning of His actual Name, but He said it was important, so I tend to take it seriously.

Jesus is the proper name for an english transliteration of the hebrew or greek, in which all english translations are (transliterations), so I am unsure what the gripe is. Its like calling someone Juan or John. It's the same name just in a different language. So no, Jesus is not "culturally meaningless" because in english culture He is saviour.

 

[46AND2]

DNA supports the fact that we are more similar to cats than monkeys anyway.

No...it doesn't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

ironic you speak of failing, when you yourself contradicted in several post on the last thread evolution 2

http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960-post66200778
http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960-8/#post66196231
http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960-47/#post66171951
http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960-48/#post66171514
http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960-13/#post66191413
http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960-13/#post66191405
http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960-34/#post66183936
should I search for more?

No, I didn't. Your failure was already covered on this. You were being a fool. Do you want to go into detail?

All of those posts showed how you failed, not I.

The main problem seems to be that you have an extremely low reading comprehension. Instead of jumping to conclusions you should always, and I mean always, wonder what YOU did wrong.

 

[dad]

Actually we have proven the past state, but that is besides the point.

Truth be told you haven't and can't. Therefore the models about the past built on our laws are false in the extreme.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Truth be told you haven't and can't. Therefore the models about the past built on our laws are false in the extreme.

Truth be told we have.

And you have yet to give any evidence for your altered past. That means even without evidence we win!

Yahoo!!!

dad, seriously. Do you only want to be a laughing stock for the masses?

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Jesus is the proper name for an english transliteration of the hebrew or greek, in which all english translations are (transliterations), so I am unsure what the gripe is. Its like calling someone Juan or John. It's the same name just in a different language. So no, Jesus is not "culturally meaningless" because in english culture He is saviour.

It is not like calling Juan "John". John from the bible was called Yohanan, a shortened form of Yehohanan which means YHVH is Gracious. No one called him "John". John has no cultural meaning.

Just like no one called Jesus "Jesus" while he was alive. Because that was not his name. If you asked for "Jesus" none of his family or disciples would know who you are talking about. He was called Yeshua, a shortened form Yehoshua whichs means YHVH saves. God the Father is our only Savior. That is the entire importance of the name Yeshua. Because it pointed right back to God The Father. God in the Highest.

"Jesus" is the Perfector of Man because He is the Perfection of Man. He is the Author and Finisher of our faith. God the Father is the Saviour and place of Salvation. The Eternal Abode. The Heaven above the heavens that all else underneath will pass away from. God in the Highest and all inhabiting beings are all that is left when infinite universes have come and gone.


Jude 1:25 to the only God our Savior, through Jesus (Yeshua) Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.

Isaiah 43:11 "I, even I, am YHVH, And there is no savior besides Me. 12"It is I who have declared and saved and proclaimed, And there was no strange god among you; So you are My witnesses," declares the LORD, "And I am God.…



Who was it that Yeshua Ha Mashiach could do nothing without?

Who was it that Yeshua Ha Mashiach prayed to that all man might become one with The Father as he had become?

Who was it that raised Yeshua Ha Mashiach from the dead?

Who made Yeshua Ha Mashiach "The Christ" by christening him with the Holy Spirit?


Who saved "Jesus"? YHVH.





And you might think this would be the end of the mystery, but it's not...


Rev 3:21 "To the one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne."

1 John 5:4 "Because everyone who is born from God conquers the universe; and this is the victory that conquers the universe - even our faith."


There is a rebirth by the waters of Truth. And a rebirth by the fires of Spirit.

That is the water that "Jesus" walked on, turned into wine and was a living fountain of. The Knowledge of Truth. Which just happens to the be the will of YHVH....the savior.


1 Timothy 10:3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Acts 2:1-4:
And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

If you think modern hebrew and ancient hebrew sound the same......you must really be a fool. You blindly trust the wicked philosophers of this world...just look at how much the english language has changed in 200 years. The hebrew language has been dead for almost 2000 years!

I don't read the armanic bible...I got the real Holy Bible instead. Hebrew language was dead for 2000 years.

Aramiac was the language Jesus and his disciples spoke.

What Language Did Jesus Speak? Why Does It Matter?

The widespread use of Aramaic among Jews is illustrated by the fact that portions of the Old Testament are in Aramaic, not Hebrew (Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26; Daniel 2:4-7:28; Jeremiah 10:11). This means, for example, that one of the most important passages in the Old Testament for our understanding of Jesus appears in Aramaic. Daniel’s vision of “one like a son of man” is described in Aramaic (kebar ‘enash; 7:13). Moreover, around the time of Jesus, though probably after his death, the Hebrew scrolls of the Old Testament were translated into Aramaic for use in the synagogues, because so many Jews did not understand Hebrew.)

During and before the time of Jesus, there wasn’t just one version of Aramaic being used in Judea and beyond. Some Aramaic was official and formal. This is preserved, as you would expect, in official documents and inscriptions. Some was informal and common. This was spoken and has mostly been lost to modern scholars. The fact that Aramaic was used by Jews in Judea is supported by its use in some of the Dead Sea Scrolls (which are mostly in Hebrew, however), and in some ancient documents and inscriptions. Even many grave inscriptions around Jerusalem are in Aramaic, not Hebrew. It’s most likely that in Galilee, where Jesus was raised and where he began his ministry, Aramaic was the most common language of the people, though many would have been able to understand Hebrew and to get along in Greek as well.

In my next post in this series I’ll look at the evidence for Jesus’ use of Aramaic.

...

The clearest example of Aramaic on the lips of Jesus in the Gospels occurs in Mark 5:41. Jesus entered the home of a synagogue leader whose daughter had died. “Holding her hand, he said to her, ‘Talitha koum,” which means “Little girl, get up!” Both Matthew and Luke tell this same story, but without the Aramaic sentence (Matt 9:24; Luke 8:54). Matthew simply describes the healing while Luke includes only the Greek translation. Mark, however, passes on what appears to be the actual words of Jesus, word in Aramaic.




If you do not know the origins of words then you will be fooled by the lying pens of the scribes.


On a side note, is all philosophy evil in your eyes?

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

And there I go way off topic...goodnight!

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

"The fossil record is the cause of ongoing debate between evolutionists. On one side geneticists and theoreticians stand for Darwinian “gradualism.” They continue to claim that the lack of intermediate forms is due to the rarity of fossilisation and the imperfection of the fossil record. Thus, the fossil record is something which needs to be explained away – it is not good evidence for Darwinian evolution."

The Fossil Record

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Looks like 19% of Americans believe in Darwinian Evolution.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Why would you argue against evolution by quoting a Christian site? are you that far gone?

I saw a pattern in this thread of emotional based opinions flying back and forth and so I injected some citations to push toward a more professional dialog.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

As you say that's Americans, in the rest of the world the rate is closer to 80%, 99% of people throughout the world who are not stifled by religious dogma accept that evolution is a fact.

Because people ignorant of maths do not know that 20% of 100 is 20 does that mean 20 is not 20% of 100?
Ignorance of the truth means nothing to the truth.

Let's see your citations that support your figures above, unless of course they aren't factual.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Let's see your citations that support your figures above, unless of course they aren't factual.

Just out of interest, have you ever been abroad?

 

[Dizredux]

Grady, you asked this question

Grady

hey I had a another quick question. Do you believe Genesis is the word of God, Do you believe it is literal?

if not, then how can people be called sinners if adam was never there to begin the process of "the fall". Without being called sinners, how can someone be forgiven of sin by Christ's sacrifice, and lastly, how can one be saved with no theological roots to the fall. Granted one may in fact come upon the doctrine of original sin, and depravity by other means, but what is the ultimate point if the original sin, did not sin, because He didn't exist?

To which I responded

Diz

I wasn't going to respond to this as it probably is off topic in this forum but changed my mind.

It will take me a few days though as I have just had new carpet put in and putting things back is both painful and rather slow

You came back with:

then if you will dodge and not provide evidence for your response (which I checked and did not see) then why should I respond to any more of your posts, seeing you don't address mine?

My reaction:

I had already respond to you on this but you and told you what I had planned but as usual, you did not read. I thought it might be an honest question and an invitation to a dialog but now I see it as some kind of foolish challenge and I withdraw my offer to respond.


Grady, you are being a pill.....it does not make you look good in the least.

You then wrote repeating yourself:

then if you will dodge and not provide evidence for your response (which I checked and did not see) then why should I respond to any more of your posts, seeing you don't address mine?

What I hear is the sound of footsteps of you running away using any excuse you can get. I notice that you went right back to saying macroevolution has not been observed.

I can see no other way of looking at this than deliberate dishonesty. You have a history of using anything you can to reject what does not agree with you. It has not gotten to the point where this is very predictable and this is simply another data point supporting your unfortunate pattern of behaviors.

Dizredux

 

[Astrophile]

As I said that can be observed both through DNA and in the fossil record. The evolution of the horse was well observed on the macro level fairly early. Now we have the evolution of man, rhinos, and even a fairly full list of whale fossils.

You could also mention ring species, particularly the species of European and North American gulls, which must have evolved since the end of the last Ice Age, about 12,000 years ago.

What clinched it for me was the fact that T.H. Huxley showed in 1863 that our closest relatives are the African apes (chimpanzees and gorillas) and that the australopithecines, the 'missing link' between humans and apes, were African animals. The consilience of these two facts showed beyond reasonable doubt that our simian ancestors lived in Africa, not in Asia or Europe. Conversely, if our closest relatives had been the orang-utans, or if the australopithecines had lived in Asia, or if 'Piltdown man' (found in England, of all places!) had been genuine, the story of human evolution would have been badly upset.

 

[Astrophile]

observation meaning evidence that man came from monkeys, or whales from Dog like creatures etc.

So what were the ancestors of men and whales, etc.?. Humans and whales didn't come into existence by spontaneous generation, so we should find fossils of our true ancestors in ancient rocks. We don't find fossil humans in Oligocene or Miocene rocks, or fossil whales in Paleocene or Cretaceous rocks, but humans and whales must have had Miocene and Paleocene ancestors, so what were they?