[Creationism] Ignored again...****!!!

Chat about stuff other than Transformers.
Locked
User avatar
Savannahtron
Posts: 3308
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 5:00 am
Location: Savannah, GA
Contact:

Post by Savannahtron » Fri Dec 13, 2002 3:42 am

Um Sheba, not to complain but your sig is Huge.

I mean really really long, and Huge.

User avatar
nmathew
Protoform
Posts: 1797
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2001 4:00 am
Location: Bay Area

Post by nmathew » Fri Dec 13, 2002 8:33 am

Why won't you die?





(note, said to thread, not a poster)

User avatar
Garand
Posts: 2375
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2000 5:00 am
Location: Flying high in my taxi
Contact:

Post by Garand » Sat Dec 14, 2002 4:32 am

Originally posted by nmathew
Why won't you die?
**loads shotgun** Just waiting for the right moment.. knowing these 2, this thread will veer of course of degrade to blunt flames in a matter of days...
Image

User avatar
Sheba
Protoform
Posts: 2322
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2001 5:00 am
Location: Sephiroth's Backyard
Contact:

Post by Sheba » Sat Dec 14, 2002 9:00 pm

Originally posted by Strafe

No, but I'm merely pointing out that a debate will fall apart if on every refutation you can say it was a miracle. There is no way that I can think of to prove a miracle occured in a case like the Ark for instance....

Well of course nobody can prove a miracle. But then of course with the Ark there's more to it than that. Evolutionists claim some things about the Flood that are meant to cast doubt on it but the fact remains that most of the sedimentary rock--some of it thousands of feet thick at a single type of rock deposit--was formed by water. Australia's Uluru (Ayer's Rock) was formed by water, as it is made entirely of sedimentary rock. Same with Kata Tjuta, which is a series of huge rounded rocky domes 30 km west of Uluru.

Ayer's Rock/Uluru is made of a sandstone type called arkose. Arkose is composed mainly of grains and crystals of feldspar. It is the feldspar that gives Ayer's Rock its pinkish/reddish color. The grains themselves are ofen jagged around their edges, not smooth or rounded.

Kata Tjuta (a.k.a. Mt Currie Conglomerate) is made up of conglomerate--a poorly sorted sedimentary rock containing pebbles, cobbles, and boulders held together by a matrix of finer fragments and cemented sand, silt, and/or mud.

Uluru and Kata Tjuta appear to be related by a common history. Though the outcrops are isolated from one another, the evidence clearly suggests that both rock units were formed at the same time and in the same way:

Evolutionists believe that layer upon layer of arkose and conglomerate were accumulated over hundreds of millions of years, and eroding for millions of years. Problem is, that there's an actual scientific reason to say that's not right! At Uluru particularly, the ubiquitous fresh feldspar crystals would never have survived the claimed millions of years. Feldspar breaks down when exposed to the Sun's heat, water, and air, and relatively quickly forms clays. If the arkose was deposited as sheets of sand only centimeters thick (an inch or two) spread over may tens of square kilometers to dry in the sun's heat over countless thousands or millions of years, then the feldspar crystals would have decomposed to clays. Likewise, if the arkose had been exposed to the destructive forces of erosion and tropical deep chemical weathering even for just a few million years, as evolutionists claim happened, then the feldspar crystals would have long ago decomposed to clays. Either way, the sandstone fabric would have become weakened and then collapsed, as the clays and remaining unbound mineral grains would have easily disintegrated and been entirely washed away, leaving no Ayer's Rock at all!

Furthermore, sand grains which are moved over long distances and periodically swept further and further over vast eons of time would lose their jagged edges, becoming smooth and rounded. At the same time, the same sand grains being acted upon by the moving water over those claimed long periods of time should also be sorted; the smaller grains are more easily carried by water, so they'd be separated from the larger grains. Thus, if Ayer's Rock Arkose had taken millions of years to accumulate as evolutionary geologists claim, then the rock today should have layers of either small or large grains. So fresh, shiny feldspar crystals and jagged, unsorted grains today all indicate that the Uluru (Ayer's Rock) Arkose accumulated so rapidly that the feldspar did not have enough time to decompose, nor the grains to be rounded and sorted.

What of the Mt. Currie Conglomerate (Kata Tjuta)? Even geologists who believe in slow-and-gradual sedimentation over millions of years have to admit that waters which carried such large boulders (some over 1.5 meters/5 feet across) had to be a swiftly flowing, raging torrent.

The implications of this are absolutely staggering. One only has to consider the amount and force of water needed to dump some 6,000 meters (~20,000 feet) thickness of sand, and a similar thickness of pebbles, cobbles, boulders, etc., probably in a matter of hours, after having transported these sediments many tens of kilometers, to realize that such an event had to be a catastrophic flood. And this traumatic event had to be recent, otherwise the feldspar crystals in the arkose would not be as fresh (unweathered) as they are today.
Originally posted by Strafe

The amount of damage that modern DNA has compared to past DNA is negligible. Why? Look at the diversity of species. If problems were rampant then animals would be dying left, right and center. But the opposite is true. Yet if you take DNA from 2 animals there is NO way it could create a healthy population, even if the DNA was perfect. If the DNA is perfect than all you are doing is creating clones, and clones share the same problems as their "father". For example the amish population has a very high degree of a genetic disease because they only breed amongst their own population. Now imagine if it was only 2 breeding animals. I'm sorry, but there is no way that those animals could possibly repopulate an entire planet, "perfect" DNA or no.

How on earth do you figure that the DNA damage was negligible over all this time?! Do you even know what your starting point is? Do you even know what "perfect" DNA is supposed to be like? I don't know how much genetics you actually learned about, but I'm going to tell you right now that the statement you made about perfect DNA and clones is total rubbish. You're assuming facts not in evidence--apparently you equate "imperfect" DNA with recessive traits. That's a ridiculous assumption. Not all recessive traits are "imperfect" and not all dominant traits are "perfect." Didn't you know that the trait for polydactyly (extra fingers and/or toes) is DOMINANT?! And parents with perfect or near perfect DNA will have no genetic diseases among the offspring.

And if genetic diseases are what you're worried about only a few thousand years ago, what about the "common ancestors" of all that is living today? They had to inbreed pretty bad many times over (if they existed that is)!!! Over millions of years there'd be PLENTY of time for genetic diseases to pop up. (And that's where Haldane found a problem). Not only that, but there is a far greater chance that animals moving up higher on the evolutionary ladder WOULD have to inbreed in order to find a compatible mate. Sorry dude your genetics argument makes evolution take more hits than creation man. After all, evolution demands that all life evolved from a common ancestor. INBREEDING!!!!! From the getgo!
And this business with the Amish, that's not a comparable situation. Don't forget that in the fossil record we have GIANT huge frickin' animals--like monster dragonflies, giant club moss and ferns, giant sloths, and whatnot. The dragonflies may not even have been any different of a species of any of the ones flying around today--in fact in outward appearance they're identical. So don't tell me that DNA wasn't THAT much better long long ago.

Originally posted by Strafe
So? I didn't know you had a preference. Point is mammals share a ton of DNA.

BTW that points towards a common ancestor.
...

Or it points to a common designer. Do we even KNOW how much different DNA has to be? Or could it be that we're gonna be allowed to play Frankenstein with DNA for awhile and it wouldn't be possible unless all DNA was very similar?

Originally posted by Strafe



Even if that were so, that still doesn't do anything about all the other types of dating that are used and all come up with the same answer...

...
They do not always come up with the same answer--it may be similar in cases, which means only that all the nuclear dating methods of ROCKS have a common weakness in assumptions that may not be correct. Hell the same test of the same method a couple times over doesn't give the same answer each time. None of them ever agree with C-14 when it's been cross-checked with that in items that were buried underneath radiometrically datable rock.

Bottom line is we cannot know exactly what the amount of the original parent and daughter elements were in the past--because in a Created world, God would have created ALL the elements. Otherwise the creation would not have been finished (but it was). The assumptions made by K-Ar dating are virtually identical to the assumptions made with U-Pb, Rubidium-Strontium, and all those others.

C-14 isn't perfect either but if C-14 IS present, we have a reasonable expectation that the object is LESS than 50,000 years old. And mammal bones dated in strata reported to be millions of years old have consistently dated out as having enough C-14 in it to detect. This in spite of insistence that the datings of U-Pb and K-Ar of associated lava flows and other rocks of "millions of years" are right. The Leakeys had this problem over in Africa.
"This appears to be a copy of Final Fantasy, which is a step up from a copy of Pearl Jam"-Ed the Sock, on Fromage 2002, about one of Creed's videos--"Bullets".

User avatar
Strafe
Posts: 3445
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2001 4:00 am
Location: Chicago, Illinois

I need warpaint for these threads Braveheart style

Post by Strafe » Sat Dec 14, 2002 9:51 pm

To be honest I kinda glazed over the latter bits and pieces as my main argument is of a more fundamental nature. In other words why attack the branches when you could just cut down the tree?

If you would care to read my earlier post on the incoherency of a perfect being creating the world in 6 days, then you will see that it is illogical for such a state of occurances to happen in such a literal manner.

An infinite being has no business being hampered by time, taking 24 hours to create something seems nonsensical for a omnipotent being.

Now this does of course beg the question of why then created the world in the millions of years or whatever, but that is actually a mistaken objection. For the Big Bang is all God woulda needed to start off correct? Well that takes an instant really. Then things progress on their own. Did God dabble in things during the evolution of the universe? Maybe, but again that falls under the category of trying to see the invisible.

But the idea that God would have to wait 23.99 hours after creating light, to create matter seems ridiculous honestly. Why would he have to wait?

Well of course now I'm just repeating myself from my earlier post, but all I have to do is prove that creation did not happen in a 6-7 day period, and thus young earth creationism falls by the wayside discarded.

:cool:

As for all the other stuff I'm quite confident there are explanations for it for the very simple reason that modern scientists are open minded and seriously investigate this stuff. If it was so that the objections hold and evolution was deemed false we woulda heard about it. In fact it may very well be at Skeptic.com , sciam.com or talkorigin.org that there is an answer, but I won't be arsed to find it during finals week when I have lots of stuff to do in the left-wing academician brainwashing institute known as university.

User avatar
Sir Auros
Posts: 12980
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2000 4:00 am
Location: Virginia, USA
Contact:

Re: I need warpaint for these threads Braveheart style

Post by Sir Auros » Sat Dec 14, 2002 10:34 pm

Originally posted by Strafe

Well of course now I'm just repeating myself from my earlier post,


You'll find you'll have to do that quite often with her, since she prefers to put up smokescreens addressing trivial issues she can attempt to discredit rather than firm arguments that she has no defense against...

User avatar
Sheba
Protoform
Posts: 2322
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2001 5:00 am
Location: Sephiroth's Backyard
Contact:

Re: I need warpaint for these threads Braveheart style

Post by Sheba » Sun Dec 15, 2002 12:40 am

Originally posted by Strafe
To be honest I kinda glazed over the latter bits and pieces as my main argument is of a more fundamental nature. In other words why attack the branches when you could just cut down the tree?

If you would care to read my earlier post on the incoherency of a perfect being creating the world in 6 days, then you will see that it is illogical for such a state of occurances to happen in such a literal manner.

An infinite being has no business being hampered by time, taking 24 hours to create something seems nonsensical for a omnipotent being.

Now this does of course beg the question of why then created the world in the millions of years or whatever, but that is actually a mistaken objection. For the Big Bang is all God woulda needed to start off correct? Well that takes an instant really. Then things progress on their own. Did God dabble in things during the evolution of the universe? Maybe, but again that falls under the category of trying to see the invisible.

But the idea that God would have to wait 23.99 hours after creating light, to create matter seems ridiculous honestly. Why would he have to wait?

Well of course now I'm just repeating myself from my earlier post, but all I have to do is prove that creation did not happen in a 6-7 day period, and thus young earth creationism falls by the wayside discarded.

:cool:

As for all the other stuff I'm quite confident there are explanations for it for the very simple reason that modern scientists are open minded and seriously investigate this stuff. If it was so that the objections hold and evolution was deemed false we woulda heard about it. In fact it may very well be at Skeptic.com , sciam.com or talkorigin.org that there is an answer, but I won't be arsed to find it during finals week when I have lots of stuff to do in the left-wing academician brainwashing institute known as university.


Illogical? Huh? You're the one that's going on about how 24hour days somehow "hamper" God's time, yet insist that the world came into being over billions of years? When God created, the things he created on each particular day came into existence IMMEDIATELY. When he said "Let there be Light" it didn't take 24 hours for the light to show up, or that he had to wait for 24 hrs each time he created; it's just that he CHOSE to wait 24 hours before creating the stuff for the second day, and on and on. That's not hampering God for time. Doing it in 6 days with a "resting" day was for his own purposes. What's illogical here is delving into theological questions while you keep insisting on discussing things on a "scientific" basis. How can you say you can't take the Creation account at face value, when Jesus acts like it actually happened?! (Same with the flood).

Or more importantly, why would God create a world thru the Big Bang and let it "run on its own" so to speak (let nature do the creating of life and stuff) and have death come into the world LONG before Man shows up, and then turn around and claim that by Sin (of Man) death came into the World? Now THAT is illogical.

As for chopping at the ROOT, it still is impossible for life to have formed spontaneously. There's a root that we can hack at really good. Polymers do NOT remain chemically stable--especially not in water. For evolution to be possible, major laws of Chemistry would have to be suspended.

Ok finals will be screwing you for time, but I can wait for you to find an "explanation." However I continue to marvel at your mistaken idea that the scientists you place your trust in are "Open Minded." They're about as "closed-minded" as the Creationists they are so fond of deriding! Ever notice that every time someone comes up with something to "prove" evolution, they jump up to embrace it immediately? Don't you realize that they are just as bound by bias to their theory as Creationists are to theirs? Just because they have the aura and mantle of "Science" and "Expert Status" doesn't make an evolutionist the more credible of the two.

Strange. I criticize Radiocarbon Dating, and you claim that there's solid science behind it, but when I come up with SCIENTIFIC evidence that disproves an evolutionist timeframe geologically speaking, you are quick to say "There's gotta be a reasonable explanation...it's going to be investigated...by *snicker* open-minded scientists" I hate to tell you this but I betcha it will be ignored. Lots of things are ignored by evolutionists...at least, until they can come up with an explanation (no matter how improbable). Go ahead and ask them. And why can't I say that there must be a reasonable explanation why K-Ar/U-Pb dates go into the millions of years? Turnabout is fair play you know.
"This appears to be a copy of Final Fantasy, which is a step up from a copy of Pearl Jam"-Ed the Sock, on Fromage 2002, about one of Creed's videos--"Bullets".

User avatar
Sir Auros
Posts: 12980
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2000 4:00 am
Location: Virginia, USA
Contact:

Re: Re: I need warpaint for these threads Braveheart style

Post by Sir Auros » Sun Dec 15, 2002 12:56 am

Originally posted by Sheba
Ok finals will be screwing you for time, but I can wait for you to find an "explanation."


Hmm, yes, you do have all the time in the world given that you do nothing useful with your life...

Blaster_86

Re: Re: I need warpaint for these threads Braveheart style

Post by Blaster_86 » Sun Dec 15, 2002 2:49 am

Originally posted by Sheba
I hate to tell you this but I betcha it will be ignored. Lots of things are ignored by evolutionists...at least, until they can come up with an explanation (no matter how improbable). Go ahead and ask them. And why can't I say that there must be a reasonable explanation why K-Ar/U-Pb dates go into the millions of years? Turnabout is fair play you know.


Becuase you don't have a reasonable explination for it and chances are one will never be found.

Now why do scientists not bring it up? Simple they have no answer to it. Why write something in a report or talk about it IF you don't know about it? You ask questiosn and when you hav a reasonable answer you present it.

No things written in the bible are not reasonable answers as that is on perspective when there is usually 10 scientists trying to figure things out for evolution.

User avatar
Strafe
Posts: 3445
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2001 4:00 am
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Re: Re: I need warpaint for these threads Braveheart style

Post by Strafe » Sun Dec 15, 2002 2:58 am

Originally posted by Sheba
Illogical? Huh? You're the one that's going on about how 24hour days somehow "hamper" God's time, yet insist that the world came into being over billions of years?

I already addressed that.

When God created, the things he created on each particular day came into existence IMMEDIATELY.

Yes, sounds good so far, but just wait.

When he said "Let there be Light" it didn't take 24 hours for the light to show up, or that he had to wait for 24 hrs each time he created; it's just that he CHOSE to wait 24 hours before creating the stuff for the second day, and on and on.

And that's the problem! What does a perfect being need to wait 24 hours? Why? Why? Why? Why?

Why?

That's not hampering God for time. Doing it in 6 days with a "resting" day was for his own purposes.

What purposes? We are dealing with a perfect being here, not a person.

What's illogical here is delving into theological questions while you keep insisting on discussing things on a "scientific" basis.

Um, how? Like they always say, cut off the head and the body dies...

How can you say you can't take the Creation account at face value, when Jesus acts like it actually happened?! (Same with the flood).

Because Jesus was trying to get a morality lesson across and was expressing it in terms of widely known stories. In other words, what is more important creation or salvation?

Or more importantly, why would God create a world thru the Big Bang and let it "run on its own" so to speak (let nature do the creating of life and stuff) and have death come into the world LONG before Man shows up, and then turn around and claim that by Sin (of Man) death came into the World?

Because Man wrote the friggin Bible. Inspired by God, yes, but you know what? People are scum and they are power hungry and anything that delivers political power into their hands will be exercised with extreme prejudice even if that mean altering or misinterpreting texts.

For evolution to be possible, major laws of Chemistry would have to be suspended.

Like?

Ok finals will be screwing you for time, but I can wait for you to find an "explanation."

My heart beats with unbridled joy.

However I continue to marvel at your mistaken idea that the scientists you place your trust in are "Open Minded." They're about as "closed-minded" as the Creationists they are so fond of deriding!

I continue to marvel at your die-hard insistence on equating evolution with anti-God thinking.

Just because they have the aura and mantle of "Science" and "Expert Status" doesn't make an evolutionist the more credible of the two.

Um yes that does make them more credible. Having a phD or research labs makes you far more credible than some Joe Sixpack touting fundamentalist claptrap.


Strange. I criticize Radiocarbon Dating, and you claim that there's solid science behind it, but when I come up with SCIENTIFIC evidence that disproves an evolutionist timeframe geologically speaking, you are quick to say "There's gotta be a reasonable explanation...it's going to be investigated...by *snicker* open-minded scientists"

Hold on one minute here. First don't butcher my quotes.

Second most of the links and stuff that refute your stuff is ignored anyhows. Did you Ever read my rebuttal of the True Origins site?

Third I'm quite busy at the moment with life. I don't have the time at the moment to hunt for radiocarbon data.

Lots of things are ignored by evolutionists...at least, until they can come up with an explanation (no matter how improbable).

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh!

Contradiction!

It's ignored, until they have an explanation?

How can they get an explanation if they ignore the objection?

baka

Turnabout is fair play you know.

If Turnabout is fair play then Denyer's creation book of the giant worm or whatever just won...young earth creationism doesn't make sense.

User avatar
Denyer
Posts: 32326
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2000 4:00 am
Custom Title: Shooty Dog Thing
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by Denyer » Sun Dec 15, 2002 3:10 am

Get it right... The Hungry Caterpillar can be quite vengeful prior to Its elevenses and mid-afternoon nap...

User avatar
Starscreamsghost
Posts: 2757
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2000 5:00 am

Post by Starscreamsghost » Sun Dec 15, 2002 5:09 pm

THE GHOST SPEAKS! BE ENLIGHTENED!

You know the best part? The Bible says we were created "in God's own image".....

...but we have no clue what God looks like....

...nor does the bible ever offer us a description...

...so we therefore have no idea what humans looked like when God first created them....

...so they could have started out as primates or whatever form evolution would find as the beginning of modern humans...

...and therefore both theories could be equally valid....

...I'm a goddamn genius....

..did I say 'god'damn? I meant, er, 'goshdarnit'...:glance:

User avatar
Strafe
Posts: 3445
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2001 4:00 am
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Post by Strafe » Sun Dec 15, 2002 5:46 pm

Originally posted by Starscreamsghost
THE GHOST SPEAKS! BE ENLIGHTENED!

You know the best part? The Bible says we were created "in God's own image".....


That refers to capability for reason.

Which brings up an interesting point. If that particular passage is a metaphor for reason and thus can't be taken literally, then why does the 6 day creation have to be taken literally...hmmm...

User avatar
The Green Knight
Posts: 3086
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2001 4:00 am
Location: Private office on top of the TF Archive Bar & Gril

Post by The Green Knight » Sun Dec 15, 2002 7:35 pm

This is demented. Will the insanity never end?

The Bible has been translated into various languages before ending up in english. Since languages do not have all the exact same meanings, every time it is translated into another language, the Bible loses some of its' original meaning. Altered meanings become altered themselves... kind of like how when you make a photocopy of a photocopy, you lose detail, and if you keep doing it, the original image becomes lost. Also keep in mind that several books are missing from the bible as well, so it's not even complete. And it was written by man, mortal, failable, imperfect man.

Yet people like Sheba are adamant that it is never wrong. Never mind that the bible is not a scientific textbook... it is never wrong. If something does not match up with it, it is a gigantic mistake on the other sides' part, in the most innocent way. Otherwise, an evil atheist is trying to destroy God.

Notice how the scientific method is constantly applied to everything around us, giving us predictions and results all the time. Yet, for some reason, when it comes to say, origins, the scientific method is an evil tool being used by the enemies of God to further their atheistic ends. When science disagrees with the Bible, it's either being applied wrong or it's a conspiracy against God. Amazing how learned men who are capable of doing so many things just can't get those origins right. If it looks like species are related, and it looks like they can change into other organisms with enough time and enough mutation... well, that's impossible... because that's not mentioned in the bible! Whatever.

So instead, we must believe that God did things like create species with features of other species that immediately died out, and carnivores that didn't eat meat until "The Fall", create mice that are almost as much in His image as we are, and create light from events that never happened like stars that went supernova a million years ago, which obviously didn't happen since everything is so young. Funny how that was never mentioned in the bible. In fact, I don't remember the bible ever mentioning the age of creation. And it would appear that bringing up the concept of "Last-Wednesdayism" for comparison is a low blow, and invalid, despite it making perfect sense.

But that's okay; even if you're a bible literalist, you still get to pull the old "Salad Bar Religion" bit, where you pick and choose. After all, you don't see massive groups of these literalists killing off Wiccans (Thou Shalt Not Suffer A Witch To Live) or forcing shotgun weddings between rapists and their victims (If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.)

Once evolution and such "enemy of God" concepts are "refuted", then you can simply cart-in the "Goddidit!" answer and claim victory. After all, that's what real science is about, huh? It's not about proving your theory and backing it up with evidence, it's about attacking other theories and then declaring yours the correct one. That's like saying "Because 2+3 does not equal 6, it equals 7." And none of these people ever take into account the damage they'd be causing elsewhere. They don't care if they invalidate every other application of genetics or physics in the process of their apologetics; to disagree with the bible is to automatically be wrong. End of story. That's some serious uncritical, non-thinking.

Here's a novel concept for people like Sheba; why don't you dig up a copy of the bible that's not missing any books, and hasn't been translated through a dozen languages or so and been mutated to the point where most of the original meaning is gone, so you can get an accurate concept of what the hell you're actually defending before you dismiss everything out-of-hand that disagrees with the Bible?

User avatar
Hound
Posts: 9660
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2000 4:00 am
Location: Henshin!

Post by Hound » Sun Dec 15, 2002 7:45 pm

amen

User avatar
Sir Auros
Posts: 12980
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2000 4:00 am
Location: Virginia, USA
Contact:

Post by Sir Auros » Sun Dec 15, 2002 7:47 pm

Snake, truly, you are the man.

User avatar
Strafe
Posts: 3445
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2001 4:00 am
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Post by Strafe » Sun Dec 15, 2002 7:56 pm

Damn.

Shoulda said that from the beginning, avoided all the run around.

User avatar
Amnesia
Protoform
Posts: 340
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2001 5:00 am
Location: Vienna, Austria

Post by Amnesia » Sun Dec 15, 2002 8:01 pm

Wow.
Image

User avatar
Denyer
Posts: 32326
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2000 4:00 am
Custom Title: Shooty Dog Thing
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by Denyer » Sun Dec 15, 2002 8:13 pm

Indeed.

This all presumes an original meaning contained within the text, of course, but that isn't the immediate issue here.

Good work, dude. :)

User avatar
The Green Knight
Posts: 3086
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2001 4:00 am
Location: Private office on top of the TF Archive Bar & Gril

Post by The Green Knight » Sun Dec 15, 2002 9:00 pm

Originally posted by Stuart Denyer
This all presumes an original meaning contained within the text, of course, but that isn't the immediate issue here.


True enough. I'd be willing to believe that despite man's flaws, he managed to get it right in the originals, or at least the majority of it; the big pictures.

From what I understand, the KJV went from like, hebrew, to sandskrit, to latin, to french, then to english. Don't hold me to that, it may have one less or more languages in there, but you see how that could effect meaning?


Here's a page talking about the issue

http://bible.ort.org/books/torahd5.asp

Compare the traditional KJV "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

To this:

"In the beginning...
Others translate this, 'In the beginning of God's creation of heaven and earth, the earth was without form and empty...' (Rashi). Still others combine the first three verses: 'In the beginning of God's creation....when the earth was without form and empty....God said, 'Let there be light.' (Bere****h Rabbah)."

Wow, puts things in a much different perspective, doesn't it? Perhaps that in such a large Universe, that we're just one of many things God is working on, and that the Bible is just our story, not the story of all of existence?


People get so upset over evolution "We didn't come from monkeys! God made us specially!" Yet, the description of Man's creation (which could be flawed due to translation), is:

"And God formed man out of the dust of the
ground, and breathed life into his nostrils, and man became a living soul."

Does anybody actually think that God created man by giving CPR to a pile of dirt????!!!!!!!!

Could that be the shortened version, telling us our original starting point? It sounds an awful lot like abiogenesis to me. The literalist critics would contend that such a methodology would not be the work of God. The same God, that instead of blowing up Jericho with a thought, or hitting it with lightning, or raining down fire and sulphur, had his chosen people parade the Ark around and then had an impromtu jam session on their horns for a couple days before finally trashing the place. Oh yeah, how completely absurd of me....

Locked