Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Evolution Proof?

[bleep]. I though you meant evolution proof, like "bullet proff".

I put as much stock into the bible and it's creation story as I do the native American belief that the world was created on the back of a giant sea turtle, or, that I will be reincarnated as a jersey cow. Religion is just stuff made up by various cultures to explain those things we didn't know or couldn't understand. As we started to learn things thru science, little by little, fairy tales we told ourselves became replaced with verifiable, explainable truths. (Well for some of us.) The more we will learn, the less need we'll have (hopefully) for stories and fairy tales. What fairly tales we are told is more a function of where we were born than any truth contained therein.

Certain men in history found religion to be a great concept that can be used to control and predict other people's behavior. When encountering a person we didn't know, how best to prevent them from taking your life, stealing your stuff, or screwing your wife than to create the concept of a god that disapproves of these things and will punish you for eternity for doing any of that. The trick was getting people to believe in your god. Lots of wars were and are being fought over that. All non-sense. But how to get people to believe this non-sense without any proof - ah faith. It's true because it was written into these books. See I went up to this mountain and there was this burning bush. Come on! Really? Religion is all about control, getting people to behave the way someone wanted others to behave.

I.D. is just another way to get otherwise would-be free-thinking people to buy into some fairly tale religious control system. "How did I get here?" I'm here because my parents had sex. From witnessing the experience of others I know someday I'll die. "What will happen to me when I die?" I'll just cease to be. That is all and I don't need fairy tales to sugar coat that.

I believe I've already address everyone of these except Moonquakes.

Moonquakes can be explained by tidal stresses and by lunar contraction (due to the highlands gradually sinking). Moonquakes, in fact, provide evidence that the moon has a solid core, consistent with its old age. There is no evidence for recent lava flows not associated with meteor impacts. Outgassing is consistent with an old moon. It can take a long time for gasses to work their way to the surface.

Thanks for the new objection.

The problem comes when you attempt to make the Bible a science text from which you think you're meant to derive scientific facts. When you do that you're taking statements that weren't intended to impart scientific knowledge and reading into them your predisposed viewpoint vis-a-vis scientific questions.

HugAJackass,



Sorry. That is not my intent.



Good. That's not what we are arguing here.



For the first four days of creation there was no rising of the sun.

I wasn't finished. I don't know hat happened for this post to go when it did.

You put up some good arguments for a guy with just a GED.

[video:youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=8YX-gqRdK_8[/video]

HugAJackass,

I will try to pick up where I left off.



This has nothing to do with our conversation. You are bringing Greek. Genesis was written in Hebrew.



Then why are you having so much trouble understanding what God's Word says?



Fortunately I use the New American Standard Bible and the New King James Version.

Jerome was fluent in all the original languages.

And?

I've done the same with numerous PHD's in these languages as well. Some, I've had the honor of studying under. They would disagree with your guys. What's your point?

I also have worked with nonreligious linguist that specialize in these languages as well, that support what I've put forth here.

No, we should listen to a variety of opinions while forming our own opinion.


I don't think so. You still seem to be portraying Ph.D's and even people with Master degrees as some sort of gods of knowledge.

antelope_sniper



I went for the pretest because I had no idea where I might be deficient. The lady gave me a test and waited for a couple minutes till it was straight up 6PM. That was for ease of timing. At 6:40PM another woman came in and looked at my test.
"What time did you start?" she asked
"The other lady started me at six" I told her.
"No you didn't! she angrily exclaimed.
The other lady came to the table.
"What time did you start this man?" she ask still a little annoyed.
"I started him at 6PM," she explained.

The second lady snached up my test, looked though it and threw it down and with a great deal of annoyance informed me,
"You don't need to be here."

The first lady told me I was already on the third test. My answers looked good and I could leave.

I gotta go shave. You gentlemen enjoy.

Forgiven. Thank you.



That was my point.

I'm well aware of the fact that Genesis was written in Hebrew. That's what I've been saying this whole time. You challenged my use of the Hebrew words by asking if Jesus was buried for three days. The Gospels were written in koine Greek.

That's why I pointed out that you were asking about different languages completely. You basically asked me to answer for the Hebrew usage of a word by using Greek.

I didn't bring up Greek until after you did, and I did it to demonstrate how words don't directly translate.



It seems that I'm not the one with this problem here...



Good, me too. Those happen to be decent attempts at directly translating word for word. The problem is that languages don't translate perfectly word for word.

Vernacular usage is often lost. That's why using a translation like the NIV (which does not attempt word for word, but focuses more on vernacular usage) along with your NASB is always a good way to study a subject.

Still, nothing beats the original inspired language. To say that God's Word emphatically says something, when you neglect what the original languages actually say is silly.

Why do you neglect what God inspired the original authors to write?

That was intended as a reply to TRH. I actually agree with you (and AS I think) that the Bible means what it says.

Thanks. Wish I could take credit for it.

No, he was fluent in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic he was only familiar with those languages.

In fairness though, part of the issue with the Vulgate is the material that Jerome had available to work with.

Setting aside for the moment your disparagement of Jerome's mastery of all the original languages, the only edition of the Old Testament recognized as authoritative by the Eastern Orthodox Churches is the Septuagint, originally written in Greek by Jewish scholars, all masters of ancient Hebrew. Jerome used it extensively. It was the accepted study Bible for the Jews of Palestine at the time of Christ. Hebrew was only at that time read ceremonially by ordinary Jews (i.e., non-scholars). Christ quoted the Septuagint whenever he quoted what we call the Old Testament.

I'd venture to say that these facts give some degree of authority to the Septuagint, and therefore also to the Vulgate and the King James.

Jerome's mastery of ALL of the original languages!?

Okay, yeah we'll set that aside...


The things that you say about the Septuagint is absolutely correct. The problem is that you understanding of who Jerome was and what he used is not accurate.

Indeed, Jerome was a master of the Greek language. There is no contesting that. This was one of the reasons that he was chosen. When the Roman Catholic cleric Jerome was commissioned by the Bishop of Rome to produce a new Latin version, he wrote a letter in 383 A. D. to the person commissioning the translation stating: "Thou compellest me to make a new work out of an old so that after so many copies of the Scriptures have been dispersed throughout the whole world I am as it were to occupy the post of arbiter, and seeing they differ from one another am to determine which of them are in agreement with the original Greek. If they maintain that confidence is to be reposed in the Latin exemplars, let them answer which, for there are almost as many copies of the translations as manuscripts. But if the truth is to be sought from the majority, why not rather go back to the Greek original, and correct the blunders which have been made by incompetent translators, made worse rather then better by the presumption of unskillful correctors, and added to or altered by careless scribes." It was Jerome's contention that in his day a number of manuscripts existed that had been "altered, " "corrected," and otherwise corrupted by "careless scribes" and "incompetent translators," and the only way to insure the new Latin translation was to be accurate was to allow him to go to the majority of the Greek manuscripts that were in common usage in his time. Unfortunately, has Roman masters did not allow him to do so, and his Vulgate was simply a revision of the already existing Latin versions using the Western textform. Not some translation of the Septuagint.

To modernize this in a way that modern Bible readers can understand what happened, let's consider the various modern versions of the Bible that are paraphrased editions rather than directly translated editions. Such as The Message. Nobody would suggest that this version is a good one to use for Biblical study as it's an attempt at English vernacular.

Vernacular is another way of saying "common speak". It's the modern localized lingo used in the streets, not academic at all. This is important to understand because it helps understand the significance of Western textform. The Greek language at that time was largely split into two major dialects, Alexanderian, and Byzantinian. Think American English versus British English. For us, the word "boot" can carry different meanings. It can be a noun in the case of it being an article of clothing in American English, and the trunk of a car in British English. It can also be a verb as in, "I'll boot his ass out of here!" The Western Textform was written in Byzantinian Greek, not Alexanderian as the Septuagint was.

On top of that there is the fun use of koine Greek which is a vernacular version of Alexanderian Greek. This is what the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were primarily written in. One such way you can see this is with the use of the word baptizo which is one of the words from which we get our English word baptized. The literal translation means "immersed" but the actual cultural use was a slang term used by fishermen meaning "the ship is in the water and the water is in the ship".

Jerome wasn't allowed to do as you submit and extensively use the Septuagint, so instead he went to the personal Library of Pamphilus of Caesarea and extensively used the "Old Latin" Bible which closely mirrored the koine Greek Textus Receptus.

So, what you have is the original, written in vernacular of one language, translated into academia, and then Jerome shows up and translates that into a more modern Latin vernacular.

Everyone should see the problems with that process as even Jerome protested it. He was under orders though...

Hey great we are back on track.