Interpretation has little to do with the scientific method, as I've stated before. The evolutionary theory has been used time after time to accurately predict new discoveries. Creationist theories have predicted nothing. Intelligent design has zero articles published in any scientific journal. It has contributed nothing to the scientific community, because it is not interested in any scientific discovery. It's an activist conglomerate with lots and lots of rhetoric and no scientific fruit to validate it.

Oh, I'm all about the proof. In Philippians 3:8 the word usually translated as "rubbish" or "dung" in the more literal KJV translation is the word skubalon (Greek, not Hebrew. Hebrew is Old Testament). It doesn't just mean "dung", it's the vulgar term for dung. The only way to accurately translate it into English is to use either crap or sh*t. And, matter of fact, I agree with you. My issue isn't the fact that Paul used an expletive in the bible, I applaud him for his frankness! I use it to trip up people who are caught up in the Victorian-esque nonsense that words themselves are inherently "bad" or "good". There isn't such a thing as a "bad word". Words are only given moral connotation when we impart it to them.

There are plenty of things that should be done about these situations, but what should be done or what I am doing about them isn't my point. My point is that is that seldom are the hideous human atrocities given the level attention and outcry as something like gays wanting marriage licenses. I don't think that makes for a good example of a follower of Christ.




footnote: this subject is getting really off-topic and I'm not very inclined to reply further to it in this thread.

really so its completely possible for me to come back 3 days later from the grave alive and well? Or I should be able to turn water into wine or multiply exponentially the amount of fish and bread I currently have? I'm sure there are many others, I only know of those, please correct me if I'm wrong though. Or how about the fact many christians claim the world is a few thousand years old yet we have proof of animals existing millions and billions of years ago?

Now, now, I know I'm going to have you in a tizzy Jwinathome, I want you to know, I'm not saying Either is specificly right, but you must accept there are impossiblities and impracticalities that could only be thought possible if you believed in the religion.

On a side note does anyone know how many dimensions they are working the string theory problem in?


I heard they were working with 26 or more dimensions though, but wikipedia says otherwise.

Well that sinks it, that has to be an irrefutable fact coming form wikipedia.

I think that I'll start a church based on any dimesions exceeding three and start a theme parks based on futuristic rides where the public is taken on rides into a darkened room where they are reputed to have traveled into another unknown dimension.

It's not, eh? Since you mentioned Christianity, explain how it's focus is not on existence after death. Even Jesus said that the only way to an eternal reward was through a belief in him. And the alternative would be eternal suffering. Seems to me that Christianity is very much concerned with what happens after a person dies.This is simple delusion. Read the first two chapters of Genesis. They are two conflicting stories of "creation". So the first two chapters in the bible contain examples of impossibility, inaccuracy, and mythology.I'd be fascinated to hear how one can have a relationship with a guy that's been dead for over two thousand years.

If you were to say that spiritual growth can come from trying to follow the man's teachings, trying to be a better person, trying to help your fellow man, I'd have no choice but to agree, for I find his lessons worthy of following. So even though there is no "God", and there was nothing supernatural about Jesus, his teachings are not to be dismissed, for they are good lessons.

Didn't need to watch the whole thing - it's obvious from less than the first thirty seconds that this is just someone else peddling a religious agenda.

Near the end of the Wikipedia article, there is a (long) list of his criminal history. This fraud is not only a criminal, he's a violent one. And further, even the people whose cause he is supposed to be supporting - creationists - wish he'd shut up and go away.

The best way to describe what I perceive to be spirituality, although I generally use the term "spiritual growth", is to use this excerpt from the writings of Francis of Assisi:

... where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury, pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
and where there is sadness, joy...

... grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console;
to be understood, as to understand;
to be loved, as to love;
for it is in giving that we receive,
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned...

It's a release from self. It's harmony with yourself and those around you. I know people with no religious beliefs at all that I consider to be very spiritual, living without turmoil and disharmony; I know "Good Christians" that you'd think had never heard the word; they seem to thrive on chaos and disharmony, and are happiest when they can bring them to others. Spirituality isn't something that has a black and white definition, rather, it is a state of being.

Until about seven years ago, the concept of spiritual growth was a foreign one to me. I was spiritually stunted, self-centered, egotistical, and not someone you'd want to spend much time with, unless you were the same way. I've learned and grown a lot since then. And the day I stop striving to learn and grow will be the day I die. I now try to be of service to my fellows, rather than to only myself. And I'm a lot happier now than I think I've ever been. Seven years ago, all I longed for was death. Today, I can enjoy life. And isn't that what really matters? I'm satisfied with the life I have today. But just for today. If I'm fortunate there will be a tomorrow. If not, then I will have been the best I can today.

I don't know if I presented that clearly or not. I hope so. I did the best I could - today.

I wasn't suggesting wikipedia is always correct, in fact I was suggesting that the article was a bit out dated or inaccurate.

.. where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury, pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
and where there is sadness, joy...

... grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console;
to be understood, as to understand;
to be loved, as to love;
for it is in giving that we receive,
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned...

I'm glad "random chance" somehow randomly brought the above out in you.

Oh, and Jesus is very much alive.....and I have a hunch.......that you will meet Him someday.

I've read genesis a dozen times and don't know what you are talking about. Although I suspect you are touting someone else's "finding" anyway.

Near the end of the Wikipedia article, there is a (long) list of his criminal history. This fraud is not only a criminal, he's a violent one.

I would like you to find a source showing he was convicted of violent crimes as you say. Wikipedia is not sufficient. Would you forgive him if he apologized and he serves his time and tries to do whats right afterward? Since as you say you believe.... "it is in pardoning that we are pardoned..."

I think what he is talking about is that in genesis 1:11 god creates plants and then at 1:26 he creates man and woman. But then at 2:5-7 god creates man before the plants and then creates woman later.

I understand that some jewish writings resolve this issue by stating that woman was created twice, the first woman being Lilith and the second Eve; although I do not personally know much about this.

Wow, sad way to resolve a problem that isn't there....make up a Biblical character named lilith?

Genesis 2 is not a rehash of the creation told in Genesis 1. Have you ever seen a book that duplicates chapter 1 and chapter 2? This may seem like im playing off what is being referred to, but it needs to be explained what is a contradiction before I can respond. Ch. 2 is about the "toledot" or origin/generation of Adam and Eve. Furthermore, Genesis 2:5, "no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth [a] and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground" is speaking of a limited space...namely the Garden. The Hebrew used that was translated field is "sadeh" which is not the same word used to translate earth in chapter 1.

Greek, not Hebrew. Hebrew is Old Testament)

Sorry Arcman, retrace it. The New Testament was written in Hebrew.

My point is that is that seldom are the hideous human atrocities given the level attention and outcry as something like gays wanting marriage licenses. I don't think that makes for a good example of a follower of Christ.

I'm not really sure who you are referring to anyway with the above...


As for the rest of your post, its exhausting reading through it....saying something like...creationism has added absolutely nothing. How sad. And all the suffering and such that you talk about...if you truly believe evolution randomly brought about everything...then why aren't you mad at evolution for the existence of what you see as bad?

gays wanting marriage licenses.

They don't want marriage licenses...they specifically want the same rights as heterosexuals....the problem is...THEY DO HAVE the same rights as heterosexuals. Thats neither here nor there anyway.

While Jesus probably did not know koine Greek, the NT was written, I believe, in this lingua franca of the Mediterranean, unless you are referring to the putative "Q" document which is alleged to have been written in Hebrew. Some casual references:

http://www.sacrednamemovement.com/NTisGreekContents.htm
http://www.bible-researcher.com/machan.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek
http://website.lineone.net/~ntgreek/f-welc.html

Certainly, it seems only natural that Paul, a Roman citizen, would have written in koine.
Regards,
John

Even the offical NIV website states that the original biblical texts were written in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic.

http://www.ibs.org/niv/index.php

If you're interested, a good place to start is the Dead Sea Scrolls. Some further reading:

Elisha Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (1986), p. 15.

Hebrew in "The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church", 3rd edition (Oxford 1997).

Miguel Perez Fernandez, An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew (Leiden, Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill 1997).

A fantastic article by David Alan Black, an article called "article "New Testament Semitisms" - The Bible Translator 39/2 [April 1988], pp. 215-223

Many other sources as well.

No, it says it was translated from original greek texts, not that greek texts were the originals.

Not to mention it would have been absurd for Paul to have written his epistle letters in Hebrew when usually his intended audience were gentiles.

I don't recall saying that's what I believed, but that notwithstanding, I don't understand what you're asking.

Given the attribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Essenes, a Jewish sect, it would be natural that these non-canonical texts would have been written in Jewish. These fragments contain parts of the OT, miscellaneous texts, commentaries on the OT, and rules of the order. As such they throw light on the OT and contemporary Jewish thought, but not directly on the NT.

Incidentally, from the NIV website:
"The Greek text used in translating the New Testament was an eclectic one. No other piece of ancient literature has such an abundance of manuscript witnesses as does the New Testament. Where existing manuscripts differ, the translators made their choice of readings according to accepted principles of New Testaments textual criticism. Footnotes call attention to places where there was uncertainty about what the original text was. The best current printed texts of the Greek New Testaments were used." (Emphasis mine).

Regards,
John

If you look at this page from the site it is clear that they believe that at least The Book of Hebrews was written in Greek.

It is certain that it was not written in King James English or Americanized English or French or Spanish, etc.

Therefore, the possibility, or in my opinion probability, that there may be errors in the translations is arguably a certainty.

Otherwise, why do we keep updating the translations?

Well, I digress on the subject...I will continue to read further. I will only say this....

I know English and Spanish. I know English first, if I am writing something in Spanish for their people, I am thinking it in English and writing down the translation.

I'm sure that if you looked at the many references cited for the piece, you'd find an answer. I'm not going to, because I don't really care.Since he has committed no offense against me, I have nothing to forgive.

I wouldn't loan the guy my ATM card, though.

I'm sure that if you looked at the many references cited for the piece, you'd find an answer. I'm not going to, because I don't really care.

Well, the burden of proof will remain on you then. Looking through the links leads nowhere to suggest he committed acts of violence. Thanks.

"Why do we keep updating the translations?"

I think there are several reasons for this. First, scholars learn more and more about the texts (e.g. the Dead Sea Scrolls). This learning includes variant readings, word usage, and historical information that helps explain the choice of one word instead of another by the original authors. Second, just as importantly, attempts are made to translate words and phrases into the current vernacular (e.g. the elimination of Thou so prevalent in the JKV). Even though the KJV is perhaps one of the most beautiful and majestic of translations, its language presents difficulties for most people today.
New translations, incidentally are not limited to the Bible, but to many classical authors as well for many of the same reasons (the Symposium, for example, is one that comes to mind).

Cheers,
John

No, I'm not talking about one particular event. The entire second chapter of Genesis gives an account of "creation" that is completely different from that in chapter one. Could it be that old folk-tales that originated in two different times and places were written down by different authors and included? Most probably.

Of course, you aren't willing to put in the work to show what you are talking about are you? You don't care, right?

Could it be that old folk-tales that originated in two different times and places were written down by different authors and included? Most probably.

I love how you can speculate, but demand proof from everyone else for everything.

I think what you are referring to is known as The Documentary Hypothesis.

I think the word "hypothesis" speaks volumes.

From the article:

"In 2002, he was charged, but not convicted, with one count of felony assault, one count of misdemeanor battery, and one count of burglary with assault/battery.[73] In December 2002, the charges were dropped by the alleged victim, Hovind's employee."

So he not only beats up his employees, he then threatens them into dropping charges. Nice guy.

Here's a copy of the court records.

lol....okay the charges were dropped by the person filing. No settlement.

Thanks for playing Matt.

Pick up the friggin' book and read it for yourself. I assume you can read. If not, my apologies.

As I said once already Mr V...I have read it dozens of times and see no contradiction. Again, it is hard to see something that simply isn't there. Maybe it requires faith to see it?


And no I can't read...I have someone dictate my responses on this forum.

/sarcasm

If there exists no actual evidence, then speculation is all one can do, no? When someone states as fact, something that hasn't been shown to be fact, then of course I will ask for some proof. If someone shows me proof that the entire universe came into existence through *poof* magic, then I will accept it as fact. So far, I haven't even seen any evidence that may point to that conclusion, let alone proof.

What I am referring to is simple fact. Something that would be obvious to anyone that bothered to take the time to read the two chapters. Which, apparently, not too many people have done.

What I am referring to is simple fact. Something that would be obvious to anyone that bothered to take the time to read the two chapters. Which, apparently, not too many people have done.

This is comical. Keep dancing around. Its good entertainment.

"Everybody knows."
"Anybody can see."
"It is because I said so."

Proverbs 14:15

The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.

1 Thessalonians 5:21

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.


Seems that these two verses are telling us not to believe everything we hear, read, or are taught without some proof. Since there is no proof of the existence of a "God", then we should not believe it.

Perhaps the whole bible is the greatest practical joke in the history of the world.

I'm trademarking a phrase....

The following should be known as a MattVism ™

Seems that these two verses are telling us not to believe everything we hear, read, or are taught without some proof. Since there is no proof of the existence of a "God", then we should not believe it.

I laughed out loud when I saw how you plucked 1 Thessalonians 5:21 right out between:

19 Do not put out the Spirit's fire; 20 do not treat prophecies with contempt. 21Test everything. Hold on to the good. 22 Avoid every kind of evil. The verse is speaking specifically about the prophetic. Thanks again for playing...its been fun.

Here's an interesting new discovery by Meave Leakey, a member of a famous family of paleontologists.



]Fossils challenge old evoluton theory

Finally, someone understands.

The two accounts do differ, but it would be a stretch to say they directly contradict one another. It's more that the two accounts have different focuses. the first chapter outlines the seven day creation in its entirety, while the second chapter's focus is on the creation of man and his placement in the garden of eden.

It shows that the more we learn, the more we need to keep learning.

It shows that the more we learn, the more we need to keep learning. - MattVism™

It shows that what you may have learned was incorrect, and that even now you don't know if what they have found may change in another decade. Fun isn't it?

Hi, welcome to everything that has happened in science in the history of ever. As things progress we learn new things and adapt our knowledge. It isn't as if Newton's laws or Einstein's theories haven't been corrected and improved upon as new discoveries were made.
From the article:

Oh, I understand it quite well Arcman....its presented as fact all the while it continually changes from one belief to another.

It makes perfect sense. lol.

religion doesn't do. It's a continous self-testing process.

And thats it in a nutshell...what did Mr. Weed call it? Circularity?

Hi, welcome to everything that has happened in science in the history of ever.

You mean the history of knowledge? What about before the brain allegedly evolved?

I agree.

I believe it is also reasonable to expect the newer translations to either correct earlier errors as well.

I read this in my local paper this morning. It doesn't necessarily "poke a hole" in anything, nor does it solidify a particular point of view. What it will most likely do as it continues to be analyzed is add to our knowledge of how we evolved.

Notice that both of these fossils are well over a million years old.

Hard to notice when it can't be proven...unless we have an eyewitness account? Do we?

You mean someone alive today that witnessed the events?


Nope.

But, if we did, wonder if he or she would help support the Creationists version or the Evolutionists version when describing what their eye witnessed?

You know, I could explain how repeatable testable evidence is in no way circular, especially under peer-review, but I would really just be repeating myself.
And if that last question is serious, if you really can't detect basic hyperbole, then were I to continue responding to you I think I'd have to repeat myself quite a lot.

be repeating myself.

“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed”. Adolf Hitler


"I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a fantasy." - Charles Darwin