<!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Apr 7 2005, 09:25 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Apr 7 2005, 09:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What I don't get is how I can post all these FAQs, etc, clearing up any misconceptions they have about evolution. Then they either don't read them, or don't respond; and proceed to call us closed minded... Sigh.
Choose to disbelieve evolution if you want, but a vast majority of scientists accept it, and it has huge amounts of positive evidence. You can deny this until you're blue in the face it won't do you any good...
Edit: Please at least attempt to show me why evolution is wrong before you call me closed minded. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The only thing that I don't believe could have evolved is man. The Bible says God made man from the dust of the earth. "From dust you were made and to dust you shall return."
It is quite possible that God "evolved" animals to form new species, kinds, etc. i.e. He took a tadpole and made a fish, took the fish and made a serpent, took the serpent and made a lizard and so on and so forth.
It is also possible that man was made in this way (evolution) but it wouldn't be Darwin's natural-selection / random chance theory I would be relying on. Personally I don't think God evolved man from chimps or any other animal but I am open to the possibility.
Perhaps this was Intelligent Evolution? (As opposed to "Intelligent Design".)
~ DarkATi
EDIT: Also, Sky posted a brilliant idea that perhaps God created the laws that govern the earth, etc. and that evolution then ensued "naturally" through God's own laws and design. This would mean that God "created" us just not in a direct, hokey pokey, boom! *FIRE!* way.
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Apr 7 2005, 10:11 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Apr 7 2005, 10:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The only thing that I don't believe could have evolved is man. The Bible says God made man from the dust of the earth. "From dust you were made and to dust you shall return."
It is quite possible that God "evolved" animals to form new species, kinds, etc. i.e. He took a tadpole and made a fish, took the fish and made a serpent, took the serpent and made a lizard and so on and so forth.
It is also possible that man was made in this way (evolution) but it wouldn't be Darwin's natural-selection / random chance theory I would be relying on. Personally I don't think God evolved man from chimps or any other animal but I am open to the possibility.
Perhaps this was Intelligent Evolution? (As opposed to "Intelligent Design".)
~ DarkATi
EDIT: Also, Sky posted a brilliant idea that perhaps God created the laws that govern the earth, etc. and that evolution then ensued "naturally" through God's own laws and design. This would mean that God "created" us just not in a direct, hokey pokey, boom! *FIRE!* way. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> How do you explain scigirl's <a href='http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=116447' target='_blank'>chromosome challenge</a>? (Link is from an earlier post of Nad's.)
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Apr 7 2005, 10:11 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Apr 7 2005, 10:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> EDIT: Also, Sky posted a brilliant idea that perhaps God created the laws that govern the earth, etc. and that evolution then ensued "naturally" through God's own laws and design. This would mean that God "created" us just not in a direct, hokey pokey, boom! *FIRE!* way. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Thats a perfectly reasonable way to look at it, because it fits the evidence we have. If God did create the universe in such a way that evolution would eventually produce humans, then theres no way for us to tell that God had any involvement at all and it becomes a moot point.
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Apr 7 2005, 10:11 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Apr 7 2005, 10:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The only thing that I don't believe could have evolved is man. The Bible says God made man from the dust of the earth. "From dust you were made and to dust you shall return." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ok, so again, to clarify, us evolutionists are being closed minded? =\
I don't understand where the bible shows good evidence that humans didn't evolve. Please... explain it to me? <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Edit: I guess what I don't understand is how Christians will change what their supposed holy book says to fit modern ideas. It seems so dishonest. "Hey lets update this book of eternal truths." What? It seems so... bleh. It seems fake. They act like they have 'the answer' and they only take the evidence that supports it. It's just plain dishonest, and to come here accusing people who side with Science of being closed minded is hypocritical imo.
Edit2: It's like there is pretty damn strong evidence staring DarkATi in the face that we are descended from (or at least in some way related to) apes/primates and he continues to believe this book. Why? Do you see why we think of you as brainwashed now? Any logical person facing this decision would at least admit that the bible has an error here or something, or try to mold it to fit their beliefs (see edit #1). DarkATi just flat out denies it. "I know there's mounds of evidence against me, but I choose to believe this book." Sigh.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ok, so again, to clarify, us evolutionists are being closed minded? =\<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never said you were. Not sure where you saw me say so...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't understand where the bible shows good evidence that humans didn't evolve. Please... explain it to me? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Bible says, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
"From the dust of the ground" is different than, "from a chimpanzee".
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Edit: I guess what I don't understand is how Christians will change what their supposed holy book says to fit modern ideas. It seems so dishonest. "Hey lets update this book of eternal truths." What? It seems so... bleh. It seems fake. They act like they have 'the answer' and they only take the evidence that supports it. It's just plain dishonest, and to come here accusing people who side with Science of being closed minded is hypocritical imo.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, I have never called anyone in this thread closed-minded, so when replying to me, you should leave that argument out.
As for changing what the Bible says, I never have nor will. I may change my thinking patterns, my thoughts and my ideas, as well as my interpretation of scripture but never will I change what the Bible says.
I think you're running more on a generalization of all Christians than you are on what I am saying.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Edit2: It's like there is pretty damn strong evidence staring DarkATi in the face that we are descended from (or at least in some way related to) apes/primates and he continues to believe this book. Why? Do you see why we think of you as brainwashed now? Any logical person facing this decision would at least admit that the bible has an error here or something, or try to mold it to fit their beliefs (see edit #1). DarkATi just flat out denies it. "I know there's mounds of evidence against me, but I choose to believe this book." Sigh. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have replied to the amps/chimps related to humans/scigirl link elsewhere. If you missed it, go back and find it, I believe it to be on page 15/16.
It's all in interpretation. How you interpret data. When you read that humans are genetically very close to chimps, you think this proves evolution. I however, don't. I believe it proves that God created intelligently and with a purpose and influence! Why would God create every creature completely different? With a completely new set of genetic data? Or maybe he should have created one animal with atoms and one without. He should make a three-legged monkey and an eight-thousand legged humanoid shrimp-weasel I suppose?
No! God created with a purpose and a passion. He followed a design of his own invention when welding the realms of this vast universe together!
As for following a book. I do no such thing. I follow God, THE supreme being, creator and sustainer of life. The alpha and omega, beginning and end. Everything.
So now let's flip it. Oh how you'll scoff, oh how you'll laugh. But let us.
I say there is evidence staring you in the face. It is simple and beautiful. Evidence that this world is corrupt and you along with it. Evidence that you need a redeemer, because everyone does. Evidence that you have been made and that you are loved.
It isn't hard.
It isn't complex.
It is simplicity at it's finest.
You are a sinner. God loves you. Jesus has redeemed you.
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Apr 7 2005, 12:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Apr 7 2005, 12:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't understand where the bible shows good evidence that humans didn't evolve. Please... explain it to me? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Bible says, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
"From the dust of the ground" is different than, "from a chimpanzee". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I think he meant good evidence.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Edit2: It's like there is pretty damn strong evidence staring DarkATi in the face that we are descended from (or at least in some way related to) apes/primates and he continues to believe this book. Why? Do you see why we think of you as brainwashed now? Any logical person facing this decision would at least admit that the bible has an error here or something, or try to mold it to fit their beliefs (see edit #1). DarkATi just flat out denies it. "I know there's mounds of evidence against me, but I choose to believe this book." Sigh. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have replied to the amps/chimps related to humans/scigirl link elsewhere. If you missed it, go back and find it, I believe it to be on page 15/16.
It's all in interpretation. How you interpret data. When you read that humans are genetically very close to chimps, you think this proves evolution. I however, don't. I believe it proves that God created intelligently and with a purpose and influence! Why would God create every creature completely different? With a completely new set of genetic data? Or maybe he should have created one animal with atoms and one without. He should make a three-legged monkey and an eight-thousand legged humanoid shrimp-weasel I suppose?
No! God created with a purpose and a passion. He followed a design of his own invention when welding the realms of this vast universe together!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why would he create fossils that look just human ancestors? Why would he make DNA so similiar between so many creatures, that we can use computer models to create "trees" to determine how closely related different species are and when these species broke off from each other? There's so much evidence that points towards evolution (and towards human evolution, too; there's no reason why we are different in that respect) that it seems like God wants humans to believe in evolution (if, in fact, he created the universe).
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Apr 7 2005, 12:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Apr 7 2005, 12:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ok, so again, to clarify, us evolutionists are being closed minded? =\<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never said you were. Not sure where you saw me say so... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah part of my reply was to KFDM.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Bible says, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
"From the dust of the ground" is different than, "from a chimpanzee".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Aha. We found our problem. Saying something doesn't make it true. If I said you, DarkATi, were a horse, would that make it true? Is everything in everything ever written down true? No. I'm talking about evidence here...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No! God created with a purpose and a passion. He followed a design of his own invention when welding the realms of this vast universe together!
As for following a book. I do no such thing. I follow God, THE supreme being, creator and sustainer of life. The alpha and omega, beginning and end. Everything.
So now let's flip it. Oh how you'll scoff, oh how you'll laugh. But let us.
I say there is evidence staring you in the face. It is simple and beautiful. Evidence that this world is corrupt and you along with it. Evidence that you need a redeemer, because everyone does. Evidence that you have been made and that you are loved.
It isn't hard.
It isn't complex.
It is simplicity at it's finest.
You are a sinner. God loves you. Jesus has redeemed you.
All you have to do... is claim this redemption.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again this is all speculation. You don't know if it's true or not. I see no real evidence in this entire quote. I see a bunch of absurd claims with no evidence to back it up. Notice how when I post a link it has evidence and stuff... you know, verifiable facts? Sigh.
DarkATi, I mean no offense by this but, your problem is that you put way too much blind faith in the Bible/God. Can I ask why you don't have as much blind faith in the Koran? Or any other crazy religious book for that matter?
You are a sinner. God loves you. Jesus has redeemed you.
All you have to do... is claim this redemption.
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The only problem I have with your post is this last part of it.
There is no evidence that a "God" love us. There is also no evidence that "Jesus", (How I hate that name because it is a roman bastardization of Yeshua), has redeemed us.
There is no reason to claim redemption when there is no evidence backing any of the bibles claims up. None, zero, zilch, and has I have demostrated a few times, there is more then one myth and legend that christianity is based off of.
I also have more personal reasons, but those I shall only disclose to those who asked.
*Edit* Just a little tooting my own horn, but I told you that he was the same person. :-)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->DarkATi, I mean no offense by this but, your problem is that you put way too much blind faith in the Bible/God. Can I ask why you don't have as much blind faith in the Koran? Or any other crazy religious book for that matter? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most certainly, I am not offended at all.
I have studied various religions only to come to the conclusion that there are only two religions: Religion A) Jesus is Lord and nothing YOU can do will get you to heaven, Religion B) Jesus isn't Lord but you can do XYZ to get to heaven or a higher-plane etc.
And I don't think that is my problem. If you'll allow me to present some "evidence" to you.
Church camp, it's been rainy all week. Horrid weather. We're together in a prayer circle, everyone prays in turn, the rain coming down and the thunder roaring. A little girl prays, "Thank you God for everything, it has been a great week... oh and could you stop this nasty rain?"
Immediately, the rain stops.
Coincidence? I suppose. I'm sure if you got a group of scientists together they could calculate the exact odds that this would occur at this time, blah blah blah.
My faith is anything but blind. I was there... and I have plenty other stories like this.
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Apr 7 2005, 05:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Apr 7 2005, 05:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Church camp, it's been rainy all week. Horrid weather. We're together in a prayer circle, everyone prays in turn, the rain coming down and the thunder roaring. A little girl prays, "Thank you God for everything, it has been a great week... oh and could you stop this nasty rain?" <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Would you have remembered that incident if it hadn't stopped raining? Or it got worse?
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Apr 7 2005, 12:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Apr 7 2005, 12:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->DarkATi, I mean no offense by this but, your problem is that you put way too much blind faith in the Bible/God. Can I ask why you don't have as much blind faith in the Koran? Or any other crazy religious book for that matter? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most certainly, I am not offended at all.
I have studied various religions only to come to the conclusion that there are only two religions: Religion A) Jesus is Lord and nothing YOU can do will get you to heaven, Religion B) Jesus isn't Lord but you can do XYZ to get to heaven or a higher-plane etc.
And I don't think that is my problem. If you'll allow me to present some "evidence" to you.
Church camp, it's been rainy all week. Horrid weather. We're together in a prayer circle, everyone prays in turn, the rain coming down and the thunder roaring. A little girl prays, "Thank you God for everything, it has been a great week... oh and could you stop this nasty rain?"
Immediately, the rain stops.
Coincidence? I suppose. I'm sure if you got a group of scientists together they could calculate the exact odds that this would occur at this time, blah blah blah.
My faith is anything but blind. I was there... and I have plenty other stories like this.
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Last week, when I prayed to god and asked for a pet monkey, he didn't give me one. And also, just now when it was raining like mad and I was outside on my bicycle, I prayed to god for it to stop. It didn't.
Though it started raining cows when I prayed for it last month, though. So I guess god exists.
The rain has to stop at some point... coincidence is a wonderful thing, but a few incidents like that do not mean god exists. There are plenty of incidents across the history of man kind where someone has prayed for something and recieved nothing. Far more than when something has.
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Apr 7 2005, 12:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Apr 7 2005, 12:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->DarkATi, I mean no offense by this but, your problem is that you put way too much blind faith in the Bible/God. Can I ask why you don't have as much blind faith in the Koran? Or any other crazy religious book for that matter? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most certainly, I am not offended at all.
I have studied various religions only to come to the conclusion that there are only two religions: Religion A) Jesus is Lord and nothing YOU can do will get you to heaven, Religion B) Jesus isn't Lord but you can do XYZ to get to heaven or a higher-plane etc.
And I don't think that is my problem. If you'll allow me to present some "evidence" to you.
Church camp, it's been rainy all week. Horrid weather. We're together in a prayer circle, everyone prays in turn, the rain coming down and the thunder roaring. A little girl prays, "Thank you God for everything, it has been a great week... oh and could you stop this nasty rain?"
Immediately, the rain stops.
Coincidence? I suppose. I'm sure if you got a group of scientists together they could calculate the exact odds that this would occur at this time, blah blah blah.
My faith is anything but blind. I was there... and I have plenty other stories like this.
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I have plenty of stories like that, but I'm not religious. I'm sure Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and believers of other religions all have stories like that.
You reminded me of a quote:
"Desine fata deum flecti sperare precando. <i>Stop hoping you will change the will of the gods by praying</i>." -Vergil, Aeneid, Book Six, Line 376
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Apr 7 2005, 12:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Apr 7 2005, 12:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->DarkATi, I mean no offense by this but, your problem is that you put way too much blind faith in the Bible/God. Can I ask why you don't have as much blind faith in the Koran? Or any other crazy religious book for that matter? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most certainly, I am not offended at all.
I have studied various religions only to come to the conclusion that there are only two religions: Religion A) Jesus is Lord and nothing YOU can do will get you to heaven, Religion B) Jesus isn't Lord but you can do XYZ to get to heaven or a higher-plane etc.
And I don't think that is my problem. If you'll allow me to present some "evidence" to you.
Church camp, it's been rainy all week. Horrid weather. We're together in a prayer circle, everyone prays in turn, the rain coming down and the thunder roaring. A little girl prays, "Thank you God for everything, it has been a great week... oh and could you stop this nasty rain?"
Immediately, the rain stops.
Coincidence? I suppose. I'm sure if you got a group of scientists together they could calculate the exact odds that this would occur at this time, blah blah blah.
My faith is anything but blind. I was there... and I have plenty other stories like this.
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> AHHH! This is like a bad dream <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Confirmation bias (we remember the hits and forget the misses) reduces personal experiences to being worthless when actually trying to determine something meaningful. Seriously, read up on this. It's amazing how useless personal experiences and anecdotes are.
Give me a minute and I'll get you some links... <a href='http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=00094511-E068-10FA-89FB83414B7F0000&colID=13' target='_blank'>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa...7F0000&colID=13</a> I know this one isn't related to personal experiences, but it is related to evolution: <a href='http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=0003EFE0-D68A-1212-8F3983414B7F0000&colID=13' target='_blank'>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa...7F0000&colID=13</a>
I know this is sorta in a different vein, but think about praying. If whatever you prayed for happens, you praise God for helping you out. If it doesn't happen, 'God works in mysterious ways.' Isn't there a point when we could say that praying has no statistically significant correlation with something happening?
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Apr 7 2005, 08:06 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 7 2005, 08:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Apr 7 2005, 12:41 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Apr 7 2005, 12:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Apr 6 2005, 11:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 6 2005, 11:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I found that link too clam I didn't post it because it would be considered "biased" by someone. After all, encyclopedias are biased. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> When have I called an encyclopedia biased? You're putting words in my mouth and trying to pull cheap shots. Stop. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If I was referring directly to you legionaired I would have stated as such. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Fair enough.
But you didn't address my points. If you read both scriptures contextually, you see that they are drawing from different assumptions and working towards cross-purposes.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Apr 7 2005, 04:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Apr 7 2005, 04:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Apr 7 2005, 08:06 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 7 2005, 08:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Apr 7 2005, 12:41 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Apr 7 2005, 12:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Apr 6 2005, 11:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 6 2005, 11:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I found that link too clam I didn't post it because it would be considered "biased" by someone. After all, encyclopedias are biased. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> When have I called an encyclopedia biased? You're putting words in my mouth and trying to pull cheap shots. Stop. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If I was referring directly to you legionaired I would have stated as such. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Fair enough.
But you didn't address my points. If you read both scriptures contextually, you see that they are drawing from different assumptions and working towards cross-purposes.
Contradictory teaching = not the same thing. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No I did address your points, but it was lost sadly with the whole AvengerX working around his ban.
I said I disagree with the translation you have given me for the english bible. I say its not accurately reflecting what it is saying. I want to find a hebrew one then I'll come back to you on the points you attempted to dissuade. If you know of a link to the hebrew bible that would help out.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Apr 7 2005, 06:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 7 2005, 06:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Apr 7 2005, 04:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Apr 7 2005, 04:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Apr 7 2005, 08:06 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 7 2005, 08:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Apr 7 2005, 12:41 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Apr 7 2005, 12:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Apr 6 2005, 11:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 6 2005, 11:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I found that link too clam I didn't post it because it would be considered "biased" by someone. After all, encyclopedias are biased. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> When have I called an encyclopedia biased? You're putting words in my mouth and trying to pull cheap shots. Stop. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If I was referring directly to you legionaired I would have stated as such. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Fair enough.
But you didn't address my points. If you read both scriptures contextually, you see that they are drawing from different assumptions and working towards cross-purposes.
Contradictory teaching = not the same thing. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No I did address your points, but it was lost sadly with the whole AvengerX working around his ban.
I said I disagree with the translation you have given me for the english bible. I say its not accurately reflecting what it is saying. I want to find a hebrew one then I'll come back to you on the points you attempted to dissuade. If you know of a link to the hebrew bible that would help out. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, the Hebrew Bible is really the most reliable of translations but sadly, I don't read Hebrew... yet. I'm thinking about taking a course on it.
I love my King James Bible, though. I only trust King James and NIV. (NIV because it is just cleaned up King James.) When given the choice, I choose KJV over NIV any day. And don't even get me started on the NLT or WEB!
Oh, while I'm out would anyone care for some KFC? I'll go grab some in my new BMW... BRB TTYL. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> Acronyms FTW!
The original KJV is ripe with transcription errors, which is one of the reasons why skeptics end up quoting from it so much.
The NIV is generally pretty good, but it's written at an 8th (or is it 5th?) grade reading level, so a lot of stuff is lost in translation.
Most of the above quotes I posted are from the NASB, one of the most literal of the modern translations, and my personal favorite. I think the site might have changed itself over to NIV midway through though...
If you're looking for literalism, check out Young's Literal Translation.
And yes, the New Living Translation is utter crap.
By the way, all of the above can be found at <a href='http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/' target='_blank'>http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/</a>.
You wont find a Hebrew New Testament either, since the NT wasn't written in Hebrew, but in Greek and Aramaic, with bits of Latin mixed in here and there for a few words. I don't think they have one on that site, but a copy of the NT Greek should be a lot easyer to procure than one of the NT Hebrew <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Apr 7 2005, 10:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Apr 7 2005, 10:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The original KJV is ripe with transcription errors, which is one of the reasons why skeptics end up quoting from it so much.
The NIV is generally pretty good, but it's written at an 8th (or is it 5th?) grade reading level, so a lot of stuff is lost in translation.
Most of the above quotes I posted are from the NASB, one of the most literal of the modern translations, and my personal favorite. I think the site might have changed itself over to NIV midway through though...
If you're looking for literalism, check out Young's Literal Translation.
And yes, the New Living Translation is utter crap.
By the way, all of the above can be found at <a href='http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/' target='_blank'>http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/</a>.
You wont find a Hebrew New Testament either, since the NT wasn't written in Hebrew, but in Greek and Aramaic, with bits of Latin mixed in here and there for a few words. I don't think they have one on that site, but a copy of the NT Greek should be a lot easyer to procure than one of the NT Hebrew <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Greek.... eww.... Well I shall have to find a Greek bible then.
The link you gave me keeps timing out. Also that would explain why I could find the Hebrew OT but not the NT. There is no mention of ancient aramaic being in the bible at all, considering the only one who might have spoke aramaic was Jesus.
After I find a copy of the Greek bible I shall re-translate it with both literal and grammatically correct english. I'm sure the literal will sound awful, but then it would be more closely related to how the Bhagavad-Gita sounds.
I just find it strange that there are so many different versions of a book that people are supposed to (and often) take literally. I'm not going to argue my personal beliefs on religion but I will question how anyone can believe word for word in a book that has been translated so many times.
Now to me the history of the bible, human nature and just the general trend for things to end up nothing like they are supposed to means that I personally don't think it can be anything even remotely like the original bible. However even if the general contents are almost exactly the same you still shouldn't take it word for word. I wouldn't even trust the first translation made, let alone the versions that are out today.
The reason why I'm posting. Just one question, how can anyone feel justified in following the bible <i>word for word</i> The general message of love one another, treat everyone as you would like to be treated etc is cool. 10 commandments are pretty good too. If people stopped arguing about the rest of it you'd all act a lot more... christian.
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+Apr 8 2005, 01:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ Apr 8 2005, 01:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I just find it strange that there are so many different versions of a book that people are supposed to (and often) take literally. I'm not going to argue my personal beliefs on religion but I will question how anyone can believe word for word in a book that has been translated so many times.
Now to me the history of the bible, human nature and just the general trend for things to end up nothing like they are supposed to means that I personally don't think it can be anything even remotely like the original bible. However even if the general contents are almost exactly the same you still shouldn't take it word for word. I wouldn't even trust the first translation made, let alone the versions that are out today.
The reason why I'm posting. Just one question, how can anyone feel justified in following the bible <i>word for word</i> The general message of love one another, treat everyone as you would like to be treated etc is cool. 10 commandments are pretty good too. If people stopped arguing about the rest of it you'd all act a lot more... christian. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Back to the original argument. How could a book survive so many translations and generations and still be true to the original?
The answer is easy and simple and not one that scientists or "great thinkers" seem to enjoy.
God preserved the Bible, His Word, perfectly the way he wanted it.
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Apr 8 2005, 02:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Apr 8 2005, 02:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Back to the original argument. How could a book survive so many translations and generations and still be true to the original?
The answer is easy and simple and not one that scientists or "great thinkers" seem to enjoy.
God preserved the Bible, His Word, perfectly the way he wanted it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So that's why you guys were posting about the relative merits of different translations. God must have preserved a dozen different versions, perfectly the way he wanted them. Every single one of those translations are perfect, according to your view.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I love my King James Bible, though. I only trust King James and NIV. (NIV because it is just cleaned up King James.) When given the choice, I choose KJV over NIV any day. And don't even get me started on the NLT or WEB!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or, you are just being logically inconsistent.
On a similiar note, you can say the same thing about all the different sects of Christianity.
This reminded me of a presentation that a Muslim classmate gave in my comparitive religion class. She said that the Koran is the most well written document in the Arabic language. It's also written in its original tongue, so it doesn't have the same translation problems that the Bible does. This seems to indicate that if God is preserving his word perfectly, he's doing it through the Koran and not the Bible.
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Apr 8 2005, 02:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Apr 8 2005, 02:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Apr 8 2005, 02:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Apr 8 2005, 02:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Back to the original argument. How could a book survive so many translations and generations and still be true to the original?
The answer is easy and simple and not one that scientists or "great thinkers" seem to enjoy.
God preserved the Bible, His Word, perfectly the way he wanted it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So that's why you guys were posting about the relative merits of different translations. God must have preserved a dozen different versions, perfectly the way he wanted them. Every single one of those translations are perfect, according to your view.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I love my King James Bible, though. I only trust King James and NIV. (NIV because it is just cleaned up King James.) When given the choice, I choose KJV over NIV any day. And don't even get me started on the NLT or WEB!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or, you are just being logically inconsistent.
On a similiar note, you can say the same thing about all the different sects of Christianity.
This reminded me of a presentation that a Muslim classmate gave in my comparitive religion class. She said that the Koran is the most well written document in the Arabic language. It's also written in its original tongue, so it doesn't have the same translation problems that the Bible does. This seems to indicate that if God is preserving his word perfectly, he's doing it through the Koran and not the Bible. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I believe most translations available today still convey the same message about Jesus and Salvation, however I prefer my King James translation to any other because of the way it is worded. I feel it is superior to many translations because of it's powerful wording. This is strictly an opinion as I know others who like NLT and I hate NLT because I don't think it gets the message across quite as well as KJV, NIV or NASB.
We are at a time when new translations are cropping up very quickly and I wouldn't doubt that a few heretical ones will pop onto the scene sooner rather than later. This is not good for the Christian community as a whole, neither are all these various "sects".
The important thing to understand about denominations is that they are only there to provide structure. They aren't really "necessary". And each one tends to take one aspect of the Bible and focus in on it way too much. Like, us baptists tend to focus on Jesus too much and forget the Holy Spirit. While others focus on the Holy Spirit and forget God often.
The answer is, humans are flawed, religion is flawed but God is perfect.
*sigh* I need a break from all this religion discussion. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Apr 8 2005, 09:00 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 8 2005, 09:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Apr 7 2005, 10:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Apr 7 2005, 10:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The original KJV is ripe with transcription errors, which is one of the reasons why skeptics end up quoting from it so much.
The NIV is generally pretty good, but it's written at an 8th (or is it 5th?) grade reading level, so a lot of stuff is lost in translation.
Most of the above quotes I posted are from the NASB, one of the most literal of the modern translations, and my personal favorite. I think the site might have changed itself over to NIV midway through though...
If you're looking for literalism, check out Young's Literal Translation.
And yes, the New Living Translation is utter crap.
By the way, all of the above can be found at <a href='http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/' target='_blank'>http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/</a>.
You wont find a Hebrew New Testament either, since the NT wasn't written in Hebrew, but in Greek and Aramaic, with bits of Latin mixed in here and there for a few words. I don't think they have one on that site, but a copy of the NT Greek should be a lot easyer to procure than one of the NT Hebrew <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Greek.... eww.... Well I shall have to find a Greek bible then.
The link you gave me keeps timing out. Also that would explain why I could find the Hebrew OT but not the NT. There is no mention of ancient aramaic being in the bible at all, considering the only one who might have spoke aramaic was Jesus.
After I find a copy of the Greek bible I shall re-translate it with both literal and grammatically correct english. I'm sure the literal will sound awful, but then it would be more closely related to how the Bhagavad-Gita sounds. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Don't bother, Young's Literal is extremely close to that anyway.
Clam, CMEast : We don't claim that the translations themselves are holy, by any means. (I think one of the ten commandments in the original KJV even had the 'not' omitted during it's first translation.) The idea is that the original text is inspired, not the translations.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Apr 8 2005, 02:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Apr 8 2005, 02:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Apr 8 2005, 09:00 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 8 2005, 09:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Apr 7 2005, 10:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Apr 7 2005, 10:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The original KJV is ripe with transcription errors, which is one of the reasons why skeptics end up quoting from it so much.
The NIV is generally pretty good, but it's written at an 8th (or is it 5th?) grade reading level, so a lot of stuff is lost in translation.
Most of the above quotes I posted are from the NASB, one of the most literal of the modern translations, and my personal favorite. I think the site might have changed itself over to NIV midway through though...
If you're looking for literalism, check out Young's Literal Translation.
And yes, the New Living Translation is utter crap.
By the way, all of the above can be found at <a href='http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/' target='_blank'>http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/</a>.
You wont find a Hebrew New Testament either, since the NT wasn't written in Hebrew, but in Greek and Aramaic, with bits of Latin mixed in here and there for a few words. I don't think they have one on that site, but a copy of the NT Greek should be a lot easyer to procure than one of the NT Hebrew <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Greek.... eww.... Well I shall have to find a Greek bible then.
The link you gave me keeps timing out. Also that would explain why I could find the Hebrew OT but not the NT. There is no mention of ancient aramaic being in the bible at all, considering the only one who might have spoke aramaic was Jesus.
After I find a copy of the Greek bible I shall re-translate it with both literal and grammatically correct english. I'm sure the literal will sound awful, but then it would be more closely related to how the Bhagavad-Gita sounds. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Don't bother, Young's Literal is extremely close to that anyway.
Clam, CMEast : We don't claim that the translations themselves are holy, by any means. (I think one of the ten commandments in the original KJV even had the 'not' omitted during it's first translation.) The idea is that the original text is inspired, not the translations. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm sorry, but in my experience nothing gets done properly unless you do it yourself. Which is why I do not trust other sites for translations, I prefer to do them myself.
There are some errors on the Bhavagad-Gita site I showed you earlier as well, but unless you know hindu you wouldn't have been able to spot them.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Apr 8 2005, 02:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Apr 8 2005, 02:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Apr 8 2005, 09:00 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 8 2005, 09:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Apr 7 2005, 10:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Apr 7 2005, 10:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The original KJV is ripe with transcription errors, which is one of the reasons why skeptics end up quoting from it so much.
The NIV is generally pretty good, but it's written at an 8th (or is it 5th?) grade reading level, so a lot of stuff is lost in translation.
Most of the above quotes I posted are from the NASB, one of the most literal of the modern translations, and my personal favorite. I think the site might have changed itself over to NIV midway through though...
If you're looking for literalism, check out Young's Literal Translation.
And yes, the New Living Translation is utter crap.
By the way, all of the above can be found at <a href='http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/' target='_blank'>http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/</a>.
You wont find a Hebrew New Testament either, since the NT wasn't written in Hebrew, but in Greek and Aramaic, with bits of Latin mixed in here and there for a few words. I don't think they have one on that site, but a copy of the NT Greek should be a lot easyer to procure than one of the NT Hebrew <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Greek.... eww.... Well I shall have to find a Greek bible then.
The link you gave me keeps timing out. Also that would explain why I could find the Hebrew OT but not the NT. There is no mention of ancient aramaic being in the bible at all, considering the only one who might have spoke aramaic was Jesus.
After I find a copy of the Greek bible I shall re-translate it with both literal and grammatically correct english. I'm sure the literal will sound awful, but then it would be more closely related to how the Bhagavad-Gita sounds. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Don't bother, Young's Literal is extremely close to that anyway.
Clam, CMEast : We don't claim that the translations themselves are holy, by any means. (I think one of the ten commandments in the original KJV even had the 'not' omitted during it's first translation.) The idea is that the original text is inspired, not the translations. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm sorry, but in my experience nothing gets done properly unless you do it yourself. Which is why I do not trust other sites for translations, I prefer to do them myself.
There are some errors on the Bhavagad-Gita site I showed you earlier as well, but unless you know hindu you wouldn't have been able to spot them.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Apr 8 2005, 03:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Apr 8 2005, 03:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Clam, CMEast : We don't claim that the translations themselves are holy, by any means. (I think one of the ten commandments in the original KJV even had the 'not' omitted during it's first translation.) The idea is that the original text is inspired, not the translations. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So how do you know that you're getting a correct interpretation and translation, given that the current interpretations and translations contradict those of the past?
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Apr 8 2005, 07:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Apr 8 2005, 07:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Apr 8 2005, 03:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Apr 8 2005, 03:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Clam, CMEast : We don't claim that the translations themselves are holy, by any means. (I think one of the ten commandments in the original KJV even had the 'not' omitted during it's first translation.) The idea is that the original text is inspired, not the translations. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So how do you know that you're getting a correct interpretation and translation, given that the current interpretations and translations contradict those of the past? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly why clam I am going to translate the orginal text for everyone. (I'm not going to bother with the entire new testament as that would far more time consuming and I'm not being paid for this.)
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Apr 8 2005, 08:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Apr 8 2005, 08:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I believe most translations available today still convey the same message about Jesus and Salvation, however I prefer my King James translation to any other because of the way it is worded. I feel it is superior to many translations because of it's powerful wording. This is strictly an opinion as I know others who like NLT and I hate NLT because I don't think it gets the message across quite as well as KJV, NIV or NASB.
The answer is, humans are flawed, religion is flawed but God is perfect.
*sigh* I need a break from all this religion discussion. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly my point, I wasn't going to start claiming that the Bible can't be used as a religious text or anything precisely because any one who can believe in a God can believe that the bible is right.
My point was not that they don't have the same basic content but that people should read it in the knowledge that only the underlying principles of the book. That they should follow the spirit rather than the letter of the law.
That means you can't use it as a basis for prejudice because people are supposed to be tolerant. That you can't use it as a justification for war when the most important thing is peace.
As you said, humans are religion are flawed, that's why fundamentalists are so very wrong. It just seems so obvious to me that I can't see how others don't all feel the same?
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+Apr 8 2005, 10:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ Apr 8 2005, 10:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Apr 8 2005, 08:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Apr 8 2005, 08:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I believe most translations available today still convey the same message about Jesus and Salvation, however I prefer my King James translation to any other because of the way it is worded. I feel it is superior to many translations because of it's powerful wording. This is strictly an opinion as I know others who like NLT and I hate NLT because I don't think it gets the message across quite as well as KJV, NIV or NASB.
The answer is, humans are flawed, religion is flawed but God is perfect.
*sigh* I need a break from all this religion discussion. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly my point, I wasn't going to start claiming that the Bible can't be used as a religious text or anything precisely because any one who can believe in a God can believe that the bible is right.
My point was not that they don't have the same basic content but that people should read it in the knowledge that only the underlying principles of the book. That they should follow the spirit rather than the letter of the law.
That means you can't use it as a basis for prejudice because people are supposed to be tolerant. That you can't use it as a justification for war when the most important thing is peace.
As you said, humans are religion are flawed, that's why fundamentalists are so very wrong. It just seems so obvious to me that I can't see how others don't all feel the same? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well the fact that I can't be sure an english translation is absolutely correct doesn't mean I can't crossreference versions, look up the word in Hebrew in Strong's Concordance and Lexicon, cross-reference it for other verses in which it is used, and understand it literally and contextually.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm sorry, but in my experience nothing gets done properly unless you do it yourself. Which is why I do not trust other sites for translations, I prefer to do them myself.
There are some errors on the Bhavagad-Gita site I showed you earlier as well, but unless you know hindu you wouldn't have been able to spot them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And you, of course, have a working knowledge of Ancient Greek, an understanding of ancient near east culture, and a team of people checking your work for accuracy?
Let's face facts. You posted your list of things taken out of context that seemed to say the same things with some of the same phraises, and some minor paraphraising. I showed you contextually how that was bunk, and now you have no case. So, of course, your last resort is attacking my source, the NASB and NIV translations; the two most accurate, most read, and most checked translations of the last 30 years. But that's all crap, because you don't trust other sites, and somehow you're going to translate the entire New Testament (which I might add, 24 hours ago you didn't even know which language it was written in ...) and prove me wrong.
You have been ownt, in a most severe fashion. Can we bury this 'theory' of yours, and call this discussion a day? Or, must we go through another list of paraphraised and out-of-context verses and do this all over again?
[edit]
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So how do you know that you're getting a correct interpretation and translation, given that the current interpretations and translations contradict those of the past?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't. I'm pretty sure I am, but I don't. Which is why whenever I see something I'm not sure of, I check it with the KJRV, the NIV, the NASB, and Strong's Lexicon and Concordance, analyse the passage contextually, and cross-reference the word with every other usage in relevant scripture.
I can't be positive, but I can be so close to it that I can act on my deduction with an incredible degree of confidence.
Comments
Choose to disbelieve evolution if you want, but a vast majority of scientists accept it, and it has huge amounts of positive evidence. You can deny this until you're blue in the face it won't do you any good...
Edit: Please at least attempt to show me why evolution is wrong before you call me closed minded. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The only thing that I don't believe could have evolved is man. The Bible says God made man from the dust of the earth. "From dust you were made and to dust you shall return."
It is quite possible that God "evolved" animals to form new species, kinds, etc. i.e. He took a tadpole and made a fish, took the fish and made a serpent, took the serpent and made a lizard and so on and so forth.
It is also possible that man was made in this way (evolution) but it wouldn't be Darwin's natural-selection / random chance theory I would be relying on. Personally I don't think God evolved man from chimps or any other animal but I am open to the possibility.
Perhaps this was Intelligent Evolution? (As opposed to "Intelligent Design".)
~ DarkATi
EDIT: Also, Sky posted a brilliant idea that perhaps God created the laws that govern the earth, etc. and that evolution then ensued "naturally" through God's own laws and design. This would mean that God "created" us just not in a direct, hokey pokey, boom! *FIRE!* way.
It is quite possible that God "evolved" animals to form new species, kinds, etc. i.e. He took a tadpole and made a fish, took the fish and made a serpent, took the serpent and made a lizard and so on and so forth.
It is also possible that man was made in this way (evolution) but it wouldn't be Darwin's natural-selection / random chance theory I would be relying on. Personally I don't think God evolved man from chimps or any other animal but I am open to the possibility.
Perhaps this was Intelligent Evolution? (As opposed to "Intelligent Design".)
~ DarkATi
EDIT: Also, Sky posted a brilliant idea that perhaps God created the laws that govern the earth, etc. and that evolution then ensued "naturally" through God's own laws and design. This would mean that God "created" us just not in a direct, hokey pokey, boom! *FIRE!* way. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
How do you explain scigirl's <a href='http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=116447' target='_blank'>chromosome challenge</a>? (Link is from an earlier post of Nad's.)
Thats a perfectly reasonable way to look at it, because it fits the evidence we have. If God did create the universe in such a way that evolution would eventually produce humans, then theres no way for us to tell that God had any involvement at all and it becomes a moot point.
Ok, so again, to clarify, us evolutionists are being closed minded? =\
I don't understand where the bible shows good evidence that humans didn't evolve. Please... explain it to me? <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Edit: I guess what I don't understand is how Christians will change what their supposed holy book says to fit modern ideas. It seems so dishonest. "Hey lets update this book of eternal truths." What? It seems so... bleh. It seems fake. They act like they have 'the answer' and they only take the evidence that supports it. It's just plain dishonest, and to come here accusing people who side with Science of being closed minded is hypocritical imo.
Edit2: It's like there is pretty damn strong evidence staring DarkATi in the face that we are descended from (or at least in some way related to) apes/primates and he continues to believe this book. Why? Do you see why we think of you as brainwashed now? Any logical person facing this decision would at least admit that the bible has an error here or something, or try to mold it to fit their beliefs (see edit #1). DarkATi just flat out denies it. "I know there's mounds of evidence against me, but I choose to believe this book." Sigh.
I never said you were. Not sure where you saw me say so...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't understand where the bible shows good evidence that humans didn't evolve. Please... explain it to me? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Bible says, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
"From the dust of the ground" is different than, "from a chimpanzee".
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Edit: I guess what I don't understand is how Christians will change what their supposed holy book says to fit modern ideas. It seems so dishonest. "Hey lets update this book of eternal truths." What? It seems so... bleh. It seems fake. They act like they have 'the answer' and they only take the evidence that supports it. It's just plain dishonest, and to come here accusing people who side with Science of being closed minded is hypocritical imo.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, I have never called anyone in this thread closed-minded, so when replying to me, you should leave that argument out.
As for changing what the Bible says, I never have nor will. I may change my thinking patterns, my thoughts and my ideas, as well as my interpretation of scripture but never will I change what the Bible says.
I think you're running more on a generalization of all Christians than you are on what I am saying.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Edit2: It's like there is pretty damn strong evidence staring DarkATi in the face that we are descended from (or at least in some way related to) apes/primates and he continues to believe this book. Why? Do you see why we think of you as brainwashed now? Any logical person facing this decision would at least admit that the bible has an error here or something, or try to mold it to fit their beliefs (see edit #1). DarkATi just flat out denies it. "I know there's mounds of evidence against me, but I choose to believe this book." Sigh. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have replied to the amps/chimps related to humans/scigirl link elsewhere. If you missed it, go back and find it, I believe it to be on page 15/16.
It's all in interpretation. How you interpret data. When you read that humans are genetically very close to chimps, you think this proves evolution. I however, don't. I believe it proves that God created intelligently and with a purpose and influence! Why would God create every creature completely different? With a completely new set of genetic data? Or maybe he should have created one animal with atoms and one without. He should make a three-legged monkey and an eight-thousand legged humanoid shrimp-weasel I suppose?
No! God created with a purpose and a passion. He followed a design of his own invention when welding the realms of this vast universe together!
As for following a book. I do no such thing. I follow God, THE supreme being, creator and sustainer of life. The alpha and omega, beginning and end. Everything.
So now let's flip it. Oh how you'll scoff, oh how you'll laugh. But let us.
I say there is evidence staring you in the face. It is simple and beautiful. Evidence that this world is corrupt and you along with it. Evidence that you need a redeemer, because everyone does. Evidence that you have been made and that you are loved.
It isn't hard.
It isn't complex.
It is simplicity at it's finest.
You are a sinner. God loves you. Jesus has redeemed you.
All you have to do... is claim this redemption.
~ DarkATi
The Bible says, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
"From the dust of the ground" is different than, "from a chimpanzee".
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think he meant good evidence.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Edit2: It's like there is pretty damn strong evidence staring DarkATi in the face that we are descended from (or at least in some way related to) apes/primates and he continues to believe this book. Why? Do you see why we think of you as brainwashed now? Any logical person facing this decision would at least admit that the bible has an error here or something, or try to mold it to fit their beliefs (see edit #1). DarkATi just flat out denies it. "I know there's mounds of evidence against me, but I choose to believe this book." Sigh. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have replied to the amps/chimps related to humans/scigirl link elsewhere. If you missed it, go back and find it, I believe it to be on page 15/16.
It's all in interpretation. How you interpret data. When you read that humans are genetically very close to chimps, you think this proves evolution. I however, don't. I believe it proves that God created intelligently and with a purpose and influence! Why would God create every creature completely different? With a completely new set of genetic data? Or maybe he should have created one animal with atoms and one without. He should make a three-legged monkey and an eight-thousand legged humanoid shrimp-weasel I suppose?
No! God created with a purpose and a passion. He followed a design of his own invention when welding the realms of this vast universe together!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why would he create fossils that look just human ancestors? Why would he make DNA so similiar between so many creatures, that we can use computer models to create "trees" to determine how closely related different species are and when these species broke off from each other? There's so much evidence that points towards evolution (and towards human evolution, too; there's no reason why we are different in that respect) that it seems like God wants humans to believe in evolution (if, in fact, he created the universe).
I never said you were. Not sure where you saw me say so... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah part of my reply was to KFDM.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Bible says, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
"From the dust of the ground" is different than, "from a chimpanzee".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Aha. We found our problem. Saying something doesn't make it true. If I said you, DarkATi, were a horse, would that make it true? Is everything in everything ever written down true? No. I'm talking about evidence here...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No! God created with a purpose and a passion. He followed a design of his own invention when welding the realms of this vast universe together!
As for following a book. I do no such thing. I follow God, THE supreme being, creator and sustainer of life. The alpha and omega, beginning and end. Everything.
So now let's flip it. Oh how you'll scoff, oh how you'll laugh. But let us.
I say there is evidence staring you in the face. It is simple and beautiful. Evidence that this world is corrupt and you along with it. Evidence that you need a redeemer, because everyone does. Evidence that you have been made and that you are loved.
It isn't hard.
It isn't complex.
It is simplicity at it's finest.
You are a sinner. God loves you. Jesus has redeemed you.
All you have to do... is claim this redemption.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again this is all speculation. You don't know if it's true or not. I see no real evidence in this entire quote. I see a bunch of absurd claims with no evidence to back it up. Notice how when I post a link it has evidence and stuff... you know, verifiable facts? Sigh.
DarkATi, I mean no offense by this but, your problem is that you put way too much blind faith in the Bible/God. Can I ask why you don't have as much blind faith in the Koran? Or any other crazy religious book for that matter?
It isn't complex.
It is simplicity at it's finest.
You are a sinner. God loves you. Jesus has redeemed you.
All you have to do... is claim this redemption.
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The only problem I have with your post is this last part of it.
There is no evidence that a "God" love us. There is also no evidence that "Jesus", (How I hate that name because it is a roman bastardization of Yeshua), has redeemed us.
There is no reason to claim redemption when there is no evidence backing any of the bibles claims up. None, zero, zilch, and has I have demostrated a few times, there is more then one myth and legend that christianity is based off of.
I also have more personal reasons, but those I shall only disclose to those who asked.
*Edit* Just a little tooting my own horn, but I told you that he was the same person. :-)
Most certainly, I am not offended at all.
I have studied various religions only to come to the conclusion that there are only two religions: Religion A) Jesus is Lord and nothing YOU can do will get you to heaven, Religion B) Jesus isn't Lord but you can do XYZ to get to heaven or a higher-plane etc.
And I don't think that is my problem. If you'll allow me to present some "evidence" to you.
Church camp, it's been rainy all week. Horrid weather. We're together in a prayer circle, everyone prays in turn, the rain coming down and the thunder roaring. A little girl prays, "Thank you God for everything, it has been a great week... oh and could you stop this nasty rain?"
Immediately, the rain stops.
Coincidence? I suppose. I'm sure if you got a group of scientists together they could calculate the exact odds that this would occur at this time, blah blah blah.
My faith is anything but blind. I was there... and I have plenty other stories like this.
~ DarkATi
Would you have remembered that incident if it hadn't stopped raining? Or it got worse?
Most certainly, I am not offended at all.
I have studied various religions only to come to the conclusion that there are only two religions: Religion A) Jesus is Lord and nothing YOU can do will get you to heaven, Religion B) Jesus isn't Lord but you can do XYZ to get to heaven or a higher-plane etc.
And I don't think that is my problem. If you'll allow me to present some "evidence" to you.
Church camp, it's been rainy all week. Horrid weather. We're together in a prayer circle, everyone prays in turn, the rain coming down and the thunder roaring. A little girl prays, "Thank you God for everything, it has been a great week... oh and could you stop this nasty rain?"
Immediately, the rain stops.
Coincidence? I suppose. I'm sure if you got a group of scientists together they could calculate the exact odds that this would occur at this time, blah blah blah.
My faith is anything but blind. I was there... and I have plenty other stories like this.
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Last week, when I prayed to god and asked for a pet monkey, he didn't give me one. And also, just now when it was raining like mad and I was outside on my bicycle, I prayed to god for it to stop. It didn't.
Though it started raining cows when I prayed for it last month, though. So I guess god exists.
Most certainly, I am not offended at all.
I have studied various religions only to come to the conclusion that there are only two religions: Religion A) Jesus is Lord and nothing YOU can do will get you to heaven, Religion B) Jesus isn't Lord but you can do XYZ to get to heaven or a higher-plane etc.
And I don't think that is my problem. If you'll allow me to present some "evidence" to you.
Church camp, it's been rainy all week. Horrid weather. We're together in a prayer circle, everyone prays in turn, the rain coming down and the thunder roaring. A little girl prays, "Thank you God for everything, it has been a great week... oh and could you stop this nasty rain?"
Immediately, the rain stops.
Coincidence? I suppose. I'm sure if you got a group of scientists together they could calculate the exact odds that this would occur at this time, blah blah blah.
My faith is anything but blind. I was there... and I have plenty other stories like this.
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have plenty of stories like that, but I'm not religious. I'm sure Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and believers of other religions all have stories like that.
You reminded me of a quote:
"Desine fata deum flecti sperare precando.
<i>Stop hoping you will change the will of the gods by praying</i>."
-Vergil, Aeneid, Book Six, Line 376
Most certainly, I am not offended at all.
I have studied various religions only to come to the conclusion that there are only two religions: Religion A) Jesus is Lord and nothing YOU can do will get you to heaven, Religion B) Jesus isn't Lord but you can do XYZ to get to heaven or a higher-plane etc.
And I don't think that is my problem. If you'll allow me to present some "evidence" to you.
Church camp, it's been rainy all week. Horrid weather. We're together in a prayer circle, everyone prays in turn, the rain coming down and the thunder roaring. A little girl prays, "Thank you God for everything, it has been a great week... oh and could you stop this nasty rain?"
Immediately, the rain stops.
Coincidence? I suppose. I'm sure if you got a group of scientists together they could calculate the exact odds that this would occur at this time, blah blah blah.
My faith is anything but blind. I was there... and I have plenty other stories like this.
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
AHHH! This is like a bad dream <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Confirmation bias (we remember the hits and forget the misses) reduces personal experiences to being worthless when actually trying to determine something meaningful.
Seriously, read up on this. It's amazing how useless personal experiences and anecdotes are.
Give me a minute and I'll get you some links...
<a href='http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=00094511-E068-10FA-89FB83414B7F0000&colID=13' target='_blank'>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa...7F0000&colID=13</a>
I know this one isn't related to personal experiences, but it is related to evolution: <a href='http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=0003EFE0-D68A-1212-8F3983414B7F0000&colID=13' target='_blank'>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa...7F0000&colID=13</a>
I know this is sorta in a different vein, but think about praying. If whatever you prayed for happens, you praise God for helping you out. If it doesn't happen, 'God works in mysterious ways.' Isn't there a point when we could say that praying has no statistically significant correlation with something happening?
When have I called an encyclopedia biased? You're putting words in my mouth and trying to pull cheap shots. Stop. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If I was referring directly to you legionaired I would have stated as such. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fair enough.
But you didn't address my points. If you read both scriptures contextually, you see that they are drawing from different assumptions and working towards cross-purposes.
Contradictory teaching = not the same thing.
When have I called an encyclopedia biased? You're putting words in my mouth and trying to pull cheap shots. Stop. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If I was referring directly to you legionaired I would have stated as such. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fair enough.
But you didn't address my points. If you read both scriptures contextually, you see that they are drawing from different assumptions and working towards cross-purposes.
Contradictory teaching = not the same thing. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No I did address your points, but it was lost sadly with the whole AvengerX working around his ban.
I said I disagree with the translation you have given me for the english bible. I say its not accurately reflecting what it is saying. I want to find a hebrew one then I'll come back to you on the points you attempted to dissuade. If you know of a link to the hebrew bible that would help out.
When have I called an encyclopedia biased? You're putting words in my mouth and trying to pull cheap shots. Stop. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If I was referring directly to you legionaired I would have stated as such. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fair enough.
But you didn't address my points. If you read both scriptures contextually, you see that they are drawing from different assumptions and working towards cross-purposes.
Contradictory teaching = not the same thing. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No I did address your points, but it was lost sadly with the whole AvengerX working around his ban.
I said I disagree with the translation you have given me for the english bible. I say its not accurately reflecting what it is saying. I want to find a hebrew one then I'll come back to you on the points you attempted to dissuade. If you know of a link to the hebrew bible that would help out. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, the Hebrew Bible is really the most reliable of translations but sadly, I don't read Hebrew... yet. I'm thinking about taking a course on it.
I love my King James Bible, though. I only trust King James and NIV. (NIV because it is just cleaned up King James.) When given the choice, I choose KJV over NIV any day. And don't even get me started on the NLT or WEB!
Oh, while I'm out would anyone care for some KFC? I'll go grab some in my new BMW... BRB TTYL. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> Acronyms FTW!
~ DarkATi
The NIV is generally pretty good, but it's written at an 8th (or is it 5th?) grade reading level, so a lot of stuff is lost in translation.
Most of the above quotes I posted are from the NASB, one of the most literal of the modern translations, and my personal favorite. I think the site might have changed itself over to NIV midway through though...
If you're looking for literalism, check out Young's Literal Translation.
And yes, the New Living Translation is utter crap.
By the way, all of the above can be found at <a href='http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/' target='_blank'>http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/</a>.
You wont find a Hebrew New Testament either, since the NT wasn't written in Hebrew, but in Greek and Aramaic, with bits of Latin mixed in here and there for a few words. I don't think they have one on that site, but a copy of the NT Greek should be a lot easyer to procure than one of the NT Hebrew <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
The NIV is generally pretty good, but it's written at an 8th (or is it 5th?) grade reading level, so a lot of stuff is lost in translation.
Most of the above quotes I posted are from the NASB, one of the most literal of the modern translations, and my personal favorite. I think the site might have changed itself over to NIV midway through though...
If you're looking for literalism, check out Young's Literal Translation.
And yes, the New Living Translation is utter crap.
By the way, all of the above can be found at <a href='http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/' target='_blank'>http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/</a>.
You wont find a Hebrew New Testament either, since the NT wasn't written in Hebrew, but in Greek and Aramaic, with bits of Latin mixed in here and there for a few words. I don't think they have one on that site, but a copy of the NT Greek should be a lot easyer to procure than one of the NT Hebrew <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Greek.... eww.... Well I shall have to find a Greek bible then.
The link you gave me keeps timing out. Also that would explain why I could find the Hebrew OT but not the NT. There is no mention of ancient aramaic being in the bible at all, considering the only one who might have spoke aramaic was Jesus.
After I find a copy of the Greek bible I shall re-translate it with both literal and grammatically correct english. I'm sure the literal will sound awful, but then it would be more closely related to how the Bhagavad-Gita sounds.
Now to me the history of the bible, human nature and just the general trend for things to end up nothing like they are supposed to means that I personally don't think it can be anything even remotely like the original bible. However even if the general contents are almost exactly the same you still shouldn't take it word for word. I wouldn't even trust the first translation made, let alone the versions that are out today.
The reason why I'm posting. Just one question, how can anyone feel justified in following the bible <i>word for word</i> The general message of love one another, treat everyone as you would like to be treated etc is cool. 10 commandments are pretty good too. If people stopped arguing about the rest of it you'd all act a lot more... christian.
Now to me the history of the bible, human nature and just the general trend for things to end up nothing like they are supposed to means that I personally don't think it can be anything even remotely like the original bible. However even if the general contents are almost exactly the same you still shouldn't take it word for word. I wouldn't even trust the first translation made, let alone the versions that are out today.
The reason why I'm posting. Just one question, how can anyone feel justified in following the bible <i>word for word</i> The general message of love one another, treat everyone as you would like to be treated etc is cool. 10 commandments are pretty good too. If people stopped arguing about the rest of it you'd all act a lot more... christian. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Back to the original argument. How could a book survive so many translations and generations and still be true to the original?
The answer is easy and simple and not one that scientists or "great thinkers" seem to enjoy.
God preserved the Bible, His Word, perfectly the way he wanted it.
~ DarkATi
The answer is easy and simple and not one that scientists or "great thinkers" seem to enjoy.
God preserved the Bible, His Word, perfectly the way he wanted it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So that's why you guys were posting about the relative merits of different translations. God must have preserved a dozen different versions, perfectly the way he wanted them. Every single one of those translations are perfect, according to your view.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I love my King James Bible, though. I only trust King James and NIV. (NIV because it is just cleaned up King James.) When given the choice, I choose KJV over NIV any day. And don't even get me started on the NLT or WEB!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or, you are just being logically inconsistent.
On a similiar note, you can say the same thing about all the different sects of Christianity.
This reminded me of a presentation that a Muslim classmate gave in my comparitive religion class. She said that the Koran is the most well written document in the Arabic language. It's also written in its original tongue, so it doesn't have the same translation problems that the Bible does. This seems to indicate that if God is preserving his word perfectly, he's doing it through the Koran and not the Bible.
The answer is easy and simple and not one that scientists or "great thinkers" seem to enjoy.
God preserved the Bible, His Word, perfectly the way he wanted it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So that's why you guys were posting about the relative merits of different translations. God must have preserved a dozen different versions, perfectly the way he wanted them. Every single one of those translations are perfect, according to your view.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I love my King James Bible, though. I only trust King James and NIV. (NIV because it is just cleaned up King James.) When given the choice, I choose KJV over NIV any day. And don't even get me started on the NLT or WEB!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or, you are just being logically inconsistent.
On a similiar note, you can say the same thing about all the different sects of Christianity.
This reminded me of a presentation that a Muslim classmate gave in my comparitive religion class. She said that the Koran is the most well written document in the Arabic language. It's also written in its original tongue, so it doesn't have the same translation problems that the Bible does. This seems to indicate that if God is preserving his word perfectly, he's doing it through the Koran and not the Bible. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe most translations available today still convey the same message about Jesus and Salvation, however I prefer my King James translation to any other because of the way it is worded. I feel it is superior to many translations because of it's powerful wording. This is strictly an opinion as I know others who like NLT and I hate NLT because I don't think it gets the message across quite as well as KJV, NIV or NASB.
We are at a time when new translations are cropping up very quickly and I wouldn't doubt that a few heretical ones will pop onto the scene sooner rather than later. This is not good for the Christian community as a whole, neither are all these various "sects".
The important thing to understand about denominations is that they are only there to provide structure. They aren't really "necessary". And each one tends to take one aspect of the Bible and focus in on it way too much. Like, us baptists tend to focus on Jesus too much and forget the Holy Spirit. While others focus on the Holy Spirit and forget God often.
The answer is, humans are flawed, religion is flawed but God is perfect.
*sigh* I need a break from all this religion discussion. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
~ DarkATi
The NIV is generally pretty good, but it's written at an 8th (or is it 5th?) grade reading level, so a lot of stuff is lost in translation.
Most of the above quotes I posted are from the NASB, one of the most literal of the modern translations, and my personal favorite. I think the site might have changed itself over to NIV midway through though...
If you're looking for literalism, check out Young's Literal Translation.
And yes, the New Living Translation is utter crap.
By the way, all of the above can be found at <a href='http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/' target='_blank'>http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/</a>.
You wont find a Hebrew New Testament either, since the NT wasn't written in Hebrew, but in Greek and Aramaic, with bits of Latin mixed in here and there for a few words. I don't think they have one on that site, but a copy of the NT Greek should be a lot easyer to procure than one of the NT Hebrew <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Greek.... eww.... Well I shall have to find a Greek bible then.
The link you gave me keeps timing out. Also that would explain why I could find the Hebrew OT but not the NT. There is no mention of ancient aramaic being in the bible at all, considering the only one who might have spoke aramaic was Jesus.
After I find a copy of the Greek bible I shall re-translate it with both literal and grammatically correct english. I'm sure the literal will sound awful, but then it would be more closely related to how the Bhagavad-Gita sounds. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Don't bother, Young's Literal is extremely close to that anyway.
Clam, CMEast : We don't claim that the translations themselves are holy, by any means. (I think one of the ten commandments in the original KJV even had the 'not' omitted during it's first translation.) The idea is that the original text is inspired, not the translations.
The NIV is generally pretty good, but it's written at an 8th (or is it 5th?) grade reading level, so a lot of stuff is lost in translation.
Most of the above quotes I posted are from the NASB, one of the most literal of the modern translations, and my personal favorite. I think the site might have changed itself over to NIV midway through though...
If you're looking for literalism, check out Young's Literal Translation.
And yes, the New Living Translation is utter crap.
By the way, all of the above can be found at <a href='http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/' target='_blank'>http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/</a>.
You wont find a Hebrew New Testament either, since the NT wasn't written in Hebrew, but in Greek and Aramaic, with bits of Latin mixed in here and there for a few words. I don't think they have one on that site, but a copy of the NT Greek should be a lot easyer to procure than one of the NT Hebrew <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Greek.... eww.... Well I shall have to find a Greek bible then.
The link you gave me keeps timing out. Also that would explain why I could find the Hebrew OT but not the NT. There is no mention of ancient aramaic being in the bible at all, considering the only one who might have spoke aramaic was Jesus.
After I find a copy of the Greek bible I shall re-translate it with both literal and grammatically correct english. I'm sure the literal will sound awful, but then it would be more closely related to how the Bhagavad-Gita sounds. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Don't bother, Young's Literal is extremely close to that anyway.
Clam, CMEast : We don't claim that the translations themselves are holy, by any means. (I think one of the ten commandments in the original KJV even had the 'not' omitted during it's first translation.) The idea is that the original text is inspired, not the translations. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sorry, but in my experience nothing gets done properly unless you do it yourself. Which is why I do not trust other sites for translations, I prefer to do them myself.
There are some errors on the Bhavagad-Gita site I showed you earlier as well, but unless you know hindu you wouldn't have been able to spot them.
The NIV is generally pretty good, but it's written at an 8th (or is it 5th?) grade reading level, so a lot of stuff is lost in translation.
Most of the above quotes I posted are from the NASB, one of the most literal of the modern translations, and my personal favorite. I think the site might have changed itself over to NIV midway through though...
If you're looking for literalism, check out Young's Literal Translation.
And yes, the New Living Translation is utter crap.
By the way, all of the above can be found at <a href='http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/' target='_blank'>http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/</a>.
You wont find a Hebrew New Testament either, since the NT wasn't written in Hebrew, but in Greek and Aramaic, with bits of Latin mixed in here and there for a few words. I don't think they have one on that site, but a copy of the NT Greek should be a lot easyer to procure than one of the NT Hebrew <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Greek.... eww.... Well I shall have to find a Greek bible then.
The link you gave me keeps timing out. Also that would explain why I could find the Hebrew OT but not the NT. There is no mention of ancient aramaic being in the bible at all, considering the only one who might have spoke aramaic was Jesus.
After I find a copy of the Greek bible I shall re-translate it with both literal and grammatically correct english. I'm sure the literal will sound awful, but then it would be more closely related to how the Bhagavad-Gita sounds. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Don't bother, Young's Literal is extremely close to that anyway.
Clam, CMEast : We don't claim that the translations themselves are holy, by any means. (I think one of the ten commandments in the original KJV even had the 'not' omitted during it's first translation.) The idea is that the original text is inspired, not the translations. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sorry, but in my experience nothing gets done properly unless you do it yourself. Which is why I do not trust other sites for translations, I prefer to do them myself.
There are some errors on the Bhavagad-Gita site I showed you earlier as well, but unless you know hindu you wouldn't have been able to spot them.
So how do you know that you're getting a correct interpretation and translation, given that the current interpretations and translations contradict those of the past?
So how do you know that you're getting a correct interpretation and translation, given that the current interpretations and translations contradict those of the past? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly why clam I am going to translate the orginal text for everyone. (I'm not going to bother with the entire new testament as that would far more time consuming and I'm not being paid for this.)
The answer is, humans are flawed, religion is flawed but God is perfect.
*sigh* I need a break from all this religion discussion. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly my point, I wasn't going to start claiming that the Bible can't be used as a religious text or anything precisely because any one who can believe in a God can believe that the bible is right.
My point was not that they don't have the same basic content but that people should read it in the knowledge that only the underlying principles of the book. That they should follow the spirit rather than the letter of the law.
That means you can't use it as a basis for prejudice because people are supposed to be tolerant. That you can't use it as a justification for war when the most important thing is peace.
As you said, humans are religion are flawed, that's why fundamentalists are so very wrong. It just seems so obvious to me that I can't see how others don't all feel the same?
The answer is, humans are flawed, religion is flawed but God is perfect.
*sigh* I need a break from all this religion discussion. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly my point, I wasn't going to start claiming that the Bible can't be used as a religious text or anything precisely because any one who can believe in a God can believe that the bible is right.
My point was not that they don't have the same basic content but that people should read it in the knowledge that only the underlying principles of the book. That they should follow the spirit rather than the letter of the law.
That means you can't use it as a basis for prejudice because people are supposed to be tolerant. That you can't use it as a justification for war when the most important thing is peace.
As you said, humans are religion are flawed, that's why fundamentalists are so very wrong. It just seems so obvious to me that I can't see how others don't all feel the same? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well the fact that I can't be sure an english translation is absolutely correct doesn't mean I can't crossreference versions, look up the word in Hebrew in Strong's Concordance and Lexicon, cross-reference it for other verses in which it is used, and understand it literally and contextually.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I'm sorry, but in my experience nothing gets done properly unless you do it yourself. Which is why I do not trust other sites for translations, I prefer to do them myself.
There are some errors on the Bhavagad-Gita site I showed you earlier as well, but unless you know hindu you wouldn't have been able to spot them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And you, of course, have a working knowledge of Ancient Greek, an understanding of ancient near east culture, and a team of people checking your work for accuracy?
Let's face facts. You posted your list of things taken out of context that seemed to say the same things with some of the same phraises, and some minor paraphraising. I showed you contextually how that was bunk, and now you have no case. So, of course, your last resort is attacking my source, the NASB and NIV translations; the two most accurate, most read, and most checked translations of the last 30 years. But that's all crap, because you don't trust other sites, and somehow you're going to translate the entire New Testament (which I might add, 24 hours ago you didn't even know which language it was written in ...) and prove me wrong.
You have been ownt, in a most severe fashion. Can we bury this 'theory' of yours, and call this discussion a day? Or, must we go through another list of paraphraised and out-of-context verses and do this all over again?
[edit]
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So how do you know that you're getting a correct interpretation and translation, given that the current interpretations and translations contradict those of the past?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't. I'm pretty sure I am, but I don't. Which is why whenever I see something I'm not sure of, I check it with the KJRV, the NIV, the NASB, and Strong's Lexicon and Concordance, analyse the passage contextually, and cross-reference the word with every other usage in relevant scripture.
I can't be positive, but I can be so close to it that I can act on my deduction with an incredible degree of confidence.