Posted on 04/10/2005 3:53:04 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Of course, if read completely literally, the "circle of the earth" implies that it is flat. Otherwise, why didn't it speak of the "sphere of the earth"?
My understanding of "unalienable" rights is rights that cannot be sold. It was, I believe, common practice in England to enter into contracts whereby you gave up your freedom for a period of time.
What leads you to believe that all evolutionists are atheists? Isn't that a rather general statement that would be impossible to verify?
Perhaps the interpretation of sacred writings isn't a reproducible experiment.
See posts
#364
#367
and
#394
Perhaps Man misread things somewhere along the line and needs to get back to studying classical Greek and Aramaic to get a better understanding.
Martin Luther's interpretation of the relevant Scriptur: In 1539, Martin Luther wrote: "Mention has been made of some new astrologer, who wanted to prove that Earth moves and goes around, and not the firmament or heavens, the sun and moon... This fool wants to turn the entire art of astronomy upside down! But as the Holy Scriptures show, Joshua ordered the sun, and not Earth, to halt!"
Are you suggesting that Martin Luther wasn't smart enough to read the Bible correctly?
Well for that matter, why didn't the Bible refer to the oblong sphere of the earth? After all, it isn't a perfect sphere. Oh yeah, that's right... it was translated from an oral tradition to a common tounge.
Perhaps you missed the sarcasm tag. Perhaps it's because of the many times creationists have called me an atheist despite knowing nothing more about me than that I believe that the theory of evolution provides the best explanation for observed facts. I am not an atheist, so I don't believe that all evolutionists are atheists, since I am a counterexample. However, that is the belief of many creationists.
My point is then that we shouldn't use the Bible as a science text. Therefore we shouldn't use Biblical verse as a justification for the position that evolution couldn't have happened.
I get the impression that you are arguing that the Bible is not a reliable document in translation.
Have I called you an atheist? No, because I don't know what you believe and personally it doesn't matter to me what anyone believes. It doesn't matter to me if someone claims to be an atheist (I don't believe in atheists). What matters to me is those scientists who would promote evolution as the only answer to how we got here. If you wish to believe your ancestors were apes, I won't argue. However, don't expect me to believe it just because you say so.
Saying the same thing again (and then not providing any support to your claim) does not make it any more true.
Again, read the posts I showed you. Martin Luther is not the Word. Read the word for yourself and understand the differences in what is written in our books in english and what is verbatum in the original texts.
Yes Martin Luther could read the Bible, but just like the Catholic Church, it is not the authority of the Word by any claims but their own. Citing an outside entity and not the Bible itself is foolish.
No, I am trying to give the impression that Man should not be the judge of the Bible. Not for other men at least.
It's the Protestant in me. Ya gotta read it before you can understand it.
I never accused you of calling me an atheist. I was referring to a prevailing attitude among some subset of creationists that anyone who believes in evolution must be an atheist. I was also trying to point out that poll numbers that ignored the those who hold to a theistic evolution position were misleading. I was using my own belief as a counterexample to the claim that all evolutionists are atheists. Finally, I don't expect you or anyone else to believe anything on my say so. I don't even believe things on my say so. I follow the evidence, which so far is entirely in favor of evolution.
I still don't see where the Bible disagrees with the theory of evolution. I say cite away.
There is no truth that Man can know that isn't in the Bible.
May I rely on you never again in any place to quote or discuss scripture in translation? Apparently very simple statements acquire the opposite of their intended meaning when translated.
Either translation is impossible in itself, or all the tranlsators, including Luther, are minions of Satan.
I might add that one of those translators was Luther, which means that he read the original text in the original language and his interpretation was based on reading the original language.
Again, was Luther stupid or a minion of Satan?
Luther was a man, and as such, imperfect. Stupid? Hardly. Foolish in the ways of nature? Most likely.
"May I rely on you never again in any place to quote or discuss scripture in translation?"
When have I ever offered a complete translation of any scripture? I simply provided what ELSE it may be, aside from what was posted. Thats why I keep pounding that word "translation"
All I ask is that it be in the front of your mind that you are reading the interprated form of some (scientifically speaking) laymen who read the original text and put it into his own tounge, as he understood the world.
Oh yeah, that'll fix 'em. Don't give testimony in favor of evolution. :::::rolls eyes:::::
oblate is the word, not oblong.
... it was translated from an oral tradition to a common tounge.
So the translation is suspect? Do we toss out Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John as mis-translations? Okie-dokie.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.