Spirituality
16 Aug 15
17 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonhouseI have never used any argument about some bullfrog proteins being like humans in the same way that Chimpanzee proteins are like humans. But since we are all made of proteins, I would not doubt that some proteins in other animals, like pigs and cows that we eat, may be like human proteins. So this article seems stupid to imply that only the proteins in chimpanzees are like human proteins. This is nonsense in my opinion.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html
This is from the 1980's or so, they haven't changed a thing since then.
Pig proteins show potential for human heart health Video Reuters
Originally posted by WulebgrIt is my experience that evilution has been built on lies. 😏
The point, however, RJH, is that nearly everything you post is either a lie concocted by someone else that you are passing along, or it is your own original lie. Creationism is built on the solid basis of lies and misunderstandings both about science and about the Bible.
The Greatest Lie Ever Told - Evolution EXPOSED
Originally posted by RJHindsI feel in a good mood today, so I will attempt to engage you in conversation against my better judgement.
Perhaps you should really consider the evidence instead of believing the evilution lies and propaganda. 😏
I want to talk about "lies and propaganda".
You will agree with me that both these terms refer to a process of trying to convince another party of something that they do not yet believe, and the first term is what we do when we intentionally try to deceive, knowing full well that we are wrong. Agreed?
Now you take exception when dasa accuses Christians of lying and deceiving, and righty so, since all they do is state to the best of their ability what they believe to be true, WITHOUT in any way trying to deceive. In fact, I am quite sure that you are convinced that what you believe is the unadulterated truth. (When I accuse you of lying, is when you say things like: "the world-wide flood has never been disproved", when you know full well that this very forum is full of such attempted proofs).
Back to your accusation of lying and propaganda that I am replying to. In all my experience of scientists in this field (geology and biology mainly) both Christian and non, there is NOBODY that has set out to prove the Bible wrong. That is not even on any agenda! The accepted age of the earth, at 4321 Million years, is based on solid, corroborated evidence, and not sucked out of somebodies thumb in order to make a religious statement.
I challenge you to find ANY statement, ANYWHERE, which says something like: ...... and this shows that the Biblical account cannot be true.... Such a statement would be ridiculous in a scientific paper! You would be laughed out of court.
Yet, I am sorry to say, this is the very purpose of the existence of the CRS and the answersingenesis website.
Almost every second sentence says - "this shows conclusively that evolution is false, or that the earth is young". In other words, what I am saying is that proving the creation pov, and the worldwide flood, has become the purpose of this effort (i.e. unashamedly propaganda) and NOT the search for truth, since truth has been postulated from the written text of the Bible, and in one specific exegesis in particular.
Now, you would be honest (and respected, I'm happy to say) if you were to take the position that I believe the Bible to be true, and hence I believe in a six-day Creation Week and a world-wide flood. I am aware that there are contrary views out there, and that some people believe that they have established that the earth is much older. Personally, I think they are wrong, and that one day the evidence will show that."
This position would be acceptable to many here, rather than your totally unfounded and malicious, slanderous accusation that all that scientists have on their mind is to falsify the evidence so that they can disprove the Bible! One could hardly conceive of a more ridiculous concept.
17 Aug 15
Originally posted by RJHindsEvidence is precisely why I am no longer a creationist. I was in the 1980s, but efforts to defend these views in the face of overwhelming evidence for evolution and the realization that I was wholly misunderstanding several aspects of basic science, led me out of the darkness into the light.
Perhaps you should really consider the evidence instead of believing the evilution [sic] lies and propaganda.
I also learned more about the Bible as I learned to read Greek as well as gaining a little knowledge about the nature of Hebrew thought. Literalism is unsustainable once a person learns a little about languages and literature. Reading other ancient texts also helped.
17 Aug 15
Originally posted by WulebgrExactly my own experience, wulebgr - except that I cannot read Greek and Hebrew, although I have a basic understanding of the differences between these two cultures.
Evidence is precisely why I am no longer a creationist. I was in the 1980s, but efforts to defend these views in the face of overwhelming evidence for evolution and the realization that I was wholly misunderstanding several aspects of basic science, led me out of the darkness into the light.
I also learned more about the Bible as I learned to read Greek a ...[text shortened]... person learns a little about languages and literature. Reading other ancient texts also helped.
For me it is sometimes amazing to think that I once uncritically defended this YE position, and it is only that which gives me a modicum of understanding for what is otherwise almost criminally insane.
17 Aug 15
2 edits
Originally posted by WulebgrSome years ago I read a book on the early (post-apostolic) theologians. One of the chapters was on the early Syrian Church—in which theology was only done as poetry, since it was assumed to be presumptuous to make propositional truth claims about, or descriptive prose statements about the (ultimately) ineffable divine. I liked that. Of course, there’s also the apophatic tradition, such as pseudo-Dionysus.
Evidence is precisely why I am no longer a creationist. I was in the 1980s, but efforts to defend these views in the face of overwhelming evidence for evolution and the realization that I was wholly misunderstanding several aspects of basic science, led me out of the darkness into the light.
I also learned more about the Bible as I learned to read Greek a ...[text shortened]... person learns a little about languages and literature. Reading other ancient texts also helped.
I think that even a fairly superficial application of literary criticism (as an example among textual-critical hermeneutics) to the biblical texts undoes literalism, generally. I would add to your comments about the original languages this: the conventional meanings of (at least) several critical English terms has changed since the KJV (and I think the Wycliffe translation before that)—e.g., sin, belief, evil. My hypothesis is that Christian theology in the English-speaking world (at least) has changed in the intervening centuries—particularly (perhaps exclusively) in sola scriptura Protestant groups—because of such changes in conventional signification (in addition to translation issues—such as theological bias—vis-à-vis the original languages.)
17 Aug 15
Originally posted by vistesdI think that certain translations, the NIV in particular, aim to resolve all literary ambiguity in favor of literalist doctrine. In my days as a Bible Thumper, I preferred the RSV because the team of translators represented a range of theological priorities. Hence, they were forced to grapple with the language itself and not skew the translation towards a particular set of prejudices. I also think that its better written. The NIV reads like something written by engineers.
Some years ago I read a book on the early (post-apostolic) theologians. One of the chapters was on the early Syrian Church—in which theology was only done as poetry, since it was assumed to be presumptuous to make propositional truth claims about, or descriptive prose statements about the (ultimately) ineffable divine. I liked that. Of course, there’s als ...[text shortened]... n (in addition to translation issues—such as theological bias—vis-à-vis the original languages.)
17 Aug 15
2 edits
Originally posted by WulebgrI agree. I really don’t use the NIV. I tend to default to the NRSV for a few reasons: (1) It is one of the searchable versions that I have as part of a program; (2) I also had the Harper-Collins Study Bible in that version, which seemed to be well-regarded from a scholarly point of view; and (3) I read a Greek Orthodox commentator who said that the more gender-neutral language of the NRSV is actually closer to the Greek idiom.
I think that certain translations, the NIV in particular, aim to resolve all literary ambiguity in favor of literalist doctrine. In my days as a Bible Thumper, I preferred the RSV because the team of translators represented a range of theological priorities. Hence, they were forced to grapple with the language itself and not skew the translation towards a pa ...[text shortened]... udices. I also think that its better written. The NIV reads like something written by engineers.
I also use the New Jerusalem Bible and the JPS version of the Hebrew Scriptures (tanach). For just the Torah, I prefer Everett Fox’s translation—which a professor of OT told me best captured the Hebrew idiom of the Torah—particularly the poetry, which is not always evident in the conventional English translations.
A bunch of years ago (when I could afford it) I purchased a program (CD-ROM) called “BibleWorks” by an outfit called Hermeneutica. I have never updated it, but it is excellent for searching and reading parallel comparative texts—with various English translations, Greek NT, Hebrew OT and the Septuagint (as you select). It also has others. such as Spanish and the Latin Vulgate. I don’t know the current cost, but I would highly recommend it if one can afford it. It also includes different lexicons (including the abbreviated version of Liddel-Scott-Jones—the so-called “little Liddel” ); I used to have the unabridged LSJ, but no longer do.
EDIT: Current versions of "BibleWorks" likely include translations--such as the New World translation--that were not available when I got it.
17 Aug 15
Originally posted by vistesdhttps://store.bibleworks.com/fullversion.html
I agree. I really don’t use the NIV. I tend to default to the NRSV for a few reasons: (1) It is one of the searchable versions that I have as part of a program; (2) I also had the Harper-Collins Study Bible in that version, which seemed to be well-regarded from a scholarly point of view; and (3) I read a Greek Orthodox commentator who said that the m ...[text shortened]... include translations--such as the New World translation--that were not available when I got it.
Bibleworks 10, $389.00 US. 250 bible translations, 45 original languages, 30 lexical-grammatical references. Looks like the ultimate bible. I bet there is not much literalism in this work!
17 Aug 15
Originally posted by WulebgrThe Great Evolution Hoax
Evidence is precisely why I am no longer a creationist. I was in the 1980s, but efforts to defend these views in the face of overwhelming evidence for evolution and the realization that I was wholly misunderstanding several aspects of basic science, led me out of the darkness into the light.
I also learned more about the Bible as I learned to read Greek a ...[text shortened]... person learns a little about languages and literature. Reading other ancient texts also helped.