Muslim Scientists Prepare for Battle With Creationists

Zyzzyva

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2007
Messages
7,302
#21
You have selective reading disorder... :( now I understand...
I'd appreciate it if you would bring something to the debate. No point in having these conversations if both parties don't atleast consider each others views, and then respond with considered responses.

The last three responses by you three have in no way been productive. When you make a point, i atleast spend the time to think about what you have said. I only ask that you do the same.
 

Phronesis

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
3,675
#22
Me: ID essentially opposes materialism at the core and is compatible withDarwinism and methodological naturalism.
Firstly, leading ID proponents don't agree with you. (At least, not according to the stuff I've read on the Discovery Institute's web pages).
Could you elaborate on what ID proponents agree on? And how is this agreement the opposite or in disagreement to what I said?
Secondly, are you saying that ID is a philosophical position rather than a scientific one?
ID is not science from my point of view. I have said this before. Whether it can become science remains to be seen.
 
Last edited:

Claymore

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
7,418
#23
Darwinism and methodological naturalism.
Could you elaborate on what ID proponents agree on? And how is this agreement the opposite or in disagreement to what I said?
It seems to me that ID proponents agree on very little (I've seen a number of contradictory statements about ID from the chaps at the DI), except that it is not compatible with "Darwinism".
 

ghoti

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
45,636
#24
Not 100% true, the bible has always contained the notion that the earth was round. Even athiest at the time felt the earth was flat, it was just the popular opinion at the time which prevented everyone from seeing it.

Isaiah 40:22 (NIV)
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers.

The original hebrew word khoog which was translated "circle" above is also translated: circle circuit compass
"Isaiah 11:12
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

Jeremiah 16:19
19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

Matthew 4:8
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)
"



Also not a 100% true, ever heard of the "gap theory". It's all solid biblical study and it will expand on your simplified view stated in your above sentence. But if your relying on evolution again, you still havent responded to what i said above.
Respond in what way? Could you clarify that.

In reality the Bible was not disproved at all.
Science doesnt seek to prove or disprove God or religion. Its just when it makes silly claims it looks ... well silly.

The misguided interpretations that men had attached to certain scriptures were discredited. It was not the Bible that stood corrected, but man's assumptions about what the Bible said.
So where do I get the really clear clear version?? Could you give me a reliable place where I can find the "real" meaning of verses. Or is it up for anyone to make up their own guesses?

You still havent responded to what i said about evolution. Or is it that you dont have an answer for me.
You are rather uninformed on the topic. You dont even know what the word means and whats in the theory. How can I respond to the absurd? I would suggest going to wiki ... and just reading that ONE page on evolution. So at least when you talk about it you make sense.

Quoting those websites proves nothing. You can't take the stupid ramblings of a few idiots like the flat earth society as proof of anything. I could find you a million non religious websites which are just as idiotic.
Those websites of hundreds of thousands of supporters. If you dont find them relevant those Christians most likely think you are going to end up in hell.


As for the creationist 6 days stuff, well that is a hotly debated issue in christian circles. You can't make the claim they represent everyone. I think there is alot of bad science being expressed by them. My reading of scripture tells me the universe is alot older than the the 6 day event. I think there was stuff which happened before it. How long the legth of time was before adam is not said, so it could quite easily be billions of years.
Well.. I suppose thats a slight improvement :D

Thats exactly my point, when people accept something which isnt true as truth, it has a knock on effect. But in this case i believe the athiests view of evolution is an impossibility, and its worrying it's accepted as fact. Thats bad science.
Luckily there are some smart Christians, like Prof Collins. who is smart enough to know that evolution has fkall to do with atheism. Except perhaps in a casual way. As per the discussion in the other thread where smarter people are less likely to believe in God, but are also more likely to be understand and comprehend evolution.
 

Phronesis

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
3,675
#25
It seems to me that ID proponents agree on very little (I've seen a number of contradictory statements about ID from the chaps at the DI), except that it is not compatible with "Darwinism".
Where have they said it is not compatible with Darwinism? Do you know what Darwinism is? If I understand it correctly, Darwinism does not reject agency (it tries to naturalize it) as an explanation for phenomena, together with chance and selection.

You are rather uninformed on the topic. You dont even know what the word means and whats in the theory. How can I respond to the absurd? I would suggest going to wiki ... and just reading that ONE page on evolution. So at least when you talk about it you make sense.
Feel free to show that you are actually informed on the subject (evolution) anytime soon. As is, it seems like another pretense and insult, nothing more.
 
Last edited:

|tera|

Master of Messengers
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
20,917
#26
Wrong Teraside... Science expands our universe. The only "box" it requires is to be correct as possible. Without it we would not have known about the other galaxies, black holes, atoms, sub atomic particles, extra dimensions and the possibility of a multiverse.

Its opened up the sky, space and the ocean to us. It provides you with the medical resources that keep you as healthy as you can. It seeks to improve and open up your world.

It doesnt require faith, it requires you to question it all the time. The ones that care if "you came from primates" are the same one fighting the fastly evolving HIV/AIDS virus.

Im guessing you have a very queer view of the scientific world. Every bit of information counts.
You are wrong & you have some of the queerest views I have ever seen from any human being.

Did you even read what I said? Seems not, you're just inclined towards an argument as usual and as you should know by now, I'd rather just ignore you than go around in your never ending circles.
 

ghoti

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
45,636
#27
You are wrong & you have some of the queerest views I have ever seen from any human being.

Did you even read what I said? Seems not, you're just inclined towards an argument as usual and as you should know by now, I'd rather just ignore you than go around in your never ending circles.
oh ... hello jak3. Classic. A sock puppet. :):D;) Someone forgot which personality they were today.
 
Last edited:

|tera|

Master of Messengers
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
20,917
#28
oh ... hello jak3. Classic. A sock puppet. :):D;) Someone forgot which personality they were today.
Typical. Dude, if I had an alter ego on here, do you really think I wouldn't make it public?

I have no need to have a second member name in order to say what I mean, I can do it with a smile just the way I always have.

See what I said about having a queer view? You just proved my point. I would love if a mod posted whether I and Jak3 use the same IP, that would rule.
 

ghoti

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
45,636
#29
Typical. Dude, if I had an alter ego on here, do you really think I wouldn't make it public?

I have no need to have a second member name in order to say what I mean, I can do it with a smile just the way I always have.

See what I said about having a queer view? You just proved my point. I would love if a mod posted whether I and Jak3 use the same IP, that would rule.
How do you propose to explain your response to me in a thread you had not posted in?

It might not.. but that second IP.. hope its a local real one and not a proxy one.
 

|tera|

Master of Messengers
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
20,917
#30
How do you propose to explain your response to me in a thread you had not posted in?

It might not.. but that second IP.. hope its a local real one and not a proxy one.
The wha? :confused:

I did post in this thread, on the first page. Did you forget you missread what I said?

Jak3, for the record, I believe in the literal understanding of Creation, I don't believe the world is billions of years old. The Bible does however say the world was barron and like a waste land and that God changed it to become the world we know, but it does not expand on how long the earth was here for, so unlike others, because it doesn't say, I don't just assume it's been a few billion years.

This isn't about the creation event however, this is about two issues:

Science says we evolved to the point we find ourselves.
God says He made us and what we know.

I tend to find it 100 times more appealing that someone created me out of Love and that Person has a whole new life and world for me to experience, with joy and great knowledge that only He can provide. Someone who loves me and someone I can love without fear.

I prefer having the peace and the knowledge given to me by God that transends all regular understanding, it being rooted in the All Possible Power of Him who knows everything.

Science, whatever it's trying to do, will never be to accumalate all knowledge, never, not even on 1000 internets.
 

Claymore

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
7,418
#31
Where have they said it is not compatible with Darwinism?
Go to the Discovery Institute's search page, and seach for "darwinism" and "id" in either article bodies or titles, and browse a bit.

Here are a few choice examples:
Intelligent Design Has Scientific Merit in Paleontology
Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on Expelled Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists
Defending Dissent from Darwinism in Final Rebuttals to Intelligent Design Critics
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design: Evolution and Darwinism
Is ID Falsifiable? Of Course It Is. Its Falsification Is Darwinism

Do you know what Darwinism is? If I understand it correctly, Darwinism does not reject agency (it tries to naturalize it) as an explanation for phenomena, together with chance and selection.
There's a nice summary of Darwinism at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism. Strangely, that article doesn't mention agency at all. And, in fact, according to some of the articles mentioned above, if there is any agency, then it's Intelligent Design, not "Darwinism" - in other words, Darwinism cannot include agency because it's no longer Darwinism then.
 

Zyzzyva

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2007
Messages
7,302
#34
The wha? :confused:

I did post in this thread, on the first page. Did you forget you missread what I said?

Jak3, for the record, I believe in the literal understanding of Creation, I don't believe the world is billions of years old. The Bible does however say the world was barron and like a waste land and that God changed it to become the world we know, but it does not expand on how long the earth was here for, so unlike others, because it doesn't say, I don't just assume it's been a few billion years.

This isn't about the creation event however, this is about two issues:

Science says we evolved to the point we find ourselves.
God says He made us and what we know.

I tend to find it 100 times more appealing that someone created me out of Love and that Person has a whole new life and world for me to experience, with joy and great knowledge that only He can provide. Someone who loves me and someone I can love without fear.

I prefer having the peace and the knowledge given to me by God that transends all regular understanding, it being rooted in the All Possible Power of Him who knows everything.

Science, whatever it's trying to do, will never be to accumalate all knowledge, never, not even on 1000 internets.
Well said.

For the record i was just saying the age of the earth is not stated and so it "could" be billions of years old. I wasn't saying i thought it was billions of years old. I was throwing w1z4rd a bone. ;) It's age isnt stated, so it would be incorrect to give it one.

I'm glad you subscribe to taking the Bible literally, i do too.

The chief fundamental principle is to gather from the Scriptures themselves the precise meaning the writers intended to convey. It applies to the Bible the same principles, rules, grammatical process, and exercise of common sense and reason that we apply to other books. In doing this, one must take the Bible as literal whenever possible. When a statement is found that cannot possibly be literal, as Jesus being a “door” or of a woman being clothed with the sun and standing on the moon and on her head a crown of twelve stars, or of land animals coming out of the sea, and other statements which are obviously not literal, then we know the language is figurative. In such cases we must get the literal truth conveyed by the figurative language, and the truth intended to be conveyed will be as literal as if it were expressed in literal language without the use of such figures. After all, figurative language expresses literal truth as much as if such figures were not used. In a general sense, the true method of Bible interpretation embraces the following ideas:

1. The primary meaning of words and their common use in a particular age in which they are used, and the importance of synonyms.
2. The grammatical construction and idiomatic peculiarities of the languages of the Bible, and the meaning of the context, both immediate and remote.
3. Comparison of parallel passages on the same subject.
4. The purpose or object of each writer in each particular book.
5. The historical background of each writer and the circumstances under which he wrote.
6. The general plan of the entire Bible, and its moral and spiritual teachings.
7. The agreement of Scripture in its several parts, and its prophecies and their fulfillment.
8. The manners and customs of the particular age and land of each writer.
9. Understanding of how to interpret prophecy, poetry, allegories, symbols, parables, figures of speech, types and all other forms of human expression.
10. The different classes of people and institutions dealt with in Scripture, and the application of the different principles and rules of interpretation below.
 

Phronesis

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
3,675
#35
Now hold on, you just quoted from the DI. ID is incompatible with materialism. Feel free to read the notorious wedge document, it states it clearly (from the DI). There are other religious motivations in there, but the core of ID is anti-materialism. Now the DI certainly seems religious (why is that a bad thing... definition of religion....?), nonetheless, their core objection seems to be materialism.... Do they need to be taken seriously? You decide. Are they fundamentally against materialism... Yes.

There's a nice summary of Darwinism at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism. Strangely, that article doesn't mention agency at all. And, in fact, according to some of the articles mentioned above, if there is any agency, then it's Intelligent Design, not "Darwinism" - in other words, Darwinism cannot include agency because it's no longer Darwinism then.
Hold on here, first you quote from wiki. Even Dennet assumes that agency is part of nature and attempts to naturalize it. He attempts unsatisfactory to explain free will, agency and intentionality in terms of genes and memes (feel free to disagree, it is worth discussion). Materialism is incompatible with any notion of agency, however not Darwinism because it tries to naturalize it (unsuccessfully). Darwinism attempts unsatisfactory to explain it in terms of genes and memes. Now even the most staunch person that supports Darwinism can't deny agency as a mechanism of adaptation. Just look at bacterial capabilities and intentional selection (not natural selection) to witness the agency at work.

You have got to ask yourself, are you going to just take the DI and their opinions on ID as the only opinions worth taking? If materialism is false, Darwinism is not necessarily false. If Darwinism is true, ID is not necessarily false. Surely you are able to logically see this...

Now for those that seem to have found a new word.... sock puppet... Grayston seems to fit the bill of a sock puppet not? I mean did he/she actually say anything worthy of reply? No. Seems to be a puppet of w1zzy, alloytts, cygst, nm, clmore etc... I.e. notorious posters of... rubbish (in PD).
 
Last edited:

Zyzzyva

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2007
Messages
7,302
#36
You have to take all the verses into account when deciding what the bible says on the subject. Take the detail gathered from each, and then use it to form a detailed picture.

Isaiah 40:22 (NIV)
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers.
Fact one, it clearly states the earth is a circle.


Isaiah 11:12
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)
The world view at the time caused the early english translators to incorrectly render the intended meaning of these verses. When looking at the original greek or hebrew, its becomes clear the idea is Four Quarters or even loosely, four directions, rather than four corners.


Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

Jeremiah 16:19
19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)
Once again, there is more detail in the original languages, but if I said to you, run to the “ends of the earth” would you take that to mean you would eventually fall off of a flat earth, or just that I was telling you to run to the farthest extremes, as in all over the place.
 

ghoti

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
45,636
#37
The world view at the time caused the early english translators to incorrectly render the intended meaning of these verses. When looking at the original greek or hebrew, its becomes clear the idea is Four Quarters or even loosely, four directions, rather than four corners.
So I checked out EVERY translation.. and none of them mean what you want them to mean. The closest is actually a the mormon translation:

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
And He will lift up a standard for the nations And assemble the banished ones of Israel, And will gather the dispersed of Judah From the four corners of the earth.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
He will raise a banner for the nations [to gather around]. He will gather the outcasts of Israel and bring together the scattered people of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

King James Bible
And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

American King James Version
And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

American Standard Version
And he will set up an ensign for the nations, and will assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Bible in Basic English
And he will put up a flag as a sign to the nations, and he will get together those of Israel who had been sent away, and the wandering ones of Judah, from the four ends of the earth.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And he shall set up a standard unto the nations, and shall assemble the fugitives of Israel, and shall gather together the dispersed of Juda from the four quarters of the earth.

Darby Bible Translation
And he shall lift up a banner to the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

English Revised Version
And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Webster's Bible Translation
And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

World English Bible
He will set up a banner for the nations, and will assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Young's Literal Translation
And He hath lifted up an ensign to nations, And gathereth the driven away of Israel, And the scattered of Judah He assembleth, From the four wings of the earth.

and

International Standard Version (©2008)
After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth. They were holding back the four winds of the earth so that no wind could blow on the land, on the sea, or on any tree.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth, so that no wind would blow on the earth or on the sea or on any tree.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth. They were holding back the four winds of the earth to keep them from blowing on the land, the sea, or any tree.

King James Bible
And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

American King James Version
And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

American Standard Version
After his I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that no wind should blow on the earth, or on the sea, or upon any tree.

Bible in Basic English
After this I saw four angels in their places at the four points of the earth, keeping back the four winds in their hands, so that there might be no moving of the wind on the earth, or on the sea, or on any tree.

Douay-Rheims Bible
After these things, I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that they should not blow upon the earth, nor upon the sea, nor on any tree.

Darby Bible Translation
And after this I saw four angels standing upon the four corners of the earth, holding fast the four winds of the earth, that no wind might blow upon the earth, nor upon the sea, nor upon any tree.

English Revised Version
After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that no wind should blow on the earth, or on the sea, or upon any tree.

Webster's Bible Translation
And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

Weymouth New Testament
After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, and holding back the four winds of the earth so that no wind should blow over the earth or the sea or upon any tree.

World English Bible
After this, I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, so that no wind would blow on the earth, or on the sea, or on any tree.

Young's Literal Translation
And after these things I saw four messengers, standing upon the four corners of the land, holding the four winds of the land, that the wind may not blow upon the land, nor upon the sea, nor upon any tree;


Could you show me the original hebrew/greek words that you translated into "four qauters"?

Once again, there is more detail in the original languages, but if I said to you, run to the “ends of the earth” would you take that to mean you would eventually fall off of a flat earth, or just that I was telling you to run to the farthest extremes, as in all over the place.
If you told me to run to the "ends of the earth" I would look at you as though you escaped from Kamani.. and politely tell you (why I made sure I had a safe distance).. that "the earth has no ends..."
 
Last edited:

Zyzzyva

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2007
Messages
7,302
#38
Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

Greek Word: γωνία
Transliteration: gōnia
Phonetic Pronunciation:go-nee'-ah
Root: probably akin to <G1119>
Cross Reference: TDNT - 1:791,137
Part of Speech: n f
Vine's Words: Corner, Cornerstone

Usage Notes:

English Words used in KJV:
corner 8
quarter 1
[Total Count: 9]

probably akin to <G1119> (gonu); an angle :- corner, quarter.
Sometimes working out what is meant by a word can be very hard, languages are not always as clear as we think they are.

Remember the kjv was published in 1611. This should give an indication of the world view at the time.

Well the choice in early translations and even often in current translations is to render gōnia as corner, even in the kjv you see it also translated as quarter. The choice here is hard, but given sciences findings about the earth being round, as well as other scriptures voicings in that regard, i think the correct choice would be, in these instances, to render the word as quarter, as this aligns with the clear evidence that our earth is round.

Here is the instance where the original kjv translators chose to render the word as quarter.

Revelation 20:8 (KJV)
8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

--------------------------------------------------

Isaiah 11:12
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

The word for corner in the above verse is: kānāp

Hebrew Word: ‏כָּנָף‎
Transliteration: kānāp
Phonetic Pronunciation:kaw-nawf'
Root: from <H3670>
Cross Reference: TWOT - 1003a
Part of Speech: n f
Vine's Words: Wing


Usage Notes:

English Words used in KJV:
wing 74
skirt 14
borders 2
corners 2
ends 2
feathered 2
sort 2
winged 2
misc 8
[Total Count: 108]

from <H3670> (kanaph); an edge or extremity; specifically (of a bird or army) a wing, (of a garment or bed-clothing) a flap, (of the earth) a quarter, (of a building) a pinnacle :- + bird, border, corner, end, feather [-ed], × flying, + (one an-) other, overspreading, × quarters, skirt, × sort, uttermost part, wing ([-ed]).
As you can see from the above options, it you were a translator you could choose from a number of english words. The most common choice made is that the word means wing, and only twice border. The word primarily means wing.

http://books.google.com/books?id=we...&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result

But clearly the translators are battleing a bit here and if you follow the rabbit whole, kānāp is from kanaph, which when spoken in context of the world, means quarter.


But like is say, when translating, when facing with tough decisions, findings of science can often show the way.
 

ghoti

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
45,636
#39
Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)



Sometimes working out what is meant by a word can be very hard, languages are not always as clear as we think they are.

Remember the kjv was published in 1611. This should give an indication of the world view at the time.

Well the choice in early translations and even often in current translations is to render gōnia as corner, even in the kjv you see it also translated as quarter. The choice here is hard, but given sciences findings about the earth being round, as well as other scriptures voicings in that regard, i think the correct choice would be, in these instances, to render the word as quarter, as this aligns with the clear evidence that our earth is round.

Here is the instance where the original kjv translators chose to render the word as quarter.

Revelation 20:8 (KJV)
8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

--------------------------------------------------

Isaiah 11:12
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

The word for corner in the above verse is: kānāp



As you can see from the above options, it you were a translator you could choose from a number of english words. The most common choice made is that the word means wing, and only twice border. The word primarily means wing.

http://books.google.com/books?id=we...&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result

But clearly the translators are battleing a bit here and if you follow the rabbit whole, kānāp is from kanaph, which when spoken in context of the world, means quarter.


But like is say, when translating, when facing with tough decisions, findings of science can often show the way.
So can you show me a single bible that uses your version of the word? Or is it easier just to quote wrong translations when people try hold the original sentence into account?

I cant find ONE Bible.. anywhere .. using your words, so I have to assume the usage of the word by you is incorrect. In this case, I will have to mostly trust the judgment of the thousands of people who have translated the Bible. Or are Biblical scholars happy with leaving bad translations in the Bible?
 

Claymore

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
7,418
#40
You have got to ask yourself, are you going to just take the DI and their opinions on ID as the only opinions worth taking? If materialism is false, Darwinism is not necessarily false. If Darwinism is true, ID is not necessarily false. Surely you are able to logically see this...
Who else's opinion's are worth looking at with respect to ID? The DI (whose ID library, I might add, is a collection, and not solely authored by them) is the most outspoken advocate for ID that I know of.

And as for "materialism" - that's a philosophical viewpoint. What does that have to do with science?

(And while we're on the topic - Darwinism is a very outdated concept. How about picking on something a little more modern, eh?)

No. Seems to be a puppet of w1zzy, alloytts, cygst, nm, clmore etc... I.e. notorious posters of... rubbish (in PD).
Pot. Kettle.
 
Top