Muslim Scientists Prepare for Battle With Creationists

Zyzzyva

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2007
Messages
7,302
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?
Fair enough, the reason you can't find instances is the translations are constantly being updated, and you need to look for the newer revisions. But changes as related to this issue are not generally made as it is not really seen as an issue as most christians understand what is meant by the verse.

The newer revisions of the New International Version contain the change.

Isaiah 11:12 (NIV)
12 He will raise a banner for the nations and gather the exiles of Israel; he will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth.
 
Last edited:

ghoti

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
45,668
Fair enough, the reason you can't find instances is the translations are constantly being updated, and you need to look for the newer revisions. But changes as related to this issue are not generally made as it is not really seen as an issue as most christians understand what is meant by the verse.
With the wrong words.. The Word Of God (tm) seems to lose more credibility with every argument. You claim it is an incorrect usage of the word, yet just about every other Biblical scholar seems to disagree, and even though you say the word is a bad translation.. not one Biblical scholar is willing to change it? Am I the only one who finds that very weak?

Basically the Bible does say the world is flat (poor Bronze age people didnt know any better), but it doesnt say it as per you view.. because the translation is wrong but theyre not willing to fix the translation.

Even the latest translations of the Bible contain your errors. Could you show me translations of those verses (by someone with some integrity) that will say the translation should be "quarters" instead of "corners"?

Personally it looks like someone found an "out" by using an abstract of the regular translation to try justify his/hers world view. I dont see any evidence anywhere that suggests the word has being incorrectly translated.

The newer revisions of the New International Version contain the change.
For the Isaiah verse.. however, the Revelations verse still carries the same translation.. even in the latest version. Guess they got the word right this time? Or not?

http://www.ibsstl.org/bible/verse/?q=Revelation7:1&niv=yes

I think the world needs a WikiBible for all this translation nonsense. I mean.. 2000 years of study and people still screw it up? Perhaps its being in the wrong hands.
 

ghoti

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
45,668
Now for those that seem to have found a new word.... sock puppet...
New word? ROFLOL. Sure bud.. just for you. its a "new" word. I think most of us have being using that word for certainly longer than you have being a member of this forum (no matter which nickname you decide to use).

There were much more epic posters like the dodo that came before you that already tried all these tricks that you perhaps think are unique. I even know a couple of forumite sock puppets who have being registered members longer than any of your nicknames.
 

Zyzzyva

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2007
Messages
7,302
With the wrong words.. The Word Of God (tm) seems to lose more credibility with every argument. You claim it is an incorrect usage of the word, yet just about every other Biblical scholar seems to disagree, and even though you say the word is a bad translation.. not one Biblical scholar is willing to change it? Am I the only one who finds that very weak?

Basically the Bible does say the world is flat (poor Bronze age people didnt know any better), but it doesnt say it as per you view.. because the translation is wrong but theyre not willing to fix the translation.

Even the latest translations of the Bible contain your errors. Could you show me translations of those verses (by someone with some integrity) that will say the translation should be "quarters" instead of "corners"?

Personally it looks like someone found an "out" by using an abstract of the regular translation to try justify his/hers world view. I dont see any evidence anywhere that suggests the word has being incorrectly translated.



For the Isaiah verse.. however, the Revelations verse still carries the same translation.. even in the latest version. Guess they got the word right this time? Or not?

http://www.ibsstl.org/bible/verse/?q=Revelation7:1&niv=yes

I think the world needs a WikiBible for all this translation nonsense. I mean.. 2000 years of study and people still screw it up? Perhaps its being in the wrong hands.
As per usual wizard, you remind me why i'm wasting my time offering you studied opinion, because you will just give it a cursory glance, and without taking into acount the detail of what was presented, march onto your insults and paper thin psuedo belief rhetoric.

I gave you more than enough information for you to not jump to the conclusions you chose to, and me going back and reminding you of what i said would be a waste of time.
 

ghoti

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
45,668
As per usual wizard, you remind me why i'm wasting my time offering you studied opinion, because you will just give it a cursory glance, and without taking into acount the detail of what was presented, march onto your insults and paper thin psuedo belief rhetoric.

I gave you more than enough information for you to not jump to the conclusions you chose to, and me going back and reminding you of what i said would be a waste of time.
And Im not happy with your response. It makes no sense at all. You say its a "bad translation", show me an example in a newer Bible where its "not a bad translation", so I point out another verse that is still the same:confused:

If you have given up adapting translations to fit your current argument.. well thats just peachy.. I dont accept your explanation and I promise you.. I researched everyone of those Hebrew words (as best I could) you gave me. I read up on the context`s and when and how they are sometimes applied.

Its being entertaining to watch you defend Biblical bronze age perspectives with the "its a bad translation" excuse :)

Insects having four legs.. is that a bad translation as well? I suppose if you can have a talking snake and 4 legged insects then I suppose you can also have "bad translations".
 

alloytoo

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Messages
12,213
As per usual wizard, you remind me why i'm wasting my time offering you studied opinion, because you will just give it a cursory glance, and without taking into acount the detail of what was presented, march onto your insults and paper thin psuedo belief rhetoric.

I gave you more than enough information for you to not jump to the conclusions you chose to, and me going back and reminding you of what i said would be a waste of time.
I notice you don't actually address his argument.

Perhaps the translation is wrong, but then it's been wrong for a considerable period of time, and a number of respected biblical scholars over the centuries have accepted the "Wrong" version as Gospel.

This hardly makes the infallible word of god credible?

What else is wrong?
 

alloytoo

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Messages
12,213
Insects having four legs.. is that a bad translation as well? I suppose if you can have a talking snake and 4 legged insects then I suppose you can also have "bad translations".
Perhaps St. Augustine was slightly wiser than some?
 

Zyzzyva

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2007
Messages
7,302
My annoyance came when just after i had showed you the revelations verse and the Isaiah verse's separate and unique greek and hebrew root words, which logic would dictate would be under separate interpretational scutiny, you claim the inconsistency of the NIV writters as proof against my argument.

I will say this, the whole quarter, corner, debate has two sides. I and others think it makes sense to render the the words as quarter, but obviously not all the time. Other christians differ, they feel corner is the correct rendering. They say the following when working with Isaiah 11:12:

When will this remnant of God's people be returned to their land? Old Testament prophecy is often applied both to the near future and the distant future. Judah would soon be exiled to Babylon, and a remnant would return to Jerusalem in 537 B.C. at Cyrus's decree. In the ages to come, however, God's people would be dispersed throughout the world. These cities represent the four corners of the known world — Hamath in the north, Egypt in the south, Assyria and Babylonia in the east, the islands of the sea in the west. Ultimately God's people will be regathered when Christ comes to reign over the earth. —Life Application Bible Notes

For the Isaiah verse.. however, the Revelations verse still carries the same translation.. even in the latest version. Guess they got the word right this time? Or not?

http://www.ibsstl.org/bible/verse/?q=Revelation7:1&niv=yes

I think the world needs a WikiBible for all this translation nonsense. I mean.. 2000 years of study and people still screw it up? Perhaps its being in the wrong hands.

This hardly makes the infallible word of god credible?

What else is wrong?
It must be said, interpretations are not infallible, but Gods word is. Those are two separate things.
 
Last edited:

alloytoo

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Messages
12,213
It must be said, interpretations are not infallible, but Gods word is. Those are two separate things.
That would seem to be a self contraditory position. A infallible word couldn't be misstranslated or interpreted.
 

Zyzzyva

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2007
Messages
7,302
That would seem to be a self contraditory position. A infallible word couldn't be misstranslated or interpreted.
The Bible was not originally written in english. It must be appreciated that perfect translation is sometimes impossible, as languages are always in flux, and word are often not directly interchangeable. Most of these time these slight ambiguities are not an issue, but in issues of religion, medicine, or law, they matter.

Thats why latin(dead language) is often used in law, medicine, the sciences, and even religion.

During the translation phase, decisions need to be made on which way to go as often there isnt an obvious answer. As investigations rage on, improvements are made, this is just the akwardness of language, and not a religious issue, but an hermeneutical reality.
 

ghoti

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
45,668
It must be said, interpretations are not infallible, but Gods word is. Those are two separate things.
How do you know its Gods word? Jesus did not need or endorse it... and for the first couple of hundred years of Christianity there was no Bible. Are just the four Gospels in the Bible divinely inspired? And if so... how do you know... and why not the other 8 Gospels?
 

Phronesis

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
3,675
Who else's opinion's are worth looking at with respect to ID?
How about showing your own understanding and effort into actually trying to understand it?

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.
The DI is not the only voice. Atheists and agnostics are not fundamentally against it. Bradley Monton, an atheist professor of philosophy is not fundamentally against it, and he is sure to have differing opinions about it than the DI.

And as for "materialism" - that's a philosophical viewpoint. What does that have to do with science?
Your right, materialism is scientifically and philosophically incoherent and can't be taken seriously.

(And while we're on the topic - Darwinism is a very outdated concept. How about picking on something a little more modern, eh?)
Gee, I wonder what Philosophy and Director of the Centre for Consciousness at the Australian National University, David Chalmers (his blog), would say about your assertion that "Darwinism as a concept" is outdated.
Could you please state why you fell it is outdated? Perhaps define it first how you understand it before jumping to conclusions?
 

Claymore

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
7,466
How about showing your own understanding and effort into actually trying to understand it?
Philosophy is not really an area of interest, I'm afraid.

The DI is not the only voice. Atheists and agnostics are not fundamentally against it. Bradley Monton, an atheist professor of philosophy is not fundamentally against it, and he is sure to have differing opinions about it than the DI.
I'm sure he has different viewpoints. He doesn't appear to be any more scientific about it though, and he doesn't seem to be very well supported in his ideas.

Gee, I wonder what Philosophy and Director of the Centre for Consciousness at the Australian National University, David Chalmers (his blog), would say about your assertion that "Darwinism as a concept" is outdated.
Could you please state why you fell it is outdated? Perhaps define it first how you understand it before jumping to conclusions?
Gosh, another philosopher.

As I understand it, Darwinism is nowadays used to refer to the general concepts Darwin put forth - evolution by means of natural selection, but not including more modern concepts like genetics. Basically, an outdated idea of evolution.
 

alloytoo

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Messages
12,213
The Bible was not originally written in english. It must be appreciated that perfect translation is sometimes impossible, as languages are always in flux, and word are often not directly interchangeable. Most of these time these slight ambiguities are not an issue, but in issues of religion, medicine, or law, they matter.

Thats why latin(dead language) is often used in law, medicine, the sciences, and even religion.

During the translation phase, decisions need to be made on which way to go as often there isnt an obvious answer. As investigations rage on, improvements are made, this is just the akwardness of language, and not a religious issue, but an hermeneutical reality.
Just my point, a truely divine work should be immune to all that nonsense.
 
Top