randman

Never said souls are at stake unless you are one of those that somehow believe science rules out God.

notto

Well, if you don't belief that the science of evolution is trying to rule out God and that souls are at stake, why do you keep referencing the ideas and obviously bias and questionable science of those that do, mainly AIG?

Why would you trust a "science" organization that doesn't believe the two are separated? Why have you referenced them in the past as credible resources for your arguments when they clearly have a non-scientific bias?

True scientific organizations do not require their members to adhere to a statement of faith about God. It would seem that you would agree that this is important to science. Why do you not then condemn AIG for their bias? Can you point to any mainstream scientific organizations, schools, or companies that require their members to adhere to a statement of faith concerning a non-science issue such as God?

From AIG:

"The scientific aspects of Creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer, and Judge. "

"The Bible is the written Word of God. It is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. It is the supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs."

"The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth, and the universe."

"The Gap Theory has no basis in Scripture."

and the clincher . . .

"By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

Simply put, AIG is unscientific and proud of it!! They are unscientific because they announce that they know and have all the answers and that these answers have been around for 2000 years, and then seek evidence to support it.

[ June 05, 2002: Message edited by: notto ]</p>

Jack the Bodiless

Wow, this thread has exploded...
Nope, the Hebrews were flat-Earthers. This is quite clear from their writings (such as the Book of Enoch), and numerous comments in the Bible imply a flat Earth. Nowhere in the Bible is the Earth described as a sphere. Furthermore, the Greeks figured out that the Earth was round (Eratosthenes even calculated its circumference). Last time I checked, Greece was part of Europe.

In other words: you're repeating another creationist lie, Randman. You continue to describe evolution as "cult propaganda" while uncritically swallowing the claims of the biggest campaign of lies, misinformation and propaganda in the Western world.

A few months ago, I called you on that: I gave you a list of creationist lies and invited you to renounce creationism. Now, I invite you to do some research on Biblical flat-Earthism (you can start with <a href="http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm" target="_blank">The Flat-Earth Bible</a>) and ask yourself why you continue to trust these people.

I appreciate that you now claim to be attacking evolution rather than supporting creationism (however, at some point, you need to come up with evidence that contradicts evolution). But you are still using cult terminology like "created kinds".

DMB

Randman: Did Jesus tell you this when you had your little chat? If so, he was lying! "Fowl" is an English word stemming from Old English "fugol" and related to modern German "Vogel". It always meant "bird" as we now use the latter. "Bird" was originally "brid", which meant something like a chick. I don't know what Hebrew word "fowl" was translating, but I would like some evidence from a Hebraist here please on the word and its meaning.

randman

Geesh, DMB, you guys are dumb. "Fowl" refers to the Hebrew word. Think about the context. Of course, "fowl" in English refers to birds, but the Bible wasn't written in English. It was written in Hebrew, and the Hebrew word includes flying creatures such as bats which are not birds. This is why the Bible lists "bats" as "fowl." There is no equivalent English word which encompasses both birds and bats. "Fowl" is the closest thing to it.

Think you got it now?

I see by y our edit that you got it. If you have a concordance, it is quite easy to use. It's also pretty clear from the context as well.

[ June 06, 2002: Message edited by: randman ]</p>

Vorkosigan

If you run a Google search you will soon find that all the websites that discuss this word are Christian websites that echo randman's claim. But all of the Bible translations at BibleGateway.com translate Lev 11:13-19 as "bird." Obviously, if owph meant "winged thing" then that's how it would be translated. The phrase again occurs at Dt 14:11, where again it is "bird," even in the NIV, which generally attempts to get rid of contradictions and problems. The NetBible, another conservative translation (which I like; it has great notes) also translates this as "bird." Clearly, actual Bible translators, who could easily use "winged thing," choose not to. It seems either they or randman are wrong.

If only all our choices in life were so clear....

Vorkosigan

RufusAtticus

Randman, and those responding to him, tone it down or we'll move this thread to the rants section of the board.

RufusAtticus
E/C Moderator

randman

Young translates it "fowl' in hios literal translation of the Bible, as does Lamsa who uses the Peshitta text, and so do the translators of the KJV.

What you fail to note however is that whether it is translated fowl or bird is of no consequence. Neither include bat for instance in English. Not sure why that went over some people's head. The relevant point is that the Hebrew word translated includes bats along with birds, and that isn't really wrong. Both are flying creatures.

Different lanquages have different words. As I pointed out earlier, English is very limited in its common usage of the term "love." All in all, I used to be baffled by the irrationality of skeptics blasting the Bible over using Hebrew, but nothing surprises me anymore along those lines.

MrDarwin

Whether the Hebrew word means "fowl" or "bird" or "winged thing" is quite irrelevant. The fact is, randman is claiming that there were two separate creation events of two different kinds of things, and that there is thus no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2--a rather tenuous claim.

[ June 06, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

randman

Well, I am claiming that, but that is simply what the Bible states quite clearly.