I don’t need to address the claim…27 million members of the Seventh Day Adventist Church who follow a churches fundamentals that does not believe in flat earthism have a whole lot more statistical credibility, that also happens to be harmonious with biblical writings, than the claim of a single individual on this forum…that individual being you!
You still didn’t address the claim. It doesn’t matter how many people believe something, what matters is the logic. Both YEC a flat-earthism pick and choose what to take literally, which makes the methodology the same – what anyone believes is not relevant.
False – go back and read the thread.
2 Likes
Bill is having a go here at the man who published the 2003 version of the Polygot…Charles Vanderpool.
Unfortunately, in an act of what i would suggest is deceptive license in order to discredit a scholarly publication, Bill fails to recognise on these forums the following very important academic summary about that publication…
-
The Apostolic Bible Polyglot is the first numerically coded Greek Old Testament. It allows study of both Hebrew- and Greek-based scriptural texts in the same language,
-
The ABP is an English translation with a Greek interlinear gloss and is keyed to a concordance. The numbering system, called “AB-Strong’s”, is a modified version of Strong’s concordance, which was designed only to handle the traditional Hebrew Masoretic Text of the Old Testament, and the Greek text of the New Testament. Strong’s concordance doesn’t have numbering for the Greek O.T. The ABP utilizes a Greek Septuagint base for the O.T. and, therefore, required a modified system.
-
The Apostolic Bible Polyglot also contains The Lexical Concordance of the ABP,[2] The English Greek Index of the ABP,[3] and The Analytical Lexicon of the ABP.[4]
-
The original typed text of the ABP followed the Codex Vaticanus-Sixtine text family
-
Then with the acquisition of the 1519 Aldine Bible in microfilm format from the Koninklijke Bibliotheek, of the Netherlands, a comparison was made between the Sixtine and Aldine texts, where one reading was chosen over the other.
-
With the acquisition of the 1709 edition of the Greek Old Testament, edited by Lambert Bos, the 1518 Complutensian Polyglot variants, located in the extensive footnote sections, were added for comparison with the Sixtine and Aldine texts. With further comparison it was decided to choose mainly the text where two printed editions agreed. But since that time the acquisition of a full set of the Complutensian Polyglot Bible in facsimile format enabled a closer comparison to be made, not only of variant readings, but also chapter and verse variations, along with punctuation.
So Bill if you truly wish to use these kinds of tactics in order to support a Theistic Evolutionary approach to the reading of scripture, then id suggest this particular one might not be a good start as making a mockery of oneself often results when one rehashes wives tales instead of actually checking the source of the claim first. Your inference about the polygot is clearly wrong. In any case, if an individual uses biblical cross referencing appropriately, then mistakes even when using external sources are avoided because the internal consistency of the text resolves the kinds of dilemmas one may encounter…and that is the whole point of researching.
no St Roymond, what matters is “your logic” and there are many times when i seriously question it…this being one of those times…along with the evidence of 27 million members of a religious organisation to your 1.
Anyway enough of throwing mud…i will move onto things i think are more interesting to the both of us…
The English provided in the interlinear on Bible Hub shows either incompetence or deliberate theological bias. I regularly find passages where adverbs, prepositions, and/or verbs are badly mistranslated, often in ways that suggest a “King James only” bias.
“My” logic? No – all I stated was that if two methods are the same, then the people using those are using the same method.
So by your reasoning, if 27 million people agreed that digging a hole with a shovel doesn’t count as digging a hole, the 27 million people are right? or that if 27 million people who were digging a hole with a shovel claimed “Hey, we’re not digging a hole!” they would be correct?
1 Like
You have missed an important distinction i made…that the views of those 27 million people align with the biblical interpretation of our existence!
Your general view appears to be that “observational science is not interpretive”…i disagree.
My world view dictates how i interpret science.
It seems to me that your science dictates your world view.
This dilemma we both have (or disagreement i suppose) reminds me of my youth. When i thought that we all came from “apes” (to use a rudimentary explanation). Unlike you, when Christianity was presented to me growing up into my teen years, i began to realise that the notion of evolutionary origin has some severe problems and so a path of exploring an alternative view of origins was laid out before me that i quite openly recognise goes against mainstream views in society, but that it is also well supported by both biblical and archeological/historical evidence.
Now before I go further I need to add a caveat…very obviously there is a difference between us as Christians, i do not alter my philosophical beliefs to suit what naturalism told me was true as a child (that I came from “apes”).
I believe the overwhelming historical evidence that supports the literal readings of scripture, the bible does not support any notion of evolutionary descent of mankind from common ancestors from the ape kind. God specifically says in Genesis chapter 1 “Let us make man in our image”
- apes are clearly not in the image of God
- birds are birds in Genesis Chapter 1
Now in light of my above 2 points, i have something for you to consider and I’m open to your thoughts on this ST Roymond…
The ancient Hebrew text uses the word tanninim (keete in the LXX) in Genesis 1:21. Id suggest that is highly problematic for the notion that dinosaurs came from birds.
Genesis 1:21
21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
d created the great tanninim (keetee LXX) and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind. These great tanninim must have been the most remarkable creatures in the sea to be singled out this way in the Creation account. They are the great sea monsters of which legends abound around the world. The description great implies that many of them grew to enormous sizes. (NAS has here great sea monsters; NKJ has great sea creatures.) Dinosaurs in the Bible ― To The Ends Of The Earth Ministries
examples of the above in the bible:
Genesis 1:21 (obviously)
Gen 3:1
Exodus 7:9 & 12
Job 7:12
Job 40:15-24
Job 41:1-34
Psalms 74:13,14
Psalms 104:25&26
Psalms 148:7
Jonah 1:17
Maccabees 6:8
Daniel 3:79
Wisdom 16:10
Matthew 12:40
- Adam believes “the overwhelming historical evidence that supports the literal readings of scripture” except, of course, when he says it doesn’t. such as when it teaches a Flat Earth. Amusingly, he tries to claim that the current membership of the SDA denomination is evidence for the literal reading of scripture, after all 21,900,000 +/- people couldn’t be wrong, could they?
- The problem is unreconciled exes exist who tell tales about their former spouses or churches, such as this Former Seventh-day Adventist Pastor Dale Ratzlaff Who Exposes the Lies & Intentional Deceits of Ellen White & the SDA.
- While Ratzlaff is at it, he speaks of Walter Rea and Rea’s book:
Ir’s difficult to take the criticism of a Seventh Day Adventist seriously when he/she claims Young Earth Creationism and Investigative Judgment are true and “in the Bible”, but a flat earth isn’t.
2 Likes
I didn’t miss anything – you dodged, and dodged, and dodged again.
What the views of those millions align with in your opinion is not relevant – logic doesn’t depend on votes.
If B uses z, and A uses z, then A and B are using the same thing. That doesn’t get voted on, it’s just reality.
YEC’s method is to pick and choose what to take literally and what not.
Flat-earthism’s method is to pick and choose what to take literally and what not.
YEC = B, Flat-earthism = A, pick and choose what to take literally and what not is z.
They are the same.
?? I haven’t said anything about science. That makes this the fallacy of changing the subject.
No, and you know better than that, or at least you should except you can’t grasp that someone would actually be faithful to the text of the scriptures so you have to invent an excuse. You’re probably not even aware of that mental process, but it’s evident every time you dodge to science instead of actually addressing a topic.
I don’t have a dilemma. In my youth I never cared about the whole “apes” thing, and I still don’t much. Happily I didn’t really encounter that until I’d been introduced to the text of the scriptures and learned to neither add to it nor subtract from it, so when I did encounter it it didn’t bother me because it doesn’t affect the truth that God is Creator.
Except from what you post here it’s pretty obvious that you don’t even understand evolution. Before you argue against something you need to actually understand it.
Except you do: by embracing YEC, you set up science as a judge of scripture. The entire YEC effort is directed at justifying scripture through science.
Except the historical evidence does not support a literal reading of scripture. The historical evidence is that the first Genesis Creation account uses the Egyptian creation story as its framework, that it fits the ancient literary type known as ‘royal chronicle’, that it also fits the ancient literary form known as temple inauguration; the historical evidence is also that just using the text of Genesis the age of the Earth is indeterminate and has been assessed as being millions or billions of years (I’m not including the one who came up with trillions because today is one of the days when I think the argument made for that is just plain silly and does not conform to the text).
But it doesn’t exclude it – ultimately and at root, the Bible doesn’t care about descent, or any other type of science. That’s why YEC is totally misguided. If the Bible cared anything about science there would be some indication that a scientific worldview is included in the Bible’s concept of truth – but there isn’t; the Bible’s concept of truth comes down to “God said/sent it”.
The Hebrew doesn’t care where dinosaurs or birds came from except that they came from God via a command to “Bring forth!” It doesn’t say how they were brought forth, whether it was spontaneous generation or whatever, but it says they were brought forth from earth and sea which means they came from existing material.
Since the Hebrew gives no information, taking a position on how it happened is nothing but forcing some human view into the text, whether that view is Aristotle’s or Dawkins’ or Sagan’s or YEC science.
YEC picks and chooses both its science and its scripture, and that is both bad science and bad theology. It rejects letting the text speak for itself, and thus falls into the categories of eisegesis and heterodoxy.
Learn to accept scripture for what it is.
1 Like
Wow talk about taking a simple question out of context! I knew the source and I was just asking graft2vine if he did.
Feel free to apologize for the rather nasty things you said when you ran with your misunderstanding. Deleting your post might also be a good idea.
1 Like
It is when the author didn’t intend for it to be taken literally.
And it is hard to accurately research further when you don’t actually know the language. As they say, ask me how I know.
But this says nothing about water so I doubt it is the source.
1 Like
Whoa – I knew White was heterodox and off-kilter, but wow; definitely a false prophet. Plagiarizing to get her material puts her on par with Mohammed.
2 Likes
Except it doesnt teach the earth is flat. You simply refuse to.accept that notion is largely fabricated by a minority…most of whom are stupid individuals with almost no theological ability who have been influenced secular naturalists attempting to discredit the bible!
You are intentionally inflating evidence…even twisting it. I have already shown on these forums that flat earthism was in the minority not limited to Christianity. If you want to stupidly continue with the naive claim… lnsult your intelligence and keep going.
ancient Chinese scholars consistently describe the Earth as flat, and this perception remained unchanged until their encounters with Jesuit missionaries in the 17th century.
Cullen, Christopher (1976). “A Chinese Eratosthenes of the Flat Earth: A Study of a Fragment of Cosmology in Huai Nan tzu 淮 南 子”. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. 39 (1): 106–27 [p. 107]. doi:10.1017/S0041977X00052137. S2CID 171017315
It is a complete fairytale that the bible teaches flat earthism…it does not.
For instance…in the following text, does that teach all wind comes from heaven through space (a vaccum)? No it doesnt.
Zechariah 6:4-5 American Standard Version (ASV)
Then I answered and said unto the angel that talked with me, What are these, my lord? And the angel answered and said unto me, These are the four winds of heaven, which go forth from standing before the Lord of all the earth
You are criticising God for using metaphorical language, and known objects, to explain things to us in the bible despite it being perfectly ok when its convient for you
For example…Darwins phylogenetic tree it doesnt mean we came from a tree does it!
Phylogenetic tree
Darwin’s metaphor of natural classification as a phylogeny helped us understand why certain plants resemble each other and can hybridize.
Not when the underlying aim is to discredit an authoritative scholarly resource where the intent is to support the notion the interlinear is wrong…and that is clearly the intent. So no, there wont be any apology…because the request for one is hiding an underlying lie. If im wrong there, then rewrite your post explaining that your intent was not to undermine or defame the excellent work of bible hub and the scholarly polygot Greek interlinear that they use. You do that and i will delete my post…so long as attached references to it from other respondants here are also removed by moderators. If you dont, then we all know what your real intention there was.
2 Likes
Have you seen any of my posts on these forums quote Ellen White in support of my doctrines or, do i always quote the bible itself?
Given i know i quote the bible, your criticism there is way below the belt. All you are doing is grabbing at anything you can use to mudsling.
People usually do that when they are without a better option.
Adventists do believe Ellen White is a prophet,imake no apology for that…if you want to have why explained to you, then i would love nothing more than to start a thread about it. I suggest that my doing so might be pointless though…these forums dont seem to discuss the theology of the gift of prophecy. Id imagine biologos are not interesred in their forum being used to promote Seventh Day Adventism…thats why i dont tend to start threads about my church here. We can talk about creationism and noahs flood…they are relevant scientific topics to this forum.
I will go on record here and support the criticism by saying, whilst i believe in the writings of Ellen White, i do not believe her writings are of higher auhority than the bible, nor do i take my doctrines from them. Does she influence my thinking? Less then what this forum does (because i spend more time here than reading her writings)
So now you are reading my mind! Show me where in the 10 words in my question you can find my intent. And if you had read many of my posts around here you would discover that asking questions is my style. It is what I used to do in my day job and the habit dies hard.
Sorry but YOU don’t get to decide what MY intent was. My words speak for themselves.
1 Like
It doesn’t teach a young earth, either – both positions are reached by picking and choosing what to take literally and what not to. In fact there is a good deal more language supporting a flat earth than supporting a young one.
No, you claimed it. The fact is that flat earth was a nearly-universal model with exceptions only in rare instances.
Egypt? Flat earth. Babylon? Flat earth. Sumeria? Flat earth. Europe? Flat earth. China? Flat earth. Australia? Flat earth. North America? Flat earth.
The only places that didn’t hold to a flat earth were in areas with dense jungle, and the beliefs there did not go towards a spherical earth.
Exactly the YEC methodology!
1 Like
1 Like