Jump to content

Bible study


Guest Lost and confused

Recommended Posts

Guest Paul
Where does Paul derive his philosophical standing for asserting damage to the culture?  How does he know it isn't simply the culture evolving, for example?

I wasn't aware you had to have a license to say that believing in torture in the severest possible form without end and calling that justice will damage a culture by warping people's conception of justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 144
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I loathe reading any of your current posts.  Why should I torment myself by trying to read other posts you've written? And wouldn't I be reading them out of context if I just read the one post you've cited or do I need to read everything under that topic.

Bummer. Sounds like you're doomed to responding to my comments out of context. You make a good case for ignoring what you write about what I write, however.

The second Genesis story conflicts with the first.

In what way?

My comment about Paszkiewicz was an illustration of my first comment.

Unless you're taking credit for this post by "Guest" you're just stating the obvious without excusing your bizarre behavior.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=58811

I was quite aware that the second comment in this series credited to "bewildered" was an attempt to relate to the first. You were the one, however who popped out of the blue with this in the first place:

"There is nothing in the context of the recorded class that even suggests that Paszkiewicz did not initiate the conversation and did not present his views as true." as if it had something to do with the alleged conflict in Genesis (which is what I was talking about).

What sense are we to make of your question about whether or not I understand what taking something out of context is, other than as an implicit indication that you do not know what it is?

People on his side always throw out the "out of context" blather and claim P's words are being distorted.

So you don't really want to talk about Genesis 2 at all, is that it? Perhaps the recent talk of Paszkiewicz is a red herring to distract from your inability to back up your claim that the first two chapters of Genesis conflict in some manner?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bewildered
Bummer.  Sounds like you're doomed to responding to my comments out of context.  You make a good case for ignoring what you write about what I write, however.

In what way?

Unless you're taking credit for this post by "Guest" you're just stating the obvious without excusing your bizarre behavior.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=58811

I was quite aware that the second comment in this series credited to "bewildered" was an attempt to relate to the first.  You were the one, however who popped out of the blue with this in the first place:

"There is nothing in the context of the recorded class that even suggests that Paszkiewicz did not initiate the conversation and did not present his views as true." as if it had something to do with the alleged conflict in Genesis (which is what I was talking about).

What sense are we to make of your question about whether or not I understand what taking something out of context is, other than as an implicit indication that you do not know what it is?

So you don't really want to talk about Genesis 2 at all, is that it?  Perhaps the recent talk of Paszkiewicz is a red herring to distract from your inability to back up your claim that the first two chapters of Genesis conflict in some manner?

Look, Bozo, I was using Paszkiewicz as an example where people like you pull the "out of context" card whenever someone else says something they don't like.

This is not an exercise in logic. This is a discussion. No one gets points for finding logical fallacies or presumed fallacies in another person's argument.

The first Genesis account says that humans were created after the animals. The second account says a man was created first and then God made the animals and brought them to him. Why can't you see the contradiction? It's because you don't want to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where does Paul derive his philosophical standing for asserting damage to the culture?  How does he know it isn't simply the culture evolving, for example?

I wasn't aware you had to have a license to say that believing in torture in the severest possible form without end and calling that justice will damage a culture by warping people's conception of justice.

You don't need a license to say it.

You need license to say it while not at the same time spouting (philosophical) nonsense.

And that's what you're doing. Over and over and over again, with no apparent clue as to how to break your cycle of futility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Paul

I wasn't aware you had to have a license to say that believing in torture in the severest possible form without end and calling that justice will damage a culture by warping people's conception of justice.

You don't need a license to say it.

You need license to say it while not at the same time spouting (philosophical) nonsense.

And that's what you're doing. Over and over and over again, with no apparent clue as to how to break your cycle of futility.

I broke it a long time ago by not trying to respond to you. There's no point trying to have a discussion with someone who accuses other people of fallacious thinking every time he doesn't agree with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't need a license to say it.

You need license to say it while not at the same time spouting (philosophical) nonsense.

And that's what you're doing.  Over and over and over again, with no apparent clue as to how to break your cycle of futility.

I broke it a long time ago by not trying to respond to you.

Sorry, but avoidance counts as futility, and it's also one of the typical coping mechanisms for cognitive dissonance.

Except cognitive dissonance is what Paul wants people to think others experience--not himself.

There's no point trying to have a discussion with someone who accuses other people of fallacious thinking every time he doesn't agree with them.

:P

That's false, therefore it makes for a nice straw man argument.

In the following post, Gavin takes a position with which I disagreed, and I called it reasonable.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=55738

This points up Paul's hypocrisy again. He granted that he didn't read my posts, and I suggested that he made himself appear dishonest by making statements about what I write that he could not know.

Now Paul has provided an excellent example of it.

It's also worth pointing out that Paul is doubly the hypocrite, here. He accuses me of calling "fallacy" for anything with which I disagree, even though his claim is demonstrably false in many (if not all) instances.

Thus he commits a fallacy apparently based on disagreement rather than principles of reasoning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest Guest
I’m having trouble understanding the biblical account of creation, and thought I would turn here for help. According to the Bible (KJV), Genesis 1:25-27, God created the animals first, and then both the man and the woman. However, in Genesis 2:7, God creates the man alone, without the woman and before the land animals.

Now here’s where I really get confused. In Genesis 2:18-20, God decides it’s not good for man to be alone, so he creates the beasts of the field and the fowl of the air. But Lo and behold, there was not a helpmate for Adam among all the animals. (What a surprise!) So he made the woman (Genesis 2:21).

Now I’m real confused here. Chapter 1 says that the fowl were created on the fifth day before the man and the beasts of the field, who were created on the sixth day. Chapter 2 tells us that the fowl were created after the man. Can anyone explain the contradiction?

The other thing that bothers me about this account is this whole business about Adam and the animals. Maybe someone can help me understand.

1. In what sense were the animals supposed to provide companionship for or be a helpmate to Adam? What exactly did God have in mind with that, and especially what was he expecting Adam to do with that sheep?

2. Why didn’t God already know that the animals would not provide “suitable companionship?” He needed a trial run to know that? Can someone help me here?

3. Reading this, it seems that God created all the animals male and female, but the man in Chapter 2 he made only a male, and only when the man’s needs weren’t met did he create the woman. Questions:

a. Was Adam created with a penis and testicles? If so, what were they for? I’d ask what Adam was supposed to do with them, but other parts of the Bible already make clear what he wasn’t supposed to do with them. Wouldn't he have been better off without them, especially without a woman around, and that thing about not helping yourself? Or did that change when the woman came along? Did God make him a set from the left-over clay? Just what went on here, and why?

b. In the beginning (as they say), was God planning for Adam to reproduce? It doesn’t seem so, because initially it was just going to be Adam and the animals. But then after the woman comes along and everything gets all screwed up with that forbidden fruit thing, God sends the two of them out of Paradise so they can procreate a whole race of screw-ups on their own. Why not just go back to the original plan with Adam and the cows and sheep? After all, if one man was going to be such a great gig in the first place, why not just give Adam a butler's uniform and start over with an improved version? God could have popped by every day or so for a visit to keep him company. Why mess everything up with more women?

4. On the other hand, if the thing is as messed up as it seems, why not just make another earth somewhere else in the galaxy and start over?

Can anyone sort this out for me? I’m real confused.

Interesting how the fundies try to act like they're addressing these issues without ever addressing them. It's like they know the value of reason, but turn it off whenever they think they need to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, Bozo, I was using Paszkiewicz as an example where people like you pull the "out of context" card whenever someone else says something they don't like.

Your example begs the question, obviously.

This is not an exercise in logic.

Speaking strictly for yourself, I trust?

This is a discussion.  No one gets points for finding logical fallacies or presumed fallacies in another person's argument.

So, there's really no problem with reasoning fallaciously. Do I understand you correctly?

The first Genesis account says that humans were created after the animals.

Correct. Genesis 1 is chronologically arranged, as indicated by the numbering of the days.

The second account says a man was created first and then God made the animals and brought them to him.

Incorrect. As I've already pointed out, the account (Gen. 2) dealing with the preparation of the Garden of Eden is not plainly chronologically arranged--it should not be assumed to be without argument, and that's why your argument collapses.

Why can't you see the contradiction?  It's because you don't want to.

Why can't you see the reasoning that deflates your pathetic attempt to demonstrate the supposed contradiction? Apparently, it's because you don't want to.

You probably know nothing (or next to nothing) of ANE literary forms or culture, so you try to bull-rush your way through your argument.

The simple truth is that your argument is not reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your example begs the question, obviously.

Speaking strictly for yourself, I trust?

So, there's really no problem with reasoning fallaciously.  Do I understand you correctly?

Correct.  Genesis 1 is chronologically arranged, as indicated by the numbering of the days.

Incorrect.  As I've already pointed out, the account (Gen. 2) dealing with the preparation of the Garden of Eden is not plainly chronologically arranged--it should not be assumed to be without argument, and that's why your argument collapses.

Why can't you see the reasoning that deflates your pathetic attempt to demonstrate the supposed contradiction?  Apparently, it's because you don't want to.

You probably know nothing (or next to nothing) of ANE literary forms or culture, so you try to bull-rush your way through your argument.

The simple truth is that your argument is not reasonable.

bewildered's argument is entirely reasonable. The point he/she is making about what Paszkiewicz said is that the recordings speak for themselves. This isn't a matter of someone's say-so reduced to a set of logical proofs. The comments are recorded. You deny that he said what he said, but that doesn't change what is on the recordings. No doubt you will argue that I just presented the same internal logic or illogic as you choose to see it, but bewildered's point is that logic isn't the issue here, the issue here is the content of what was said. bewildered is correct.

As for Genesis 1 and 2, I agree with bewildered that Genesis 2 gives a chronological account. As with Paszkiewicz's statements, you will not read it that way because it creates a contradiction with Genesis 1 and you won't have it. That is our interpretation, and the chronological implications of the account are clear to all but those who do not wish to see them. You have your interpretation and your agenda. It's about interpretation, not about a dispute over logic. What's funny is that you keep suggesting this is all about simple mathematical logic, when what's really at work are your prejudices and your unwillingness to admit that you can be wrong --- ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bewildered's argument is entirely reasonable. The point he/she is making about what Paszkiewicz said is that the recordings speak for themselves.

That's a few posts back, and it's no more reasonable than the application to Genesis 2, when it comes to that.

Need I remind you that Gavin found Paszkiewicz balanced before you tried to sway him with a behind-the-scenes argument?

This isn't a matter of someone's say-so reduced to a set of logical proofs. The comments are recorded. You deny that he said what he said, but that doesn't change what is on the recordings.

Paul seems to have slipped from subtler forms of deceit to blatant lying.

I don't deny that he said what he said (how ridiculous!).

I assert that you take his comments out of context, and I've supported those assertions. Again, Gavin saw that Paszkiewicz had been taken out of context before an apparent private message campaign (using comments taken out of context, perhaps?) provisionally swayed him back toward the party line.

No doubt you will argue that I just presented the same internal logic or illogic as you choose to see it, but bewildered's point is that logic isn't the issue here, the issue here is the content of what was said. bewildered is correct.

Where contradiction is alleged, logic is always at issue, and the content of what is said or written is determined by the context.

Try to separate the content from the context and you're poised for error (and LaClair seems to spend most of his time over the edge of that precipice).

As for Genesis 1 and 2, I agree with bewildered that Genesis 2 gives a chronological account.

And what is the rationale behind the conclusion?

_____________________________________?

As with Paszkiewicz's statements, you will not read it that way because it creates a contradiction with Genesis 1 and you won't have it.

That's partly correct.

In interpreting any work of literature (fiction or otherwise), it is standard practice to grant the author the benefit of the doubt for self-consistency where an issue is in doubt.

I practice that with the statements of Paul LaClair just as I do with the text in Genesis. Over and over again, I've allowed for potential interpretations of LaClairian commentary that might erase an apparent contradiction.

I'd like to see Paul's reaction if the Genesis author called something "universal" where there were exceptions.

That is our interpretation, and the chronological implications of the account are clear to all but those who do not wish to see them. You have your interpretation and your agenda. It's about interpretation, not about a dispute over logic.

Interpretation is either conducted logically or it is not.

Interpretation done illogically is extremely similar to bad interpretation.

What's funny is that you keep suggesting this is all about simple mathematical logic, when what's really at work are your prejudices and your unwillingness to admit that you can be wrong --- ever.

It's amusing that LaClair brushes aside my reasoning based on grammar, context and literary form and attributes all of it to my prejudices.

LaClair's prejudices at work, perhaps?

Likely, I'd say.

Fill in the blank above, LaClair. Prove again how you are Kearny's resident philosophical ignoramus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Guest DingoDave

Bryan wrote:

Were you also aware that the Hebrew in chapter 2 allows for past tense (rendered in the NIV, for example, "had formed")?

19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air

And,

Paul, it may come as a surprise to you, but you're cutting and pasting a translation of a document written in Hebrew. I just explained to you that the Hebrew permits the past tense (it might occur to you that the rendering of the NIV translation committee supports that idea). It is preposterous of you to claim that "There is not fair reading except ..." unless you are an expert in Hebrew whose qualifications exceed those of scholars (including a sufficient majority on the aforementioned NIV committee) who found ample room for a past-tense rendering.

Bryan, it's well known that the NIV is a poor translation, and has been criticised by both Bible scholars and pastors alike for the liberties it takes with certain texts. In places it is just downright dishonest in the way it renders certain texts. No serious Bible scholar would ever dream of using the NIV as the primary source for their textual analysis. The type of 'translation' that comprises the NIV is called 'dynamic equivalence', which is designed to make it easier to read at the expense of textual accuracy. It adds words that aren't in the original Hebrew or Greek, and at times even distorts the plain meaning of texts in order to smooth out difficulties and get rid of contradictions. This in my opinion is one of those passages, which it has corrupted.

If the original Hebrew can so easily be translated in the past tense, then why is it that the NIV is the only translation to do so? The most accurate translations are generally accepted to be the RSV and the NASB. Both these versions translate this passage in the present tense, as does the KJV and every other translation that I am aware of.

Read what some commentators have said about the NIV Bible. These comments were made by Christians, so I imagine that they would have nothing to gain by unfairly criticising it.

"According to the translators, the text is aimed at seventh-grade reading level. Even people of less than average education or intelligence can understand the language whether they are reading it or hearing it. The footnotes usually indicate where the translators have substituted words. If someone is not using the King James Version, it is most likely he will be using the NIV...Dynamic equivalence is both a benefit and a problem. For deep, scholarly evaluation substitution of words is sometimes a problem, but for the average reader it helps."

http://www.godonthe.net/evidence/versions.htm

"Since its publication, however, a number of observers have criticized the less literal approach of the NIV and have pointed to "interpretational intrusions" foisted on the text.

My observation suggests several problems with these statements. One, they are admitting that the NIV is a paraphrase and not really a translation. Yet, no one who buys a copy of this text has any warning of it being a paraphrase. If someone is seeking the mind of God in this Bible, they are not getting God's mind at all but rather what someone thought the mind of God to be. It absolutely reduces the NIV to the opinion page rather than the voice of God. That's serious business for someone that wants to know exactly what the Holy Ghost has written to us...The willing admittance that at times they had been guilty of taking liberties with the text is a serious indictment. Not a court in America would allow testimony on record where such liberties were allowed. Would a juror include such testimony in making a decision on a capital case? Never would an honest judge tolerate such a thought. What would we do with a doctor's report of our physical health that admitted taking liberties with his description of our need for major surgery? Seek a second opinion without a doubt. Yet, these translators have admitted taking liberties with the eternal words of God Himself spoken by the Holy Spirit. A serious fact my beloved "

http://www.pawcreek.org/articles/endtimes/...tasyInPrint.htm

The NIV is a Bible translation first published in 1978 by the International Bible Society coming out of work started by the National Association of Evangelicals. If you wish to learn more about this version from the publisher's viewpoint, this link is provided to their web site. The publisher holds this version in much higher esteem than I do. I flat out don't trust it.

I first became aware of the NIV when involved in a USENET discussion where I said that the Bible said one thing and someone else argued that it said no such thing. This started happening a lot, and at the root of the disagreement, there always seemed to be a NIV Bible. I eventually bought a copy of the NIV and made little marks in it whenever something came up. I never went looking for problems in the NIV; they came to me.

(Gen 2:18-19 NASB [KJV]) Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him." {19} And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name....

Here's another problem for the literalists. Back in Genesis Chapter 1 God creates living things, step by step with humankind the last created. In Genesis 2 we have Adam already walking around when God observes his need for companionship and makes a succession of animals as potential companions. Usually it is understood that there are two distinct allegorical creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2 respectively, and that the literal order of creation is irrelevant. The NIV simplifies the problem by revising the text to say: "The Lord God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.' Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air.

He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name." Inserting that word "had" casts the creation of the animals into the past tense, neatly sidestepping the problem...

Conclusion: At least from where I sit, the NIV translation takes certain difficult passages of scripture and makes them consistent with an Evangelical understanding of the Bible and in the process take the Word of God and makes it the Word of the Evangelicals. It confuses scripture with commentary. It leaves out details. I flat out don't trust it. I prefer to follow St. Paul's advice: "(Phil 2:12b NASB) work out your salvation with fear and trembling;" rather than let the NIV smooth out the road."

http://www.davnet.org/kevin/articles/nivbible.html

Next in the CSB (Comparitive Study Bible) is the New International Version (NIV). This version is also based on the CT, so it has this defect. But even more serious is the translation principle. The NIV utilizes a thought for thought principle rather than the more literal word-for-word principle of the NASB or KJV.

When I would compare the NIV to these versions or to the interlinear, it would very often differ significantly. And when it did, it was would either be because the NIV was not translating words found in the Hebrew and Greek texts, or the NIV was adding words that were not found in the original texts. And even worse, these added words were not offset from the original God-inspired words by being placed in italics like the NASB or KJV did.

http://www.dtl.org/versions/reviews/csb.htm

Kind of puts your rationalisation of the Genesis contradictions in a new light doesn't it Bryan?

By the way, I notice that you are a fan of Robert Turkel, alias 'J.P. Holding' From 'Tekton Apologetics Ministries'. He is without a doubt one of the haughtiest, most obfuscating and dishonest apologists on the net. I can now understand where you get some of your apologetics techniques from.

For anyone interested in some comprehensive and scathing eviscerations of his work, and other excellent counter-apologetics, I suggest that you read some of Farrell Till's rebuttals to him. A good place to start would be ‘The Skeptical Review Online’

Here is the link.

http://www.theskepticalreview.com/MainMenu.html

Here is a page with some of Farrell Tills rebuttals to Holding and other apologists.

http://theskepticalreview.com/articles-idx.html

Here is a page analysing ‘Tekton Apologetics Ministries’.

http://the-anointed-one.com/exposed.html

Here is another one.

http://the-anointed-one.com/

Here is a picture of J.P. Holding if you're curious about putting a face to his drivel.

http://www.theskepticalreview.com/BobbyHideous.html

Read and enjoy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
Bryan wrote:

Bryan, it's well known that the NIV is a poor translation, and has been criticised by both Bible scholars and pastors alike for the liberties it takes with certain texts. In places it is just downright dishonest in the way it renders certain texts. No serious Bible scholar would ever dream of using the NIV as the primary source for their textual analysis. The type of 'translation' that comprises the NIV is called 'dynamic equivalence', which is designed to make it easier to read at the expense of textual accuracy. It adds words that aren't in the original Hebrew or Greek, and at times even distorts the plain meaning of texts in order to smooth out difficulties and get rid of contradictions. This in my opinion is one of those passages, which it has corrupted.

If the original Hebrew can so easily be translated in the past tense, then why is it that the NIV is the only translation to do so? The most accurate translations are generally accepted to be the RSV and the NASB. Both these versions translate this passage in the present tense, as does the KJV and every other translation that I am aware of.

Read what some commentators have said about the NIV Bible. These comments were made by Christians, so I imagine that they would have nothing to gain by unfairly criticising it.

"According to the translators, the text is aimed at seventh-grade reading level.  Even people of less than average education or intelligence can understand the language whether they are reading it or hearing it. The footnotes usually indicate where the translators have substituted words. If someone is not using the King James Version, it is most likely he will be using the NIV...Dynamic equivalence is both a benefit and a problem. For deep, scholarly evaluation substitution of words is sometimes a problem, but for the average reader it helps."

http://www.godonthe.net/evidence/versions.htm

"Since its publication, however, a number of observers have criticized the less literal approach of the NIV and have pointed to "interpretational intrusions" foisted on the text.

My observation suggests several problems with these statements. One, they are admitting that the NIV is a paraphrase and not really a translation. Yet, no one who buys a copy of this text has any warning of it being a paraphrase. If someone is seeking the mind of God in this Bible, they are not getting God's mind at all but rather what someone thought the mind of God to be. It absolutely reduces the NIV to the opinion page rather than the voice of God. That's serious business for someone that wants to know exactly what the Holy Ghost has written to us...The willing admittance that at times they had been guilty of taking liberties with the text is a serious indictment. Not a court in America would allow testimony on record where such liberties were allowed. Would a juror include such testimony in making a decision on a capital case? Never would an honest judge tolerate such a thought. What would we do with a doctor's report of our physical health that admitted taking liberties with his description of our need for major surgery? Seek a second opinion without a doubt. Yet, these translators have admitted taking liberties with the eternal words of God Himself spoken by the Holy Spirit. A serious fact my beloved "

http://www.pawcreek.org/articles/endtimes/...tasyInPrint.htm

The NIV is a Bible translation first published in 1978 by the International Bible Society coming out of work started by the National Association of Evangelicals. If you wish to learn more about this version from the publisher's viewpoint, this link is provided to their web site. The publisher holds this version in much higher esteem than I do. I flat out don't trust it.

I first became aware of the NIV when involved in a USENET discussion where I said that the Bible said one thing and someone else argued that it said no such thing. This started happening a lot, and at the root of the disagreement, there always seemed to be a NIV Bible. I eventually bought a copy of the NIV and made little marks in it whenever something came up. I never went looking for problems in the NIV; they came to me.

(Gen 2:18-19 NASB [KJV]) Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him." {19} And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name....

Here's another problem for the literalists. Back in Genesis Chapter 1 God creates living things, step by step with humankind the last created. In Genesis 2 we have Adam already walking around when God observes his need for companionship and makes a succession of animals as potential companions. Usually it is understood that there are two distinct allegorical creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2 respectively, and that the literal order of creation is irrelevant. The NIV simplifies the problem by revising the text to say: "The Lord God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.' Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air.

He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name." Inserting that word "had" casts the creation of the animals into the past tense, neatly sidestepping the problem...

Conclusion: At least from where I sit, the NIV translation takes certain difficult passages of scripture and makes them consistent with an Evangelical understanding of the Bible and in the process take the Word of God and makes it the Word of the Evangelicals. It confuses scripture with commentary. It leaves out details. I flat out don't trust it. I prefer to follow St. Paul's advice: "(Phil 2:12b NASB) work out your salvation with fear and trembling;" rather than let the NIV smooth out the road."

http://www.davnet.org/kevin/articles/nivbible.html

Next in the CSB (Comparitive Study Bible) is the New International Version (NIV). This version is also based on the CT, so it has this defect. But even more serious is the translation principle. The NIV utilizes a thought for thought principle rather than the more literal word-for-word principle of the NASB or KJV.

When I would compare the NIV to these versions or to the interlinear, it would very often differ significantly. And when it did, it was would either be because the NIV was not translating words found in the Hebrew and Greek texts, or the NIV was adding words that were not found in the original texts. And even worse, these added words were not offset from the original God-inspired words by being placed in italics like the NASB or KJV did.

http://www.dtl.org/versions/reviews/csb.htm

Kind of puts your rationalisation of the Genesis contradictions in a new light doesn't it Bryan?

By the way, I notice that you are a fan of Robert Turkel, alias 'J.P. Holding' From 'Tekton Apologetics Ministries'. He is without a doubt one of the haughtiest, most obfuscating and dishonest apologists on the net. I can now understand where you get some of your apologetics techniques from.

For anyone interested in some comprehensive and scathing eviscerations of his work, and other excellent counter-apologetics, I suggest that you read some of Farrell Till's rebuttals to him. A good place to start would be ‘The Skeptical Review Online’

Here is the link.

http://www.theskepticalreview.com/MainMenu.html

Here is a page with some of Farrell Tills rebuttals to Holding and other apologists.

http://theskepticalreview.com/articles-idx.html

Here is a page analysing ‘Tekton Apologetics Ministries’.

http://the-anointed-one.com/exposed.html

Here is another one.

http://the-anointed-one.com/

Here is a picture of J.P. Holding if you're curious about putting a face to his drivel.

http://www.theskepticalreview.com/BobbyHideous.html

Read and enjoy.

Doesn't anyone else in the nuthouse get to use the computer beside you ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bryan said: Were you also aware that the Hebrew in chapter 2 allows for past tense (rendered in the NIV, for example, "had formed")?

19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air

I checked thirty versions of the bible. In 25 of them the past tense "formed' or "made" is used.

In one of them, Young's Literal Translation, the present tense "formeth" is used.

One of them, the Douay-Rheims Version, has "having formed".

Three of them read "had formed". The three are the NIV, the English Standard Version, and the God's Word Translation. All three were put together by biblical literalist fundamentalists to try to cover up the inconsistency.

The 25 versions with "formed" are:

New Living Translation

New Revised Standard

Revised Standard

KJV

Holman Christian Standard

Third Millenium Bible

New American Standard Bible

New King James Bible

The Good News Bible

New Century Version

World English Bible

The Message

The Complete Jewish Bible

The Bible in Basic English

The Darby Translation

Hebrew Names Version

The Webster Bible

New International Reader's Version

New Oxford Bible

Holy Bible from the Ancient Eastern Text

Amplified Bible

Basic English Bible

Jewish Old Testament

New Jerusalem Bible

New American Bible

So you are going to go with the 10% that agree with you and ignore the 83% you disagree with?

One of my favorite old "Peanuts" cartoons shows Lucy explaining to her brother Linus that the object they were looking at on the sidewalk was a rare albino monarch butterfly. She explained in arduous detail how every year they migrate from the tip of South America to wherever they lived. Charlie Brown comes along and says, "Lucy, that's a potato chip." Lucy repies, "How did a potato chip get here from South America?"

Can someone else explain that story to Bryan before he wastes time figuring a way a potato chip can fly all the way from Patagonia to America?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bryan said:  Were you also aware that the Hebrew in chapter 2 allows for past tense (rendered in the NIV, for example, "had formed")?

19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air

I checked thirty versions of the bible.  In 25 of them the past tense "formed' or "made" is used.

In one of them, Young's Literal Translation, the present tense "formeth" is used.

One of them, the Douay-Rheims Version, has "having formed".

Three of them read "had formed".  The three are the NIV, the English Standard Version, and the God's Word Translation.  All three were put together by biblical literalist fundamentalists to try to cover up the inconsistency.

The 25 versions with "formed" are:

New Living Translation

New Revised Standard

Revised Standard

KJV

Holman Christian Standard

Third Millenium Bible

New American Standard Bible

New King James Bible

The Good News Bible

New Century Version

World English Bible

The Message

The Complete Jewish Bible

The Bible in Basic English

The Darby Translation

Hebrew Names Version

The Webster Bible

New International Reader's Version

New Oxford Bible

Holy Bible from the Ancient Eastern Text

Amplified Bible

Basic English Bible

Jewish Old Testament

New Jerusalem Bible

New American Bible

So you are going to go with the 10% that agree with you and ignore the 83% you disagree with?

One of my favorite old "Peanuts" cartoons shows Lucy explaining to her brother Linus that the object they were looking at on the sidewalk was a rare albino monarch butterfly.  She explained in arduous detail how every year they migrate from the tip of South America to wherever they lived.  Charlie Brown comes along and says, "Lucy, that's a potato chip."  Lucy repies, "How did a potato chip get here from South America?"

Can someone else explain that story to Bryan before he wastes time figuring a way a potato chip can fly all the way from Patagonia to America?

I think you did a superb job, in a thoroughly enjoyable way. If Bryan can't or won't understand it, that's his problem. I have him on ignore.

Thank you for an excellent post, including some impressive research, and a good laugh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bryan said:  Were you also aware that the Hebrew in chapter 2 allows for past tense (rendered in the NIV, for example, "had formed")?

19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air

So you are going to go with the 10% that agree with you and ignore the 83% you disagree with?

Yes, since the 10% base their reasoning on the Hebrew grammar and the context.

It's not a matter of picking and choosing according to percentages (though stupid people could easily think otherwise).

One of my favorite old "Peanuts" cartoons shows Lucy explaining to her brother Linus that the object they were looking at on the sidewalk was a rare albino monarch butterfly.  She explained in arduous detail how every year they migrate from the tip of South America to wherever they lived.  Charlie Brown comes along and says, "Lucy, that's a potato chip."  Lucy repies, "How did a potato chip get here from South America?"

Can someone else explain that story to Bryan before he wastes time figuring a way a potato chip can fly all the way from Patagonia to America?

Heh. You're the one playing Linus, having checked 30 Bible translations in order to support this turd of an argument.

It's funny the way skeptics come up with these incredibly stupid arguments and then conjoin them with appeals to ridicule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
Bryan said:  Were you also aware that the Hebrew in chapter 2 allows for past tense (rendered in the NIV, for example, "had formed")?

19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air

I checked thirty versions of the bible.  In 25 of them the past tense "formed' or "made" is used.

In one of them, Young's Literal Translation, the present tense "formeth" is used.

One of them, the Douay-Rheims Version, has "having formed".

Three of them read "had formed".  The three are the NIV, the English Standard Version, and the God's Word Translation.  All three were put together by biblical literalist fundamentalists to try to cover up the inconsistency.

The 25 versions with "formed" are:

New Living Translation

New Revised Standard

Revised Standard

KJV

Holman Christian Standard

Third Millenium Bible

New American Standard Bible

New King James Bible

The Good News Bible

New Century Version

World English Bible

The Message

The Complete Jewish Bible

The Bible in Basic English

The Darby Translation

Hebrew Names Version

The Webster Bible

New International Reader's Version

New Oxford Bible

Holy Bible from the Ancient Eastern Text

Amplified Bible

Basic English Bible

Jewish Old Testament

New Jerusalem Bible

New American Bible

So you are going to go with the 10% that agree with you and ignore the 83% you disagree with?

One of my favorite old "Peanuts" cartoons shows Lucy explaining to her brother Linus that the object they were looking at on the sidewalk was a rare albino monarch butterfly.  She explained in arduous detail how every year they migrate from the tip of South America to wherever they lived.  Charlie Brown comes along and says, "Lucy, that's a potato chip."  Lucy repies, "How did a potato chip get here from South America?"

Can someone else explain that story to Bryan before he wastes time figuring a way a potato chip can fly all the way from Patagonia to America?

"I checked thirty versions of the bible" ?? Missed a dose of Thorazine today ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DingoDave
Doesn't anyone else in the nuthouse get to use the computer beside you ??

Do you even understand the issue being discussed here 2dim?

How about discussing an issue for a change (if you are capable of doing so), rather than just interjecting with stupid, juvenile remarks.

How old are you by the way? If you are any older than about thirteen, then you should hang your head in shame, rather than proudly broadcasting your manifest ignorance for all the world to see.

Witless troll. Grow up!

Do you want to know what's wrong with America?

People like you are what's wrong with America.

Talk about giving a monkey a machine gun! Sheesh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bryan wrote:

Bryan, it's well known that the NIV is a poor translation, and has been criticised by both Bible scholars and pastors alike for the liberties it takes with certain texts.

Certain texts like the one we're talking about?

The NIV is not criticized as being a poor translation. It is criticized as being less literal than many others (I'm sure that somebody criticizes it as a poor translation--like KJV1611 types; I'm talking about relevant folks).

In places it is just downright dishonest in the way it renders certain texts.

And what are these mysterious "certain texts"?

No serious Bible scholar would ever dream of using the NIV as the primary source for their textual analysis.

True, since a serious Bible scholar knows Greek or Hebrew for the portion of the text for which he possesses serious scholarship. Serious Bible scholars work from the original languages, not from English translations.

This argument shows the type of knowledge you possess on this issue, BTW, which is to say not much.

The type of 'translation' that comprises the NIV is called 'dynamic equivalence', which is designed to make it easier to read at the expense of textual accuracy.

No, not textual accuracy; it is at the expense of literal translation. A literal translation can obscure the meaning for a modern audience.

It adds words that aren't in the original Hebrew or Greek, and at times even distorts the plain meaning of texts in order to smooth out difficulties and get rid of contradictions.

For example?

Didn't think so.

This in my opinion is one of those passages, which it has corrupted.

Lovely. :lol:

If the original Hebrew can so easily be translated in the past tense, then why is it that the NIV is the only translation to do so?

What makes you think that the NIV is the only translation to do so?

The most accurate translations are generally accepted to be the RSV and the NASB.

You mean the most literal.

Both these versions translate this passage in the present tense, as does the KJV and every other translation that I am aware of.

Oh, well that settles it, then.

Read what some commentators have said about the NIV Bible. These comments were made by Christians, so I imagine that they would have nothing to gain by unfairly criticising it.

"According to the translators, the text is aimed at seventh-grade reading level.  Even people of less than average education or intelligence can understand the language whether they are reading it or hearing it. The footnotes usually indicate where the translators have substituted words. If someone is not using the King James Version, it is most likely he will be using the NIV...Dynamic equivalence is both a benefit and a problem. For deep, scholarly evaluation substitution of words is sometimes a problem, but for the average reader it helps."

http://www.godonthe.net/evidence/versions.htm

"Since its publication, however, a number of observers have criticized the less literal approach of the NIV and have pointed to "interpretational intrusions" foisted on the text.

My observation suggests several problems with these statements. One, they are admitting that the NIV is a paraphrase and not really a translation. Yet, no one who buys a copy of this text has any warning of it being a paraphrase. If someone is seeking the mind of God in this Bible, they are not getting God's mind at all but rather what someone thought the mind of God to be. It absolutely reduces the NIV to the opinion page rather than the voice of God. That's serious business for someone that wants to know exactly what the Holy Ghost has written to us...The willing admittance that at times they had been guilty of taking liberties with the text is a serious indictment. Not a court in America would allow testimony on record where such liberties were allowed. Would a juror include such testimony in making a decision on a capital case? Never would an honest judge tolerate such a thought. What would we do with a doctor's report of our physical health that admitted taking liberties with his description of our need for major surgery? Seek a second opinion without a doubt. Yet, these translators have admitted taking liberties with the eternal words of God Himself spoken by the Holy Spirit. A serious fact my beloved "

http://www.pawcreek.org/articles/endtimes/...tasyInPrint.htm

The NIV is a Bible translation first published in 1978 by the International Bible Society coming out of work started by the National Association of Evangelicals. If you wish to learn more about this version from the publisher's viewpoint, this link is provided to their web site. The publisher holds this version in much higher esteem than I do. I flat out don't trust it.

I first became aware of the NIV when involved in a USENET discussion where I said that the Bible said one thing and someone else argued that it said no such thing. This started happening a lot, and at the root of the disagreement, there always seemed to be a NIV Bible. I eventually bought a copy of the NIV and made little marks in it whenever something came up. I never went looking for problems in the NIV; they came to me.

(Gen 2:18-19 NASB [KJV]) Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him." {19} And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name....

Here's another problem for the literalists. Back in Genesis Chapter 1 God creates living things, step by step with humankind the last created. In Genesis 2 we have Adam already walking around when God observes his need for companionship and makes a succession of animals as potential companions. Usually it is understood that there are two distinct allegorical creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2 respectively, and that the literal order of creation is irrelevant. The NIV simplifies the problem by revising the text to say: "The Lord God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.' Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air.

He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name." Inserting that word "had" casts the creation of the animals into the past tense, neatly sidestepping the problem...

Conclusion: At least from where I sit, the NIV translation takes certain difficult passages of scripture and makes them consistent with an Evangelical understanding of the Bible and in the process take the Word of God and makes it the Word of the Evangelicals. It confuses scripture with commentary. It leaves out details. I flat out don't trust it. I prefer to follow St. Paul's advice: "(Phil 2:12b NASB) work out your salvation with fear and trembling;" rather than let the NIV smooth out the road."

http://www.davnet.org/kevin/articles/nivbible.html

Next in the CSB (Comparitive Study Bible) is the New International Version (NIV). This version is also based on the CT, so it has this defect. But even more serious is the translation principle. The NIV utilizes a thought for thought principle rather than the more literal word-for-word principle of the NASB or KJV.

When I would compare the NIV to these versions or to the interlinear, it would very often differ significantly. And when it did, it was would either be because the NIV was not translating words found in the Hebrew and Greek texts, or the NIV was adding words that were not found in the original texts. And even worse, these added words were not offset from the original God-inspired words by being placed in italics like the NASB or KJV did.

http://www.dtl.org/versions/reviews/csb.htm

Kind of puts your rationalisation of the Genesis contradictions in a new light doesn't it Bryan?

Sure does. It takes it out of the realm of Hebrew grammar and into the realm of laymen doing their analysis based on English translations instead of the original languages.

The fact that you don't realize how idiotic your approach is to this argument serves proper notice that you are fit to be ignored.

Edited by Bryan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bryan said: Sure does. It takes it out of the real of Hebrew grammar and into the realm of laymen doing their analysis based on English translations instead of the original languages.

Bryan, the people who made the translations were experts in Hebrew grammar. I'm sure the hundreds of people who worked on the various versions of the Bible knew a little more than you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, since the 10% base their reasoning on the Hebrew grammar and the context.

It's not a matter of picking and choosing according to percentages (though stupid people could easily think otherwise).

Heh.  You're the one playing Linus, having checked 30 Bible translations in order to support this turd of an argument.

It's funny the way skeptics come up with these incredibly stupid arguments and then conjoin them with appeals to ridicule.

Oh no, no, no! Not even close. 30 Bible translations is solid proof of meaning. The point of billydee's argument is that the fundies will never see the evidence for what it is because when a turd is stinking up their theology, it can't possibly be theirs. But it is. It's their own turd in their own Bible and they'll never admit it. Case in point: when Bryan accuses someone of posting an incredibly stupid argument, his argument has just been demolished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DingoDave

I wrote:

It adds words that aren't in the original Hebrew or Greek, and at times even distorts the plain meaning of texts in order to smooth out difficulties and get rid of contradictions.

Bryan responded:

For example?

Didn't think so.

How about the one we've been discussing, for starters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...