Posts Tagged ‘Hebrew’

King James Bible translators: Inspired or not? What about marginal notes?

October 2, 2011

The King James Bible translators don’t have to know they are inspired. King David didn’t stop and think about his famous words to Goliath, they just poured out. In fact, if they had been of such a mindset they might have been tempted to replace the unknown Hebrew word “behemoth” into a best prayerful guess from what they know instead of using a transliteration like they did. Modern translators make a pure guess especially the Creation-doubters.

What, you don’t think God can inspire a translation like the Hebrew and Aramaic translations in the Tanukh of conversations in Egyptian, Babylonian and Persian and Latin tongues?  Is God’s tongue cut off to leave us without a standard, without the  “original autographs” of all 66 books, and let us depend on man’s faulty wisdom?

The rebuttal from advocates of a confusion of translations is that believers in the KJB as God’s choice today do NOT trust the translators of the time any more than we trust the prophets of old. We just know that according to God’s own word, his word is the most important thing because it’s the standard by which all truth and doctrine is measured, and he would not leave us dependent on Harvard Divinity grads and the like for even its wording.

Thee thou thine

October 14, 2010

Our language is muddy in the English language when it comes to the 2nd singular pronoun. Meaning, we use the same word for both singular and plural. The best “translation” of the Bible is one that avoids muddying, rather follows a Biblical standard from the word of God. The word of prophecy is not of private interpretation. It is absolutely impossible to do the Bible justice by “translating” it into the usage applied in street vernacular.

The Bible is not so muddy. See this next link to understand how distinguishing you-singular and you-plural in the KJB makes it much more understandable, whereas others are much more ambiguous:

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/thou.html

More than one dictionary will inform you that these words were gone from everyday speech long before the KJB came along.

Even at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou you’ll find this:

One notable consequence of the decline in use of the second person singular pronouns thou, thy, and thee is the obfuscation of certain sociocultural elements of Early Modern English texts, such as many character interactions in Shakespeare‘s plays. In Richard III, for instance, the conversation between the Duke of Clarence and the two murderers takes on a very different tone if it is read in light of the social connotations of the pronouns used by the characters.[11]

and…

As William Tyndale translated the Bible into English in the early 16th century, he sought to preserve the singular and plural distinctions that he found in his Hebrew and Greek originals. Therefore, he consistently used thou for the singular and ye for the plural regardless of the relative status of the speaker and the addressee. By doing so, he probably saved thou from utter obscurity and gave it an air of solemnity that sharply distinguished it from its original meaning.[2] Tyndale’s usage was imitated in the King James Bible, and remained familiar because of that translation.[13]

They say it’s still used in some places. Here next is a link to a simple conjugation table:

http://alt-usage-english.org/pronoun_paradigms.html

Peter admonishes us to desire the “sincere milk” of the word. We go right by that verse, I always have until I discovered the issue of Bible versions.

1 Peter 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:

See the dictionary definition of “sincere” below. Diluting the singular-plural distinction is an adulteration of the Bible in English.

sin·cere (sn-sîr) adj. sin·cer·er, sin·cer·est 1. Not feigned or affected; genuine: sincere indignation.
2. Being without hypocrisy or pretense; true: a sincere friend.
3. Archaic Pure; unadulterated.

1 Peter 2:2  As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby.

Bible Interpretation: How To

July 20, 2010

What is wrong with the the common notion that the “firmament’, the “windows of heaven”, the ‘pillars of the earth”, the “four corner of the earth”, etc, constitute phenomonological language that accomodated ANE cosmology?

The answer to this lies in understanding the proper approach to scripture, besides taking note of the big caution flag that this very recent “discovery” of what Genesis really meant to the ancient Hebrews did not happen until after modern denials of Creation came up with new “science so called”.

Here follow guidelines for those who need it for “interpreting” Bible verses, especially the interpretation of figures of speech like those mentioned in the above list.

“Phenomenological language” is a bit different concept, but one may call it one example of a figure of speech.

Considerations for understanding the Bible.

(1).STRAIGHTFORWARD SENSE OF THE SECTION OF SCRIPTURE.

That means if the literal meaning makes semantical and grammatical sense as is, then there is no need to tamper with it, just believe.

Sometimes the literal meaning of one isolated word is semantically ridiculous, like talking about the “four corners of the earth”. In such cases, the word is part of a “figure of speech”. The individual words used in a figure of speech have no meaning, because they are part of what is conceptually the same thing as a “compound word”.

What some people call “phenomenological language” is really a figure of speech. Saying the sun is “on the horizon” does not mean it is physically located on one of the points of the physical land that we can see from a given point, it means that’s the way we see it. By they way, I prefer the term “positional” for this particular example.

But if there is no compelling reason –especially in context– to say it is only phenomenological or positional, then it’s not.

If Acts 1:9 says Jesus was “taken up” and “a cloud received him out of their sight” then that’s what happened.
If Exodus 20:11 says “in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is”, then that is what happened.
If it says a great fish swallowed Jonah, then you don’t need a yardstick to measure the fish.

(2).IMMEDIATE CONTEXT IN SCRIPTURE.

Immediate context trumps anything from outside context for interpreting anything about which there is some question. But it is an invalid question anyway if it comes from doubt, or a desire to escape the straightforward meaning of a word or verse.

A word in scripture has its own meaning, and the immediate context clarifies it further.

For example, if you don’t know exactly what a cubit is, you can know from the immediate contexts that mention Goliath, that he was abnormally huge, and that nine feet is a much more reasonable measure than is six feet.

(3).SURROUNDING CONTEXT IN THE SCRIPTURE.

Further help for those who are still confused is provided by context found a step beyond immediate.

For example, there are attempts to cast doubt on the virgin birth by making Mary a “young woman” instead are laughable when you consider she asked how could this be “for I know not a man?” Try substituting “young woman” for “virgin” in the Isaiah prophecy for a really good belly laugh. Imagine the Lord telling the prophet that he will give you a sign, that a young woman shall conceive and bear a son. What a sign!

Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

In the case of Genesis, it does nobody any good to look elsewhere for the meaning of the word “day”. The immediate context says it was “the evening and the morning”. The days are numbered as first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth. The days are not only numbered but clearly given as consecutive ordinal numbers, one following the other.

For Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, it does no good either to try to divide them out. The first verse certainly can stand on its own by itself as a magnificent proclamation of God being the Creator, but it’s snuggled up to the rest of Genesis scripture that follows.

Keep in mind that although the KJB is accepted by tens of thousands as inspired word of God (call it re-inspired if you want to), it seems like nobody considers either the paragraph markings or the verse and chapter organization as inspired. They are convenient for referring to particular sections of scripture, but the first two verses of Genesis are part of the integrated narrative that begins the chapter.

Also, anything else would be irrelevant. In any case the only reason to try to twist it into supporting an earlier creation of some sort has no corroboration from context in any way. The idea only came about to accomodate the millions of years that evolutionists were adding on the age of the earth. This also is shot down by the fact that there was no light until God said “Let there –be– light”, and so such an idea shoots itself in the foot.

(4).THE CONTEXT OF THE WHOLE BIBLE.

This is where relevant references from elsewhere teach us. It is true that some sections of scripture may not be too clear to someone, so cross-referencing can help. It is also true that we can all too easily and all too often take a chapter or a verse in some way, but then we find that the way we took it is not at all what the Bible says on the subject everywhere else, so we have to go back to that verse.

Peter said this about some of Paul’s writings:

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

So some scriptures can lead you away if you want them to. So don’t!

(5).ENGLISH DICTIONARY. (With great caution)
Great caution because if the dictionary is not a dedicated devoted follower of Christ with spiritual discernment and guard up against deceit, one can be fooled into getting the wrong definition out of a set, and even there, the misapplication can be wrong.

In general if you are merely trying to let the Bible tell you what it says, instead of trying to figure out how to fit it to yourself, you will find the truth of it.

I said English dictionary because this writing is in English, and because the KJB is the gold standard of scripture today. The KJB is written in English and the major factor in the stabilization of the language.

For example, some creationists seem to have a hurdle with the the word “firmament”. The word firmament is a proper English word, like so many that were imported into the English language from Biblical sources long before the KJB was translated. I have seen the claim that a word that was in common use already for 70 years still does not count as a proper word to use for “translation”, as if no self-respecting United Nations interpreter today would use the word “tsunami” when translating from Japanese.

Most of the time where modern critics find fault with “difficult words” in the English of the KJB, it is merely a justification for a versions preference. But some will not know the meaning, and will still be unsure with context, but all they really need is a dictionary.

(5a).BEWARE OF GREEKS BEARING GIFTS.

One of my best friends is of Greek descent (cue laughter), but he would agree, I wot. Beware of Greek and Hebrew dictionaries, especially Biblical dictionaries today. Most of them are based on the work of one Gerard Kittel, a “Christian scholar” who was the “Christian spiritual adviser” to Adolf Hitler.

In part because of the blasphemies in his work, we now have modern versions using the word “race” where it should be using the word “seed”.

Like the verse which becomes literally racist in the NIV, Ezra 9:2: They have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, and have mingled the holy race with the peoples around them. And the leaders and officials have led the way in this unfaithfulness.”

That verse should read:

Ezra 9:2 “For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of [those] lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass.”

(6).REPETITION AND REDUNDANCY.

If you are tempted to override a section of scripture with some extraneous doctrine because “respectable Christians” say it means something else, but this particular scripture incorporates a repetition of the matter, this is an emphasis on the clear meaning of it.

(7)..AVOID DOCTRINES OF THE UNGODLY.

Beware of the surrounding pagan doctrines creeping in to your view of the Bible. God’s chosen people have lived apart from the world around them, in the world but not of it. Therefore if a tribe nearby to the peoples of the Bible held a doctrine, it might be good reason to think the Hebrews believed differently. Certainly their ideas of creation, cosmology, origins were different.

Not every idea of some particular ungodly thinker is bad, they do get some things right of course. But they cannot trump the clear meaning of a word, as reinforced by immediate context, and by more distant context, and by relevant declarations elsewhere in scripture.

(8).THE BIBLE IS TRUE.
(It is a non-fiction book of books).

This may seem like it goes without saying for a Bible believer. But it helps understand some scriptures when extraneous “interpretations” are trying to say it means something other than what it says.

The Bible is written as a statement of what happened, and of what the world is now, and how things work in the real world, and prophecies of what shall be.

Analogies, fables, fairy tales, symbolic stories, these are so identified.

For example, the heads of the ten-headed beast in Revelation are identified clearly there and in Daniel as representing ten kings, and the seven mountains upon “on which the woman sitteth” of Revelation 17 and 18 are clearly identified specifically as seven kings.

Note only that five are already fallen (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece), and one is (Rome), and the other is not yet come (The Empire of the Beast, or Antichrist).

—trutherator

Answers to Monotonous Anti-Creation Cliches

July 3, 2010

Knocking down Darwinian props one by one…

>>…Regarding your anecdotes about how the faith of individuals is affected by the origins debate, I don’t doubt the accuracy of those stories. However, for every one of those I suspect there are dozens to thousands that cut the other way. They are an interesting, and important, sidebar. But they aren’t pertinent to the basic questions.

Sure there are billions in the earth who now doubt the Bible because of the non-stop relentless indoctrination of their teachers who told them “science” (the ancient pagan Darwinian myth) contradicted it, versus dozens to thousands of SCIENTISTS confronted with real world facts that compel the willing to accept Biblical truth. Creationism is growing lots faster than the long-ages myths.

To say that is not pertinent to the basic question of either the “origins debate” or sharing our faith is a preposterous illogical declaration.

Creation-deniers provide an excellent catalyst for sharing the truth. I hate lies, and Darwinism is The Big Lie of today. Not for nothing Mao Tse-Tung’s first priority in schools when he took China was not Marxism, but it was Darwinian evolution. It is the denial of the God of the Bible, because the truth of the Creation and the Resurrection is dangerous to atheism, paganism, communism, socialism, and every other tyrannical philosophy.

“Neither give place to the devil”. Subtle sideswipes and bigger broadsides against YEC and YECs and at the Bible text at face value (despite the ritual obligatory disclaimers to the contrary) with me are like saying “sic’ em” to a dog. Arf arf. Protecting the gullible from the Big Lie.

>>You said, “You have to torture the evidence and cover up the physical evidence to say the earth is so many billions of years old anyway. That would be crazy!”… ..There is abundant evidence for an old universe and an old earth. If there weren’t such evidence, the debate on this issue would not be sustainable. Possibly the current theories will prove to be wrong at some point in the future. But until they are it isn’t at all helpful to summarily dismiss them with inferences about conspiracy theories.

Using the old facile “conspiracy theories” canard gets you a loss of at lest ten points on the credibility scale.

And who told you “summarily”? It took me years of open-minded following of evidence to find out that the taxpayer-financed government indoctrination centers had been lying to me for sixteen years!

Using the same logic, without the abundant evidence for YEC and that old-earthers are torturing the physical evidence makes the debate sustainable against OEC.

–And if there were so much “abundant evidence for an old universe and an old earth” as versus YEC evidence then tell us… Why do the most prominent scientists who believe in the ancient pagan old-earth myth pee in their pants in horror at the prospect of an actual fair debate with a YEC scientist?

In the anti-creationist book “Science and Creationism”, the editor Ashley Montague said he put together this anthology of essays by their “big guns” because he was totally humiliated in a debate he took with an unnamed creation scientist. He didn’t say it that way but that’s what he said. At the time I was still under some trepidation, thinking maybe there was some science unknown to me on the subject. The book actually took me from firm to rock-solid convinced in YEC.

>>As I said, “Nowhere in the New Testament will you find the gospel defined to include a particular view on the process or dating of material creation”.

Repetition is no argument against the fact that the first chapter of the New Testament and the 3rd chapter of Luke repeat the genealogies of Jesus Christ Our Lord straight back in linear fashion to Adam himself, and notes that Adam’s parentage points to God. This is a reference to the Garden of Eden as a real-world fact, and the reference to Noah in their points to the Flood.

Besides which, Jesus said God made male and female, he didn’t say it just happened.

And don’t give us the condescending clap trap about God had to speak in terms of the ancients. The Old Earth Myth is an ancient myth, one shared by Hindus and Buddhists and Humanists and many other such religions. But God chose to tell the truth, how about that.

Everything was created before Adam, when the genealogies began. There are very legitimate language questions about the time interval from verse 1 to verse 3, that is if you insist on an interpretation based on a modernist focus on material origins. But there is also a very credible interpretation based on the cultural context of ancient cosmology that focuses on functional origins. There are just too many open questions on G1 to take a dogmatic position on age.

The “Gap Theory” so-called is a totally new myth invented by men who preferred to put their trust in men whose breath is in his nostrils than to put their trust in the eternal God, even though the Bible has made fools of its deniers for millennia. It was invented to cover for God’s obvious YEC message in Genesis, for people who didn’t want to give up their faith, and it was “popularized” by Bible-hater Darby in England and Cyrus Scofield the convicted swindler in the United States, followed by too many wannabes.

The most important Christian dogma is that the Bible is the Truth, period, end of point, no if’s and’s or but’s. There is so much overwhelming real-world evidence of this that anyone seeking the truth will find it.

> My point in this entire discussion is not to take a position for or against the global flood interpretation, but to simply point out that there are sufficient interpretative and technical questions to caution against a dogmatic position. The word ‘world’ or ‘earth’, as I pointed our below is not determinative, due to its varied uses. There are the possibilities of land bridge collapses at the Bosporus or Gibraltar. The flood occurred prior to Babel, so it’s possible that all of life was still in a relatively concentrated ‘region’. And of course there are all of the many technical questions about water volume and population logistics on the ark.

Watch out when they claim to be arguing for a “neutral” point of view. There is no such thing. Come, let us reason together, saith the Lord. The truth is not a neutral position between two opposing viewpoints.

It’s a dogmatic position to insist that the Bible is ambiguous where it obviously is not. Like trying to say “day” doesn’t mean “day”, or claiming that there is enough ambiguity between Genesis 1:2 and 1:3 to cram billions of years in there! It’s laughable, and no wonder atheists have a field day rejoicing over how Christians are trying to put their own pagan myths into the Bible.

>>The bottom line is that the flood was what it was, and the biblical testimony is attesting to what it was in the linguistic and cultural context of the biblical authors and audiences. Whether the flood was actually regional or global has no bearing on the validity of that testimony. Either way, the testimony is true and accurate in its ancient context.

Whether the narrative of the Flood is true to fact or not has “no bearing on the validity of that testimony”??! Wow. That’s amazing. It exposes the bias of summarily dismissing anything the Bible says if some self-arrogant “scientist” says it’s wrong.

Anyway, why would one want to play the fool just because the smarter-than-thou” crowd does? Why deny the physical evidence and agree with the foolish idea that the world is billions of years old just because some people who hated the Bible invented their own new variation on ancient pagan myths? Myths that were discredited long ago? Why should we be like dogs and return to the same vomit of ancient pagan myths like Darwinism?

No matter how much indoctrination they foist on the unsuspecting, pretending that their origins myth is something new from science, they cannot escape the fact that long ages for earth, the universe, and life on earth are ancient pagan myths. The ancient Hebrews knew intimately of them. It is a historically illiterate argument to say they would not have understood long ages. God told them, and us, the truth.

1. What ‘yom’ means in terms of our literal concept of time. There is more than one reasonable option on this question.

It’s mind-boggling that anti-creationists still use the word “day” in Genesis to defend themselves.

But now they’ll have to explain why plants lasted millions of years on the earth before land animals, they have to explain how there was night and day for how many eons before there was a sun. Putting millions or billions of years for “day” in Genesis One makes it a much greater super-miracle than the Biblical one they deny. The real-world question is, why would God take so long to make everything?

Note that the proponents of billion-year “days” never bother with “the evening and morning were the first day”.. “…the second day..” and “the third day”… The emphasis on the 24-hour day is manifold and does not rest on the meaning of “day”. Ask a Hebrew scholar whether “evening and morning” are a 24-hour day or whether it’s a million-year epoch.

And add to all that the ordinal nature of the list! The “first day”, “second day”, and so on– just adds emphasis to the clear meaning of the passage.

Claiming that Genesis One is a literal description of long-ages universe is so ridiculous that it is a much better argument to try to claim it’s not about Creation, or it’s symbolic or something.

2. The grammatical structure for 1:1-2 is disputed around 2-3 possibilities. Individual Hebrew scholars may prefer one option or the other, but virtually all acknowledge we can’t know with certainty what was grammatically intended.

That assertion is clearly contradicted by the fact that virtually all Orthodox Jewish scholars, with the rare exception, agree among themselves that they are certain about “what was grammatically intended”. Apparently you’ve been reading too much anti-creationist stuff out there where they state things as if they are just-so and fall right into the same pit.

3. A compelling case has been made that Genesis 1 is written in the context of ancient cosmology because that is the way it would have made sense to the original author and audience.

Again, that is a historically illiterate Big Lie by the crowd that hates the Bible, and is so easily refuted it is incredible how many people love to buy into it, as I stated above.

It came straight from the mouths of the smarter-than-thou academics who hate the Bible with a passion and see things through their own religious dogma that the Bible is myth. Sounds like something the misnamed “Jesus Seminar” babblers would come up with, who only got notice because their fellow Jesus-haters in big-name magazines like Time just loved anything that contradicted the Bible.

That was before we had the Internet as a forum to expose the stark-naked emperor. That’s why they are trying to figure out ways to shut us down. Senator Lieberman the other day praised the law giving Obama (and any other president) the authorization to just shut down the Internet, which also includes a clause immunizing telecommunications companies from any lawsuit that arises from any cooperation with the federal government. Lieberman says China has that capability so we shouldn’t worry about it.

Maybe we’re closer to the global dictatorship of The Beast than many think we are.

If Americans don’t yell it down with a roar, we’ll soon enough get another Gulf of Tonkin incident that will provide an excuse to shut down the Internet. Bush said they would not tolerate any conspiracy theories, but they are looking for a way to quash them.

The hard dogmatic position is held by anti-creationists who dogmatically and stubbornly hold to the dogma of radioisotope dating. One creationist who happened to get a course in geological dating reports the professor saying that their radioisotope dating (of billions of years) requires a total of no less that 22 assumptions.

Dogmatic pronouncements against “aspersions on alternative views on the dating of the original material creation are unwarranted” indeed.

Simply repeating ad infinitum that Genesis One does not mean what it says, is no argument at all. YEC scientists in this debate are the ones that keep pointing to science, while it is the creation-deniers and design-deniers that want to keep talking about religion.

Creation-denying pagan scientists can censor creation all they want from the oligarch-approved publications, they can censor countering evidence all they want from government indoctrination centers, they can keep publishing blatant lies in biology textbooks, they can deny tenure and deny research funds from science concerns that are open-minded on the origins questions.

But they have a problem with the Internet being so uncontrolled.

Beware of sneak attacks on the Internet. Whether they are from the big players or not.

–trutherator

Science: Witness to Creation

June 26, 2010

“From Raging Evolutionist to Creationist”

That title describes one of the most important aspects of my life in a nutshell, as well as that of tens of thousands of scientists and millions of people across the globe today.

As I was once a raging Darwinist and atheist myself, as well as being a former socialist, the recent article at HondurasWeekly condemning Intelligent Design theories compels an answer.

We can use this article as an exercise to show why the more prominent Darwinians among scientists today absolutely refuse to participate in a fair debate with formal and balanced rules with creation scientists, or even with Intelligent Design advocates.

The editors picked out an especially juicy paragraph to highlight this piece. It shows a repetition of the atheist strategy, applied in varying degrees by agnostics and theistic evolutionists, of using the worst hypocrites and money-grubbing “Christians” they can find in history to use Pavlov-driven associations to help make a point that is little more than invective. Effective for the de-facto monopoly stranglehold they have had on education the past century.

The author started off with a self-assured roar, using the phrase “absurd claims” and “anti-Darwinists” and “inject creationism into society”. Then he jumps right into the same attempt at pretending not to know the difference between creation science and intelligent design.

This strategy is built on their confidence in the use of the hypocrisy of money-grubbing hypocrites to make their case, instead of facts refuting the science. (Apologies to the few atheist scientists who do actually engage in real debate)

Never mind Jesus Christ himself drove those money-grubbing money-changers out of the temple at the wrong end of a bull whip, and called the religious Pharisees of his day “of your father the devil, for he is a liar”.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CREATION SCIENCE AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN

It is appropriate to clarify the terms for new initiates to this fascinating discussion, or those who only know the confusion coming from deniers of Creation and of common sense.

In a general sense, Creation Science is science as practiced by scientists who believe that the world was created by God, more or less as described in the Bible. “More or less” because there are others like Yarun Hahya, a Turkish Muslim who has a web site where you can find some intriguing factoids about science, as Muslims hold a similar view about creation.

Creation science in that general sense was the science practiced by the greats of science history like Isaac Newton, Roger Bacon, Michael Faraday, Lord Kelvin, Joseph Listerine, in fact the founders of every modern branch of science.

In a narrower way, Creation Science is science based on using the relevant declarations in the Bible as a guideline. This is mostly known for where it diverges from the Darwinian Creation Myth, of course, and research based on the six-day creation of Genesis One and Noah’s Flood. But there are other declarations in the Bible about the real world that sometimes provide for research, not always known as Creation Research.

Then there is Intelligent Design theory, which is a different approach to science. It is the study of those phenomena in nature that suggest the necessity of an outside intelligent agent for their explanation.

The SETI project is precisely the same kind of idea, being that we can use the tools of science to determine whether a given set of patterns in nature or behavior of naturally occurring entities suggests the existence of an intelligent agent. However, most SETI researchers restrict themselves to extraterrestrial intelligence that fit an anti-creationist model, arbitrary delimiter an unscientific though it is.

In fact, scientists and researchers involved with Intelligent Design propositions include agnostics and skeptics. Its proponents now include the late Andrew Flew, who was the most prominent and acclaimed promoter of atheism in intellectual circles until in his eighties the facts of DNA and how it works convinced him that there had to be some kind of intelligent designer. And no “Creationist” he, he at the same time continued to insist he did not believe in the Judeo-Christian God.

That’s the difference.

THE RELIGIOUS COVERUP IS BY DARWINISTS

We see the repetition of the tired old accusation that Intelligent Design advocates are somehow trying to “cover up” their religious affiliations. This is trying to win an argument with an attack on the motivations of the opponent rather than the argument. Crying “absurd!” and “is not!” do not count for rational discussion.

They apparently have not learned that for atheists and Darwinism, this has very heavy backfire potential, because the most prominent Darwinians who got any government power in history were the most brutal beasts of history, committing mass genocide on massive scales, and were the biggest liars of history to boot, and (they think) with a “safe” fifty years after the demise of the eugenicist race-breeding of the poster boy for tyranny, Hitler, they now think they can talk about race breeding again. Only call it something else. (Are you listening, Planned Parenthood, nee Birth Control League? Malthusians anyone?)

And Darwinism has its own history of frauds, scandals, coverups, lies, “trade secrets”, revisionist history, and a habit of publishing biology textbooks that present frauds as if they were facts, like Haeckel’s drawings, proven to be frauds 150 years agone already.

The insinuation that intelligent design advocates hide their religion is so easily refuted it should be a gross insult to the reader, and is an embarrassment for anyone who continues to use it, and shows an aversion to using an actual “fact” that speaks to the actual debate. Maybe the problem is the lack of facts for refutation.

Isaac Newton, both a creation scientist and intelligent design advocate, made no secret of his beliefs when doing science, and he made no secret that his motivations were to encourage the faith in God of others. It is the Darwinian education establishment that has kept hidden from us the facts of Isaac Newton’s emphatic beliefs in Creation, and the fact that he wrote more voluminously about the Bible and about his Christianity than he did science and math!

So WHO is hiding the religious affiliations of scientists here?

WHO IS “STIFLING HISTORY”?

The question is put when ID is called an “inquiry-stifling premise”.

Let us investigate the reality of WHO is actually stifling inquiry?

Vestigial organs: The stifling of life-saving research by Darwinian dogma:

There are two fronts here to point up. One is the actual

    historical results

of Darwinian and anti-creationist science, versus the actual results of ID advocates and creationists.

At one time, there were at least 32 human organs that Darwinians had declared “vestigial organs” that no purpose and were “leftovers” from “evolution”. Creationist scientists said do the research and find their purpose! And there are no more “vestigial organs”. You can live without tonsils, or an appendix, but you can live without both your legs too!

So medical research that could have saved lives, like finding the purpose for these human organs, was stifled and unfunded because of the ancient pagan myth of Darwinism.

Vestigial DNA: Stifling research:

Then in this 21st century, early came discussion about “vestigial DNA”, which comprises an actual majority part of the total DNA in your body. They called it this because they had only matched a tiny percentage to actual protein manufacture and other active functions.

My first encounter with the term “vestigial DNA” caused a big fit of laughter, wondering how long it would take them to correct this, yet another major faux pas from Darwinian dogma.

This time a few enterprising geneticists broke through and found that not only did this DNA have a few functions they were just beginning to get a glimpse of, it also served as a shelf of mix-and-match parts with which to do automatic experimentation in genetic combinations during times of environmental stress. Among other things.

<>>

THE HATE-GOD MONOLOGUES

Just like other places, we see here questions that really come from blaming God for everything we see as bad in the world. This is totally irrelevant to ID, for it is not creationism. ID is merely the study of criteria that can be used to determine whether a pattern or phenomenon is the result of design rather than spontaneous natural activity, and where this might or might not apply in science.

Actually, it is the same principle upon which is based much or most of forensic science, archaeology, and other endeavours.

The questions of why there is evil in the world therefore has nothing at all to do with Intelligent Design propositions. They are even irrelevant to Creation science. They used to defend the evil impact of belief in evolution as being irrelevant to the argument, but that was then people actually were educated enough to laugh out loud when somebody suggested evolution was better morally than believing in Jesus Christ.

It reminds me of one of the founders of the American Atheists Association after he became a Christian. He said he had only become atheist because he hated God for the hurt he had suffered in his life.

There are also a number of false premises embedded in most hate-God harangues, many that require answers for another writing. One such error is the long-discredited Malthusian idea that humankind is “procreating itself to extinction”.

Hey! It’s –NOT!– procreation that leads to extinction. By definition. Okay? NOT procreating IS extinction. Procreating is the best way to battle extinction.

Oh, yeah, and defending yourself against socialist and fascist tyrants like Pol Pot who kill off half their own people, or Chinese tryants who don’t bat an eyelid at the slaughter of forty TIMES the entire population of Cambodia, or Stalin who starved millions of Ukrainians to punish them for thinking independently. And beware of those who say they “have always been a Maoist”, like Hugo Chavez did in Beijing.

Complaining and whining bitterly about our lot in life and on the earth collectively as human beings is no argument for anything. Blaming God with a wave of the hand and piling on bitter invective without a serious considering the idea like Andrew Flew did, and other formerly embittered God-haters like myself, proves nothing about anything except for what it says about the accuser. At least Flew defended his ideas with actual arguments.

Take Haiti and Chile, two recent examples of victims of natural disasters. The earthquakes suffered by each country different enormously in terms of the fatalities, injuries, and to the economy. Haiti was helpless and without any kind of governing authority in the days following, while Chile was almost officially insulted by offers of help. This shows not that Haitians are to blame (although Haitian friends of mine do blame the spiritual condition of Haiti for its condition), but that natural disasters differ in their effect depending on the physical, economic, moral, spiritual condition of the affected parties.

And love goes a long way to healing the wounds and lifting up the physically broken and the broken-hearted.

My question about mental acuteness is how anyone could consider the coordinated network of digital computer systems that each one of us has in every one of the trillions of cells in our bodies, and claim –without any reasonable explanation whatsoever– that it just spontaneously arose from some kind of primeval ooze! And that’s just the DNA!

There’s much more for a later. Stay tuned.

But since the moral argument has been engaged, it will be enthusiastically answered.

Despite the best efforts of imposters, charlatans, hypocrites and identity thieves throughout history, the effect of Jesus Christ on history, especially after the terrestrial arrival of the Lord Jesus Christ, has been overwhelmingly positive. The basics of decent culture that are still left in our modern society owe themselves to Christ and the ones who followed his teachings.

Some people –if they were genuinely sincere and not just venting– ask how to tell the difference. Just compare the practice to the preaching. If it doesn’t match, it’s an imposter. Just make sure you don’t learn what the teaching is from people who don’t know it.

LOVE YOUR ENEMIES, and The Golden Rule…

Here’s two rules of thumb. One is, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. Simple. “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” Matthew 7:12 Another is: Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Matthew 7:20

If only the tyrants and dictators who yell and go into fits trying to get Zelaya back into Honduras would be well served with the Golden Rule. They do not want people lying to them. The “human rights” hypocrites who claim they seek “reconciliation” by bringing the cause of division back into the country know full well that it would cause great trouble for Honduras. They know full well that the “Resistencia” does NOT want anything other than their socialist dictatorship, unfettered by bothersome human rights issues, and that Hondurans do not want this.

They know full well there was a constitutional succession. The idea is simply to force a small country to subjugate itself to the new world empire.

The “dangerous” Christians died by the tens of thousands under the had of Roman Emperors, in following these dictates.

Matthew 5:44  But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

<……..>

LET ME COUNT THE WAYS: How the world is better off after Christ came in the flesh:

It is when they became comfortable and prosperous under less brutal regimes that the doctrines began deteriorating under such intellectuals as St. Augustin, who had too much fondness for Greek intellectual hubris, and in the embrace of political power under the cultivation of emperors like Constantine.

Too bad many of today's Christians have rushed to receive the embrace of government money, as in the States where they have to promise, cross their heart and hope to get arrested if they ever talk about Jesus while using that "faith-based" money.

If Christ had never been born, or if nobody had ever followed him, we would have missed a lot of what we were never taught in government schools in the States.

Gladiator bouts begone:

The intervention of one Christian bishop in a gladiator bout that cost him his life, brought to dead silence the cheers of that crowd that had yelled for his blood, and brought embarrassment to the emperor that had thumbed him down, and provided the ending bell for this "sport" of devils.

Infanticide, begone!

The Greeks and Romans routinely killed any babies they did not want or deem fit. Spartans left them on the rocks on the hillside, Athenians wrapped them up against the cold and left them in holes. Roman law said fathers could kill their sons for any reason or no reason whatsoever at any time. But infants were saved from infanticide when mothers learned they could leave an infant on the doorstep of a Christian couple, who were glad to rescue a child and raise him to maturity.
A Christian missionary came back from China and spoke at a forum in an ecumenical council in Chicago around 1900. He begged them not to pass a resolution giving moral equivalency to all religions, pointing to the "baby pond" in the Chinese village where he resided, where some villagers went to throw "unwanted' infants. The mass genocides by atheist regimes were still yet future.

Cannibalism, begone:

Even the father of Darwinism himself, Charles Darwin, defended Christian missionaries in a letter to the editor, in answer to a tirade against them. He said if you were a world traveller like me, and had to make port in a faraway unknown island, you would behold the steeple with a cross atop with the greatest relief that you were not going to end up in a pot of stew.

Orphanages:

The practice of receiving "unwanted" babies that would have been sacrificed evolved later into orphanages.

Hospitals:

Orders of Christians who took in the sick and infirm became known for being such centers and evolved into today's hospitals.

Literacy:

The former slave to an Irish noble, St.Patrick, brought his message of love to the Irish. That message ended the brutal practices of Druid priests in Ireland, ended the human sacrifice, ended slavery in Ireland.

Patrick also taught the Irish to read and write. They took to the practice feverishly. The monasteries of his followers, which were families living together in harmony and in which sometimes women were the leaders, took such a delight in books that they rescued the great bulk of Greek and Roman classics that survive to us today, copying with copious dedication everything possible, while the Huns and Visigoths and assorted barbarians burned every library they could find.

Charlemagne learned of the fame of the learned monks from Ireland and Britain and brought them to his palaces to establish centers at which they could teach the priesthood throughout his reach.

Science:

With the Reformation, and the liberation it brought to thinkers and tinkerers everywhere, science flourished. Christianity cultivated modern science as we know it today, and so say as a historical fact historians who are much less than enamored with Christianity.

Just for example, it took the Internet free of the constraints of top-down controlled education to make it general knowledge that Isaac Newton, acclaimed to this day as the greatest scientist, wrote more about the Bible and his Christian beliefs than he did about science and math.

The Bible itself actually invites the reader to challenge the science. Paul did not say "Can you feel it", "If it feels right do it", he said we do not follow fables but we follow facts, and he points to more than five hundred people who were eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus Christ.

The "heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth his handiwork". (Psalm 19:1) David also spoke of the way God "wrote" our members into our body in the womb, a verse that one atheist said I twisted to make it sound like DNA!

See for yourself: Psalms 139:16  Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

–Alan
http://www.truebook.wordpress.com
http://www.trutherator.wordpress.com

Scofield’s Dispensations: Diabolical Deceit

April 29, 2010

Peter talked about “dispensation”, but he’s definitely not talking about Cyrus Scofield‘s version of it.

Scofield’s “dispensations” were not Paul’s “dispensations”. Scofield’s dispensations were a total “confidence” scam, just like the guy himself, having spent time in prison for one scheme. They should have locked up his Darby perversion of the word in the cell with him, and thrown away the key, together with this false dispensationalism and this false “pre-trib rapture”.

Paul’s dispensations are pure grace, grace, grace, as in the verses he penned all through his epistles.

AND Paul made clear in Hebrews 13 that the shining saints of the Old Testament were all saved by faith in Jesus Christ, and faith alone, and that their works were /fruits/ of their faith.

Included in that famous list of FAITH is a guy who gave his wife to the Pharoah as his sister, the wife who disbelieved God’s word that she would bear a son in her old age, a material-minded Esau, the deceiver Jacob, the impatient Moses kept back from the Promised Land for his act of disobedience, and so on.

Who can doubt that Enoch, Abel, Noah, and all their best works put together, came short of the glory of God? Jesus told us if we do /ALL/ that we are commanded, we are still “unprofitable” servants. (Luke 17:10) Does that sound like someone who /deserves/ salvation based on their works?

“Lest any man should boast!”

Sure, there is a sense in which it became more evident after Jesus Christ came in the flesh, the whole law, set up for works, is only our /schoolmaster to bring us to Christ/. Paul couldn’t make more plain that the whole purpose of the OT, the laws and the prophets, the whole thing, was to show us there was NO WAY we could earn salvation.

There are things that are different after Christ, whence The law came by Moses, but grace and truth by Jesus Christ. God’s expectations of us are now both much less and much more. Much less in terms of Do this, Don’t do that, Eat this, Don’t Eat That, and so forth, and much more in terms of the new commandment Jesus gave us, and the emphasis on the two first and greatest commandments.

English and Bible Versions: God is Not the Author of Confusion

April 26, 2010

One interesting bit is from a Shakespeare web site:
http://www.shakespeare-online.com/biography/shakespearelanguage.html
where we find this little paragraph:

“.. By about 1450, Middle English was replaced with Early Modern English, the language of Shakespeare, which is almost identical to contemporary English….”

…thus presenting us with another voice that says we do not need a proliferation of “versions” today.

I suspect though that just like our English was stabilized by the universal and daily use of “The Holy Bible” over centuries, so the language of the Bible in Hebrew stabilized that language.

It is indisputable that the quick adaptation of the KJB in the 17th century and its ubiquitous use throughout the English-speaking world has kept the language itself stable through time and across geographies.

Somebody wrote once in debate on this:

“> Languages change, and translators are fallible.”

Just translators? How about prophets, kings, fugitive Egyptian princes, shepherd boys, beloved physicians, converted Pharisees, tax collectors, and fishermen, and the rest of the common folk who God used to put quill to canvas?

He wasn’t sure what my point was, so I clarified:

“Okay, spelled out, those are only a partial list of all the fallible people who put to paper the first-draft and the final editions of the “original autographs” in the Bible that we all agree was THE INERRANT word of God at that time.”

So the argument against a “translation” that has proven itself against all comers, including spurious criticisms that Jesus warned us against in Matthew 23:24. The Pharisees had traditions of men for making the word of God of none effect, straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel when it came to “interpreting” it, but now, since knowledge has increased and evil men wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived, we have better stuff! We have “translations”!

God is not limited to “original” languages, and he proved it in Acts 2. He did it again in 1611.

I believe in translating it, but if they’re doing the “dynamic translation” thing instead of the “formal translation” thing then they are off track and missing the mark of the highest calling of God.

Like taking the phrase “white as snow” and making it “white as wool”? That’s taking away from and adding to, that’s not translating!

If we encounter a new word in a book, we can just look it up in a dictionary or consider the context. If a translator ahs trouble finding a suitable word, then just use the original word, a transliteration, or better yet, a word borrowed from English, the indisputable de-facto international language today.

We have thousands of imported words in English, why rob those who speak other languages of the same blessings?

Better than ‘dynamic’ translations would even be a direct translation of the KJB!

>What Acts 2 proves is that God is perfectly able and willing where appropriate to put his word in any languages he so pleases to do, and he is not limited by the wise pontificating of Pharisee school graduates indoctrinated way beyond their faith in his promises to preserve his word.

He has limited himself to preserving his word without confusion. “God is not the author of confusion”.

Not only “by their fruits ye shall know them”, and we can see the fruits of disbelief in the modern versions. For example, he did not produce two “original” Old Testaments in Hebrew, just one. The other one is not.

So Acts 2 shows is that he is NOT the author of confusion. To drive home the point, when it comes to getting the word of God into tongues, Paul wrote I Corinthians 12, speaking directly about the gift of tongues that we read about in Acts 2.

1 Corinthians 14:27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

Alright class, pop quiz: How many do the “interpret” thing?

All of the complaints from modern version advocates about the English of the KJB, ALL of them, apply TEN TIMES MORE to Koine Greek and Solomon’s Hebrew. Those languages are DEAD, they are MUCH older than English.

–trutherator

KJB English is for the 21st century

April 23, 2010

KJB critics complain about “archaic language”, and they say that the Bible was written in living languages at the time. But how would they know they were “not archaic forms” any more than the KJB is?

I suspect though that just like our English was stabilized by the universal and daily use of “The Holy Bible” over centuries, so the language of the Bible in Hebrew stabilized that language, and the Greek of those days as well.

NOT the other way around. They certainly didn’t need to “revise their versions” every twenty years. Thank God they couldn’t anyway.

I’ll bet the Hebrew in the Masoretic wasn’t the street talk of those days, especially the Psalms, the Proverbs, the Song of Solomon, Job, Jeremiah and the prophets, and rest of it too.

Modernists can jump up and down about how “poetic” Genesis One is so they can avoid a six-day Creation, then they turn around and say the rest of has to be in conversational English for this decade.

Here’s one quote:

“> Languages change, and translators are fallible.”

Just translators? How about prophets, kings, fugitive Egyptian princes, shepherd boys, beloved physicians, converted Pharisees, tax collectors, and fishermen, and the rest of the common folk who God used to put quill to canvas?

God is not limited to “original” languages, and he proved it in Acts 2. Seems like one overeducated intellectual thought Acts 2 is on his side of the fence, probably going to say something about getting the word of God into the languages people speak. God did it in 1611.

What Acts 2 proves is that God is perfectly able and willing where appropriate to put his word in any languages he so pleases to do, and he is not limited by the wise pontificating of Pharisee school graduates indoctrinated way beyond their faith in his promises to preserve his word.

All of the complaints about the English of the KJB, ALL of them, apply TEN TIMES MORE to Koine Greek and Solomon’s Hebrew. They are MUCH older than English, and we see from history that the self-important Pharisaical tendencies of over-educated intellectuals get them tripped off into rabbit holes.

–trutherator