Which came first: the young earth, or the inerrant scripture?

With Respect:1) I quoted Robert Milligan, who had quoted Josephus, that "the Septuagint, about 280 BC, was the earliest record of the Hebrew Scriptures IN GREEK."RAZD replied, "So the earliest record was 280 BC."2) I quoted from Jewish history by Josephus, and not from the Scriptures, that Alexander the Great was read the prophecy in Daniel about himself, in 332 BC.RAZD replied this could not happened because of his god-like decree that the Bible could not be before 280 BC.All of RAZD's replies were of this nature; misquoting my post, and then arguing against the "man of straw" of his own making.3) RAZD made a god-like decree that the Bible was not before the Council of Nicea, in AD 325.But this council had nothing to do with the writing of any Scripture.
No one can have an intelligent conversation with a man who makes up his owm fallacies as he goes along.RAZD never addressed the topic of the forum, "Young Earth" in any of his posts to me. All that he discussed, besides his kind instructions about the format of the forum, for which I give him thanks, was Atheism.Respectfully submitted,hoaryhead

Who is the "We" here? I haven't been flooded with propaganda. Can you cite the particular law that establishes this? Brian was describing common usage, and he documented that it is common usage. That's not obvious to me. I suspect that you are wrongly ascribing goals to Brian. Brian is communicating quite well. Regrettably, I cannot say the same about you. There isn't any definition of what is legal. Languages evolve over time.

With respect...It would be good if you learned to read. Before crying to the Administration for support it's always a good idea to make sure you have even a small leg to stand on. You have none.

---

Well, Josephus might have believed that.However, Jospehus was writing at the end of the 1st century c.e. Most modern scholarship places the Book of Daniel to the second century B.C.E. Tthe original Greek translation only contained the original 5 books of moses. It is the conclusion of modern scholars is Joesphus was just plain wrong, based on the evidence.

Ramoss:"The Septuagint only contained the five books of the law."1) I possess a reproduction of the Septuagint.2) It contains ALL of the Christian Old Testament.3) It also contains several books of the apocrypha.What possessed you to make that unfounded statement?Let us begin (for a change) to debate the facts.hoaryhead

My comments on this outburst from hoaryhead in yellow: As a test, take the whole phrase in each of my quotes of hoaryhead (in the quote boxes) and search the entire topic for them: you will find all of them under your posts.As a further test, take the whole phrase in each or hoaryheads "quotes" of mine (in between quote marks) and search the entire topic for them: you will not find all of them in my posts.As a further test, search the topic for ad hominem attacks and then see who the poster is: the most will be from hoaryhead.It seems that hoaryhead, having failed to substantiate his assertions with actual evidence in the face of actual factual evidence to the contrary, and further having failed to draw others into a juvenilish trading of insults, has now fallen on whining about being mistreated.This, from the person who in Message 144 said: Sad.{{added by edit}}The further assertions by hoaryhead in Message 151 are more misrepresentations, some of which have already been addressed.And as far as the (repeated) misquote about 280 BCE, the point was and is that hoaryhead, regardless of how good his source is (which is not determined) has not presented a dated reference before 280 BCE, and that the onus is on him to do so if he is claiming a prediction as opposed to a POSTdiction of events in 331 BCE.Whether it is a translation or not is irrelevant without a previous source that can verify the accuracy of the translation. And I also referenced material where this very point is questioned by others on the source (LXX) in question. Another gross misrepresentation. Rather it was hoaryhead who failed to answer the specific points I had for him on how he dated events like the supposed flood, on the lack of evidence for a world wide flood and on explaining how a tree is older than his universe.It is one thing to stop replying to my posts, it is quite another to start making an endless stream of misrepresentations, falsehoods and other attacks. Rather than complain, refute the point: provide evidence of one before then.That's how easy it is to deal with the points honestly: show the evidence.Enough.This message has been edited by RAZD, 08*31*2005 12:29 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Hardly flooding Hoary, I have only mentioned inclusive language in one post!Anyway, it is really nothing to do with ‘unisex language’, it has everything to do with proper English, a subject that you have particular difficulty with.Now, whether you like it or not, the word ‘author’ is not gender specific. In case you do not know what this means, it means that men and women can be authors, thus, since you do not know if the author is a he or a she, then the use of the word ‘their’ is perfectly legitimate. You still haven’t explained why it isn’t. You are dreaming again, I have never mentioned translating the Bible.This seems to be a common trait of yours, inventing arguments that simply didn’t happen is a regular feature of your posts. Maybe you have some difficulty with comprehension, or maybe English is not your first language, but you need to read a bit more carefully. I wish I could claim the credit for this, but it is common practice in the academic world. Well, since I am in Scotland, I use English as well. Also, if English is the ‘legal’ language of the U.S. then you guys make some very basic spelling errors! You do not seem to realise that ‘their’ is not always a plural, invest in a dictionary, or ask one of your teachers to explain it to you. I only ‘insist’ in this because it is proper grammar, and it isn’t my unisex language, it is basic language skills. You still haven’t said why ‘their’ cannot be used in a singular context.You also appear to be ignoring the Cambridge dictionary that I quoted, or are they rabid atheists with some ulterior motive as well? Wrong again. I know you aren’t going to like this, but the use of inclusive language is to acknowledge the equality of mankind. It is only fair to acknowledge that an author, historian, scholar, theologian, or anyone else for that matter, can be of either sex. As my example demonstrated, to use the word he with the word theologian is prejudice, you are assuming that all authors are male. This can also be turned around the other way if I were to say, the nurse was late for her appointment. This is also a prejudiced statement because not all nurses are female. These are situations where we have to use the word their as it is always used when you do not know the sex of the person being discussed. As the Cambridge informed us used to refer to one person in order to avoid saying 'his or her': One of the students has left their book behind.Now, be a man and admit you made a mistake, you would gain a bit of respect instead of just making a fool of yourself. Yes, sexual equality and fairness is a sign of the times. Society has evolved, people are entitled to be treated equally whether you like it or not. Oh we are able to communicate, but the problem is, as I said earlier, your communications skills need some work. This constant invention of claims that you say other people have made is quite alarming. On Pluto maybe!Brian.

1) "Who is we? I haven't been flooded with propaganda."By "we" the US population was being referred to.
A) The Inclusive Language Debate, D. A. Carson.
B)
Distort Scripture, The Challenge of Bible Translation and Inclusive Language, Mark L. Strauss.
C) The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy, Vern S. Paythess,
Wayne A. Grudem.By the pronoun, "we" I meant the people without their heads buried in the sand.2) "Can you cite the particular law that establishes this?"
["This," meaning a legal language.]The United States Constitution, written in English, and entirely free of "inclusive language" -- which was only begun in the 1980s.hoaryhead

We are way off topic for this thread. I have responded in a new thread in the coffee house Message 2Let's allow this thread to resume its normal on-topic discussions.

actually I don't think a post on this thread has been on topic. the early ones may have come close, but I don't see a single post stating whether {YEC} or {inerrant bible} belief came first.to someone converting from evo.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Yes, it changed over the years. However, the earliest translation only included the 5 books of Moses. It was added on over the centuries.The original translation was supposed to be only the Torah.