Summations Only

Yes I'm aware of that problem but don't see that the KJV is a worse case of it than other translations, and it's better than the others on plenty of other grounds.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It would be good to get back to the topic. I've been reading through the comments on the book the thread is about, it's clearly a compendium of the usual arguments, most of which are just alternative interpretations of the evidence that are no better than the Flood interpretations they claim to answer.I've also been looking at Lyell's Principles of Geology, where in Chapter 3 he sketches out the many silly as well as some reasonable theories about the fossils that preceded the current nonsensical theory. Hope to find some information about former interpretations of the strata but so far the strata are mentioned only in relation to their fossil contents.

This is not true. The Masoretic text did exist and can be traced at least to 200 BC, and is the text of today's Jewish Bibles. It is virtually identical to the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls. It wasn't used in the synagogues in Jesus' time because Greek had become the language spoken by most Jews since the conquest of Alexander the Great. The Septuagint was the Greek translation of the Hebrew texts made in order to accommodate this historical fact. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

As Moose said this thread should not have been in Links and Information, it should have been moved to a debate forum, and it's been badly off topic for some time too.I actually ordered the book that launched the thread and have been reading it over the last week, am into Chapter 4. It's too bad it didn't become the subject of the debate. It's got the usual annoying anti-creationist canards (such as that creationists are anti-science, instead of that the historical sciences are inevitably untrustworthy), but is basically a clear presentation of the Old Earth interpretations, including a few observations that do pose problems for the Flood view (though I anticipate finding solutions to them as soon as I can put time in on them). And although it's hard on my eyes I find the pictures and illustrations to be very helpful in providing more context than I usually find in presentations of the Grand Canyon.One thing it makes all too clear is the lack of consensus among creationists about different areas of the debate. Where are we to locate the phases of the Flood in the strata for instance? If early geologists attributed all the strata to the Flood, today's creationist geologists don't. This is no doubt due to recognizing the Great Unconformity at the base of the canyon, so that the Flood strata are considered to begin above that. I don't know any creationists who are willing to attribute the Supergroup strata to the Flood. Except me. (cue laughter) And I continue to see it that way.The book also imputes to a majority of leading creationists the view that the Mesozoic strata above the Grand Canyon in the Grand Staircase, were built during the receding phase of the Flood. Which makes no sense to me although they apparently have some explanation for it. The only reasonable idea it seems to me is to attribute ALL of the strata to the 150 days of the rising phase of the Flood, all those from the Supergroup up through the Cenozoic, which apparently climb much higher in some places than the Claron formation, which is the uppermost layer represented in the GC-GS area.It's a very stimulating book and I'm getting a lot out of it. But I'm so sick of the debate here I don't think I'll want to use any of it here. In fact I just went and registered at Evolution Fairytale hoping I might find creationists who are into the Flood enough to discuss what this book has to say. It doesn't look too promising though, I must say. Oh well. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.