Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8749 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-26-2017 2:59 PM
116 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Roshankumar1234
Post Volume:
Total: 809,069 Year: 13,675/21,208 Month: 3,157/3,605 Week: 499/933 Day: 37/51 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4Next
Author Topic:   Critique of AIG on the Grand Canyon
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 766
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 31 of 46 (787307)
07-09-2016 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Faith
07-09-2016 12:25 PM


Forget the English translations of late texts.
What about the differing dates of the pre 100 BCE Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Dead Sea Scrolls? Not to mention the later Massorah.

The King James translation was based on an eclectic composite (especially the New Testament).

The New Testament characters prefered the Septuagint or LXX.

The LXX can support a date pre-3000 BCE for the flood if you all 400 years in Egypt for the chronology.

EDIT these 3 (above mentioned )texts were over 1500 years older than the King James

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 07-09-2016 12:25 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 07-09-2016 7:21 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 28838
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 32 of 46 (787323)
07-09-2016 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Faith
07-09-2016 12:25 PM


Re: O.k.
Faith writes:

You prefer extrabiblical information and judge me by it, which is utterly irrelevant since I consider the Bible to be the standard for all historical judgments it can be applied to.

And that is exactly why you will continue to be absolutely totally and completely wrong about science and reality.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 07-09-2016 12:25 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 24846
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 33 of 46 (787325)
07-09-2016 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by LamarkNewAge
07-09-2016 1:09 PM


Re: Forget the English translations of late texts.
There is every reason to believe that the KJV is based on the oldest and best texts. I've studied the issues involved, and came to a conclusion different from yours. Is that OK with you?

abe: Here's a good source.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-09-2016 1:09 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-09-2016 8:12 PM Faith has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 766
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 34 of 46 (787327)
07-09-2016 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Faith
07-09-2016 7:21 PM


KJV text being pristine under what circumstances?
quote:

There is every reason to believe that the KJV is based on the oldest and best texts. I've studied the issues involved, and came to a conclusion different from yours. Is that OK with you?

The problem is that the quotations of New Testament authors match the LXX a lot more than they do the King James text of the Old Testament.

Something like 300 out of 350 New Testament quotations of the Old Testament better match the Septuagint. (something like that anyway)

You have a King James version that contradicts itself because it uses a Hebrew text of the Old Testament that the New Testament authors didn't use.

That is just a fact.

It seems ignorant for somebody to claim to be a Christian fundamentalist who values the most accurate translation possible, then to turn around and use the King James Old Testament.

Granted, all translations (except actual LXX English Bibles) use the flawed Hebrew text for the Old Testament. But newer translations have the advantage of up-to-date scholarship (however theological dishonesty creeps into many newer translations and weakens the advantage though)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 07-09-2016 7:21 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Faith, posted 07-09-2016 9:39 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24846
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 35 of 46 (787329)
07-09-2016 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by LamarkNewAge
07-09-2016 8:12 PM


Re: KJV text being pristine under what circumstances?
The problem is that the quotations of New Testament authors match the LXX a lot more than they do the King James text of the Old Testament.

But if the KJV is translated from texts that were copied from the original NT documents then whatever was in those NT documents got preserved in the KJV, unless there was good reason not to stick to the Septuagint, so what's the problem? In any case how could you have some other source of quotations of New Testament authors than through the texts that were copied from them? The originals are long gone and all that exist are copies.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-09-2016 8:12 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-09-2016 10:04 PM Faith has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 766
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


(1)
Message 36 of 46 (787330)
07-09-2016 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Faith
07-09-2016 9:39 PM


Re: KJV text being pristine under what circumstances?
I think I understood your question but I'm not sure.

The King James has New Testament humans quoting from the Old Testament about 350 (?) times. So one can argue that our New Testament translations are good because they do have accurate quotes (most of the time anyway) of the New Testament text (which has Old Testament quotations embedded in them).

Its not the embedded (O.T. quotations) text of the New Testament books that are the problem.

The problem comes when the translations then use a non-Septuagint based Old Testament translation (which is completely isolated from the New Testament naturally).

You then have completely different versions of the same text in an English "Holy Bible" when the New Testament has accurate translations of the Septuagint based Old Testament quotations, but then the Old Testament itself is not based on the Septuagint as its source for translation. The Old Testament verse will say one thing in the actual Old Testament, but then there will be a Septuagint-like text of that same Old Testament verse (quoted) in the New Testament. The quotes will be completely segregated from the Old Testament (one verse will be in the Old Testament while the quote will be in the New testament)

(this is actually quite a ways more complicated than I have simply put it as even the Septuagint rarely 100% matches the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament. There seems to have been a textual "family" - of Old Testament books - that the New Testament individuals used that we no longer have. This "family" - if one even allows it to be considered a single larger recension as opposed to many different variations still - is considerably closer to the Septuagint than the Masorah (which the KJV Old Testament is based on) )

(scholars do say that the majority of the Old Testament text in the masorah is more likely to be the original work and the Septuagint represents a more edited Bible , with exceptions for sure. That is why translators rely heavily on the Masorah in every translation EXCEPT dedicated English translations of the Septuagint (as one would naturally expect) )

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Faith, posted 07-09-2016 9:39 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by NoNukes, posted 07-10-2016 12:32 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 07-10-2016 1:54 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9547
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 37 of 46 (787331)
07-10-2016 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by LamarkNewAge
07-09-2016 10:04 PM


Re: KJV text being pristine under what circumstances?
The Old Testament verse will say one thing in the actual Old Testament, but then there will be a Septuagint-like text of that same Old Testament verse (quoted) in the New Testament. The quotes will be completely segregated from the Old Testament (one verse will be in the Old Testament while the quote will be in the New testament)

I find what you say here to be completely fascinating. Would you mind providing one or two examples of NT quotations of text that don't match their old testament versions very well? My goal would be to take a few such examples and compare them to the Septuagint.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-09-2016 10:04 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24846
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 38 of 46 (787333)
07-10-2016 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by LamarkNewAge
07-09-2016 10:04 PM


Re: KJV text being pristine under what circumstances?
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-09-2016 10:04 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24846
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 39 of 46 (787337)
07-10-2016 3:18 AM


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.


    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 766
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


(1)
Message 40 of 46 (787340)
07-10-2016 11:05 AM


"but in vain do they worship me, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men."
Example 1 of the New Testament authors using (a text similar to the Greek text of) the (c. 200 BCE) Septuagint as opposed to the much later Masorah (which didn't actually exist during the time of the New testament authors).

Examples taken from http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/NTChart.htm and I found it using this google link
https://www.google.com/...ew+testament+quotations+septuagint

quote:

Matthew 15:8,9
This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Mark 7:6,7 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with [their] lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.


Septuagint ( LXX )

quote:

Septuagint

Isaiah 29:13
And the Lord has said, This people draw nigh to me with their mouth, and they honour me with their lips, but their heart is far from me: but in vain do they worship me, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men.


quote:

Masorah

Isaiah 29:13
Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:


................................................
....................................................
example 2
.....................................................

quote:

Matthew 13:14,15
By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Mark 4:12
That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and [their] sins should be forgiven them.

Luke 8:10
And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

John 12:40
He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with [their] eyes, nor understand with [their] heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

Acts 28:26,27
Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive: For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.


LXX text

quote:

Septuagint

Isaiah 6:9,10 Ye shall hear indeed, but ye shall not understand; and ye shall see indeed, but ye shall not perceive. For the heart of this people has become gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.


Then the Masorah

quote:

Isaiah 6:9,10 And he said, God, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 07-10-2016 11:48 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24846
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


(1)
Message 41 of 46 (787350)
07-10-2016 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by LamarkNewAge
07-10-2016 11:05 AM


Re: "but in vain do they worship me, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men."
Example 1 of the New Testament authors using (a text similar to the Greek text of) the (c. 200 BCE) Septuagint as opposed to the much later Masorah (which didn't actually exist during the time of the New testament authors).

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-10-2016 11:05 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-11-2016 11:48 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3784
Joined: 09-26-2002
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 42 of 46 (787363)
07-11-2016 7:06 AM


Going into Final Comment mode in 24 hours
Shouldn't be in "Links and Information", and badly off-topic.

Adminnemooseus

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Changed summation mode activation time from end of day to 24 hours.


Or something like that.

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 766
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 43 of 46 (787368)
07-11-2016 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Faith
07-10-2016 11:48 PM


Re: "but in vain do they worship me, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men."
Faith wrote this:
quote:

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.

The Dead Sea Scrolls had a great deal of variety.

I put relevant terms into a google search to see what came up.

The terms were "dead sea scrolls match lxx type masorah"

https://www.google.com/...sea+scrolls+match+lxx+type+masorah

Here was the first hit

quote:

LXX is closer to the Dead Sea Scrolls than is the Masorectic Txt - Doxa

www.doxa.ws/Messiah/Lxx_mt.html

Moreover, there appear to have been three local text types in pre-Christian times: a ... John Allegro in The Dead Sea Scrolls documents that when the LXX and Mt .... "All other Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible are Massoretic (see MASSORAH), ...


That's my closing comment/response.

A suggestion to follow the evidence, wherever it leads.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 07-10-2016 11:48 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 766
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 44 of 46 (787371)
07-11-2016 4:29 PM


One more "closing comment"
It needs to be pointed out that Jesus could very well have spoken in the Semitic (infact most scholars say that) and quoted from what he knew (by memory or he could have had the text in some physical form) of the Semitic Old Testament texts that the Septuagint translators used a few centuries earlier to make their text. He might not have used the Septuagint at all really. It could have been the same Semitic Old Testament that the Septuagint translators used.

The Dead Sea Scrolls (seem to) show us that the most widely used Old Testament(Semitic or Greek) texts seem to have been the ones Jesus used (ones that matched the Septuagint/LXX better than the later Massorah).

The Dead Sea Scrolls match up with the New Testament quotations of Jesus, James, Paul, etc. and do not match up with the Old Testament Hebrew text (and especially the English translation) the 17th century King James translators used.


    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24846
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


(1)
Message 45 of 46 (787575)
07-18-2016 6:37 AM


The book about the Grand Canyon could have been a good topic
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.


    
Prev12
3
4Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017