Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 180 (8014 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-19-2014 7:57 AM
156 online now:
AZPaul3, JonF, Percy (Admin), RAZD, rstrats (5 members, 151 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Ed67
Post Volume:
Total: 723,695 Year: 9,536/28,606 Month: 1,226/2,455 Week: 536/428 Day: 8/117 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
6789
10
11Next
Author Topic:   Which came first: the young earth, or the inerrant scripture?
hoaryhead 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 136 of 161 (238294)
08-29-2005 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by nwr
08-29-2005 11:25 AM


Re: Mistaken Identity
nwr
Nuggin

I am a newcomer to computers and the Internet.
Please explain the formatting to me.
What does "nwr" mean in the left margin?
What does "Nuggin" mean at the bottom?

Thank you.

hoaryhead


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by nwr, posted 08-29-2005 11:25 AM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by nwr, posted 08-29-2005 1:19 PM hoaryhead has not yet responded
 Message 142 by RAZD, posted 08-29-2005 8:15 PM hoaryhead has not yet responded

  
hoaryhead 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 137 of 161 (238295)
08-29-2005 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Brian
08-29-2005 10:47 AM


Studying Grammar; Learning to Read
Hello, Brian:

1) "... the author (sg.) and their (pl.) opinion."
One man cannot be both singular and plural.
This is nonsense.

2) No degree as a grammarian. But I have read many Ph.Ds that did not use proper grammar. So then, a college degree does not indicate anything except willing submission to brainwashing of some sort.

My accomplishments, assisted by the Spirit of God, are to comprehend written messages that no one else that I have encountered, in 20 years of research, has been able to comprehend.
A short list is:
The 7 Spirits of God - Isa 11.1-4; Eph 4.4-6; Rev 5.12; Rev 7.12.
3 Ages of Man - 2Pet 3.6, 3.7-10, 3.13.
3 General Resurrections - 1cor 15.22-24.
3 Days in the Tomb - Mt 12.40.
6 Particular Resurrections - Enoch, Elijah, the Lamb of God, Old Heavens, First Resurrection, New Heavens.

3) "A theologian should always double check his sources."
Now, this proves that your previous statement was wrong.
"Theologian" and "his" are both singular.
Previously you wrote, "author and their opinions."
This is a terrible mistake.

You have really touched on one of the critical points of Bible translation and interpretation.
The singular should be considered separate from the plural.

Keep plugging.

hoaryhead


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Brian, posted 08-29-2005 10:47 AM Brian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Brian, posted 08-29-2005 1:47 PM hoaryhead has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5107
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 138 of 161 (238296)
08-29-2005 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by hoaryhead
08-29-2005 12:48 PM


Re: Mistaken Identity
The name at the top left is the author (the handle of the author) of that post.

The name at the bottome should be self explatory. The text says:

This message is a reply to
Message 136 by hoaryhead

There can also be additional lines of the form

Replies to this message
Message 137 by nwr

It's a way of identifying which message is being replied to, and what further replies exist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by hoaryhead, posted 08-29-2005 12:48 PM hoaryhead has not yet responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 1238 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 139 of 161 (238302)
08-29-2005 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by hoaryhead
08-29-2005 1:13 PM


Re: Studying Grammar; Learning to Read
1) "... the author (sg.) and their (pl.) opinion."
One man cannot be both singular and plural.
This is nonsense.

In this context the word 'their' can be used as a singular, as my example about the person getting into their car demonstrated.

My accomplishments, assisted by the Spirit of God, are to comprehend written messages that no one else that I have encountered, in 20 years of research, has been able to comprehend.

No argument here :laugh:

3) "A theologian should always double check his sources."
Now, this proves that your previous statement was wrong.
"Theologian" and "his" are both singular.

This just proves that you are no grammarian.

What if the theologian was a woman?

In today's academic world the use of exclusive language is frowned upon, this is a good example of why the word 'their' can be used in a singular context.

Now, my previous example (author and their) does not make any reference to the gender of the author, and wouldn't do unless the author was named.

An author could be a man or a woman, thus, using the word 'their' is perfectly acceptable.

Think of the word 'their' as being possessive and not referring to more than one person.

Perhaps you may wish to correct the many on-line dictionaries that support my usage?

Try the Cambridge

2 used to refer to one person in order to avoid saying 'his or her': One of the students has left their book behind. (emphasis mine)

Or this

2. (used after an indefinite singular antecedent in place of the definite masculine form his or the definite feminine form her): Someone left their book on the table. Did everyone bring their lunch? Cf. theirs.

My usage is perfectly correct and supported by any dictionary you wish to use.

Previously you wrote, "author and their opinions."
This is a terrible mistake.

No it is not a mistake at all, the gender of the author is not stated therefore it is acceptable to use "their".

What is a terrible mistake though, is you claiming that you are an accomplished grammarian of the English language.

So, remember that when the sex of a person is not referred to, the use of the word "their" in a singular context is perfectly acceptable.

Come on Hoary, this is primary school stuff.

Now, a short apology from you to me, and we can move on.

Brian.

edited out a half sentence

This message has been edited by Brian, 08-29-2005 01:50 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by hoaryhead, posted 08-29-2005 1:13 PM hoaryhead has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15446
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 140 of 161 (238371)
08-29-2005 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by hoaryhead
08-29-2005 9:31 AM


Re: RAZD Has Broad Shoulders
hoaryhead, msg 127 writes:

"The book of Daniel is found in all copies of the Septuagint. This oldest version of Hebrew Scriptures into Greek was made under Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, about 280 BC

So the oldest record of this text is from ~280 BCE, according to your source.

'And when he [Alexander the Great] went up into the temple he offered sacrifice to God according to the high priest's directions ... And when the book of Daniel was shown him, wherein Daniel declared one of the Greeks would destroy the empire of the Persians [Dan 8.4-8], he supposed that himself was the person intended ...

... and he returned to defeat Persia in October of 331 BC

That's 50 years (a lifetime) before the oldest record of the text ... and the text describing Alexander's viewing of it is dated ... when? Same as Daniel?

Do you not see a problem with the first record of the "prediction" being 50 years after the fact?

"First, Nero has self-acknowledged Christians arrested"

Now you are conflating {early christian} with the {writing of the bible} to obfuscate the issue that I raised. There were many sects of christians, and some with very different viewpoint, I believe. In any event the bible was not {written\assembled\codified} until much later.

The Council of Nicea is a good place to start, where the "Nicene Creed" was codified and agreed on ... by all that weren't banished and {ex-communicated\exiled} for having false beliefs.

FROM: The Council of Nicaea and the Bible(click)

... However it still makes no reference to decisions about books of the bible. ...

From these there appears almost no evidence that the council of Nicea made any pronouncements on which books go in the Bible, with the ambivalent exception of Jerome, or about the destruction of heretical writings, or reincarnation. However it did condemn Arius and his teachings, and the Emperor Constantine did take the usual Late Roman steps to ensure conformity afterwards.

Of course this is using the records of the Coucil of Nicea ... and without questions.

I just love people verbally stumbling over trying to minimize the fact that "almost no" means {there was some} evidence. There is also an unavoidable bias in believers having to believe that the bible they believe in is not made of cloth, and this makes their analysis questionable at best.

In any event, whatever evidence they do or don't have (from the perps?) or that they choose or don't to view, there are also writings that have been found by archaeologists that are NOT in the bible and that appear to be as valid accounts of one or the other apostles as any in the bible, like Thomas the Gnostic (and what happened to the Gnostics anyway eh?). Exclusion is evidence of censorship regardless of what is known to have been censored eh?

we also have
FROM: Oldest known Bible to go online (click)

A manuscript containing the oldest known Biblical New Testament in the world is set to enter the digital age and become accessible online.

The Bible, which is currently in the British Library in London, dates from the 4th Century.

and FROM: Oldest Bible Version(click)

... two versions existed in Latin. The Latin Vulgate is a translation into 'common' (vulgar, thereby vulgate) Latin completed by Jerome in 383 CE.

... a much older Latin version ... called The Old Latin Vulgate (or Itala), is known to have been in existence by AD 157. Church father Turtullian, in his own writings dated around 200 C.E, cited various Latin quotations directly from The Old Latin Vulgate.

... The Masoretic Text, written in Hebrew, became the standard authorized Hebrew text around 100 AD. It existed prior to the writings of the New Testament, confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls as early as 168 B.C.

The older "vulgate" is not in existence and in only known by reference, and so cannot be compared directly to a current bible. This leaves us with 383 CE as the earliest known fully recorded version.

The point being that the book was {written\assembled\codified} between ~200 and ~300 CE (if not later), some elements known to have existed then are omitted, so there could well be others -- others with as much validity as the elements that are included. We do not know what they say. We do know that there were sects that were persecuted by more "main-line" christian sects.

I note in passing that 168 BCE is a LOT later than 280 BCE ... and loooong after 331 BCE. But I also note to be fair, that the dead sea scrolls span a time from the ~third century BCE to ~70 CE, so just that one portion is 168 BCE.

All of this is just a long winded way of saying that all you have is a book {written\assembled\codified} after an event that you say it predicted.

And this doesn't even address this issue of a {non-bias\arms-length} prediction muddied by letting the person involved in on the hoped for results of the experiment:

... And when the book of Daniel was shown him ... he supposed that himself was the person intended ...

I also do not see a predicted year for the conquest (didn't you originally include that or did I just misread you?), so we are in effect, sitting around waiting until the first conqueror comes along that could be called "greek" and who happens to conquer "persia" and if it hadn't been Alexander, there would have been other candidates made to fit the "prediction" -- this is the pattern of your later "predictions" btw.

Results so far:

(1)
ACTION - Alexander conquers persia
PRE^POSTDICTION - follows 50 years (or more) later in the earliest known records.

(2)
Earliest date (new testament) contents of bible can be verified is 383 CE, without knowing what has been left out or purged as contradictory. This makes all historical references to {actions\occurrences\happening} from before that period just historical references and not predictions of any kind.

You have not shown {documented\dated\sealed} PREDICTION {followed by} EVENT {followed by} REVELATION OF PREDICTION.

You still have not shown how you derive dates from the bible:

Revelation was written by the apostle John, and is dated by the death of Antipas; AD 66 - Wars 4.3.4/5.

Or later (it just has to follow the event)? John would have to have been in his 60's at the time, not unreasonable, but why so late? Again, how do you get to 66 CE? My searching only finds that his rule ended in 39 CE, and there doesn't seem to be any agreement on when he died.

FROM: Herod Antipas (click)


Herod Antipas was exiled by the Roman Emperor Gaius Caesar Caligula to Lyons, in Gaul in 39 A.D. according to Josephus (Antiquities) who says, however, in the Jewish Wars (II, ix, 6) "So Herod died in Spain whither his wife had followed him".

I would expect an encyclopedia to have birth and death of {relevant person} when those dates are known.

AND.

You still have not shown how a 4894 year old tree can be explained in your timeline of the world and the universe.

It seems to me to be rather irrelevant to be discussing dates at all until this issue is resolved, seeing as it challenges the whole structure of your dating frames, but that would be me.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by hoaryhead, posted 08-29-2005 9:31 AM hoaryhead has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by hoaryhead, posted 08-29-2005 9:12 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15446
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 141 of 161 (238375)
08-29-2005 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by hoaryhead
08-29-2005 10:58 AM


Re: No Massive Earthquakes
and, adding to what AdminBrian said:

in msg 131 writes:

If you hit the 'reply' button then you will be taken to a screen where you can directly reply to that message. This is a lot easier than typing out the message number.

There are two buttons at the top of the message you are replying to that allow you to chose between {normal} and {peek mode} -- in peek mode you can see how quote boxes like the above are coded.

hoaryhead, msg 130 writes:

RAZD - #124

".. there were NO massive earthquakes and restructuring of the earth post flood: it was calm ..."

{{insert numerous and irrelevant recent or known historical earthquake events occurring at widely diverse times through history, followed by the usual unsubstantiated assertion:}}

The pictures are an awesome display of God's power.

Excuse me for not being more explicitly specific. My mistake. My intended meaning was that there was no period, immediately following a (supposed) worldwide flood, of world-wide massive earthquakes that restructured the whole earth in the last 65,000,000 years or more (that goes back to the {meteor\asteroid} impact at the end of the age of dinosaurs, which comes the closest, imho).

All these {images} of yours are just more evidence of tectonic movement of plates of the earth such as have been going on for as long as there has been a solid surface (~4 billion years).

This post was better RAZD.

So you concede:

  • That the Brokaw video (whatever it shows) is not scientific evidence of a flood, but just normal tectonic plate lifting and mountain forming,
  • That there is no evidence for a worldwide flood,
  • And that your dates are all completely wrong, and based on false speculations.

I say this because you have presented no evidence or argument to refute these points made in the post you replied to, nor do you demonstrate that you misunderstood those points (so you must have understood them if I did better at explaining them to you, right?).

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by hoaryhead, posted 08-29-2005 10:58 AM hoaryhead has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15446
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 142 of 161 (238381)
08-29-2005 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by hoaryhead
08-29-2005 12:48 PM


Re: Mistaken Identity
See:

and

Click on the images for larger versions easier to read.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by hoaryhead, posted 08-29-2005 12:48 PM hoaryhead has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15446
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 143 of 161 (238388)
08-29-2005 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Brian
08-28-2005 5:23 PM


Re: False Charges
brian writes:

In the context of the OP, I believe that being suffocated with the inerrancy approach to the Bible has to come before a believing in a young earth as nothing outside the Bible suggests this. I am not even convinced that the Bible suggests a young earth.

I agree, particularly about YEC, evidenced by OEC and gapEC and ... etc. ... just among fundamentalists.

In fact this is why Christianity will survive acknowledging that the evidence for an old earth is at least as compelling (if not more accessible to the average bear) than the evidence for the earth circling the sun.

YEC is dead, Christianity will live on.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Brian, posted 08-28-2005 5:23 PM Brian has not yet responded

  
hoaryhead 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 144 of 161 (238413)
08-29-2005 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by RAZD
08-29-2005 6:53 PM


Re: RAZD Has Broad Shoulders
Dear RAZD:

You are too uneducated to talk to.

Little children know more truth than you do.

Consider these extremely dumb remarks;
1) "oldest copy is 280 BC."
Quote: "oldest copy of Hebrew INTO GREEK."

2) Jewish history, quoted from Josephus -- not the Scriptures -- described Alexander & Daniel's prophecy; which was recorded, "first year of Belshazzar"; and dated - 556 BC; from Babylonian artifacts.

You are too uneducated to communicate with anyone, and so, with no bitter feelings, I will refuse to respond to you again.

hoaryhead


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by RAZD, posted 08-29-2005 6:53 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by AdminNosy, posted 08-29-2005 9:44 PM hoaryhead has responded
 Message 146 by RAZD, posted 08-29-2005 10:18 PM hoaryhead has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4741
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 145 of 161 (238424)
08-29-2005 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by hoaryhead
08-29-2005 9:12 PM


Manners
Little children know more truth than you do.

Tell you what: you keep this up and you won't be able to respond to any one for awhile.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by hoaryhead, posted 08-29-2005 9:12 PM hoaryhead has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by hoaryhead, posted 08-30-2005 7:54 AM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15446
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 146 of 161 (238440)
08-29-2005 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by hoaryhead
08-29-2005 9:12 PM


Re: RAZD Has Broad Shoulders
ROFLOL

the old declare victory and run from the field (at a gallop) gambit.

You are too uneducated to talk to.
Little children know more truth than you do.
Consider these extremely dumb remarks;
You are too uneducated to communicate with anyone

Pure unadulterated ad hominem attack on the person and not on the message.

Problem for you: the message defeats you if you have no answser to it.

1) "oldest copy is 280 BC."
Quote: "oldest copy of Hebrew INTO GREEK."

What I actually said was:

So the oldest record of this text is from ~280 BCE, according to your source.

So if there is another source out there and you did not provide it, this can hardly by my fault, eh? If you have other, valid information (even if you failed to provide it before) I will be glad to consider it. All I ask is for substantiation of your positions.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

The Septuagint ... to translate the Torah for inclusion in the Library of Alexandria.

Modern scholarship holds that the LXX was translated and composed over the course of the 3rd through 1st centuries BC(E), beginning with the Torah.

The oldest witnesses to the LXX include 2nd century BC fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and 957), and 1st century BC fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the Minor Prophets

Some scholars, comparing existing copies of the Septuagint, Masoretic text, the Samaritan text, and the Dead Sea scrolls, suggest that the Septuagint was not translated directly from what is today the Masoretic Text, but rather from an earlier Hebrew text that is now lost. However, other scholars suggest that the Septuagint itself changed for various reasons, including scribal errors, efforts at exegesis, and attempts to support theological positions, a charge that could equally be made against the Masoretic text ...

WHAT??? making changes??? For {political} reasons???

And this is, of course, still after Alexander did his conquering thing.

Any speculations come to mind there?

Of course I also said:

But I also note to be fair, that the dead sea scrolls span a time from the ~third century BCE to ~70 CE,

And these are notably ancient hebrew (and LOTS of stuff not in the bible ... although I believe there a couple of ones in other languages).

2) Jewish history, quoted from Josephus -- not the Scriptures -- described Alexander & Daniel's prophecy; which was recorded, "first year of Belshazzar"; and dated - 556 BC; from Babylonian artifacts.

Dated from artifacts? Sorry I am going to need much more of a reference than this. And you still have yet to provide that handy dandy conversion metric to get from {mythical\historical} dates to a method that is only 1000 years old (and erroneous). See if you can substantiate this one point, seeing as you have been unable to substantiate any other.

and so, with no bitter feelings, I will refuse to respond to you again.

It doesn't bother me that you acknowledge defeat, even if you have to pretend to yourself that you are leaving a winner (the evidence says otherwise).

Thank you for conceding the points on himalayan shorelines, tectonic movement, lack of evidence for worldwide events of flood and restructuring, post-dictions of events, the actual validity of the many dating methods including 14C, and that the fossil evidence supports common descent and evolution (I think that about covers the list of your points I have corrected with evidence and which you have not attempted to refute).

...

AND.

You still have not shown how a 4894 year old tree can be explained in your timeline of the world and the universe.

Enjoy your gallop

Be sure to cover your eyes and ears and yell LA-LA-LA-LA-LA as you go.

Watch out for the trees. Especially Pinus longaeva ... they have long roots.

bu-bye.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by hoaryhead, posted 08-29-2005 9:12 PM hoaryhead has not yet responded

  
hoaryhead 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 147 of 161 (238525)
08-30-2005 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by AdminNosy
08-29-2005 9:44 PM


Re: Manners
Administrator:
Your forum is a wonderful service to the public.
Some good is being accomplished.
However, you have too many troublemakers who do not discuss the topics but -- against your rules -- promote their own creed
(such as Atheism with RAZD) -- by constantly misquoting posts of others and then argue about the "straw man" of their own making.
In his replies to me, RAZD has misquoted me every single time.
I thought that I stated the case very moderately and politely.
I never misquoted RAZD's posts.
Respectfully,
hoaryhead
This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by AdminNosy, posted 08-29-2005 9:44 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Brian, posted 08-30-2005 8:42 AM hoaryhead has responded
 Message 149 by AdminJar, posted 08-30-2005 11:01 AM hoaryhead has responded
 Message 156 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2005 11:52 PM hoaryhead has not yet responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 1238 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 148 of 161 (238540)
08-30-2005 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by hoaryhead
08-30-2005 7:54 AM


Re: Manners
There are other things wrong with the site.

There are too many people who appear to have enough time to post personal remarks but no time to acknowledge their mistakes.

We also have people here who think they know what they are talking about when they clearly don't.

Brian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by hoaryhead, posted 08-30-2005 7:54 AM hoaryhead has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by hoaryhead, posted 08-30-2005 3:25 PM Brian has responded

    
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 149 of 161 (238566)
08-30-2005 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by hoaryhead
08-30-2005 7:54 AM


Re: Manners
I went back and reread the exchange between you and RazD and it seems to me that he did not misquote you. In fact he was very careful to provide exact quotes from both your messages and his responses.

Your accusation appears unfounded. If you can point out specific incidents where he misquoted you I will investigate further. If not, then I believe you owe RazD an apology.


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
Message 1
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by hoaryhead, posted 08-30-2005 7:54 AM hoaryhead has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by hoaryhead, posted 08-30-2005 3:44 PM AdminJar has responded

  
hoaryhead 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 150 of 161 (238633)
08-30-2005 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Brian
08-30-2005 8:42 AM


Which Language Is Legal?
To the Forum:

We are presently flooded with propaganda for "unisex language" in translating the Bible; or, as Brian has labeled it, "inclusive language."

Although these people hate the fact, English is still the legal language in the United States of America.

So then, the plural word "their" in the English language; is insisted to be singular by Brian in his "unisex language."

The obvious goal of "unisex language"; determined by an honest appraisal of the writings supporting it; is to deny "The Father and The Son"; and to deny "The Male Head and the Female Body."

These are Signs of the Times.

So then, Brian and I, speaking opposing languages, are unable to communicate with each other.

But, my language is legal.

hoaryhead


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Brian, posted 08-30-2005 8:42 AM Brian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by nwr, posted 08-30-2005 3:52 PM hoaryhead has responded
 Message 157 by Brian, posted 08-31-2005 5:23 AM hoaryhead has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
6789
10
11Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014