YEC Geologic Column - Created with apparent age?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ I regularly use a half dozen translations and I can gaurentee you that almost nothing I have to say about the gospel, or this point in particular, is uniquely dependent on a single ambiguous verse.

---

Do you mind listing those half dozen?From what I can tell, most translations are reworks of old translations and not translations from the original sources-- if such even exist. Basically, you've got writes and rewrites and rewrites of rewrites of the Vulgate, a translation into latin of a work compiled by Eusebius by order of Constantine circa the year of our lord 300.Hence, it makes a lot of sense that the translations line up pretty well among themselves.But the real problems are cross-translational (hehe don't I sound smart using big words and all) like the two different version of the order of creation in Genesis-- my personal fav.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
But the dead sea scrolls are an independent source for the last 2000 years at least. The rest only goes back another 1500 years so we can indepnednetly go back more than half way and show that the discrepencies are minor.

---

I've done some reading and found a few items of interest..... the Qumram manuscripts make clear that there was no uniform or official version of the Hebrew Scriptures........what once had been attributed to the free or poor translation techniques of those who produced the Greek Septuagint in many cases turned out to be accurate renderings of DIFFERENT HEBREW ORIGINALS....Both come from: http://www.crosscurrents.org/deadsea.htm

quote:

---

I use NIV, KJV, NKJV, amplified, RSV and Hebrew NT./

---

I seriously doubt the NIV uses the dead sea scrolls. One, because they don't advetise the fact. And two, because it was published in 1978 originally. That material still hasn't been fully translated, if I am not mistaken.Even the earliest source texts show internal evidence of having been greatly modified, edited, spliced... and what-not.Why a Hebrew New Testament? The NT wasn't written in Hebrew so why not, if you are going to read a translation, read English?

quote:

---

The two different creaiton 'orders' are not a problem. The first account is a time ordered account, the second one is a logical order filling in various points from the first.

---

It isn't just the order. Gen. 1:27 has god creating people "male and female created he them." ie. at the same time. Yet Gen. 2:20 has Adam without a help meet and eventually Gen. 2:21-25 Adam gets a cuddle-bunny but loses a rib.Take care.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]John - slip of the tongue - I meant Greek NT.aha...

quote:

---

Why does "male and female created he them" have to mean at exactly the same time? You have just demonstrated that you are trying to find something that is not there John! That verse clearly means he created humans in two varieties regardless of the timing.

---

OKThe problem is that both versions read chronologically. For ex. Gen 2:18 God decides to make a help meet for Adam. Gen 2:19. God does exactly that. This is chronological order. The whole thing reads just like it. Gen 2:15. God put man in the garden. Gen 2:16 God told Adam about the garden. The logical order and the chronological. Gen 2:5 It hadn't rained. Gen 2:6 God made it rain. Chronological.True the first is explicit about the seven days and the second only mentions one-- in the day that God made the Earth and the Heavens.Oh wait..... took him seven days in version 1 and only one day in version 2. How could that be?Your interpretation just doesn't make sense.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com