Evolution? How?

Isn't evolution wonderful?

Was that in Chicago c.i.?

I wish.

I believe the English King James translation to be superior to any translation previous or since. The world's greatest known scholars were summoned from all corners of the globe to participate in the translation of the Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew languages into the English of the King James version of the Bible. That is not to say that the translation did not contain errors and a few actual known insertions were permitted to stand. These errors are trek able and can be penciled into the wide margins of some Bibles.

Old English is a type of dead language in the respect that it is frozen in time with a mass of "other" literature of the period. So we use the other literature of the time of the Bible's translation to understand the language of the Bible and not modern English. This way the Bible is not changed but always referenced by the majority of people in the exact same way. Learning the Bible is like learning a different form of English. An unchanging form of English that is highly precise and rich in both ornamentation and scientific terminology dating back to the Greeks and even further back, Hebrews etc...

Every "other" translation I have ever read has been ignorant of the real and powerful message that the old English reveals. Though some "verses" are translated more precise in other versions though more often the meaning is usually lost otherwise and obliterated.

I will give you an example...

The word translated "mystery" from the Greek word transliterated "Musterion" in the "King James" Bible is translated "secret" in the version that the Jehovah's Witnesses use. Why use "secret" when there is an actual English word (mystery) that is rooted from the Greek word (Musterion)? moos-tay'-ree-on

http://bible1.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=3466g

I know this because they (JW's) once came to my house and this is what happened. There was this girl named Lucy and she was a follower of their temple. The problem was that they were sending out people who didn't know the Bible. (Must have been a secret...)

So I asked Lucy if she had heard of the "Great Mystery". She replied, No... Then I took her to the scripture and showed her in the King James Bible that the word was translated "mystery". She took out her JW's Bible and it was in the same place translated "secret". The scripture did not even elude to the real message of the words either. In such a vital place too...

In other words you could not get the same gist. Because this "great mystery" of the NT was confused with the many "secrets" of the God of the OT. So it is simply discarded as not too great and rarely pursued as to what this mystery actually is.

Is a secret always a mystery and vise versa? Well Lucy seemed profoundly intrigued by this "Great Mystery" such that she had the wife come and visit me of the certain gentleman who ran this particular JW's temple. They were sending these people to my house in the first place. His wife became immediately infuriated when she noticed the "Great Mystery" and did not even know how to respond herself. So she responded with, Well, Lucy can sit and listen to this stuff but I am leaving! So they all left...

As if the truth was of little concern...

Do YOU know the "Great Mystery"? Do you know what it means to you and the world? What is this "Great Mystery" of the New Testament?

Well I will give you a hint, the Bible says it has been... "revealed".

Anyone want to guess? I wonder if even the more "religious" in this post know off the top of their heads without looking it up what exactly the "Great Mystery" is. Anyone?

The Great Mystery was one of the first things I understood as a Biblical student of the scriptures...

I might mention that when the book of Mormon was "translated" from the ancient texts too! But, no Biblical scholars were called from ANYWHERE on the globe. And I would like to know what ancient Gr., Ar., or Heb. text they "translated" this English phrase from, "And I will raise me up a prophet and call his name Joseph Smith."?

Or insane...

Or so angry and full of rage that you can't form a coherent argument and instead intermesh all sorts of arguments you'd like to use and forget about whether they fit together or not.

Or that English isn't your first language, of course, we can discount that one.

Don't be too quick with that judgment--i have it on good authority that he is a Yorkshireman, so English may not be his first language.

That's pitiful Wolf.

It means nothing.

You should try getting one language.

Do you go around calling people "insane" in the normal course of events.

That's a more likely symptom of rage than anything I've said and gratuitous presumptions usually signify a feminine outlook and a bloated ego.

It might be a good idea if you learned how to read and write. As things stand it looks like you are a bit backward at both.

I should try getting one language? What's that supposed to mean?



No, I was just pointing out the alternatives. I could post some more if you want a more rounded discussion of the alternatives as to why your posts are so incoherent.

Let's see... what else can I think up of?

Hm, actually, I can't think up of anything else. Oh well...



Oh, that's rich, coming from a person who can't quite be understood by a large number of people here on these forums, the majority of whom command a clear grasp of the language known as English.

Please tell us when you finally emerge out of the House of Mirrors.

Please remind me... What were we discussing before C.I put us off topic with this talk of Spendi being drunk?

Wolf wrote-



You're making an assumption there,as usual, and it is that your comprehension is as good as it gets and that other A2Kers are as bad which some of them are not. I don't expect to be understood by the average person.

This subject is very complex and one either intermeshes small parts of it or writes a book. There are many writers who are incomprehensible to people who read tabloid newspapers. Not getting an A+ grade in an English exam defines bare literacy. An A+ grade has no top limit. It is the only grade that hasn't.



I can remember easy enough.



Yeah-go on then but leave out why you think my posts incoherent because you thinking they are isn't proof that they are. It represents a subjective approach,which is hardly scientific, and assumes that you are the standard for decoding writings.

The reason some people find my posts incoherent is, I suspect, that not enough attention is paid to them in the rush to blurt out some response or other often consisting of puerile assertions and offering proof that no scientific approach is involved. Science is ruthless. If you want to go into bat for the scientific method you had better get ruthless because otherwise you just look daft trying to pose as a proponent of it.(As Setanta might say-you are constructing a patina of scientific respectabilty for your persona under which you sally forth dishing out contempt like a muck-spreader dishes out muck.)

spendi,

Regarding your use of the English language, what did you mean when you dismissed someone's argument as a "teleology."

There are three definitions of teleology.

1. The study of design or purpose in natural phenomena.
2. The use of ultimate purpose or design as a means of explaining phenomena.
3. Belief in or the perception of purposeful development toward an end, as in nature or history.

Obviously, Spendi doesn't mean Number 1.

So, it is either number 2 or definition number 3.

The problem, of course, is that the average laymen does not know the meaning of this word.

Given how he customarily uses the word, there is no good reason to assume that Spendi knows what it means, either.

Sorry about that. The context in which spendi used that word indicates he meant "tautology" instead of "teleology". (I was making a petty remark about spendi's English.)

That's hilarious, Wandel. I was actually waiting for Spendi to respond with more of his incoherent drivel, at which time i was going to point out that he always uses teleology when what he really wants tautology. Not that i think it will matter to what Spendi posts.

Well, teleology best describes Intelligent Design.

Tautology best describes some of Spendi's posts, or at least, one of the posts I read from him. I'm sure he's done more than the one, but I can't remember where I read them.

Boy Spendi must have a great time picking me off. I can't be bothered to search through the reams of PubMed for the stuff that proves some of his contentions wrong, and I have a bad memory that gets me confusing him with someone else.

There's another example.

Which do you think it is wande and which do you think I think it is.

You're like a bunch of lower-middle class matrons on a coach trip. The conversational principles in such a milieux could easily accomodate the last few posts.

I have never confused the two terms and to think that I have signals a woeful understanding of English usage although I do realise how deliciously satisfying it is to assert otherwise.



Even a cheap psychiatrist will tell you that finding wande's silly statement "hilarious" denotes a total absence of a proper sense of the comic, the counter-pole to the tragic, and a marked aggressive self-assertiveness which is completely feigned anyway. It constitutes a gauche,gushy flounce.

Setanta had said,and it was on another thread I think, something of the order that ID was invented to provide a patina of scientific respectablity (whatever that is) for creationism.

That was a teleogogy as I pointed out and showed why.It comes out of the same stable as thinking a woman fancies you because you are a handsome and witty cove rather than the real reason which is that you look like the best she can get now she has learned to accept reality and has lowered her expectations accordingly in order to get at a wallet. I expect I will be deemed misogynistic for that but it will be just another self-serving teleology designed to run away and hide from such an obvious truth.

The usual reason for deploying these solecisms is that authors of them have selected an explanation for causes which shows them in the most favourable light. A gang using them all together makes no difference.



Yes-that's true but in the case of first cause it is all there is and the alternative is not to bother with causes at all. The "patina of scientific respectability",(what ever that is), is just a naff one.

With all respect, spendi, and with motivation of concern for your wellbeing, I submit perhaps you've subconsciously revealed something very telling there. You might serve yourself well by seeking and engaging a more upscale psychiatrist than those of the sort with which currently you appear to be consultatively familiar.

So no one wants to go out on a limb and describe in their own words what the "Great Mystery" of the Bible is? How can you knock the idea of a Creator and the book/means with which this Creator chooses to communicate with creation, when you don't even know the fundamental concepts of this book?

I can give the long version of the meaning of "The Great Mystery" or I can give the entire meaning in one sentence...

If no one is able to even give me an approximation as to the meaning of this "Great Mystery" (musterion) of God, I will reveal what was revealed 2000 years ago, again...

Sometimes it is not the big "difference" we see in things which change but it is the subtle just noticeable difference that is the key to understanding change in "psychophysics" (an actual science)... At what stage do we perceive a noticeable change in something?