Is this a good argument against Creationists?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-06-2015, 03:40 AM
RE: Is this a good argument against Creationists?
(17-06-2015 08:09 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(14-06-2015 03:01 AM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  Creationists say that the Bible is completely infallible and 100% true. Genesis is their most holy part of the book.

umm...first off.

They would agree with this statement.

Genesis 6:3

Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years."

So god said no one can live past 120, 120 is the maximum life span for any human.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment

So, what would they have to say about that? 120 = the end...+2=still alive does not compute. There are currently a dozen or so people who are pushing 110+

I fail to see the critique.

You fail to see the difference between your ass and a hole in the ground.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2015, 05:46 PM
RE: Is this a good argument against Creationists?
(18-06-2015 03:40 AM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  You fail to see the difference between your ass and a hole in the ground.

Ahhh, yes, the old I can't make a valid argument against theistic beliefs, so I resort to childish insults approach.

I shouldn't expect anything different.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2015, 11:12 PM
RE: Is this a good argument against Creationists?
(14-06-2015 07:40 AM)WillHopp Wrote:  Just look within Genesis itself to find the contrary to this with Noah and Adam living like 900 years.
This proclamation came after the flood. This was part of the fallout from the flood which is why the pre-flood dudes lived for several hundred years but the post-flood dudes didn't.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2015, 11:16 PM
RE: Is this a good argument against Creationists?
(17-06-2015 08:09 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(14-06-2015 03:01 AM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  Creationists say that the Bible is completely infallible and 100% true. Genesis is their most holy part of the book.

umm...first off.

They would agree with this statement.

Genesis 6:3

Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years."

So god said no one can live past 120, 120 is the maximum life span for any human.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment

So, what would they have to say about that? 120 = the end...+2=still alive does not compute. There are currently a dozen or so people who are pushing 110+

I fail to see the critique.

THAT is why you fail.

"I am an Australian and I have no manners!"
Lt Col Oswald Watt.
Royal Australian Flying Corps.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2015, 12:29 AM
RE: Is this a good argument against Creationists?
(16-06-2015 03:06 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  And Jehovah said, My Spirit shall not always plead with Man; for he indeed is flesh; but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years

On a side note, if you're going to analyze scripture, don't use the NIV or any other dynamic translation. Use Darby's or the NASB or some other literal translation.

OH ho ho hooo! I think the millions of Christians who would cast you into the lake of fire if they had the chance for you not worshiping the King James Bible would Disagree with you!

Lemme make the Ken Ham Argument against you lol.

Who's word are we going to trust? Darby's word? Or

GOD'S WORD Translation
"Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not struggle with humans forever, because they are flesh and blood. They will live 120 years."

Remember, you might use those translations if you would like, and I would debate or discuss them with you just the same as the others, but claiming yours is superior or better in some way is no different than anyone else claiming that their translation is the better one.


Keeping religion immune from criticism is both unwarranted and dangerous. - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2015, 07:02 AM
RE: Is this a good argument against Creationists?
(19-06-2015 12:29 AM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  Remember, you might use those translations if you would like, and I would debate or discuss them with you just the same as the others, but claiming yours is superior or better in some way is no different than anyone else claiming that their translation is the better one.

Facts are facts. There is nothing subjective about this. It is completely objective. Darby's is literally translated from the Hebrew and Greek.

Like I said, it's not a matter of opinion, literal translations are more accurate to the Greek and Hebrew than dynamic translation.

[Image: RHcn6pd.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2015, 09:21 AM
RE: Is this a good argument against Creationists?
(19-06-2015 07:02 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  It is completely objective. Darby's is literally translated from the Hebrew and Greek.
I like you, KC, so I'm going to ask about the literal translation part. As someone who has family whose first language is not English, the idea of literal translations doesn't always work. It's connotations and idioms and so on.

Example based on actual events: if I have a friend from France who is here in North America. He sees a really hot girl and turns to me and says, "Ooh, a du chien!" Now, my Canadian ears hear that this girl has a dog. But I know since he's from France, that same phrase means this girl is a hottie. Same basic language (Metro vs Acadien).

Now my Cajun friend, Amber, and I are talking. She's Cajun, so her French comes from the Maritimes before le Grand Derangement. We walk by a stream and I complain about les bibittes. She laughs hysterically because I was talking about bugs and forgot to her I complained about men's balls.

So... We all said something in French but the literal translations didn't help us one bit.

Couple that with Hebrew being an abjad and it's even harder.

Boy, entropy ain't what it used to be.
Hermeneutics and apologetics are like autotune for the theist mind. Sure, you can change it to match something, but it stills sound like shit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Clockwork's post
19-06-2015, 09:47 AM (This post was last modified: 19-06-2015 10:01 AM by kingschosen.)
RE: Is this a good argument against Creationists?
(19-06-2015 09:21 AM)Clockwork Wrote:  
(19-06-2015 07:02 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  It is completely objective. Darby's is literally translated from the Hebrew and Greek.
I like you, KC, so I'm going to ask about the literal translation part. As someone who has family whose first language is not English, the idea of literal translations doesn't always work. It's connotations and idioms and so on.

Example based on actual events: if I have a friend from France who is here in North America. He sees a really hot girl and turns to me and says, "Ooh, a du chien!" Now, my Canadian ears hear that this girl has a dog. But I know since he's from France, that same phrase means this girl is a hottie. Same basic language (Metro vs Acadien).

Now my Cajun friend, Amber, and I are talking. She's Cajun, so her French comes from the Maritimes before le Grand Derangement. We walk by a stream and I complain about les bibittes. She laughs hysterically because I was talking about bugs and forgot to her I complained about men's balls.

So... We all said something in French but the literal translations didn't help us one bit.

Couple that with Hebrew being an abjad and it's even harder.

Yeah, literal translations aren't perfect, but they are a whole lot better than dynamic translations. Different variables are considered when translating... history, nuances in the language, context, etc.

Take for instance John 3:16:

In John 3:16, the phrase "whosoever will" is not in the original language. The Greek literally reads "the believing ones". In essence, even John 3:16 limits the atonement and the purpose of the coming of Christ to only "the believing ones". These believing one, elect, are found scattered all throughout the world in every nation, tribe, and tongue.

It literally reads, "in order that all the believing ones in him" the "believing ones" is a participle that is being used as a noun to refer to a specific group of people.

Also, ‎"all" does not mean "whosoever". Furthermore in the sentence structure, "pas" is an adjective that describes the participle "believing ones" and thus describes "all" in that specific group, ie, the believing ones, not every individual that ever lived. The context of that verse is that Jesus is teaching how the "believing ones" are saved... He's not talking about everyone else.

ex:
If I get in my car with my family and I say, "Everyone here?" I'm not talking about everyone in the world... I'm talking about those that I'm specifically addressing... a certain group. Literal translations do a good job of showing the true meanings of the words as opposed to dynamic translations trying to give you a general idea.

So, anyway... when you break down what was being said and the context of what was being said, John 3:16 takes on an entirely different meaning than what is commonly portrayed in dynamic translations.

[Image: RHcn6pd.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: