Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The author of Leviticus did not say the bat was a bird. He classified it under the term "flyer."
Then you missed my previous post, as well as Daniel's.
You don't read or understand Biblical Hebrew, so you don't know what the author of Leviticus wrote - only what your awful Concordant translation tells you he wrote. There is a reason why other translations do not adobt the general term "flyer".
Try to read all the posts before replying - that way I don't have to repeat myself and others.
Thanking you in advance.
I'm sorry, but when I read what you wrote "much like it doesn't understand much of anything else" I just had to laugh. No, I'm not laughing at you. It is just that, well, I was shocked by such a statement. Have you read Proverbs? Can you prove that everything in Proverbs is patently false? You see, when someone is involved in a debate, they can't just make a statement and think the other one involved in the debate is just going to roll over and play dead. They will, if they are good in debate techniques ask you for proof of such a statement. Thus I am asking you for proof.
You wrote this about me since I am the author of the O.P:
The O.P. pretends that some version of some bible is some inerrable being or vessel for some "spirit".
However, it should be pointed out at the outset that I was not pretending any such thing. I do not pretend the Concordant Literal Bible is an inerrable being nor do I believe it is a vessel for some "spirit."
I don't know why you would write that. I was merely defending my position based upon what someone wrote to me concerning what they thought my Bible said. Such ideas as you propose just do not inhere in what I wrote to defend my position.
Now then you finally get to the crux of the OP when you write: Science knows that grasshoppers use their hind legs to both walk and hop, because it is evident.
While it is true that some scientists say that grasshoppers USE their hind legs to walk, their primary use is for hopping and launching for flight. But this does not contradict Moses. Moses did not say the grasshopper has only four legs or that the locust or cricket has only four legs.
If I bend over and walk on my hands and feet, would you say I am walking on four legs? I would surely hope not. Just because a locust may USE its hind legs to walk, does not mean it is walking ON its hind legs. If you look at a locust you will kindly note that it rests its body on four legs. If its rear legs are extended backwards it is not putting any pressure downward on those two rear legs but it is on its four front legs.
No, but the apostle Paul did say the law is spiritual in Romans 7:14. But people, even Christians, think that something spoken metaphorically means it is spoken spiritually. This is not the case. The word "spiritual" is an adjectival form of the noun "spirit" and thus informs us of that which pertains to spirit. Spirit is invisible intangible power. So the law has a certain invisible power behind it. It does not mean that it has some hidden esoteric meaning behind it.
While you are correct that some versions of the Bible have "unicorn" in them, there are some better ones out there such as the Concordant Literal in which this word is absent.
If "those that don't read it" think it is a lie, how could they possibly know it is a lie if they never read it? They would just be going by someone's word that it is all a lie. That is no way for anyone to live their life. I would think they would want to investigate the matter rather than just relying on second hand information which quite possibly could be incorrect.
I don't feel desperation in any way which would cause me to excuse it. I like to see exactly what it states and try to understand it.
I'm sure animals are mentioned in the Quran too. How does this prove or disprove the O.P?
Thanks for your thoughts.
Peace.
Eusebius,
Sorry about the Strawman, but why exactly must your bible (or your interpretation) be correct about animals?
and I'm sure Proverbs is quite good in some parts, but I read the Bhagavad Gita and it was quite good as well, as was Edgar Allan Poe and Shakespeare and Socrates and Plato and Siddhartha and much of the Veda priests. This doesn't mean they are correct about animals, they didn't even know about bacteria, they thought it was God's wrath... its just bacteria.
Your O.P. was about ancient people's understanding bats aren't birds, I agree they probably understood that.
Then you say that grasshopers walk "on all fours" when they actually walk on "all six and two are for jumping"... I think Leviticus means more that they aren't upright like humans and birds.
11:20 says you may NOT eat any insects that "walk on all fours" except for one with joints to jump... obviously it doesn't mean they have four legs, it means they walk "not upright"... that's my view of it
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 07-14-2012 at 07:21 PM..
Originally Posted by Eusebius The author of Leviticus did not say the bat was a bird. He classified it under the term "flyer."
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
Then you missed my previous post, as well as Daniel's.
You don't read or understand Biblical Hebrew, so you don't know what the author of Leviticus wrote - only what your awful Concordant translation tells you he wrote. There is a reason why other translations do not adobt the general term "flyer".
Try to read all the posts before replying - that way I don't have to repeat myself and others.
Thanking you in advance.
Dear whoppers,
I answered your previous post, so, how did I miss it?
Here it is and my answer to it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers Well - don't blame the biblical authors for seeing the bat as a bird.
Blame the modern apologists who insist that the biblical authors were all scientists by trade, among other things. You know - performing experiments, classifying animals, measuring the earths' age, etc... what a picture!
The author of Leviticus did not say the bat was a bird. He classified it under the term "flyer."
Quote:
Eusebius' reply:
You made a statement that modern apologists insist the biblical authors were all scientists by trade.
Do modern apologist insist the biblical authors were all scientists by trade, that Moses measured the earth's age, or Christ did? or Paul did? or Peter or John or James? or any of the prophets? Can you please back up that statement and also explain how it proves or disproves the O.P.?
Thanking you in advance.
By the way, can you do me the honor of answering the blatantly false charges against modern apologists? I asked for proof from you.
As you know, I have Daniel on ignore so (thankfully) I cannot nor do I want to read his posts which are usually filled with acidic comments towards me.
If other translations translate the Hebrew word as "fowl" or "bird" then they are incorrect in this verse. A bat is neither a bird nor is it a fowl but it is a flyer of the mamal genus. Now then, if the Concordant Literal translated the Hebrew word as either "bird" or "fowl" you would be denigrating it for that as well. In other words, when one needs to be right no matter what, it doesn't matter how right a version is. It will be wrong just so you can be right.
This is not about me and my ability to read Hebrew. It is about whether the charge against my Bible I use is that a bat is a bird, if my Bible says pi = 3 and the charge that my bible says the locust has four legs.
Now can you please bring forth proof that modern apologists claim that the authors of the bible were all scientists as you claimed they said as I formerly requesated?
Sorry about the Strawman, why exactly must your bible (or your interpretation) be correct about animals?
and I'm sure Proverbs is quite good in some parts, but I read the Bhagavad Gita and it was quite good as well, as was Edgar Allan Poe and Shakespeare and Socrates and Plato and Siddhartha and much of the Veda priests. This doesn't mean they are correct about animals, they didn't even know about bacteria, they thought it was God's wrath... its just bacteria.
Hi LT, thanks for the question.
I too read the Bhagavad Gita, have read Siddhartha, have read Plato and Shakespeare and E.A. Poe etc. They are all fascinating reads.
As to your question, someone private texted me that my Bible said pi = 3, that the bat is a bird and that the locust has only four legs. It's not that I have a hard on to prove the Bible is inerrant. I believe there are problems with the ancient texts from which we get our modern versions. But those problems are not insurmountable and surely do not prove we should throw the baby out with the bath water if you catch my drift (sorry for the mixing of metaphors). It is just that, well, when someone tells me my Bible says such and such I just like to see if they are correct and exhibit my findings. It is just something I like to do. Some people love a good challenge and I'd say I just love to be challenged in this regard. Do I say "just" too often?
Actually, a flying squirrel can defy gravity as it is speedily flying through the air and it goes into an uphill flight to land in a tree.
No, that is not flying, the squirrel is just using the energy generated from leaping from a higher place than where he lands...Now if he could land on a place higher than what he leaped from, that would be flying.
Contrary to what its name suggests, the flying squirrel cannot fly. Instead, it glides with two furry membranes, called patagia, loosely stretched between its wrists and ankles. The membranes act as a parachute to support the squirrel while jumping from tree to tree. Flying squirrel Facts Sheet - Canadian Geographic Kids!
Try again. If you can't read two of the posts, then you're not fully participating in what has happened because of your little "ignore" stunt. "Acidic"? Your fake current politeness doesn't hide the "acidity" that constantly boils out from your posts until you're disciplined and have to temporarily act like a saint. Man up and learn to take criticism when it's rightfully due.
And yes it IS about whether you can read Hebrew or not. You are declaring on a forum that the majority of translations are incorrect in their choice of translational terms - yet you do not read or speak Biblical Hebrew. Your only authority for such an ignorant view is from an awful translation that is rightfully considered one of the worst English translations available. Then, you are basing your argument off of such ignorance.
You're arguing from a base of ignorance and faulty thinking. If you can't read Biblical Hebrew - do everyone a favor and spare them your antiquated opinion on what you think certain Hebrew words mean. You clearly - VERY clearly - are not qualified to make any linguistic statements of any substance whatsoever. That you then proceed to proclaim that virtually all other translations than the Concordant are wrong is more evidence of this - you once again do not have the tools to make such a claim.
Dear rifleman, I'm not trying to nit-pick but . . . could you please re-write this so it is a complete sentence: ""flying squirrels" do not, per se, unlike for example the mammalian bat family."
I'm not sure what you are trying to say since it is missing a needed verb.
Agreed, but it's a common shortcut when us higher end and really egotistical writers get it into our bones to show off! Yet again!
It means "Flying Squirrels do not.... "fly". As in, some implied capability within the definition and label is not correct. Per se.blah blah, etc. similar examples would be: Inerrant bibles aren't, or, An actual and historical Jesus wasn't. You get it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by big E
Does a ball fly out of the park if hit hard enough?
Nope. Technically it's just gone ballistic. Us scientists, you should know by now, are sticklers for the right words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by big E
Does the man fly through the air
with the greatest of ease
The daring young man on the flying trapeze?
"Tossed" would be a more accurate descriptor. He gains vectored ballistic momentum while on board his swing, and then converts that into a rapidly declining arc when he goes ballistic. not flying by any means of that definition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by big E
When the astronauts are out in space, do they fly at a speed of 17,000 mph? even if they are outside their ship working?
No, instead they are constrained by a combination and balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces. Outward vs. inwards (gravity working in it's usual mysterious way, soon to be explained by Dr. Peter Higgs and his fah-byoo-luss boson field effects...)
Here's some interesting non-religious science on the subject, FYI....
A flying squirrel is called a flying squirrel because, well, you know, it flies through the air. No one thinks it can lift off of the ground like a bird and fly to some place far away, unless of course that ground is at the edge of a cliff. But I was asked a question. And I answered it. If one does not like my answer they should ask the asker to define what they mean by "fly."
But thanks for your thoughts. I really do appreciate them.
Well again, I'm just trying to advance beyond errant colloquial language when being obtusely, offensively pedantically stealth-atheist. Surely you can understand my selfish sinful motives, essentially being to appear all hyper-educated and such! And thus unarguable. With.
Well, nighty night all. Gots to go sleep off all the wild Rxs I obviously took by mistake, and/or go see The Avengers while I'm still hallucinating so vividly!!
Well, nighty night all. Gots to go sleep off all the wild Rxs I obviously took by mistake, and/or go see The Avengers while I'm still hallucinating so vividly!!
I think that the Avengers in 3D on your Rxs sounds more fun.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
