So you accept that translation errors can occur? As for example the mother maria was translated as "virgin" instead of "young woman"?

There again, circle reasoning.

I write a book saying that god said that all in this book is true. So how can I prove it? Because the book says everything written in it is true! (Are you actually thinking of what you are wrtiting here?)

It is you who translate "globe" in place of "circle" for demonstrate that Isaias was knowing that the earth is a sphere and not a flat circle surface...

Isaiah describes how God will “maketh the earth empty, turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof” (Isaiah 24:1). No matter how the spherical earth is situated, however, part of it will always be “upside-down” relative to another. As you should also realize that there’s no true “upside-down” to the earth, it’s impossible to orient our planet in such a fashion and erroneous for Isaiah to use this absurd brand of diction. The concept of gravity and its effect among massive spherical bodies would have certainly been a foreign notion to a fallible man, such as Isaiah, when this piece was written over 2000 years ago. However, if the earth were as flat as a casual observation would indicate, and we toss all modern understanding of gravity to the side, it would be very conceivable for us to think that God could invert the earth so that its inhabitants would fall into some unknown void. As the situation stands in the natural world, Isaiah plainly made the flat earth mistake because he had no scientific knowledge beyond that of his peers.

On the other side of the coin, there’s a singular instance found in Isaiah that Christians often flaunt to promote an imagined harmony between the Bible and the true configuration of the earth. All the while, previously mentioned scriptures authored by Isaiah and his colleagues go completely ignored. Isaiah 40:22 says, “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth.” The word in question here is “circle.” A circle is a flat two-dimensional object, while a sphere, the approximate shape of the earth, is a three-dimensional object. The original Hebrew term used in this verse is chug, meaning circle. The same word is used twice in the book of Job to describe Heaven and the sea, two areas that we have no reason to believe anyone ever considered spherical. Furthermore, Isaiah does not use the actual Hebrew word for sphere, kadur, in 40:22 even though this utilization would have been much more appropriate if Isaiah intended to convey a spherical planet. In addition to this logical analysis of the verse, historians have long determined that a disc-shaped earth was a popular belief not only in the Middle East, but also in Greece before the time of Aristotle. We even have ancient maps of Babylon and Egypt containing illustrations of a circular sea surrounding circular land. When you combine this tangible evidence with other biblical comments regarding the shape of the earth, the likelihood of Isaiah 40:22 referring to a sphere is extremely remote.

We’ll begin with the verse that I believe Christians most commonly cite as a prophecy fulfillment. Isaiah 7:14 reads, “A virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” Even so, the claim of a prophecy fulfillment fails miserably due to both context and content of the message.

Let us consider the content of Isaiah 7:14 first. In this passage, the English word virgin was translated from the Hebrew word almah. However, the most accurate term in the Hebrew language for conveying a sexually untouched woman is betula. Almah is a general term for a young woman, not necessarily a virgin. If Isaiah wanted his audience to believe that a virgin was going to give birth to a child, he had a much better word at his disposal. One would do well to think that he should utilize this more specific term for such a unique event so that his contemporaries wouldn’t first have to know that he was invoking the much less anticipated, potentially vague meaning of almah. Furthermore, Proverbs 30:19 is extremely detrimental to the virgin translation of almah: “The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with [an almah].” Since the term doesn’t necessarily mean virgin, one must look for the obvious connotation of the original Hebrew word. With this responsibility in mind, virgins don’t have children. In all reasonable likelihood, almah refers to a young woman in this passage. Even so, Matthew 1:23 may have tried to relate the Immanuel birth to Jesus by altering the obvious content of the Old Testament prophecy. Ironically, even the Greek word parthenos used in Matthew doesn’t necessarily mean virgin, as repeatedly demonstrated in Homer’s Iliad.

A second and seemingly more overlooked clue in the passage’s content is the name of the child, Immanuel. To put it in the simplest of terms, Jesus’ name wasn’t Immanuel. The fact that Immanuel means “God with us” doesn’t make one iota of difference because hundreds of Hebrew names have references to God. For example, Abiah means “God is my father,” which, in my opinion, would have been slightly more impressive. The verse plainly declares that she “shall call his name Immanuel,” but the so-called Messiah’s mother called him Jesus.

 

Damn, Thoumsin. You impressed me again! Have you learned hebrew? I've had old greek in school

When it is in italic, text is not from me

As for language, i have learn ancien greek and latin ( forget it ), modern greek ( forget it but have help me to learn some basic russian )... french, dutch, english... along with assembler, pascal, basic, fortran, etc

As for religious text, it have always interest me... by education, i was catholic... by marriage, i have become orthodox... by using my brain in place of believe everything, i have become agnostic... i don't know if a god exist or not, what i know is that religion have nothing to make with any god... religion are a instrument for control people, at the origin or implicated in numerous war... if religion was removed from the surface of the earth, we will almost have paradise on earth...

CIVCORP POSTS:

Just to be clear, I was agreeing with Civcorp's statements, just adding a bit, that's all. 

lULA POSTS

tHOUMSIN,

I enjoyed reading your 392. 

First, please understand that it is not me who translated the word in Isaias as "globe". It was St.Jerome in the 400s and imho, he certainly had the qualifications to do it. 

Secondly, I've already said that some other more modern translations have "globe" as "circle". 

Since in 2Timothy 3:16-17 we read that "all Scripture, inspired of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, and to instruct in justice..." , I  quoted the Douay Rheims version and for good reason. It's the most accurate translation of St.Jerome's Latin Vulgate Bible (405 AD), which is a word-for-word translation from the original Hebrew and Greek. St. Jerome was a consummate linguistic genius, Greek speaking from birth, knew Hebrew and Latin perfectly and had many manuscripts to work from that are no longer extant. I believe he was raised up by God to translate Scripture into common Latin.

Are you aware that the original Hebrew version of the Old Testament was translated by 72 Hebrew scholars into the Greek Septuagint around 200BC? 

I'm convinced the word "globe" is the original word in Isaias because the Hebrew text forms part of the Dead Sea Scrolls found in Qumram and the Greek version of Isaias in the Septuagint is the same as the Hebrew text. (Masoretic).

.............

Here is Isaias 40:21-22 in its full context.

21 "Do you not know? Hath it not been heard? Hath it not been told you from the beginning? Hath you not understood the foundations of the Earth? 22 It is he that sits upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out of the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.

Now, we can discuss the difference between circle and globe until the cows come home but as I see it especially taking Isaias in its full context isn't that much of a difference at all. 

For if we do we will find out Who is sitting upon the globe (circle) of the earth.   Here Isaias is talking about God's Almighty power and majesty. 

 

Yes, quite true the concept of gravity and its effect was foreign to fallible man such as Isaias was, but it goes back to my point...   Infallible God knew the earth was a spherical globe, for He created it as well as the laws of gravity and He inspired Isaias to write.

 

 

But There is harmony between Scripture and the true configuration of the earth. 

Just as CivCorp said, empirical science would catch up later and prove the earth is a spherical globe which is in complete harmony with Isaias 40:21-22. 

Me, I learned english, latin, old greek, AppleTalk (not the network protocol), Hypertalk, AppleScript, Pascal, q- and QuickBasic, Perl, php, Java, JavaScript, C++, FileMaker Scripting Language, Objective-C and many a structural language 

But it is easier to forget than to learn...

 

Thoumsin, 

Please note the translation of Isaias 24:1 you quoted is quite different from the  Douay Rheims version.

"Behold the Lord shall lay waste the earth, and shall strip it, and shall afflict the face thereof, and scatter abroad the inhabitants thereof."

What is Almighty God telling us through His prophet Isaias in chapter 24?  Anything whatsoever about the earth being a globe, a circle, flat or whatever? I think not. This quote you found is someone taking a mis-translation of one verse of Scripture and trying to make a case that Isaias uses an "absurd brand of diction" and makes a flat earth mistake.  This is utter nonsense. 

Isaias 24:1 is also known as the Apocalypse of Isaias. Isaias 24 tells us about the final judgment of Almighty God upon all sinners of the world. Verses 2 and 3 confirm that the entire earth shall be utterly laid waste and made desolate.     

 

 

 

This is absolutely true of true empirical science. Wha tyou seem to refuse to recognize is that true empirical science has refuted and disproved Darwinian Evolution science and it's true blue adherants still refuse to accept this and continue to masquerade Darwinian Evolution, now proven pseudo science, as fact.  

 

There was no real empirical science in the first century for it to catch up with the facts that a man enlightened by god should already know? And science did make the necessary correction … but you guys have not, go figure. So you just try to reinterpret things to try and catch up with the real world … lots of luck with those already failed arguments.

Another  joke right ... Is there something about a circle and a globe that implies some relationship promoting 'complete harmony' ... or as is most likely the case, is there some overriding reason for re-interpreting what it "ACTUALLY" says?  Was god just inaccurate in his inspirations … or were the people just too stupid to understand his instructions. Either way this goes … the writers were in error, the bible is in error or god was in error … take your pick.

I do not have any problem distinguishing a circle from a globe and I see no reason to believe the writers didn’t know the difference too ... so spend all the time here YOU want to, I don’t think you will have much company there though. One cannot describe apples or an oranges as circles … the same applies to the earth … unless of course, they just didn’t know any better.

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter7.html

In a pigs eye.There is no such thing as TRUE empirical science silly because of the empirical side if for no other reason. From a theological standpoint nothing can exist because there is no true proof of anything at all. And it is Darwinian Theory … not Darwinian science. The meaning of "Darwinism" has changed over time, and varies depending on who is using the term. In the United States, the term "Darwinism" is often used by creationists as a pejorative term in reference to beliefs such as atheistic naturalism, but in the United Kingdom for example, the term has no negative connotations, being freely used as a short hand for the body of theory dealing with evolution, and in particular, evolution by natural selection.

I have read about the legend :

The Septuagint derives its name from Latin versio septuaginta interpretum,"translation of the seventy interpreters," (Greek: ἡ μετάφρασις τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα, hē metáphrasis tōn hebdomēkonta), "translation of the seventy ".The title refers to a legendary account in the pseudepigraphic Letter of Aristeas to his brother Philocrates, of how seventy or seventy-two Jewish scholars were asked by the Greek King of Egypt Ptolemy II Philadelphus in the 3rd century BCE to translate the Torah (or Pentateuch) from Biblical Hebrew into Greek for inclusion in the Library of Alexandria.

As narrated by Philo of Alexandria, 72 Jewish translators were enlisted to complete the translation while kept in separate chambers. According to legend, Aristeas arrived at the figure of 72 scholars by calculating the participation of six elders from each of the 12 tribes of Israel. Adding to the legend and coincidental alignment with the number of scholars being 72 was the implication that these scholars all produced identical versions of the text in exactly seventy-two days. This story underlines the fact that some Jews in antiquity wished to present the translation as authoritative. A version of this legend is found in the Tractate Megillah of the Babylonian Talmud (pages 9a-9b), which identifies fifteen specific unusual translations made by the scholars. Only two of these translations are found in the extant LXX.

Being a legend don't make it true... try it today, put 72 priest in 72 room and ask them to wrote the Septuagin like it is in their christian bible ( don't ask for a translation who will make thing more complex )... Pretty sure that you will not have 72 identical copy...

Well, there is no way to prove who is right since we don't have the original text but copy of copy of copy of copy... same the DSS scrolls are not original text... if i good remember, in the first cave, there was two copy of the Isaias scroll, both being almost identical with only some minor variation... yet, these minor variation show that they are not exact copy from the original...

According to The Oxford Companion to Archaeology:

The biblical manuscripts from Qumran, which include at least fragments from every book of the Old Testament, except perhaps for the Book of Esther, provide a far older cross section of scriptural tradition than that available to scholars before. While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100.

My point is that there is nothing wrong with your "belief"... you can believe what you wish... there is problem when you use these "belief" like fact or evidence... 

At personal level, i think that there is some truth in the bible story... these stories was first transmit by voice before being recorded... these record have be copied numerous time including some error or volontary add-on... human are not xerox machine able/wishing to make exact copy... by the way, when i speak about truth, i mean when you compare actual version to the original one, not about the content itself... in fact, plenty of the story in the bible can be found in text from other older culture who believe in other god or gods, long before the abrahamic religion appear on these planet...

A single example :

A little known but important piece of information about the Genesis flood is that the extremely similar Epic of Gilgamesh in the Sumerian legend predates Noah’s story by at least one thousand years in the written form and at least five hundred years for the setting. The similarities between the two tales are so remarkable that we cannot write them off in good conscience as mere coincidences. In the earlier flood legend, Utnapishtim receives instructions and exact dimensions on how to construct a large ship to avoid an imminent flood (as does Noah in Genesis 6:14-16), takes animals and his family aboard to preserve life on earth (as does Noah in Genesis 6:19-7:1), lands the ship on a mountain after the flood has stopped (as does Noah in Genesis 8:4), releases a dove and a raven from the ship in order to aid his search for dry land (as does Noah in Genesis 8:6-11), and burns a sacrifice after the flood for the gods who find its odor pleasing (as does Noah in Genesis 8:20-21). Because several additional minor parallels exist, I would encourage everyone to read Tablet XI of the short epic in its entirety in order to appreciate fully the similarities between the two legends. Since the Gilgamesh tale is the earlier version of the two, we can only surmise that the authors of Genesis copied the Epic of Gilgamesh or inadvertently patterned the story of Noah’s ark on an even more ancient flood legend that we have yet to discover.

I personally believe that the bible is not the "words" from God but simply a compendium of tales, not all related to the children of these unique gods but some stolen to other older culture... well, at the time of the bible, copyright laws was not yet existing...

 

It's true there are a bunch of different terms. That's why it's important to come to an agreement as to the definition of the terms.

For the definition of "Evolution", I went to the World Book Dictionary and then cited quotes from science textbooks that use  "Evolution" as defined in the dictionary.  

From the World Book Dictionary, A-K, Vol 23 page 737, the definition of "Evolution"...(aka "macro-Evolution" or "Darwinian Evolution").

n. 1. any process of formation or growth; gradual development. 2 something evolved; product of development; not a sudden discovery or creation. 3 the theory that all living things developed from a few simple forms of life through a series of physical changes. According to evolution, the first mammal developed from a type of reptile, and ultimately all forms are traced back to a simple single-celled organism. ........9 Philosophy....the theory that a process or progressive change, with the development of more complex entities, characterizes all force and matter in the universe. Evolution is advance from the simple to the complex.

Re: the highlighted:

Darwinism is the dictionary definition of Evolution, more properly called "macro-Evolution", change beyond species. 

Natural selection is not Evolution as per the dictionary definition but rather more correctly called "micro-Evolution", that is change within the same species. Natural selection is not Darwinian Evolution becasue new, higher genetic information is not gained, but instead tends to be lost at best. Natural selection only conserves existing genetic information in life forms.   

No one has a problem with the true science behind natural selection...which is understood as "micro-Evolution". 

The problem lies with the pseudo science which posits the dictionary definition of Darwinian Evolution as fact. This is the BIG LIE that molecular and genetic science has exposed.  

 

 

 

Lula, I don't have a problem with evolution and I certainly do not need a creationist to explain it to me. Don't you think that would be overly stupid of me, especially considering that we probably don't agree on anything meaningful at all? Nothing particularly wrong with your definition ... it is what you do after that, that is disturbing. When have I redefined your religious terms for you? I allow you to define creationism as you like and then I make my arguments. BUT … I am not going to allow you to define or limit the direction of my research, based on your conjectures and might I say your biased opinions. Remember, I can change my opinions in a heartbeat if there is at least some kind of reasonable evidence to warrent it. I probably won't like it at first ... but what the heck ... wherever the data points to is just fine with me. While you on the other hand, you wouldn’t change a damn thing if all the evidence we have was proved to be irrefutable. You would still be a young world Catholic and you would still be here doing exactly what you are doing now which isn’t constructive at all. If you actually want to try and comprehend evolution, I suggest you visit more scientific sites as opposed to “Christian Science” ones which is in itself is a rather ridiculous concept.I have to wonder how intelligent a religious fundamentalist can actually become based on their learning limitations and other restrictions mandated by their churches.

 

Well, Darwin theory are old theory about evolution...

Actual trend is called "evolutionary biology" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_biology ) but due to recent founding, a new trend called "Evolutionary Developmental biology" ( evo-devo ) is fastly growing...

Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_developmental_biology , i think that you will somehow like it since it somehow hurt Darwin theory ( but it don't make true christian idea )...

Similarly, organismal form can be influenced by mutations in promoter regions of genes, those DNA sequences at which the products of some genes bind to and control the activity of the same or other genes, not only protein-specifying sequences. This finding suggested that the crucial distinction between different species (even different orders or phyla) may be due less to differences in their content of gene products than to differences in spatial and temporal expression of conserved genes. The implication that large evolutionary changes in body morphology are associated with changes in gene regulation, rather than the evolution of new genes, suggested that Hox and other "switch" genes may play a major role in evolution, something that contradicts the neo-darwinian synthesis.

Point is that science adapt to each new thing who is discover... science is not a fixed truth but more something who evolve toward the truth without really reach it... each new theory usually solve old question but reveal plenty of new one...

The problem that i have with religious pseudo-science is that it is all basic on thing who was writed several thousand year ago... religious pseudo-science is not able/wishing to integrate new fact...

Religion need to realize that the bible was written by human with limited knowledge... let say that God know everything and try to explain nuclear physic to somebody 2000-3000 thousand year ago and ask him to write everything in a book... what will be the result... the poor guy don't know some basic word like electron, proton, neutron... text in the bible have a similar scientific level that these from other people living in the same period... it is really stupid from Christian to use plenty of tme for try demonstrate that these old science in the bible is the truth... time will be better used to try rewrite a more modern religious text who embrace recent scientific discovery... after all, it remain enough unknow in true science for insert some Godly thing... by example, you have certainly ear of the big-bang theory... science can explain everything from the planck epoch ( 10-43 second after the big-bang, after the creation of the universe ) but before this, none of our sciences/physic laws apply... science speak of a "singularity"... well, i will accept that religious speak of God...

Now, something who will surprise you... The big-bang theory was made by a priest... that begin it can "explain" the religious creationist way, it was first rejected by the usual scientific... this example show that in some case, the "true" scientific can be as stubborn that religion :

The Big Bang is a scientific theory, and as such is dependent on its agreement with observations. But as a theory which addresses the origins of reality, it has always carried theological and philosophical implications, most notably, the concept of creation ex nihilo (a Latin phrase meaning "out of nothing"). In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state Universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory. This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest. Pope Pius XII declared, at the November 22, 1951 opening meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, that the Big Bang theory accorded with the Catholic concept of creation. Conservative Protestant Christian denominations have also welcomed the Big Bang theory as supporting a historical interpretation of the doctrine of creation.

Since the acceptance of the Big Bang as the dominant physical cosmological paradigm, there have been a variety of reactions by religious groups as to its implications for their respective religious cosmologies. Some accept the scientific evidence at face value, while others seek to reconcile the Big Bang with their religious tenets, and others completely reject or ignore the evidence for the Big Bang theory.

Now, back to the bible... Do you believe that everything was created 8012 year ago like some extremist christian or will you embrace the big-bang theory discover by a priest and accepted by the Pope itself... If you take the second choice, it show that the bible can be wrong at the scientific level ( but can be right about the general idea of creationism )... that the bible have scientific error don't mean that God is a idiot, it simply show that these who have wrote the bible was without the needed scientific knowledge... as today, try to explain how gravity can bend light when photon have no mass, to someone who don't know about the stress-energy tensor ( Einstein field equation ) and know only classical mechanic...

They can be very intelligent in some case... a priest from my country, i have speak about him in my previous post... take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre ...

More example at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_scientist-clerics

don't throw the baby out with the bathwater ... some religious people are really open minded, intelligent and are useful actor in the science domain... deny their finding only help the religious extremist with a closed mind who believe in fable writed a few thousand year ago...

@ lulapilgrim : take a look at http://darwincatholic.blogspot.com/2005/01/evolution-intelligent-design.html

 

You didn't exactly point out any fundamentalists

Fundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to specific theological doctrines usually understood as a reaction against Modernist theology, combined with a vigorous attack on outside threats to their religious culture.