Originally posted by Same Hakeem
View Post
X
-
Originally posted by Same Hakeem View PostThanks Cow. I limit my comments to the forum title "inerrancy"The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Same Hakeem View PostAlso, please turn to Leviticus 11:6 "the hare chews the cud"
https://biblehub.com/leviticus/11-6.htm
As Cow Poke noted, the Hebrew word translated as "birds," which includes "bats" does in fact translate more properly as "winged creatures" or "flying creatures" but even then, there would be difficulties - flying creatures would not include flightless birds, flying creatures would include such things as flying fish. Some words and concepts simply won't translate from one language to another - some might translate adequately into a different other language. For example Koine Greek "biazo" can't be translated to English, but it can be translated directly to Japanese - kekkyoku suru. As adjectives, both translate to the nearest English equivalent as "violent" ... which is wholly misleading.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View PostThe hare does in fact chew the cud under the definitions of "chewing the cud" by ancient Hebrew definitions. There are particular elements in the hare's scat that are an essential part of its diet. The hare eats those parts of its excrement.
As Cow Poke noted, the Hebrew word translated as "birds," which includes "bats" does in fact translate more properly as "winged creatures" or "flying creatures" but even then, there would be difficulties - flying creatures would not include flightless birds, flying creatures would include such things as flying fish. Some words and concepts simply won't translate from one language to another - some might translate adequately into a different other language. For example Koine Greek "biazo" can't be translated to English, but it can be translated directly to Japanese - kekkyoku suru. As adjectives, both translate to the nearest English equivalent as "violent" ... which is wholly misleading.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostAs an aside, do flying fish actually fly or do they "leap"?1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View PostMost species of flying fish do little more than leap. There is at least one that can both fly and steer.
They also have wings.Last edited by ReformedApologist; 06-02-2019, 02:49 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ReformedApologist View Post1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View PostThe hare does in fact chew the cud under the definitions of "chewing the cud" by ancient Hebrew definitions. There are particular elements in the hare's scat that are an essential part of its diet. The hare eats those parts of its excrement.
As Cow Poke noted, the Hebrew word translated as "birds," which includes "bats" does in fact translate more properly as "winged creatures" or "flying creatures" but even then, there would be difficulties - flying creatures would not include flightless birds, flying creatures would include such things as flying fish. Some words and concepts simply won't translate from one language to another - some might translate adequately into a different other language. For example Koine Greek "biazo" can't be translated to English, but it can be translated directly to Japanese - kekkyoku suru. As adjectives, both translate to the nearest English equivalent as "violent" ... which is wholly misleading.
Still up to c. 1400 it was often used in the specific sense "the young of a bird, fledgling, nestling, chick," and of the young of other animals (bees, fish, snakes) and human children.
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=bird
Comment
-
Originally posted by ReformedApologist View PostAlso the term bird was used of other types of animals including flying ones all the way up to the 1400's
Still up to c. 1400 it was often used in the specific sense "the young of a bird, fledgling, nestling, chick," and of the young of other animals (bees, fish, snakes) and human children.
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=birdThe first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Same Hakeem View PostI only object when there are contradictory statements in the Bible with science or God's qualities. For example, God's order to slay infant (1 Sam 15:3) and anything that breathes (Deut 20:16-17) is in conflict with God's quality of justice and love. Such claimed orders of God will not be made in human courts.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Same Hakeem View PostHi Maxvel,
I am afraid you missed my point. Here is my point: how a loving (1 John 4:7) and a just God (Hebrews 6:10) orders the killings infants as in 1 Samuel 15:3. It is a theological conflict. We accept that God is loving and just. But it cannot be acceptable that God orders to kill infants.
God ordered infants killed, but we know God is both loving and just, therefore, we can be assured that those infants did not suffer anything unnecessarily, and that they have been completely re-compensated by God Himself for any loss they might have had.
Problem solved. Just as well God is loving and just otherwise Him ordering infants killed would be kind of bad....>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Apologiaphoenix, 05-01-2024, 09:43 PM
|
1 response
25 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 05-02-2024, 08:29 PM | ||
Started by Apologiaphoenix, 04-25-2024, 09:42 AM
|
0 responses
11 views
1 like
|
Last Post 04-25-2024, 09:42 AM | ||
Started by Apologiaphoenix, 04-15-2024, 09:22 PM
|
0 responses
18 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-15-2024, 09:22 PM | ||
Started by Apologiaphoenix, 04-09-2024, 09:39 AM
|
28 responses
195 views
1 like
|
Last Post 04-30-2024, 09:42 AM | ||
Started by Apologiaphoenix, 04-08-2024, 02:50 PM
|
0 responses
15 views
1 like
|
Last Post 04-08-2024, 02:50 PM |
Comment