It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

I would like to respond to the letter 'Recent letter offered no examples of Darwinian disingenuousness,' . He responds to an article with, 'He says evolution is 'so riddled with holes,' yet fails to provide a ... Full Story

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#95177 Aug 2, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The tetragrammaton is not properly translated as 'Lord'. Its meaning is along the lines of "he who causes to become". That is not the meaning of 'Lord'.
I must give you a bit of credit for calling MAAT out for his gobbledygook.

May the Sovereign Lord Almighty shower blessings on you and yours forever and ages of ages.

(Adonai Yahweh Elohim) vs (G_d G_d G_d)
KAB

United States

#95178 Aug 2, 2012
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd look them up but you're a worthless troll so why bother.
No matter. You've sufficiently exposed your ignorance of the Bible to establish that you, like so many, just pass along with increasingly understandable dataless ease what you have been told by other equally ignorant critics.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#95179 Aug 3, 2012
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Joshua 22:22 uses the phrase 'el elohim yahweh' twice. If you think you can replace any of the three indiscriminately with G_d you are a numbskull.
You do not read properly, now do you!
When the generalized term is called for and is solely referring and concerned with the hebrew g-d, i'll use it.
As do many others.
In the case of joshua your silly greek adapted translation with misplaced deference to jewish customs, would show, if consistent, something like Lord lords(judges/messengers/combin ed characteristics of all) LORD.

I consider the rest of your replies ranting because it galls you that not everyone is using LORD because some christian translation committee decided so.
You brought up weird Fallwell - apropos of nothing- so it's not up to me to proof anything.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#95180 Aug 3, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The tetragrammaton is not properly translated as 'Lord'. Its meaning is along the lines of "he who causes to become". That is not the meaning of 'Lord'.
Exactly. So where the tetragrammen is used as a placeholder so is the use of g-d.
Or generally used to make the difference between what christians think their god is and what the hebrew have always understood g-d to be.
It's always idiotic to see christians telling even rabbis what their book actually says and means.
Not that 15th dalai numbskull lama would understand.
As far as i read Q&A from his profile he just got interested in religion so as to make a bit of money on the side.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#95181 Aug 3, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it does. It serves to identify Yahweh with a shortened form, so you can use it instead of g-d which is just an avoidance of spelling god which is not a Christian co-opted term but is universally used to refer to any who are considered as god, including Yahweh.
In the mists of time -just to use that poetic phrase- many more name-titles where in use in the ANE (ancient near east) and levant.
Most have dropped of the radar and usually they are not translated even when they crop up in f.i. Akkadian. Nor does anyone know the exact origin. Speculation is rife however.
I see baptists and black hebrews use it consistently and since i do not identify with those groups i would not.
A name-title is not the tetragrammen (tetragrammaton) nor name or actual broad meaning. As you also pointed out.
YHVH could even be understood as stating:
" my name to you is:' be whatever shall be' ".
Or in secular understanding and crude use of the full phrase:'none of your business'...not to be pinned down to understanding at a particular time and place.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#95182 Aug 3, 2012
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. So where the tetragrammen is used as a placeholder so is the use of g-d.
Or generally used to make the difference between what christians think their god is and what the hebrew have always understood g-d to be.
It's always idiotic to see christians telling even rabbis what their book actually says and means.
Not that 15th dalai numbskull lama would understand.
As far as i read Q&A from his profile he just got interested in religion so as to make a bit of money on the side.
You could have been honest.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#95183 Aug 3, 2012
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
You could have been honest.
Are you pleading for simplism?
Anyones guess what kind of strange conclusions you've jumped to now! Bloody christal ball reading skills seem to be needed here.

Call me earnest! Nothing is cut and dried when it come to customs and religious viewpoints and relicts of established history by great names.
I never have problems with bringing as much conflicting viewpoints as possible to a topic.(as a sign of intelligence. Rita Mae Brown.)
So if you can't laugh studying the bible you are doing something wrong.

Though sarcasm and red herrings would be more appropriate here.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#95184 Aug 3, 2012
correction;
crystal (kr s t l) n. 1. a. A homogenous solid formed by a repeating, three-dimensional pattern of atoms, ions, or molecules and having fixed distances between ...

though in this discussion christal would drive the point home since none ever got any insight from staring in a sphere (apart from admiring the skill needed to make 'm flawless).

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#95185 Aug 3, 2012
another correction. not Rita mae bron, but close.

I happen to feel that the degree of a person's intelligence is directly reflected by the number of conflicting attitudes she can bring to bear on the same topic.
Lisa Alther, Kinflicks, 1975

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#95186 Aug 3, 2012
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you pleading for simplism?
Anyones guess what kind of strange conclusions you've jumped to now! Bloody christal ball reading skills seem to be needed here.
Call me earnest! Nothing is cut and dried when it come to customs and religious viewpoints and relicts of established history by great names.
I never have problems with bringing as much conflicting viewpoints as possible to a topic.(as a sign of intelligence. Rita Mae Brown.)
So if you can't laugh studying the bible you are doing something wrong.
Though sarcasm and red herrings would be more appropriate here.
All I asked for was a citation indicating an early use of 'G_d'.

How difficult could that be?

“Pay it forward!”

Level 4

Since: Oct 09

Harrisburg

#95188 Aug 3, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>Kudos???
You know English, but you are not/never the originator.
Odd ... I pop in after, what, nearly six months, and you're still on that "who owns English" thing?

Guess I didn't miss much, eh?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#95190 Aug 3, 2012
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you not have the guts to adit 'G_d' is nothing but a recent fad?
All I asked was a citation to any early use and you do everything but provide one.
It's nothing to do with guts.
lie i said before you would first have to be in the comfortable position to be free to write g-d without some anti-semitic attack following.
I presume those condition only came with weeding out the last vestiges of that institutionalised thinking in the seventies.
Then with the internet and the appropriate discussion it would become visible.
And given the medium, it would not be very convincing to quote the title of an article or an obscure book...now would it!

I admit to being curious also but your obsessiveness would propably make me not post any answer.

effin demented playground attitude reciprocated.:))

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#95191 Aug 3, 2012
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
It's nothing to do with guts.
lie i said before you would first have to be in the comfortable position to be free to write g-d without some anti-semitic attack following.
I presume those condition only came with weeding out the last vestiges of that institutionalised thinking in the seventies.
Then with the internet and the appropriate discussion it would become visible.
And given the medium, it would not be very convincing to quote the title of an article or an obscure book...now would it!
I admit to being curious also but your obsessiveness would propably make me not post any answer.
effin demented playground attitude reciprocated.:))
Gutless.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#95192 Aug 3, 2012
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. So where the tetragrammen is used as a placeholder so is the use of g-d.
Or generally used to make the difference between what christians think their god is and what the hebrew have always understood g-d to be.
It's always idiotic to see christians telling even rabbis what their book actually says and means.
Not that 15th dalai numbskull lama would understand.
As far as i read Q&A from his profile he just got interested in religion so as to make a bit of money on the side.
The tetragrammaton is not a placeholder. It's what in the manuscripts is the god of the Tanakh's name with, as you probably know, no vowel sounds indicated).

As to Rabbi's vs others, I'm willing to see what each has to offer. None can change the words on the page and the actual historical evidence of what they meant when written. Opinions are just that, no matter who gives them. Conclusions directly supported by data are what sort it all out. In short, show me the data and leave the opinions at the door.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#95193 Aug 3, 2012
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
In the mists of time -just to use that poetic phrase- many more name-titles where in use in the ANE (ancient near east) and levant.
Most have dropped of the radar and usually they are not translated even when they crop up in f.i. Akkadian. Nor does anyone know the exact origin. Speculation is rife however.
I see baptists and black hebrews use it consistently and since i do not identify with those groups i would not.
A name-title is not the tetragrammen (tetragrammaton) nor name or actual broad meaning. As you also pointed out.
YHVH could even be understood as stating:
" my name to you is:' be whatever shall be' ".
Or in secular understanding and crude use of the full phrase:'none of your business'...not to be pinned down to understanding at a particular time and place.
So since YHVH is just an anglicized rendering of the actual characters in the ancient Hebrew manuscripts, why do you use g-d instead of what the god of the Tanakh uses for himself? Do you know better than he who wants his "name" known (see Ezekiel)?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#95194 Aug 3, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The tetragrammaton is not a placeholder. It's what in the manuscripts is the god of the Tanakh's name with, as you probably know, no vowel sounds indicated).
As to Rabbi's vs others, I'm willing to see what each has to offer. None can change the words on the page and the actual historical evidence of what they meant when written. Opinions are just that, no matter who gives them. Conclusions directly supported by data are what sort it all out. In short, show me the data and leave the opinions at the door.
It stands in the place of the expression that defined and clarified g-d.
Even in an expression alluding to jesus (as xtians would have it) as in the use of yahashua. Yaha is supposed to make people realise that g-d comes first and foremost.

Sound approach, but using someone elses book in your own translation and interpretation and addtions and calling it the NEW Testament...is definitely not leaving ones opinion at the door.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#95195 Aug 3, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
So since YHVH is just an anglicized rendering of the actual characters in the ancient Hebrew manuscripts, why do you use g-d instead of what the god of the Tanakh uses for himself? Do you know better than he who wants his "name" known (see Ezekiel)?
I left my soddin opinion at the door...
No YHVH in characters might be so, and i have no problem writing it. Nor with people using whatever they want to term their god (s), nor having other gods/spirits/whatever.
IN GENERAL THERE IS A DIFFERENCE AND I THINK IT SHORT AND HANDY.

NO TRINITY
NO SON OF G_D
AND G-D IS NOT CALLED JESUS (nametitle) OR LORD (title) OR HOLY SPIRIT (at best the resonance/echo of g-d in everything) but a general term for any kind of (function)god, but hyphenated known to refer to the hebrew god.
And it is not always YHVH (verb derived signifying being in action, so not a pronoun) but sometimes nametitles count and tell us something.
just wiki tetragrammaton (a word or four letters)

STILL NOT GETTING IT
God-Damnit :)
let's repeat it another 1000 times.
IN GENERAL THERE IS A DIFFERENCE AND I THINK IT SHORT AND HANDY.

IN GENERAL THERE IS A DIFFERENCE AND I THINK IT SHORT AND HANDY.

IN GENERAL THERE IS A DIFFERENCE AND I THINK IT SHORT AND HANDY.

IN GENERAL THERE IS A DIFFERENCE AND I THINK IT SHORT AND HANDY.

IN GENERAL THERE IS A DIFFERENCE AND I THINK IT SHORT AND HANDY.

IN GENERAL THERE IS A DIFFERENCE AND I THINK IT SHORT AND HANDY.

More then 600,000 hits on google and various and people can not look anything up!
I also found multiple reasons why and when it was used first.
But if i can find that, so can others.
Given the negative claim i do not have to answer that.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#95196 Aug 3, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
So since YHVH is just an anglicized rendering of the actual characters in the ancient Hebrew manuscripts, why do you use g-d instead of what the god of the Tanakh uses for himself? Do you know better than he who wants his "name" known (see Ezekiel)?
If reading yahushuah (b-gger you... it's not in your version of the bible, but familiar to those reading yeshua i.o. jesus. And this yeshua should be read and understood as yahushua.) we understand that yaha should immediately bring the thought of the all encompassing one forward.
And it makes it clear that no help comes without the ONE.
But frankly this reasoning is thus solely relevant for messianics.

The ya at the beginning of yhvh is never spoken out loud.
But focussing on a name that can essentially not be spoken, stopped in it's motion, might focus the mind on the personal relationship or what is special about life/being. Instead of just following a ritual.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#95197 Aug 3, 2012
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Gutless.
English just changed ownership.
no gut-gutless.

give the boy something to suck on

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#95198 Aug 4, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is it stated that the Sun stopped (i.e., didn't perceptively move) in the sky for a day?
Why ask about things you already know?

Joshua 10:13
"And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day."

Commence word twisting...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 min dirtclod 14,476
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 8 min Dogen 141,735
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 8 min ChristineM 780
Darwin on the rocks 22 min Chimney1 826
The conditions necessary for homo sapiens to sp... 9 hr NoahLovesU 5
Posting for Points in the Evolution Forum (Oct '11) 20 hr -TheExam- 13,957
Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie (Jul '09) Sun NoahLovesU 1,954
More from around the web