It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the ...

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

There are 164275 comments on the Asheville Citizen-Times story from Mar 15, 2009, titled It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate. In it, Asheville Citizen-Times reports that:

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 ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Asheville Citizen-Times.

LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#111552 Mar 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You're so inattentive. The goal was "oldest available", not original.
Why should we think oldest available means accurate compared to the original?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#111553 Mar 2, 2013
The NT was taken from the Westcott and Hort manuscripts.

That would be the only ones i would not object to too much, though it is indeed radically different.
But i understand Westcott was involved with the oldest (though it's from several ages) A codex, apart from the Vaticanus. So like me (and others that looked into it) he would indeed have a different take on some greek to english translations.
And to his credit he did not make amends but stuck to his guns. As far as I know he has worked with a.o. Alandt.(or was that spelled Aland?)

But that use of 'jehova' makes it all farsical. From reading the sigula ieooaa.
If they ever want to be taken serious they shold first change that.
But it's definitely the better than using 'lord' any and everywhere.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#111554 Mar 2, 2013
Found the connection (they were quite some time apart):
The "Western non-interpolations" were not included in the main text of Westcott-Hort edition (1881), but were instead moved to the footnotes. The editions of Nestle and Nestle-Aland did the same. In 1968, "the editorial committee (or more precisely its majority) decided to abandon the theories of Westcott-Hort and the Western non-interpolations." [3] Since 1968 they are included in the main text, but marked with brackets.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111555 Mar 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll trade your long post for a single specific example of what I requested, specific data. That would be in the form of, Book, Chapter, Verse, what is incorrect, and why. Just one is all I ask.

you are too chicken to even read my post. The specific chapter and verse was there.

Coward. What a pathetic JW you are. I will have to write the home office of your failure.




Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
It includes additions in Mark that are not in the earliest versions (making either the watchtower or yourself a liar).
They use the sacrilegious "translations" Jehovah.
Third, your bible does NOT come from original sources. Most of the OT is from the Kittels Biblia Hebracia (BHK).
The NT was taken from the Westcott and Hort manuscripts.
Third, YHWH (correctly translated Yahweh or Yahwah and NOT Jehovah) is NOT USED IN THE ORIGINAL NT DOCUMENTS. JWs FORCE the word in when it is NOT USED.
Forth: The New World translation biased. Dr. Robert Countess, who wrote a doctoral dissertation on the Greek text of the New World translation, concluded the translation "has been sharply unsuccessful in keeping doctrinal considerations from influencing the actual translationIt must be viewed as a radically biased piece of work. At some points it is actually dishonest. At others it is neither modern nor scholarly."
Fifth: British scholar H.H. Rowley stated, "from the beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated." He went on to say "this translation is an insult to the Word of God.
More on:
http://carm.org/jehovahs-witnesses
Point the sixth: The translators were amateurs and their translations amateurish. They were completely unqualified for the task. NONE of the five knew Hebrew or Greek.
Point the seventh: The translators got all the way to Gen 1:2 before they made their first translation error. In order to conform to watchtower doctrine they had to change the verse to read "and God's active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters,". Why? Because the Hebrew rendering would be "spirit of god" which is against Watchtower doctrine and dogma.
I can go on, but it will not matter. You will not check any of this. You will cry in your soup but will claim it is all assertions and not true. You won't have the guts to search for the truth.
"Seek and ye shall find."
You just can't allow that, now can you?
"bury your head in the sand and ye shall be a good JW!"
Ah,.... that's more like it, eh?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111556 Mar 2, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should we think oldest available means accurate compared to the original?
You should think oldest available, thus closest to original.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111557 Mar 2, 2013
HERE IS THE POST YOU COULD NOT ANSWER... AGAIN.

I just love to rub it in.



Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
It includes additions in Mark that are not in the earliest versions (making either the watchtower or yourself a liar).
They use the sacrilegious "translations" Jehovah.
Third, your bible does NOT come from original sources. Most of the OT is from the Kittels Biblia Hebracia (BHK).
The NT was taken from the Westcott and Hort manuscripts.
Third, YHWH (correctly translated Yahweh or Yahwah and NOT Jehovah) is NOT USED IN THE ORIGINAL NT DOCUMENTS. JWs FORCE the word in when it is NOT USED.
Forth: The New World translation biased. Dr. Robert Countess, who wrote a doctoral dissertation on the Greek text of the New World translation, concluded the translation "has been sharply unsuccessful in keeping doctrinal considerations from influencing the actual translationIt must be viewed as a radically biased piece of work. At some points it is actually dishonest. At others it is neither modern nor scholarly."
Fifth: British scholar H.H. Rowley stated, "from the beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated." He went on to say "this translation is an insult to the Word of God.
More on:
http://carm.org/jehovahs-witnesses
Point the sixth: The translators were amateurs and their translations amateurish. They were completely unqualified for the task. NONE of the five knew Hebrew or Greek.
Point the seventh: The translators got all the way to Gen 1:2 before they made their first translation error. In order to conform to watchtower doctrine they had to change the verse to read "and God's active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters,". Why? Because the Hebrew rendering would be "spirit of god" which is against Watchtower doctrine and dogma.
I can go on, but it will not matter. You will not check any of this. You will cry in your soup but will claim it is all assertions and not true. You won't have the guts to search for the truth.
"Seek and ye shall find."
You just can't allow that, now can you?
"bury your head in the sand and ye shall be a good JW!"
Ah,.... that's more like it, eh?


JWism REFUTED!

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#111558 Mar 2, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should we think oldest available means accurate compared to the original?
Lacking any actual originals, the oldest available, when it comes to the NT, are the originals. But that's just my theory.

The hebrew bible has stories that can be traced to the entire region, so one can at least compare.
And the other issue is that you don't have to get al defensive if you simply accept those realities and thus stop the literalism.

The crea crowd get's so defensive that i sometimes wonder whether they have issues with their believes.
It's entirely over the top.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111559 Mar 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You're so inattentive. The goal was "oldest available", not original.

It is based on neither.


Again.

your failure.


Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
It includes additions in Mark that are not in the earliest versions (making either the watchtower or yourself a liar).
They use the sacrilegious "translations" Jehovah.
Third, your bible does NOT come from original sources. Most of the OT is from the Kittels Biblia Hebracia (BHK).
The NT was taken from the Westcott and Hort manuscripts.
Third, YHWH (correctly translated Yahweh or Yahwah and NOT Jehovah) is NOT USED IN THE ORIGINAL NT DOCUMENTS. JWs FORCE the word in when it is NOT USED.
Forth: The New World translation biased. Dr. Robert Countess, who wrote a doctoral dissertation on the Greek text of the New World translation, concluded the translation "has been sharply unsuccessful in keeping doctrinal considerations from influencing the actual translationIt must be viewed as a radically biased piece of work. At some points it is actually dishonest. At others it is neither modern nor scholarly."
Fifth: British scholar H.H. Rowley stated, "from the beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated." He went on to say "this translation is an insult to the Word of God.
More on:
http://carm.org/jehovahs-witnesses
Point the sixth: The translators were amateurs and their translations amateurish. They were completely unqualified for the task. NONE of the five knew Hebrew or Greek.
Point the seventh: The translators got all the way to Gen 1:2 before they made their first translation error. In order to conform to watchtower doctrine they had to change the verse to read "and God's active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters,". Why? Because the Hebrew rendering would be "spirit of god" which is against Watchtower doctrine and dogma.
I can go on, but it will not matter. You will not check any of this. You will cry in your soup but will claim it is all assertions and not true. You won't have the guts to search for the truth.
"Seek and ye shall find."
You just can't allow that, now can you?
"bury your head in the sand and ye shall be a good JW!"
Ah,.... that's more like it, eh?


I am laughing at you.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111560 Mar 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If you would just provide a single specific sample of data sometime, we could have a meaningful possibly productive exchange.

Glad to oblige



Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
It includes additions in Mark that are not in the earliest versions (making either the watchtower or yourself a liar).
They use the sacrilegious "translations" Jehovah.
Third, your bible does NOT come from original sources. Most of the OT is from the Kittels Biblia Hebracia (BHK).
The NT was taken from the Westcott and Hort manuscripts.
Third, YHWH (correctly translated Yahweh or Yahwah and NOT Jehovah) is NOT USED IN THE ORIGINAL NT DOCUMENTS. JWs FORCE the word in when it is NOT USED.
Forth: The New World translation biased. Dr. Robert Countess, who wrote a doctoral dissertation on the Greek text of the New World translation, concluded the translation "has been sharply unsuccessful in keeping doctrinal considerations from influencing the actual translationIt must be viewed as a radically biased piece of work. At some points it is actually dishonest. At others it is neither modern nor scholarly."
Fifth: British scholar H.H. Rowley stated, "from the beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated." He went on to say "this translation is an insult to the Word of God.
More on:
http://carm.org/jehovahs-witnesses
Point the sixth: The translators were amateurs and their translations amateurish. They were completely unqualified for the task. NONE of the five knew Hebrew or Greek.
Point the seventh: The translators got all the way to Gen 1:2 before they made their first translation error. In order to conform to watchtower doctrine they had to change the verse to read "and God's active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters,". Why? Because the Hebrew rendering would be "spirit of god" which is against Watchtower doctrine and dogma.
I can go on, but it will not matter. You will not check any of this. You will cry in your soup but will claim it is all assertions and not true. You won't have the guts to search for the truth.
"Seek and ye shall find."
You just can't allow that, now can you?
"bury your head in the sand and ye shall be a good JW!"
Ah,.... that's more like it, eh?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111561 Mar 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You should think oldest available, thus closest to original.

You should think that the oldest available can be hundreds of years removed from the originals (many of which were forgeries, btw).

How many errors in that time?

Ever play telephone?

How long before the original message is completely gone?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111562 Mar 2, 2013
MAAT wrote:
The NT was taken from the Westcott and Hort manuscripts.
That would be the only ones i would not object to too much, though it is indeed radically different.
But i understand Westcott was involved with the oldest (though it's from several ages) A codex, apart from the Vaticanus. So like me (and others that looked into it) he would indeed have a different take on some greek to english translations.
And to his credit he did not make amends but stuck to his guns. As far as I know he has worked with a.o. Alandt.(or was that spelled Aland?)
But that use of 'jehova' makes it all farsical. From reading the sigula ieooaa.
If they ever want to be taken serious they shold first change that.
But it's definitely the better than using 'lord' any and everywhere.
Kudos on a good post.
It's interesting that when you are being objective and not towing the party line your posts get quite clear and coherent. Fortunately, the points you made in this one draw on data already accepted by both sides. When that's not the case I still request that you provide data to confirm your assertions.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#111563 Mar 2, 2013
Talk about a backhander. I'm used to supposing a lot of knowledge present in discussion partners, so if i get cryptic but still logical, you can also consider that a backhander.

The steunches attackers of westcott and other translations are the old KJV crowd:
http://www.scionofzion.com/haw.htm

(For some silly pridefull reason they are not aware the the orrible Dutch STATENBIJBEL was used to get that copy. That's a crowd i can get to blows with.)
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111564 Mar 2, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
you are too chicken to even read my post. The specific chapter and verse was there.
Coward. What a pathetic JW you are. I will have to write the home office of your failure.
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
It includes additions in Mark that are not in the earliest versions (making either the watchtower or yourself a liar).
They use the sacrilegious "translations" Jehovah.
Third, your bible does NOT come from original sources. Most of the OT is from the Kittels Biblia Hebracia (BHK).
The NT was taken from the Westcott and Hort manuscripts.
Third, YHWH (correctly translated Yahweh or Yahwah and NOT Jehovah) is NOT USED IN THE ORIGINAL NT DOCUMENTS. JWs FORCE the word in when it is NOT USED.
Forth: The New World translation biased. Dr. Robert Countess, who wrote a doctoral dissertation on the Greek text of the New World translation, concluded the translation "has been sharply unsuccessful in keeping doctrinal considerations from influencing the actual translationIt must be viewed as a radically biased piece of work. At some points it is actually dishonest. At others it is neither modern nor scholarly."
Fifth: British scholar H.H. Rowley stated, "from the beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated." He went on to say "this translation is an insult to the Word of God.
More on:
http://carm.org/jehovahs-witnesses
Point the sixth: The translators were amateurs and their translations amateurish. They were completely unqualified for the task. NONE of the five knew Hebrew or Greek.
Point the seventh: The translators got all the way to Gen 1:2 before they made their first translation error. In order to conform to watchtower doctrine they had to change the verse to read "and God's active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters,". Why? Because the Hebrew rendering would be "spirit of god" which is against Watchtower doctrine and dogma.
I can go on, but it will not matter. You will not check any of this. You will cry in your soup but will claim it is all assertions and not true. You won't have the guts to search for the truth.
"Seek and ye shall find."
You just can't allow that, now can you?
"bury your head in the sand and ye shall be a good JW!"
Ah,.... that's more like it, eh?
For all you asserted, how many chapter and verse combinations are cited? One. Addressing that one (I didn't really think it would be necessary), what is the spirit of god?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111565 Mar 2, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You should think that the oldest available can be hundreds of years removed from the originals (many of which were forgeries, btw).
How many errors in that time?
Ever play telephone?
How long before the original message is completely gone?
There are key differences between Bible manuscript copying and unwritten verbal parlor game hand-offs. Can you think of two of them?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#111566 Mar 2, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you say it's rational to accept a claim about a natural phenomenon as true in the face of no corroborative evidence based solely upon who made the claim?
Would you say science would be more effective if it operated according to the above methodology?
oi almost missed your question there.
Not for me.
No, we end up with Popper and with an objectivism that would however still hold bias.
Only the scientific method in it's universalism would allow a gradual incremental approach to an actual reality.

KAB is just on the road of ignoring that universalism.
Ah well, that is what heated defence will drive people too.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#111567 Mar 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
For all you asserted, how many chapter and verse combinations are cited? One. Addressing that one (I didn't really think it would be necessary), what is the spirit of god?
I actually find that a very good question.

The western church: god+son=spirit
The eastern church: god+spirit=son

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#111568 Mar 3, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>The flood is a matter of faith. THere is no such thing by definition as historical certainty. You don't know if there was a global flood or not. You were not there. We do have huge canyons and marine fossils on mountain tops. You can reject the flood if you want, you can't claim it never happened because you don't know.
Imagine a researcher with no preconceptions about whether or not there was a global flood 4500 years ago. Let him loose on the world with all the latest research on the past at his disposal.

He would be able to tell you, that based on the data we have, a huge meteorite hit the Earth 65 million years ago in Yucatan. That there was a long period of massive volcanic activity recorded in the Deccan Traps at a similar time. That there was a mass extinction 250 million years ago. That there was a "snowball earth" 600 million years ago. That the Black Sea was formed very rapidly only 6000 years ago when the Bosphorus collapsed.

These things all left large signatures.

But an even greater event, this global flood occurring only 4500 years ago left no trace?

We might not know everything that has happened in the past, but an event like that would leave its mark everywhere in ways that are notably absent.

An unbiased researcher would not conclude such a flood occurred, would not even consider it unless a bunch of crazy people with an old book of myths insisted it must have happened! Then of course he would take another look at all his information and conclude that they were mistaken.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#111569 Mar 3, 2013
We had an issue with snowball earth, just as much for it as against it.

But plenty of other events leaving marks.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Liuan, China

#111570 Mar 3, 2013
Chimney1, you're back!
I thought you left us!
We need you, because we occasionally need some solid data for relief from the childish bantering.
("It is so!" "I is not!" It is so!" It is not!")

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#111571 Mar 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think the approach you disdainfully (that's code for non-objective) describe should be favored. That's why it's not my approach.
So, you deny that you accept the Noah flood story as true based on the reputation of the Bible. Fascinating, as you spent page after page defending that very thing. First, you say it is acceptable and rational, and isn't in conflict with how science works. Now, you say that it's not your approach at all. You couldn't possibly be so dishonest as to want quotes of you defending the "if the reputation is good enough, we just accept it no matter how ridiculous it is" methodology.

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
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr River Tam 33,031
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Endofdays 81,662
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 12 hr Eagle 12 - 2,191
Did humans come from Sturgeons? Oct 16 Science 1
Proof humans come from Tennessee Oct 16 Science 1
Science News (Sep '13) Oct 14 Science 4,005
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! (Apr '17) Oct 14 Science 876
More from around the web