Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge
|!||This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.|
- 1 One problem
- 2 Grand Unified Theory... what!?
- 3 Section or new article on future knowledge
- 4 GUT
- 5 Last shall be first, and the first shall be last
- 6 Pi to one significant figure
- 7 ... out of no extra material
- 8 Zero
- 9 The significance of blood
- 10 God and Calculus
- 11 The Concept of Infinity
- 12 Light and Color
- 13 Christians do not "mock" creationist concepts
- 14 Growing obesity problem in the world plus obesity problem in the atheist population
- 15 Seriously disappointed...
- 16 when it quotes the devil, which is the word for chaos
- 17 Hubris of Man
- 18 Distance of Oldest Star to Earth
- 19 Negative Numbers
- 20 Malthusianism and the economics of plenty
- 21 Water on Mars
- 22 Embarrassing Error
- 23 Calming the Storm
This is a wonderful article, with many in sites that could drive atheists to the brink of despair. The one issue is "...by 2011 obesity was far more prevalent and harmful than hunger. " I realize that this is an America-centric wiki, but if you look at world numbers, 500 000 000 obese, 925 000 000 without adequate nutrition. Just found this a bit of a slap in the face
- I think you're missing a key word in your comment. I also think there are more than 500 million obese people in the world.--Andy Schlafly 23:51, 20 February 2012 (EST)
- http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/ These are the 2008 obesity statistics. As for the missing key word, I could not find it, but if you could point out a flaw in my argument, I would be quite happy Sy20 12:02, 21 February 2012 (EST)
Grand Unified Theory... what!?
"But Genesis explains that the creation of light was done in a separate, initial creation, free of darkness or entropy, and thus incapable of unification with matter." So did God specifically separate visible light out from the rest of the EM spectrum, or did He create x-rays, gamma rays, radio waves, electricity and magnetism at the same time? Seems to me if light was a separate creation it wouldn't rest in the middle of the current electromagnetic spectrum, was it shoehorned in later? I'm not sure what to make of what I'm reading here. Further explanation is required. --JoshuaB 20:38, 25 February 2012 (EST)
- Like I said below, both light and (say) electrons behave sometimes like waves, and sometimes like particles. In the standard formalism people use, one takes the fields to fundamental for everything: photons, gluons, quarks, electrons, and so on. (This is called quantum field theory, for obvious reasons.) And like Joshua said, is it specifically the visible spectrum, or all EM radiation? Because it's clear that there is nothing special about the visible spectrum. And GUT's refer to the unification of the strong force with the electroweak force. Not light with matter. AndyFrankinson 10:18, 18 March 2012 (EDT)
Section or new article on future knowledge
I was thinking it would be a good idea to write an article, or perhaps a subsection to this article, that details knowledge or predictions in the bible that are not yet known to science. What do you think? --JeremyK 12:46, 1 March 2012 (EST)
- That's a great idea! Please start a subsection or, perhaps better, a new entry as you suggested.--Andy Schlafly 13:06, 1 March 2012 (EST)
- Excellent! I have to finish up a research paper this week so I'll be very busy, but I'll try and draw up a draft for next weekend.--JeremyK 08:50, 4 March 2012 (EST)
- I had a look at the page just now and I can't find the section on future knowledge. Am I missing it or should I add one? BarrySM 18:04, 22 February 2014 (EST)
- Well I went ahead and did it. Hope everyone likes it. BarrySM 09:33, 24 February 2014 (EST)
You state that "Billions of dollars and millions of hours have been wasted by atheists in futile pursuit of a "grand unified theory" for physics. But Genesis explains that the creation of light was done in a separate, initial creation, free of darkness or entropy, and thus incapable of unification with matter." I had a laugh at this: electromagnetism/light was unified with another force (the weak force) around 40 years ago...
And don't tell me you are going to start a "counterexamples to the electroweak theory" page... AndyFrankinson 19:54, 1 March 2012 (EST)
- Maybe you'll get a response. As you can see, I made similar statements a few sections above you. --JoshuaB 19:59, 1 March 2012 (EST)
- Yeah, I noticed that right after I posted mine. Sorry! AndyFrankinson 20:47, 1 March 2012 (EST)
- And what are the fundamental differences? Everything sometimes acts like particles, and sometimes like waves. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point of a GUT to unite the electroweak theory with the theory of the strong force (quantum chromodynamics)? AndyFrankinson 19:43, 6 March 2012 (EST)
- Semantic debates are not very interesting. The basic point is clear: light (the entire spectrum) is fundamentally different from matter as illustrated by their creation on different days. Efforts to unify them are a waste of time and money.--Andy Schlafly 10:54, 18 March 2012 (EDT)
- So the point you are making is: light and matter are different, and so light cannot be on equal footing with (say) electrons, right? AndyFrankinson 13:53, 18 March 2012 (EDT)
- And what are the differences? In the formalism one uses in particle physics, both the photons and the electrons are treated with the field as fundamental--the particles are merely quanta of the excited energy spectrum. AndyFrankinson 20:00, 18 March 2012 (EDT)
- If there were no differences, then a unified theory would exist. But it does not. Mass exerts a gravitational force that is fundamentally different from electromagnetism.--Andy Schlafly 22:33, 20 March 2012 (EDT)
- Can light be unified with any other force? Like the nuclear forces? AndyFrankinson 14:46, 21 March 2012 (EDT)
- I also think you're confusing inertial mass with gravitational mass.... AndyFrankinson 20:03, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
Last shall be first, and the first shall be last
How is this statement hinting to set-theory? Could this explained? And did it hint the LIFO principle of queuing theory? For me this seems to be quite a stretch. AugustO 10:04, 17 June 2012 (EDT)
There is no credible argument that this has anything to do with set theory, and its inclusion simply weakens the credibility of the article and the encyclopaedia. I'm deleting this example. Erniecohen (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2016 (EST)
- I would like to hear an argument in support of this, but before someone does, it should not be deleted. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2016 (EST)
- I deleted it (before the deletion was reverted) because the original objection to it is over 3 years old, with no responses in favor of keeping it. How long are we supposed to wait before deleting such nonsense? Absurd entries like this just make the page into a joke. I would not be surprised if some of these examples were put in by people trying to do just that. Erniecohen (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2016 (EST)
Pi to one significant figure
I removed the comment about pi to one significant figure as the verses deal with 10 * pi. I know that 31 to one sig fig is still 30, but the verses are in the order of magnitude 1, not 10, so it would be nonsensical to round 31 to 30. WilcoxD 00:54, 20 August 2012 (EDT)
Can I suggest that you remove the reference to decimal measurement, this is irrelevant to the argument given that pi can be expressed as a fraction.--Matthewhammond 18:28, 25 July 2013 (EDT)
... out of no extra material
One would think that loafs and fishes are measurable ("material") and therefore, that Banach-Tarski isn't applicable... --AugustO 16:08, 12 September 2012 (EDT)
- One would think that if Jesus' extraordinary doings were explainable by scientific means that said doings aren't actually miracles but merely a corollary of Clarke's third law? This, in turn could be used in a denial of Our Savior's deity. JuanMotame 16:50, 12 September 2012 (EDT)
- Replying to August, I find his objection to be nitpicky. The analogy with Banach-Tarski is a strong one.--Andy Schlafly 23:56, 14 September 2012 (EDT)
- Nitpicky? I start to see this as a compliment...
- Banach-Tarsky relies on the Axiom of Choice to choose two sets from a ball which are not measurable: there is no way to put a weight to those two sets in any sensible way - thus no material can be chopped up this way. AugustO 02:04, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
I couldn't find any reference to zero in the Bible in the sense of a place-value notation. Obviously there are many mentions of nothingness, but that is a different topic - and you'll find similar occurrences in virtually every piece of literature. AugustO 06:03, 14 September 2012 (EDT)
- Aschlafly, by your standard the Iliad contains hundreds of references to the concept of zero throughout:
- θαρσήσας μάλα εἰπὲ θεοπρόπιον ὅ τι οἶσθα:
- οὐ μὰ γὰρ Ἀπόλλωνα Διῒ φίλον, ᾧ τε σὺ Κάλχαν
- εὐχόμενος Δαναοῖσι θεοπροπίας ἀναφαίνεις,
- οὔ τις ἐμεῦ ζῶντος καὶ ἐπὶ χθονὶ δερκομένοιο
- σοὶ κοίλῃς παρὰ νηυσί βαρείας χεῖρας ἐποίσει
- συμπάντων Δαναῶν, οὐδ᾽ ἢν Ἀγαμέμνονα εἴπῃς,
- ὃς νῦν πολλὸν ἄριστος Ἀχαιῶν εὔχεται εἶναι.
- Do you see how Achilles refers to zero Greeks? Does this mean that Homer foresaw our modern decimal system? That is absurd. Until you can show at least one verse in the Bible where there is a reference to zero in the sense of a place-value notation, I'll remove this topic. AugustO 01:59, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
- In my opinion it is also incorrect to say that western mathematicians had no concept of zero, it is just that it is not necessary in an additive number system like roman numerals. I forget the exact place, but the Venerable Bede (who lived quite early in the middle ages) uses the word 'nulla'(or something to that effect, my Latin is non-existent) to stand for zero in a list.Cmurphynz 09:42, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
- But if Romans had not been so resistant to the Bible then they would have discovered and used it far sooner. The importance of zero/nothing is pervasive in the Bible. Indeed, I'll add the insight in one passage about how 0 times a large number is still zero.--Andy Schlafly 09:53, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
- The Romans were - most of the time - not resistant to the Bible, but ignorant of it: from 753 B.C. until 100 A.D., there was only the Old Testament around, and Judaism is not exactly religion encouraging missionaries...
- Bede used nulla in the early 8th century, the decimal system was introduced by Fibonacci in the 12th century. The inventors were the Hindus which generally didn't know the Bible at all: So was the knowledge of the Bible detrimental to the introduction of zero as a powerful mathematical concept?
- Again, please give us a sample of verses were zero occurs in the Bible - that shouldn't be difficult for you, as you claim that The importance of zero/nothing is pervasive in the Bible.
- AugustO 10:09, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
Argument from Numerology
Also, in Matthew 16:26, Jesus points out that after one loses his soul (the equivalent of zero), no multiplication of value can amount to anything: it's still zero. In other words, anything times zero is still zero, an insight the Romans lacked.
Aschlafy, you are introducing numerology into scripture! There is no mention of zero in this verse, you put it into it for your convenience!
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? (Matthew 16:26)
Where did you get the idea that the Romans lacked the insight that anything times zero is still zero? Any scholarly source?
And you are not even consistent: On other places you are talking about the concept of infinity - but zero times infinity isn't necessarily zero.... --AugustO 04:36, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
- My edit comment got mangled - it should read: why zero and not -∞? That's just arbitrary...
- if you try to read mathematics into Matthew 16:26, one way is to say that the soul is of infinite value, therefore its worth more than all existing things. Another way is to say that it is of a very great, but finite value, but worth more than all existing things. A third, more modern way, is to claim that it doesn't make sense to compare the soul and mundane things, i.e., that there is no complete order on the value of everything. But these are all interpretations of this verse, none of which is obvious-
--AugustO 01:38, 17 September 2012 (EDT)
- The most straightforward interpretation is that when a man loses his soul, he has nothing (zero).--Andy Schlafly 01:18, 26 September 2012 (EDT)
- I'm afraid that is straightforward only to you - especially the use of the multiplication: when we lose or acquire things, we tend to add their value, not to multiply it. AugustO 01:25, 26 September 2012 (EDT)
IMO numerological arguments are meaningless, but here is the most "obvious" or "straightforward" rendition of the verse using your "values": lost soul (0) + world (some value x) = x, ergo something. Have you found anyone else who realized that this verse uses the concept of zero? Or is this insight shared by no one else, allowing only you to see this reference to zero?
Such "insights" can be constructed for the Iliad, too! Does this mean that the Greek gods gave us the zero?
AugustO 01:55, 26 September 2012 (EDT)
The significance of blood
The Old Testament teaches that the life of all flesh is its blood (Leviticus 17:13-14 (KJV)). Secular science remained ignorant of the properties and circulation of blood until the 17th century A.D.
That is not correct - the source itself states: That is, life depends upon the existence and circulation of blood, a truth known empirically but not scientifically tested and proved until the 17th century a.d. (cf. Lev 17:11).
Indeed, the blood circuit couldn't be seen completely before the invention of the microscope...
AugustO 06:36, 14 September 2012 (EDT)
God and Calculus
The Bible emphasizes the importance of limits as a key distinction between this world and God; Calculus consists of relying on limits to derive useful results.
Where does the Bible do so? The "source" - Norie Grace Rivera-Poblete: "God and Calculus", Institute for Christian Teaching Education Department of Seventh-day Adventist, Prepared for the 27th International Faith and Learning Seminar held at Mission, Muak Lek Saraburi, Thailand December 3 – 15, 2000 - gives one example:
- "Limit" reminds us of the experience of the Israelites, as they traveled through the wilderness. Most of the adult Israelites who came out from Egypt did not enter the Promised Land except for Caleb and Joshua. The children of Israel "approached" the Promised Land; generally speaking, all of them reached the border. But none of them would have made it were it not for God's limitless love and grace. Even though they disobeyed Him so many times, God still kept His covenant with the Israelites.
That's just not convincing. --AugustO 16:33, 14 September 2012 (EDT)
The Concept of Infinity
Most thinkers scoffed at the concept of infinity for thousands of years, despite being referenced in the Bible in many ways. See, e.g., Psalm 147:4-6 (God's "understanding is infinte"); Matthew 20:1-14 (parable of the wages for the workers in the vineyard).
- Where is the concept of infinity in the parable of the vineyard? Every worker has worked for at least an hour, and everyone gets the same amount of money - its subtext is about the infinite reward we may receive, but the parable itself is certainly finite...
- My Hebrew is worse than my Greek, but to my understanding the Greek idea of infinity/infinities (actual vs. potential) is more sophisticated than the one in the Old Testament. In fact you'll find that in the psalms the same word is used to describe the number of the stars and God's infinite wisdom: מִסְפָּר (mispar)
AugustO 16:46, 14 September 2012 (EDT)
- The owner of the vineyard has infinite wealth relative to the workers. The parable is illogical only to those who resist the concept of infinity, as non-believers did until mathematicians accepted the concept more than 1500 years later.--Andy Schlafly 10:03, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
- Do you say that the early Christians didn't understand the parable as the generally hadn't a concept of infinity?
- And, pray, how does the owner of the vineyard has infinite wealth relative to the workers? He wasn't even rich as Midas....
- AugustO 10:13, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? (Matthew 16:26) Interesting, how Matthew avoids the term infinite... AugustO 10:41, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
Light and Color
Light and Color
The transfiguration of Jesus is described with remarkable consistency in all three synoptic Gospels: in the fullness of light Jesus and his clothing display an intense white, whiter than any bleach could produce. This illustrates what was not discovered and accepted until nearly 1700 years later: that white is the combination of other fundamental colors, and the purest white light is formed by a perfectly full combination (see Prism).
The color white seems to be a universal symbol of purity - I fail to see who this is a description that white is the combination of other fundamental colors, and the purest white light is formed by a perfectly full combination - did Jesus wear a rainbow - coat? AugustO 17:34, 14 September 2012 (EDT)
- Your first sentence seems to be missing something, and I don't see its relevance anyway. The Bible is not describing a symbol, but an actual event. No, the fullness of light is not a rainbow because the colors are not separated from each other.--Andy Schlafly 00:06, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
Christians do not "mock" creationist concepts
atheists are the ones who "mocked" the creationist concept for about 100 years; Christians do not "mock" creationist concepts
They would mock them - if they didn't see them as creationist concepts! Wegener was mocked by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in a conference in the 1920s. Were there only atheists in this association? No, of course not. But there were Christians which supported other theories, partly perhaps as those seemed to be more easily reconcilable with Scripture. Who are we to criticize them for not recognizing Wegener's theory as better fitting into Biblical scientific foreknowledge? --AugustO 11:18, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
- Atheism promotes pseudo-intellectual mockery in a way that Christianity does not.--Andy Schlafly 16:24, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
- Any examples? AugustO 16:29, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
- Well, more than 90% of Christian commentary against evolutionary concepts is juvenile mockery, at least on this site (see Category:Satire). So this doesn't corroborate your statement Atheism promotes pseudo-intellectual mockery in a way that Christianity does not. --AugustO 16:49, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
- Your link is to far less than 90% of this site. See Counterexamples to Evolution and Counterexamples to an Old Earth and Radiometric Dating, and numerous other entries. Also, there is not a tradition of Christians mocking atheists anything like the converse, which dates back to the Passion of Christ.--Andy Schlafly 17:17, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
A few points:
1. Conservapedia has a 21 page article on evolution which quotes/cites prominent evolutionists amongst others. The article has over 300 footnotes.
2. Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal.
3. The majority of satires were on atheism and not evolutionism. The Bible says that atheists are fools and that honor is not fitting for a fool. The most ardent evolutionists post WWII have been atheists/agnostics. The Conservapedia atheism article is 54 pages long with over 300 footnotes and cites atheists among others.
4. Evolutionists have shown themselves to be deceitful cowards. Deceitful cowards deserve to be mocked. See: Atheism and deception and Atheism and cowardice and Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates
5. Shockofgod loves the satires and is going to do a whole series of weekly videos on the satires of atheism and evolutionism.
I hope that clears things up. Conservative 17:20, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
- Thanks, I think you made my case very well. AugustO 17:25, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
- My point is that the degree of juvenile mockery of both sides is roughly the same. And were there any atheists present at the Passion of Christ? I doubt it: there were Romans of various religious beliefs (Rome was quite tolerant) and Jews, but atheist aren't mentioned in the Bible... AugustO 17:41, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
AugustO, a few more points:
1. God willing, the Evangelical Covenant Church in Germany will spread the 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer in Germany. Unlike the Protestant denomination that you belong to, they are growing in Germany.
2. One of the largest conservative Christian ministries in the world linked to my atheism and evolution articles.
3. The Concerned Women of America (CWA) website links to my atheism and evolution articles. CWA is the largest women organization in America. Ergo, conservative ladies love my atheism and evolution articles!
4. If memory serves, you indicated that the German Protestant denomination, which has some its member churches give homosexual "couple" "blessings", is shrinking.
I strongly suspect one of the reasons is that your Protestant denomination church body has a sub-replacement level of births. In 2010, Germany had a 1.39 children per woman which is far below the 2.1 replacement level of births.
All true conservative women love babies.
All true able bodied conservative Protestant married men love their wives and are hard workers with the Protestant work ethic. They are able to have big families.
Ergo, your Protestant church body is likely filled with liberal men and women!
5. Adolf Hitler was a German evolutionary racist and most of the evolutionists German public were enthusiastic followers of him and he spoke before enthusiastic crowds. Conservative 18:59, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
- Unlike the Protestant denomination that you belong to, they are growing in Germany. Indeed, and extrapolating the current trends this Germany-wide operating church will have as many members as my church which is restricted mainly to the area of Northern Hesse in just 100 - 150 years.
- One of the largest conservative Christian ministries in the world linked to my atheism and evolution articles. Which one? I had troubles to find this link
- The Concerned Women of America (CWA) website links to my atheism and evolution articles. Indeed, it does - sort of: You have to look very hard to find this link. Using the on-site search option, Conservapedia is mentioned once in a footnote in the article Cutting the Cord - The Case for Defunding Planned Parenthood from Feb 2011. However the link is to Planned Parenthood#Planned Parenthood's Teen Website Gets It Barred from California High School and not Atheism or Evolution. But there is this article by Matt Barber which praises Conservapedia and mentions its articles on on topics ranging from atheism, to homosexuality, to the theory of evolution and so on. Sadly this article is quite dated - and nothing links to it on the CWA website.
- If memory serves, you indicated that the German Protestant denomination, which has some its member churches give homosexual "couple" "blessings", is shrinking. and the population of Germany is shrinking, too. What has this to do with the topic at hand? Is the position of the religious bodies in Malaysia or Indonesia more valid as their populations are growing? All true able bodied conservative Protestant married men love their wives and are hard workers with the Protestant work ethic. They are able to have big families. And many choose not to have big families, but only one to three children. Is this wrong? How many brothers and sisters do you have? How big a family are you planning to have when you reach maturity?
- Adolf Hitler spoke unfortunately often before crowds in which you would find only few atheists, Nordics, but an overwhelming number of Christians who he laid astray - but Christians non the less. If his party had relied only on atheists it would have amassed the 5.3 million members it had in 1939...
Growing obesity problem in the world plus obesity problem in the atheist population
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God-- 2 Timothy 3:1-4
While Paul enumerates many sins of men in the end times, gaining weight isn't mentioned explicitly. Reading these verses I don't get the image that epidemic obesity is a sign of the end times. AugustO 17:52, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
- Are you claiming that hedonism is not a major cause for obesity? If so, why? Is the Christian conservative Chuck Norris wrong about obesity primarily being caused by hedonism? See: Chuck Norris on the topic of obesity If so, why? Conservative 18:29, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
@Aschlafly. Unfortunately, I found your last edit to this article to be completely absurd. You added the following: "A storm developed over the water while Jesus slept (i.e., chaos develops when God is not observing), and it was Jesus's awaking to observe it that calmed the storm."
"(...when God is not observing)"!? What sort of arrogant foolishness of man is this? The Almighty God is omnipotent and omnipresent in His revealed form! There is NOTHING that happens without His observation! Your edit seems to deny the Holy Trinity. Yet, even worse, casts Jesus down to the level of Fallen Man (who can be easily mistaken upon awakening from sleep). I hope you can find my knee-jerk reaction to be proven wrong. --DonnyC 05:36, 1 February 2013 (EST)
when it quotes the devil, which is the word for chaos
I don't know a thing about quantum mechanics but I know "devil" is not the word for "chaos". It comes from "diabalos", which is Greek for "slanderer". Satan certainly works to create chaos and turmoil in our lives but that is not what devil means. I would try to make your edit better without this part of the statement but I don't know anything about the science you are talking about. Nate 22:58, 28 February 2013 (EST)
- We have an entry on devil, and I should have linked to it. My Merriam Webster Collegiate's dictionary says its first etymological meaning is "to throw across."--Andy Schlafly 23:08, 28 February 2013 (EST)
- Interesting definition. I see that from a Greek concordance that those words are there in the definition in English but it looks like your translation is pretty loose. http://biblesuite.com/greek/1228.htm The Biblical use means "slander" and never "chaos" as far as I can tell looking at Strong's. Nate. Nate 23:55, 28 February 2013 (EST)
- Strong's and older translations tend to prefer philosophical meanings of words, when today a more scientific connotation can be more informative.--Andy Schlafly 00:38, 1 March 2013 (EST)
- But why do you say that? The concordance tracks the meaning of the Greek word as it is used in the Bible. There is no scientific connotation. Diabolos means "slanderer". That is what Satan is! The Defamer. Nate 00:53, 1 March 2013 (EST)
- Strong's and older translations tend to prefer philosophical meanings of words, when today a more scientific connotation can be more informative.--Andy Schlafly 00:38, 1 March 2013 (EST)
- You raise an interesting issue. I'll think about this further and do some more research.--Andy Schlafly 00:56, 1 March 2013 (EST)
- διαβάλλω literally means this: "to throw across." Its etymology is clear, being a combination of διά (meaning through or between) and βάλλω (which means "to throw"). Strong's is not precise enough here, and this illustrates the benefits of looking again at how words are being translated.--Andy Schlafly 22:06, 1 March 2013 (EST)
Andrew Schlafly, you have a history of inventing new meanings and translations when it pleases you. If you take out your Liddell-Scott, you'll find that neither διάβόλος nor διαβάλλω have anything to do with chaos or disorder. Yes, διαβάλλω is contracted from διά and βάλλω and it means "to throw or carry over or across", but it is literally used to describe a move in wrestling or "to pass over, cross". So it is generally used to describe the throw of a single item, e.g. your opponent when wrestling or yourself (used reflexively as "to cross") - that's not how one creates chaos". Figuratively, it means "to attack a man's character, calumniate", "to speak or state slanderously", "deceive by false accounts", etc. To stress my (and Liddell's and Scott's point): διαβάλλω does not mean to create chaos, it has nothing to do with disorder. διάβόλος is a slanderer, διάβόλος doesn't mean creator of chaos. There is no evidence that it is even used literally in the sense of someone passing, etc.! As with ἰδού, I doubt that you have a shred of evidence (and even less a scholarly source) to redefine nearly 3000 years of usage of this words... --AugustO 09:20, 3 March 2013 (EST)
This all seems to be rather missing the point. If Luke 4.6 is a reference to uncertainty at the quantum level, then it is most certainly a figurative reference. But isn't the viewpoint of this blog that the Bible should be interpreted literally? --DHouser 10:13, 9 May 2013 (EDT)
- To repeat my point: διαβάλλω doesn't mean throw over, topple, or overturn (like ἀνατροπεύς). It has nothing to do with chaos. No one but Andrew Schlafly has ever connected this word to chaos. --AugustO (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2016 (EDT)
Hubris of Man
I find this edit to be rather troubling. It is important to note that there are many acts of devine intervention or power described in the Bible, that will always be beyond human technology. While it is nice to observe that some items described in the Bible foresaw subsequent technological developments, the Bible does not predict that all things described in it will ultimately become possible through advances in human technology. Nor is it valid to re-translate the Bible to add technological predictions. Finally, if the human population of the earth grows faster than the ability to produce food, as a matter of mathematics and logic, a point will be reached in the future when the population will exceed the ability of the earth to feed it. This is not a liberal vs. conservative issue, just mathematics. While birth control and the AIDS epidemic have trimmed the population growth curve, the problem exists over the very long term. Let's show some humility and acknowledge the limitations of human technology. Man should not aspire to hold all of the powers of God. 14:16, 18 August 2013 (EDT)
- The fallacy is in the "if": "if the human population of the earth grows faster than the ability to produce food." This "if" has never occurred and never would occur, because man has always been able to produce more than he needs to consume.--Andy Schlafly 16:02, 18 August 2013 (EDT)
- Thank you for your response. First, Robert Malthus wrote An Essay on the Principle of Population (1798), one of the earliest and most influential books on population. He correctly predicted exponential population growth. People feared that eventually, the maximum ability of the Earth to sustain a population would be reached. Admittedly, population growth has been tempered due to birth control and the AIDS epidemic, but at some point growth will accelerate and one can foresee the limit eventually being reached even with further technological advances. I don't see the Bible contradicting that result, and the article does not present a fair picture of the topic. Second, the Bible describes many miraculous things that were beyond human technology at the time it was written. Some could inspire technological advances, but other miracles described in the Bible will always be beyond human technology (e.g., the parting of the Red Sea.) I believe the article should show some humility and acknowledge the limitations of human technology. Man should not aspire to hold all of the powers of God. Thanks, Wschact 20:21, 18 August 2013 (EDT)
Distance of Oldest Star to Earth
How can the source be trusted? It says the oldest star is 13.7 billion years old and implies that stars have been observed farther away, so this contradicts the article's assertion that creation occurred 6,000 years ago. How can the distance of the oldest star be taken as fact but other inconvenient facts be ignored? --Randall7 17:10, 22 February 2014 (EST)
- Articles are cited here for their facts, not for any additional liberal speculation or spin that is included. There is no atheistic reason to claim 6,000 light-years away if it were not true. The confirmation of the Bible by a scientific culture that tends to be atheistic in outlook is remarkable.--Andy Schlafly 19:12, 22 February 2014 (EST)
- Thanks for rephrasing that for me. BarrySM 10:28, 23 February 2014 (EST)
- In all seriousness, though... The article is talking about the oldest star, not the farthest star. If we were citing it to mean that no star is farther than 6,000 light-years, then the source simply doesn't hold up. And if the source is not being cited for that reason, then the statement has no grounds. Could you further clarify, please? JSchwartz 20:48, 23 February 2014 (EST)
Sorry for my misunderstanding, but how do any of the Bible passages cited provide examples of negative numbers, especially within multiplication? If we could provide that citation in-article, it would also improve the quality. JSchwartz 20:51, 23 February 2014 (EST)
Malthusianism and the economics of plenty
William Bradford's writing in his diary provides a good example of God's powers and use of conservative economics,(Bradford writes about his thankfulness for God's wisdom in that very way almost word for word) but its not the examples from the Old/New Testament as written about in the article. Progressingamerica (talk) 10:57, 19 September 2015 (EDT)
- Thanks for improving the citation. Do you have any additional edits you'd like to make on this particular point?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:22, 19 September 2015 (EDT)
Water on Mars
It occurs to me that, among all the hullabaloo about water on Mars, it would be worthwhile to point out that water beyond Earth is old news to Christians; the Bible clearly established the existence of the "waters above" long before astronomers even thought about hypothesizing it...and, indeed, before there was even a formal discipline of astronomy! --Benp (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2015 (EDT)
- Excellent point. We need to add this somewhere in the entry itself.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2015 (EDT)
Andy, you write in an edit comment:
|“||[Biblical scientific foreknowledge] guides a more precise translation of verses that describe scientific-related events, such as Jesus's Calming the Storm||”|
... and you even link to the your Essay:Calming the Storm. You are still ignoring the embarrassing error in this essay, i.e., that your interpretation of the text depends on your ignorance of the declination of the verb λέγω! See Talk:Essay:Calming the Storm. Your "more precise translation" is just a joke...
Calming the Storm
Andy wants us to believe that it was the observation of the storm which calmed it, and that Jesus didn't speak. He writes:
|“||A storm developed over the water while Jesus slept (i.e., chaos develops when God is not observing), and it was Jesus' awaking to observe it that calmed the storm. This famous calming of the storm is typically translated as the result of a "rebuke" by Jesus of the bad weather. But a closer look at the Greek reveals that the key term means "judge" rather than "rebuke", and thus it was the act of Jesus observing the chaos that caused it to "collapse" into an orderly state, similar to the effect of observing a wave function.||”|
and at Essay:Calming the Storm he says:
|“||In the Mark verse above, traditional translations insert the word "said" as though Jesus caused the calming by verbally ordering the sea to be still. But "λέγω" -- the Greek term used for said in some versions -- does not appear in the Greek above, and where it does appear in Greek versions its real meaning is to "lay", to "cause to lie down," or to "put to sleep." It only has a connotation of speaking when used in a context of verbal communication (as in putting one word with another), which is not the case here.||”|
Unfortunately, this is just wrong. Mark's verse contains the words:
|“||εἶπεν τῇ θαλάσσῃ Σιώπα, πεφίμωσο.||”|
- εἶπεν is a conjugate form of λέγω, in fact, it is 3rd person singular aorist active indicative. The obvious translation is "He said", or "He commanded". But perhaps He spoke to Himself?
- No, He didn't: He addressed the sea (θάλασσα) directly, indicated by τῇ θαλάσσῃ, the dative of this feminine noun. But perhaps it was a silent exchange?
- No, it wasn't: Σιώπα, πεφίμωσο is a command, imperative versions of the words Σιώπα ("silence") and φιμόω ("to muzzle"). This is direct speech: Σιώπα means "Silence!" and "πεφίμωσο" means "Be muzzled!"
Putting this all together we get:
|“||He commanded the sea: "Silence! Be quite!||”|
Andy's most basic mistake is that he didn't spot that εἶπεν is a form of the verb λέγω. Additionally, he didn't recognize the imperatives Σιώπα and πεφίμωσο. Or the dative, of θάλασσα... You have to make rookie mistakes in just five words to get read of the connotation of speaking...
- August, Mark wasn't there. Jesus did not speak aloud to a storm. He silently commanded it by observing it. Your translation is too literal to the point of missing the meaning, and ignoring the physics.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 09:44, 10 March 2016 (EST)
- Really, that's your argument? Mark made stuff up? Therefore, "I, Andy Schlafly, know better than Mark the Evangelist, because Mark wasn't there?" Is this just hubris? Delusion? This is really a low-point for the CBP...
- My translation is literal only as it is factual, and not just a mere invention. Grammar is important, you know...
- --AugustO (talk) 10:26, 10 March 2016 (EST)
- We still read the utterly silly sentence But "λέγω" -- the Greek term used for said in some versions -- does not appear in the Greek above, at Essay:Calming the Storm - showing everybody with a modest knowledge of Greek that you, Andy, lack the most basic understanding of this language. And you still have the audacity to claim that you are able to see the "meaning" of a verse while you are not able to recognize the words in it! That is just preposterous. --AugustO (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2016 (EST)
- I said it in the edit summary, and it still applies here, so I might as well say it: Augusto, your criticism is harsh and doesn't even refute Andy's assertions. VargasMilan (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2016 (EST)
- August, here as in other discussions on translation, you adhere to an overly literal and narrow view of the Greek, without fully considering the context, the physics, and ordinary literary tools of abstraction. For example, if you were translating a Greek equivalent of the phrase "a wake-up call," would you insist that could only mean that someone was awoken from sleep by an actual call?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2016 (EST)
- Before you consider the abstract, you have to understand the concrete. Without a decent foundation, a building will falter. You don't have the basic knowledge, so any of your contributions to the CBT is just guess-work based on ominous insights.
- If I said that the verb "to be" is not used in the phrase "It was the lark", would you believe any translation of this sentence into another language which I proposed? No, of course not. Any of my Shakespeare translations would by dubious - even if I claimed that I know best what the bard really meant.
- --AugustO (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2016 (EST)
To refresh your memory:
I was thinking about how I might modernize the language, and some questions occurred to me.
Firstly, should speech use quotation marks, which came into use long after the KJV? e.g.
Secondly, is it necessary to begin as many verses with "And" as the KJV? Some verses clearly only comprise a portion of a sentence, and it seems to me that "Jesus appeared from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan River" is much more fluid than "And then Jesus appeared from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan River," but loses no meaning. DouglasA 18:18, 18 August 2009 (EDT)
In the following, I'm using context and grammar, so this paragraph can be a little bit taxing for someone with a very limited attention span. Please, nevertheless, try to read it carefully - instead of just skimming it...
The verb λέγω is not only used in in Mark 4:39, but in each of the verses 4:38 - 4:41. Let's have a look at these verses:
- Mark 4:38
καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν ἐν τῇ πρύμνῃ ἐπὶ τὸ προσκεφάλαιον καθεύδων· καὶ ἐγείρουσιν αὐτὸν καὶ λέγουσιν αὐτῷ Διδάσκαλε, οὐ μέλει σοι ὅτι ἀπολλύμεθα;
There is the main text (orange/red), written in the third person as seen by a narrator. Here we find λέγουσιν, "(they) say". How do we know that they - i.e., the disciples - say something, and not only think it? Well, this part is followed by direct speech (blue). The most obvious indicator for this switch is Διδάσκαλε, unambiguously the vocative (masculine, singular) of διδάσκαλος, ου, ὁ "teacher". The vocative is used to address someone directly, not to think about someone. Another indicator for direct speech is the verb ἀπολλύμεθα;. It's in the first person plural, so the perspective has changed. Above the absence of quotation marks in Koine Greek was mentioned - Greek writers used techniques like those which I just talked about to show the difference between the main text and direct speech...
- Mark 4:40
καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Τί δειλοί ἐστε; οὔπω ἔχετε πίστιν;
εἶπεν (the same form of λέγω as in Mark 4:39...) is the verb in the main text (red/orange): "He said". Again, there is no doubt that here something is said and not just thought, as again, direct speech (blue) is following, indicated by Τί, which is used as a question word, and the change of person and grammatical number of the verbs ἐστε and ἔχετε.
- Mark 4:41
καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον μέγαν, καὶ ἔλεγον πρὸς ἀλλήλους Τίς ἄρα οὗτός ἐστιν ὅτι καὶ ὁ ἄνεμος καὶ ἡ θάλασσα ὑπακούει αὐτῷ;
Again, the main text is written in a past tense, this times, the direct speech is introduced by ἔλεγον "(they) said". Again, the direct speech can be detected as it is phrased as a question in the present tense (ἐστιν "(he) is"). But here is another interesting point: ἡ θάλασσα ὑπακούει αὐτῷ means "the sea obeys him", or better "the sea listens to him", as the verb ὑπακούω means "to obey what is heard" - another indicator that Jesus spoke to the sea aloud!
But now for
- Mark 4:39
καὶ διεγερθεὶς ἐπετίμησεν τῷ ἀνέμῳ καὶ εἶπεν τῇ θαλάσσῃ Σιώπα, πεφίμωσο. καὶ ἐκόπασεν ὁ ἄνεμος, καὶ ἐγένετο γαλήνη μεγάλη.
Here, the main text (written in aorist, a kind of past tense) encloses Σιώπα, πεφίμωσο.. As in the following verse, εἶπεν is used: "He said". Or could it really mean "he observed [silently]"? Well, Σιώπα, πεφίμωσο. again shows a change of tense to indicate direct speech. As such, both verbs can best be seen as imperatives, i.e., direct commands.
It is preposterous to assume that the same construction (someone says to someone: "direct speech") was used in four consecutive verses, and just in one verse it isn't meant to represent spoken words. OTOH, it doesn't make sense to translate λέγω as "to observe [silently]" in any of the other three verses. In other words, Mark wrote "they said" - "he said" - "he said" - "they said", and not "they said" - "he observed" - "he said" - "they said" - the latter would not only have been confusing, but deliberately misleading.
But perhaps, Mark got it wrong - as he wasn't there (do you really want to open this can of worms?) That doesn't give you the liberty to change his text into a version of which you think that it is nearer to the actual truth! That may be, but then it isn't the Gospel according to Mark any longer, it is just "The Word of God How it should be according to Andrew Schlafly"....
Need to discuss further on the talk page
I'm looking forward to your arguments! You could perhaps take a look at which word the disciples used to describe Jesus's "rebuke"...
Or will you use the article as your bully pulpit, ignoring any input by others, insisting that you are right, because you had a special insight? It is hard to ignore the fact that you are still claiming in your Essay:Calming the Storm that λέγω doesn't appear in Mark's verse, making you the laughing stock of everybody with even a little Greek! --AugustO (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2016 (EDT)
a closer look at the Greek reveals that the key term does not necessarily mean a spoken "rebuke"; it was the act of Jesus observing the chaos that caused it to "collapse" into an orderly state, similar to the effect of observing a wave function. Where is this closer look? I'm afraid that you, Andrew Schlafly, are the only one to have this revelation! But I'm waiting for your analysis of ἐπιτιμάω: there are 29 occurrences of this word in the New Testament (according to Strong), and all of them are compatible with a spoken command.... --AugustO (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2016 (EDT)
- I am looking into this further today. Thanks for your patience.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:39, 18 March 2016 (EDT)
- It is difficult to sort through the substance from the silly put-downs, but the bottom line is this: according to even the limited view of Strong's, λέγω is translated as "I say, speak; I mean, mention, tell."  (emphasis added). Strong, of course, was no modern physicist, and he was hampered by his own lack of abstraction. Strong's goes further to admit that "légō (originally, 'lay down to sleep,'" - which fits perfectly in the calming of the storm.
- There is no reason to think that Mark, who was not there on the boat, was precisely quoting Jesus rather than describing His thoughts.
- "It is difficult to sort through the substance from the silly put-downs" It took you eight months to delete the sentence But "λέγω" -- the Greek term used for said in some versions -- does not appear in the Greek above from your Essay:Calming the Storm! Perhaps I could have shortened this time if I had sugar-coated my contempt by flattery, but I think that this would have been dishonest: not to spot that εἶπεν is a form of λέγω is a school-boy's error, and deserves school-yard's mockery.
- "the bottom line is this: according to even the limited view of Strong's, λέγω is translated as "I say, speak; I mean, mention, tell."  (emphasis added)." λέγω is the nineth most used word in the Greek New Testament. It is the most used non-auxiliary verb - and εἰμί ("I am") is only used slightly more often (2,460 vs. 2,350 times.) Why? We talked about this above: as Biblical Greek has no quotation marks, direct speech is indicated by words like λέγω. It is used in this sense a couple of hundred times in the Gospel of Mark, even in the verses directly before and after Mark 4:39. It would be quite dishonest of Mark to use it in this single verse in a way it isn't used elsewhere in his Gospel, and in a way it hadn't been used for hundreds of years! Therefore all the translations which Strong is proposing describe verbal utterances.
- "Strong, of course, was no modern physicist, and he was hampered by his own lack of abstraction. Strong's goes further to admit that "légō (originally, 'lay down to sleep,'" - which fits perfectly in the calming of the storm." There is nothing abstract in this glorified quotation mark λέγω. If I go to a courthouse in New Jersey and present myself as a "solicitor", you have every right to believe that I'm misrepresenting myself as a laywer - even if I say that I use the word in its original sense - as the French did a couple of hundred years ago, and that I'm meaning "troublemaker", not "lawyer". The same holds for λέγω: in the context of the Gospel it means something like "to say", and no one but you would think of the meaning "to lay down to sleep".
- "There is no reason to think that Mark, who was not there on the boat, was precisely quoting Jesus rather than describing His thoughts." There is every reason to think that Mark described the events and dialogues faithfully as they were reported to him. Only very rarely His thoughts or feelings are described in the Gospels: just when they are obvious from his actions and words.
- "If you have something substantive in rebuttal, then please provide it without the ad hominems." Well, for substance, take a look at the second point of this enumeration - or read #Mark 4:38-41. But this is indeed a very personal matter, so "ad hominems" are of relevance:
- your ideas and translations are based on your personal insights - like your translation of Son of Man as "the Son, a human being", or your Biblical rebuttals to the theory of relativity. Until now, only the likes of PetyrB have been claimed to be able to follow your lines of thoughts when it comes to these insights.
- you have shown your lack of Greek time and time again. You claim that you just don't have this "literal and narrow view of the Greek" - but this "literal and narrow view" comes from knowing the basics, and being actually capable of translating a Greek text, and not only paraphrasing the KJB with help from a glossary.
- It is frustrating to wait for eight months for the correction of a silly mistake (see the first point) - there can be no surprise that I become frustrated and cranky, and perhaps even more snappish than necessary. But the "ad hominems", the personal remarks above are rooted in my experience of editing Conservapedia over the last years. I'll be happy if I'm proven wrong: you just have to come up with a well-thought reply, addressing each of my points in this sections and the sections above sincerely (i.e., other than by just repeating "λέγω can mean lay to rest") and diligently. It is an important matter, and it should be discussed in depths, or not at all.
- --AugustO (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2016 (EDT)
- Will it take another eight months? --AugustO (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2016 (EDT)
After 40 days and 40 nights just another observation: Andy claims that «Strong's goes further to admit that "légō originally [means] 'lay down to sleep,'" - which fits perfectly in the calming of the storm.» and cites as source http://biblehub.com/greek/3004.htm . In reality, Strong doesn't do anything like this. He only gives the short definition: I say, speak and the definition: (denoting speech in progress), (a) I say, speak; I mean, mention, tell, (b) I call, name, especially in the pass., (c) I tell, command.