Kansas Votes 4-1 To Allow Intelligent Design

[JoeyKnothead]

From Kansas Votes 4-1 To Allow Intelligent Design:

Topic for debate:

Should Kansas have voted to allow Intelligent Design in order to achieve "balance"?

[East of Eden]

So how do you explain this?

"Moses had words in his vocabulary that literally meant abortion or miscarriage, but he didnt use them in Exodus 21:22. Instead, he chose the same word he used in many other places to signify a living child being brought forth."

Dude, face it you are reaching. If they had meant for it to say "but the child still lives" they would have said JUST THAT, as I am pretty sure they had words for that back then...

They did, Moses in the original language used a word meaning 'a living child brought forth'. The problem is in the rabbinic interpretation.

Anyways, you have yet to show how this has any relation to ID... (although the fact that you are providing evidence for ID by sidetracking the debate on pointless side issues would almost be a good analogy for ID itself!).

I thought I already won that argument?

[Goat]

So how do you explain this?

"Moses had words in his vocabulary that literally meant abortion or miscarriage, but he didnt use them in Exodus 21:22. Instead, he chose the same word he used in many other places to signify a living child being brought forth."

Dude, face it you are reaching. If they had meant for it to say "but the child still lives" they would have said JUST THAT, as I am pretty sure they had words for that back then...

They did, Moses in the original language used a word meaning 'a living child brought forth'. The problem is in the rabbinic interpretation.

How very amusing... This evangelistic Christian you are quoting know Hebrew better than the last 3000 years of Jews. Do you know how egotistical that sounds?

[sarcasm]
To understand the Jewish scriptures, you can't ask a Jew, you have to ask an evangelistic Christian!
[/sarcasm]

Anyways, you have yet to show how this has any relation to ID... (although the fact that you are providing evidence for ID by sidetracking the debate on pointless side issues would almost be a good analogy for ID itself!).

I thought I already won that argument?

Not hardly, because you failed to show how 'intelligent design' is science. Did you manage to get Dover vs Pa overturned?

[chris_brown207]

So how do you explain this?

"Moses had words in his vocabulary that literally meant abortion or miscarriage, but he didnt use them in Exodus 21:22. Instead, he chose the same word he used in many other places to signify a living child being brought forth."

Dude, face it you are reaching. If they had meant for it to say "but the child still lives" they would have said JUST THAT, as I am pretty sure they had words for that back then...

They did, Moses in the original language used a word meaning 'a living child brought forth'. The problem is in the rabbinic interpretation.

How very amusing... This evangelistic Christian you are quoting know Hebrew better than the last 3000 years of Jews. Do you know how egotistical that sounds?

[sarcasm]
To understand the Jewish scriptures, you can't ask a Jew, you have to ask an evangelistic Christian!
[/sarcasm]

Anyways, you have yet to show how this has any relation to ID... (although the fact that you are providing evidence for ID by sidetracking the debate on pointless side issues would almost be a good analogy for ID itself!).

I thought I already won that argument?

Not hardly, because you failed to show how 'intelligent design' is science. Did you manage to get Dover vs Pa overturned?

LOL... I agree completely.

In other threads, EoE wants us to listen only to medieval history in the form of Ancient Rome, and wants us to ignore all evidence in the form of current events...

And then all of a sudden, to rationalize a different belief, he wants us to ignore the interpretations of the last 3000 years of theologians, and only listen to the interpretations of a current evangelist (who has a SLIGHT conflict of interest)...

.... LOL

[East of Eden]

How very amusing... This evangelistic Christian you are quoting know Hebrew better than the last 3000 years of Jews. Do you know how egotistical that sounds?

Why is that amusing? I also disagree with Jewish interpretations of the prophecies concerning Jesus, the Trinity (Gen. 1:26, "Let US make man in OUR image."), and most importantly their rejection of Jesus Christ 2,000 years ago.

[sarcasm]
To understand the Jewish scriptures, you can't ask a Jew, you have to ask an evangelistic Christian!
[/sarcasm]

So does that mean non-Christians will stop opining on Christianity on this forum?

[East of Eden]

Delete

[East of Eden]

Delete

[East of Eden]

LOL... I agree completely.

In other threads, EoE wants us to listen only to medieval history in the form of Ancient Rome, and wants us to ignore all evidence in the form of current events...

What in the world are you talking about? Is LOL an argument?

And then all of a sudden, to rationalize a different belief, he wants us to ignore the interpretations of the last 3000 years of theologians, and only listen to the interpretations of a current evangelist (who has a SLIGHT conflict of interest)...

.... LOL

So you don't think theologians can be wrong?

[chris_brown207]

LOL... I agree completely.

In other threads, EoE wants us to listen only to medieval history in the form of Ancient Rome, and wants us to ignore all evidence in the form of current events...

What in the world are you talking about? Is LOL an argument?

And then all of a sudden, to rationalize a different belief, he wants us to ignore the interpretations of the last 3000 years of theologians, and only listen to the interpretations of a current evangelist (who has a SLIGHT conflict of interest)...

.... LOL

So you don't think theologians can be wrong?

You are right, I apologize for getting banal with my responses. I was getting annoyed by what I thought was cherry picking by EoE against gay marriage, and then for ID.

As for you question, yes of course theologians can be wrong. But, I think that theologians are more accurately able to translate their own religious texts (especially, on a timeline, the closer to the date that the texts were written that they make their translation). My comment was to point out that EoE was only listening to the translation of a current evangelist, and not thousands of years of theologians who had been translating it traditionally the same.

[East of Eden]

LOL... I agree completely.

In other threads, EoE wants us to listen only to medieval history in the form of Ancient Rome, and wants us to ignore all evidence in the form of current events...

What in the world are you talking about? Is LOL an argument?

And then all of a sudden, to rationalize a different belief, he wants us to ignore the interpretations of the last 3000 years of theologians, and only listen to the interpretations of a current evangelist (who has a SLIGHT conflict of interest)...

.... LOL

So you don't think theologians can be wrong?

You are right, I apologize for getting banal with my responses. I was getting annoyed by what I thought was cherry picking by EoE against gay marriage, and then for ID.

As for you question, yes of course theologians can be wrong. But, I think that theologians are more accurately able to translate their own religious texts (especially, on a timeline, the closer to the date that the texts were written that they make their translation). My comment was to point out that EoE was only listening to the translation of a current evangelist, and not thousands of years of theologians who had been translating it traditionally the same.

Do you feel the same way about skeptics who dismiss thousands of years of Christian theology?

BTW, I'm sure there are Christians who have interpreted it the way I'm presenting for 2,000 years.

[Goat]

LOL... I agree completely.

In other threads, EoE wants us to listen only to medieval history in the form of Ancient Rome, and wants us to ignore all evidence in the form of current events...

What in the world are you talking about? Is LOL an argument?

And then all of a sudden, to rationalize a different belief, he wants us to ignore the interpretations of the last 3000 years of theologians, and only listen to the interpretations of a current evangelist (who has a SLIGHT conflict of interest)...

.... LOL

So you don't think theologians can be wrong?

You are right, I apologize for getting banal with my responses. I was getting annoyed by what I thought was cherry picking by EoE against gay marriage, and then for ID.

As for you question, yes of course theologians can be wrong. But, I think that theologians are more accurately able to translate their own religious texts (especially, on a timeline, the closer to the date that the texts were written that they make their translation). My comment was to point out that EoE was only listening to the translation of a current evangelist, and not thousands of years of theologians who had been translating it traditionally the same.

Do you feel the same way about skeptics who dismiss thousands of years of Christian theology?

BTW, I'm sure there are Christians who have interpreted it the way I'm presenting for 2,000 years.

You have not provided any evidence other than this one persons claim. When I see an ultra orthodox organization and a medieval commentary disagree, when I know from a point of tradition they would have a large objection to abortion unless absolutely needed, and you are using that to be anti-abortion... well, it just doesn't make sense.

Perhaps if you give me a source that has a better linguistics background, like someone who actually teaches biblical Hebrew at a major university, I will believe you. I don't think Gregory Koukl is qualified. I know that anti-abortion crowd will want to push that interpretation, but .. frankly it doesn't hold up to the linquistic analysis or context.