I don’t know if we’ve have threads about it, but my impression from reading a few articles online is that reef shark has confused guidelines for fair use (where 10 percent is a limit for excerpting works under copyright in a lot of cases) with broader copyright law. There is no magic number or percentage of words you have to change to get a new copyright, and I think the theory he’s advancing is probably bunk on every level. I don’t know that a lot of Bibles are based on the KJV as opposed to older languages, I doubt a lot of publishers or editors make changes just for the hope of copyrighting something new that they can sell (as opposed to differing interpretations or ideas about the text), I don’t think the KJV was the first version in English and I doubt it’s more “accurate” than many others, since it was agenda-driven like many other translations then and now.
Can you just imagine the conversations when they decided to put out later editions?
“I think it would be a great idea to put out a newer version of the Bible, but since the King James Bible is perfect we’re going to have to make our version at least 10% wrong according to copyright laws.”
On evolution- one of the most interesting, and relatively recent, evolutionary stories (in my opinion) is the origin of birds. When I grew up, dinosaurs were reptiles, and cold-blooded. I recall inklings of the birds = dinosaurs idea, but it was not widely accepted.
But now, it is. There are lots and lots of feathered dinosaurfossils- and even four-wingedvarieties!
If God made everything without evolution, he made it in such a way that fossils and DNA tell a really fascinating (and IMO far more fascinating then the bible) story of life on earth.
I dare say, you’ve made no one angry. You’re not presenting anything revolutionary or shocking that hasn’t been addressed at some time in the past around this place. So please don’t go away thinking you’ve shocked anyone’s sensibilities or your presence here has caused anyone to pull their own hair in anger, or that anyone has gone mad by your alarming lack of argument or evidence or focused thoughts, or that by bringing Jesus and the KJV of the Bible into GD you’ve caused an unholy burn to anyone’s skin.
Eye-rolling doesn’t equal anger. Neither does fingering the cerebral G-spot of someone who, in his first hours here, has claimed the existence some global Illuminati.
If I infringe on the copyright of the Bible, who will sue me?
Has this thread jumped the (reef) shark yet?
I didn’t notice anyone looking angry here. Frustrated maybe, as many have seen these arguments and debate tactics before. Nothing you have yet said in this thread demonstrates any working knowledge of what evolution actually is, and upon what evidence it is actually argued - you’re arguing not against evolution, but rather, against a caricature of it that has been presented to you by prominent creationist preacher/writers.
The only way this debate can ever be at all productive is if both sides agree to pick a specific part of the topic (for example, the geologic column, or genetic evidence - or, if you prefer to play it the other way, the logistics of Noah’s Ark, or something like that), and stick to debating within that subtopic without deviation. Are you up for that?
It’s not the first version in English. Not even the first CoE sanctioned English version. And King James was pretty clear that accuracy wasn’t the only concern in the translation. Here’s the wiki link, for all that it matters.
The copyright thing also doesn’t stand up. Several other English versions are based on direct and often more modern translations. For example, the New American Bible features direct translations from Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, rather than an adaptation of the KJV.
The “accurate” translation of any text from any other language is a rather subjective thing at best, anyway. Direct, literal translation of many phrases often don’t make sense in other languages, so translators need to have some freedom to interpret intent as well, which is itself dependent on social and cultural norms.
Of all the older English versions of the Bible, the history of the KJV may be the best known, so it boggles the mind how a devotee can get so many of the facts about it wrong.
He appears to consistently ignore requests for any actual positive assertions regarding his position on the topic(s) at hand. It is as if he considers the mere gainsaying of the statements of others to be a meaningful exchange of ideas. I mean, I think we all ‘get’ his position, but until he actually elucidates it, it is inchoate and difficult to actually counter.
One wonders if this is a deliberate tactic or merely the result of indoctrination.
This is dodging my question by changing the subject. The question I asked is:
I’m really curious and would like your answer, because, it seems to me, it’s such an obvious flaw in the creationist view. By the way, I appreciate that you’re trying to answer the flood of questions here. Very impressive.
I hope not. There are moments on the SD when someone is so wrong it is epic, this is one of those times.
Funny you should ask: From Wiki
Have you done this? What is your background in translation?
I’ll cop to being annoyed for about five minutes, but the main point of my objection to the “are there apes in your ancestry?” thing is that one, it’s wrong; two, it’s a stupid thing to say for several different reasons; and three, if reef shark is going to blame evolution for an increase in crime, being ‘un-Christian’ about it contradicts his point even though he was also wrong about crime statistics and the start date for the teaching of evolution in schools, not to mention the logic behind the entire proposition.
That doesn’t answer the question.
Why did he have to wait for a genius to come along?
Why are earlier translations, like the Wycliff bible, or later translations, not perfect?
IOW what is preventig the Almighty God from writing clearly?
Bad grades in penmanship?
Come on, y’all. You know very well that YHWH didn’t actually ‘write’ anything.
He inspired humans to do it.
And it was sort of like the parlor game, Telephone, from that point onward.
reef shark, I’m going to take a stab at demonstrating evolution in a fairly visible way, because you seem unmoved by genetic evidence. I expect you’ll dismiss this as you did the evidence for whales and horses earlier, but I’m talking about something that interests me, so it’ll be fun to try to persuade you.
Back in the Cenezoic, there were a group of birds called the Phorusrhacids, which are more awesomely known as “Terror Birds.” These large, carnivorous birds stood about 10 feet tall and lived somewhere between 30 and 1.8 million years ago, with some evidence suggesting they may have lived even longer. One such Terror Bird had an eagle-shaped skull and is possibly the largest bird ever discovered. They represent an extinct class of birds, and are most closely related to Falcons, Parrots, and Passerines (song birds).
These Terror Birds, and especially Titanus Walleri, were the apex predators of their time. The fossil record shows the Phorusrhacids increasing in size as the years tick on, with new off-shoot species appearing. I trust you know enough about how animals work to realize that between most species, interbreeding isn’t possible. As new Phorusrhacids appear in the fossil record over the millions of years, we’ve finally arrived at my question to you: without evolution, where did all of these new, distinct, increasingly-massive bird species come from?
Or floods, plural.
Floods are quite a regular occurence, here on earth.
Or an animal can sink to the bottom of some lake or river or sea and become buried in the mud.
So, I’m sorry, but fossils are by no means indicative of some worldwide flood, as described in your jewish mythbook.
Yeah, about that, I hate to bring it up… but I think He might not have done that either. 