Jump to content

The Escapist

Guys Forum Access (Ages 16+)
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About The Escapist

  • Rank
    Member - 1Ker
  • Birthday 12/05/1990

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Additional Information

  • Location
    New Zealand - land of sheep and hobbits.
  • Occupation
    Youth worker/student of Theology
  • Denomination
  • Name
  1. The Escapist

    Good Speakers For Christianity?

    Father Barron is quite good and you can find lots of his material on Youtube.
  2. The Escapist


    1. Yes dinosaurs are real and awesome. 2. Dinosaurs died out in the K-Pg extinction event in the aftermath of the Chicxulub asteroid impact.
  3. The Escapist

    The 6000 year creation belief.

    I too would like to see a source for this because most of the writing by Biblical scholars I've come across treat it as a theological polemic rather than a historical account. As Caleb said, the idea that the Earth is old dates back to the 1700s. Darwin didn't publish On the Origin of Species till 1859 and even then it wasn't widely accepted till about 1875. And this isn't a case of whether or not God could create the Earth in seven days, it's a case of what the evidence says. It's generally considered that time exists as soon as matter exists. I respect that you're not here to debate, but doesn't this explanation require God to exist as a fixed point in space? By the way, my question isn't a modern question; it dates back to the second century thanks to theologians such as Father Origin.
  4. The Escapist

    The 6000 year creation belief.

    We can, however, piece together how Ancient Near Eastern people thought and realise that their creation stories were less about scientific details and more about relationships between the various aspects of creation. What's wrong with having a scientifically informed view of the Bible? The Bible was never intended to be a science book. Question: In a literal understanding of the Genesis creation account the sun and moon aren't created till the forth day. How do you have literal 24 hour days without a sun?
  5. I miss chooooo.

    1. The Escapist

      The Escapist

      Aww I miss you too. In fact, I kinda miss this place. I feel like I haven't been active at all. How are you?

  6. The Escapist

    What bible do you use and why?

    Why? Actually, if you want to argue for which translation is the most accurate translation of the original Greek, μοναὶ literally means "dwelling-place". It can also be used to mean room, abode, or mansion. Without a copy of BDAG handy I can't say which is generally believed to be the best choice, but if I had to guess, rooms seems to make more sense within the house analogy. Personally I think this is all splitting hairs. Whether you translate it as rooms or mansions doesn't really change the theological meaning of the text. A note on the use of Greek texts as a source for Biblical translations: Translators tend to pick the earliest available manuscripts when translating the Bible. They do this because as time goes on people can change the manuscripts in subtle ways either by copying errors or intentionally (e.g. adding their own commentary into a text). Generally speaking, the earlier the manuscript the more faithful it is to the original version (it's actually a lot more complicated than that but going into the precise details of textual criticism can get quite boring). What does this have to do with NIV vs KJV? The two translations use different source texts. The KJV used the Textus Receptus as its source for the Greek New Testament. The Textus Receptus used six manuscripts of the Byzantine tradition as its base. However, since then scholars have discovered much older manuscripts of the Alexandrian tradition. The Alexandrian manuscripts are considered more faithful to the originals because they predate the Byzantine manuscripts (among other factors). The NIV used the UBS editions of these texts and the Novum Testamentum Graece. Summary of the above paragraph in less detail: The NIV and the KJV use different Greek translations as their sources. The NIV uses a translation which is considered much more accurate but wasn't available to the KJV translators. Practically how does this work out? Let's take the first verse from your link that the NIV "omits" as an example. This verse, called the doxology (from the Greek δόξα= to glorify), is well familiar to many Protestants as we tend to say it at the end of The Lord's Prayer thanks our KJV heritage. So of course it can seem a bit puzzling that a lot of modern translations don't include the doxology. The answer is that the KJV and NIV are using different source documents. The Byzantine manuscripts include it but the Alexandrian manuscripts do not include it. This suggests that the doxology was added in somewhere along the line by someone other than the original author. Thus, some modern translations do not include it in their translation of scripture (although they often indicate this in a footnote). So it's less a case of a nefarious conspiracy by non-KJV translators to change Scripture and more a case of the ommited verses not appearing in the original texts. By the way, all this talk of copying errors and people changing the manuscripts may raise some doubts about the accuracy of the New Testament. The New Testament is generally considered to have a remarkably high rate of accuracy for an ancient book (off the top of my head I believe the figure is 99%) thanks to the sheer amount of manuscripts made in a short space of time. Yeah it doesn't really work well, especially when we're debating translations of a text which means we only have to go back to the original text to figure out which one is better. The argument should really be: The original language says X, the other other-translation says Y, the KJV says X, therefore KJV is the correct translation. But take that with a grain of salt because it all depends on the translating philosophy of the translators. For example, the CEV was never meant to be a word-for-word translation of the Bible; it's meant to be a translation that someone with basic English skills could understand. It's not as accurate as say, the NSRV but that was never its purpose.
  7. The Escapist

    What bible do you use and why?

    Depends on what I'm using it for but it varies between NIV, CEV, and SBL Greek New Testament 4th ed. I'm curious as to what you make of the fact that the Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Now obviously you said that you don't believe God physically wrote the Bible, but why do you pick the KJV over the original languages (especially when modern translations such as the NRSV and NIV have been written as a result of greater access to Greek manuscripts and scholarship)?
  8. The Escapist

    Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson Suspended

    Freedom of speech ≠ freedom from consequences. This. A thousand times this.
  9. The Escapist

    The 6000 year creation belief.

    Well there is some truth here; science doesn't "prove" anything. Rather, science tries to provide models and explanations that best fit the evidence, and unfortunately for Creationism, Creationism isn't the best fit for the evidence.
  10. The Escapist

    Do dinosaurs still exist?

    A quick note on an issue a couple of posters have brought up: stories of dragons confirming that dinosaurs and humans co-existed. 1. Many ancient mythologies contain vast bestiaries of mythical creatures (including dragons). This does not necessarily mean that these mythical creatures actually exist just because ancient people claimed to have seen them. After-all, there are plenty of tales of people seeing leprechauns, faeries, dryads, and the Loch Ness Monster, but we generally don't accept these creatures as real. And even if dragons bear a passing resemblance to dinosaurs, they also bear quite the resemblance to lizards and other contemporary reptiles. 2. While Western Paleontology is a fairly new field, people have been digging up the bones of whales, dinosaurs, and other creatures for thousands of years and using their imaginations to speculate on what kind of animal they could be. Last I checked there was zero scientific evidence for the co-existence of humans and dinosaurs (which wouldn't be that hard to find; all you'd have to do is find human remains in the same fossil layer as dinosaur remains). It's kind of hard for the Bible to teach human-dinosaur co-existence when a. the Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs, and b. the Bible's purpose isn't to teach science. The YEC claim that the Bible teaches that humans and dinosaurs co-existed is a doctrinal castle in the sky. Being a "Bible-believing Christian" does not necessitate YEC. Marley started explaining this and I'm going to give a very simplified answer. Speciation is based off species (not individual creatures a la Pokemon) developing traits through breeding which benefits them in certain ecological niches. A very simple example of how adaptations are formed would be small tree-dwelling gliding/parachuting mammals that glide because of "wings" (skin flaps). A mammal with "10% of a wing" is able to survive a greater fall than a mammal with "0% of a wing" and thus has a higher chance of reproducing and passing on its genes for "wings". A mammal with "50% of a wing" is able to survive a greater fall than a mammal with "10% of a wing" and has an even greater chance of passing on its genes (and so on and so forth). However, this adaptation is only useful for survival in environments with lots of trees and wouldn't confer any greater chance of survival in, say, grassland plains where trees aren't as common. Thus it does not become a desirable trait and has a lesser chance of being passed on. To return to birds, flightless birds simply evolved in ecological niches where flying wasn't all that important. Amen. I like Dr Francis Collin's quote "Evolution is just God's way of giving upgrades". For 2 and 3, may I recommend Dr Denis Alexander's Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? He does a fairly good job of explaining the science and he is probably the most thorough writer I have ever read when it comes to answering the theological questions behind theistic evolution (he's also quite a bit more conservative than other writers too).
  11. The Escapist

    Atheist churches popping up around the world

    Hypakoe doulos, what is your name supposed to mean? The slave responds? The slave gives ear?
  12. The Escapist


    I usually report spam as soon as I see it. My beef is not so much with trolls (I actually find them kind of entertaining) but spammers who fill up the boards with advertisements. Not only is it annoying but it's sometimes inappropriate for a Christian teenage community.The worst case was a month or two ago where pornbots spammed links with pretty sexually explicit descriptions in every board. That's why I suggested making it so that newbies have to have their first 5-10 posts approved- it would be enough to deter spammers but not high enough to deter genuine posters.
  13. Hey dude, just letting you know that I haven't forgotten that article I'm suppossed to write for you. I've just had my last exam and have an essay due next Sunday, so I should have it done within the next 2 weeks.

  14. The Escapist


    So since we've upgraded the forum I've noticed an increase in spammers. Usually the staff team is great and removes the spam within a reasonable time frame - and it's usually only a serious problem when the spam links to adult sites - but I know that under the old system new users had to have their first 30-50 posts approved by mods before they would appear. Would going back to this system reduce the amount of spam-bots? Now 30-50 posts is a bit excessive, but surely making the first 5 posts subject to moderator approval would be enough to screen out spam-bots?