Bible verse by verse

[_maklelan]

I believe you to be misguided and very naïve.

Nipper, as a professional linguist and a Bible scholar, I'd like to let you know that I have yet to see you post anything that is not incredibly misguided and naïve itself. You don't appear to understand how language works, much less how historical linguistics and historiography work.

[_LittleNipper]

I believe you to be misguided and very naïve.

Nipper, as a professional linguist and a Bible scholar, I'd like to let you know that I have yet to see you post anything that is not incredibly misguided and naïve itself. You don't appear to understand how language works, much less how historical linguistics and historiography work.

Ok, I can believe that. Are you a Christian? Do you believe Jesus was/is God. Do you believe it is possible for God to create a universe in a week from nothing? Chinese is a very ancient writing form. It is not like English. Chinese began as picture writing. It is not exactly like Cuneiform. And what Chinese writing is now is not what Chinese started as ------ would you agree? And I would say a very concerned indepth Chinese historian would be more apt to see Chinese from its various perspectives. We are not just considering linguistics, but the development of the symbols that represent the language. So, I may ask that you investigate further. All I realize is that there are Chinese scholars who agree with encoding and scientists who agree with Creationism/Intelligent Design. This has no reflection on you nor your background.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

Ok, I can believe that. Are you a Christian? Do you believe Jesus was/is God. Do you believe it is possible for God to create a universe in a week from nothing?

These questions have nothing to do with the fact that some Christians misrepresent the origins of Chinese ideograms to support the magical, supernatural claims of the Bible. There's a term for this: pious fraud.

You, LittleNipper, are a pious fraud.

Chinese is a very ancient writing form.

Yes, but this doesn't mean the ideogram for gung(1) is made up of elements meaning "heaven" above, "man" in the middle, and "earth" below, which Christians falsely claim.

You don't believe me? Go get yourself a Chinese dictionary and look up the phonetic roots and indicatives in question and you'll see what I mean.

It is not like English.

No, it's not. But this doesn't mean that the ideogram for syan(1) is composed of elements meaning "alive," "dust," and "man" which Christians falsely claim.

You don't believe me? Go get yourself a Chinese dictionary and look up the phonetic roots and indicatives in question and you'll see what I mean.

Chinese began as picture writing.

Yes, but this doesn't mean that the ideogram for gwang(1) is composed of elements meaning "rays," "first," and "man" which Christians falsely claim.

You don't believe me? Go get yourself a Chinese dictionary and look up the phonetic roots and indicatives in question and you'll see what I mean.

It is not exactly like Cuneiform.

Yes, but this doesn't mean the ideogram for hwo(3) represents a man with flames radiating from him, which Christians falsly claim.

You don't believe me? Go get yourself a Chinese dictionary and look up the phonetic roots and indicatives in question and you'll see what I mean.

And what Chinese writing is now is not what Chinese started as ------ would you agree?

If this is true, then why do Christians use modern complex character forms like chwan(2) in their loony examples?

And I would say a very concerned indepth Chinese historian would be more apt to see Chinese from its various perspectives.

How many "Chinese historians" have you discussed this with? I'm guessing zero.

Go to the library and check out a few books about the history and origin of Chinese ideograms and you'll see how misinformed you really are. The many examples I've given you so far are not hard to find. There's nothing top secret about this.

We are not just considering linguistics, but the development of the symbols that represent the language.

In other words: We are not just considering linguistics, but also linguistics.

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

So, I may ask that you investigate further.

Says the dude who has probably never studied a foreign language in his entire life.

All I realize is that there are Chinese scholars who agree with encoding and scientists who agree with Creationism/Intelligent Design.

Again, how many "Chinese scholars" have you discussed this with? I'm guessing zero.

This has no reflection on you nor your background.

But it's a perfect reflection of your ignorance.

[Guest]

Ok, I can believe that. Are you a Christian? Do you believe Jesus was/is God. Do you believe it is possible for God to create a universe in a week from nothing?]

What does this have to do with anything?

Chinese is a very ancient writing form.

True, but irrelevant. How much training do you have in Chinese?

It is not like English.

You don't say!

Chinese began as picture writing.

It was pictographic. So what?

It is not exactly like Cuneiform. And what Chinese writing is now is not what Chinese started as ------ would you agree?

No language is what it started as. So what?

And I would say a very concerned indepth Chinese historian would be more apt to see Chinese from its various perspectives. We are not just considering linguistics, but the development of the symbols that represent the language.

Which is part of linguistics.

So, I may ask that you investigate further.

Investigate what further?

All I realize is that there are Chinese scholars who agree with encoding and scientists who agree with Creationism/Intelligent Design. This has no reflection on you nor your background.

There are also scholars who agree that we never landed on the moon. So what? None of this makes you less naïve.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

Nipper, would you please explain the relationship between this ideogram and Balaam's talking donkey? Thanks!

[_LittleNipper]

Ok, I can believe that. Are you a Christian? Do you believe Jesus was/is God. Do you believe it is possible for God to create a universe in a week from nothing?]

What does this have to do with anything?

Chinese is a very ancient writing form.

True, but irrelevant. How much training do you have in Chinese?

It is not like English.

You don't say!

Chinese began as picture writing.

It was pictographic. So what?

It is not exactly like Cuneiform. And what Chinese writing is now is not what Chinese started as ------ would you agree?

No language is what it started as. So what?

And I would say a very concerned indepth Chinese historian would be more apt to see Chinese from its various perspectives. We are not just considering linguistics, but the development of the symbols that represent the language.

Which is part of linguistics.

So, I may ask that you investigate further.

Investigate what further?

All I realize is that there are Chinese scholars who agree with encoding and scientists who agree with Creationism/Intelligent Design. This has no reflection on you nor your background.

There are also scholars who agree that we never landed on the moon. So what? None of this makes you less naïve.

What do you know about Chinese? You said you are a linguist. You need to investigate the truthfulness of the reputed encoded Chinese characters regarding Noah's Flood. You are obviously in a place to do such from a professional standpoint on your own. You don't need to pay any attention to what other say ---- or do you? There maybe scholars who say that we never landed on the moon, but not any in space/aeronautics research, who believe that. So, here is a mission for you as a linguistic scholar ----- or am I just "naïve" in imagining that you really want to find truth and not just agreement for your own bias?

Please see: http://www.bibleprobe.com/chinese.htm

You may also wish to consider the following: http://www.ukapologetics.net/2creationi ... efence.htm

[_maklelan]

What do you know about Chinese? You said you are a linguist. You need to investigate the truthfulness of the reputed encoded Chinese characters regarding Noah's Flood.

I know more than enough about that silly notion.

You are obviously in a place to do such from a professional standpoint on your own. You don't need to pay any attention to what other say ---- or do you? There maybe scholars who say that we never landed on the moon, but not any in space/aeronautics research, who believe that. So, here is a mission for you as a linguistic scholar ----- or am I just "naïve" in imagining that you really want to find truth and not just agreement for your own bias?

Please see: http://www.bibleprobe.com/chinese.htm

This is ignorant etymological nonsense and nothing more. On boat, the stereotypical conceptualization of the generic family is two great-grandparents, two grandparents, two parents, and two children. In other words, a family of eight is just a generic expression. It has no ties to Noah's ark.

The character on that site for "devil" is incorrect. The character from the oracles used combined the character for an ugly head on the top and the character for a human on the bottom. The modern character represents a graphic alignment with the other more common characters.

The character they say means "covet" is actually the adjective "greedy," and the two trees shown together actually means "forest," or "grove." Also, the symbol for "woman" is frequently used to convey a negative connotation, as is the case with "greedy." So in the end, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Eve or any two trees.

Oh, and the picture of the chariot wheel near the end of the article? That's a modern boat wheel. And no, they haven't found petrified bones or chariot wheels, much less either from the right time period. This is invented nonsense for naïve hobbyists.

You may also wish to consider the following: http://www.ukapologetics.net/2creationi ... efence.htm

Yeah, that's a load of ignorant nonsense. Fossil fuels deny evolutionary science? Good grief.

[_Bazooka]

This is ignorant etymological nonsense and nothing more. On boat, the stereotypical conceptualization of the generic family is two great-grandparents, two grandparents, two parents, and two children. In other words, a family of eight is just a generic expression. It has no ties to Noah's ark.

Do you dispute that the Church officially teaches that the flood was a literal event, that it covered the entire planet, that only the occupants of the ark survived it, and that the human occupants of the ark number 8, and that it occurred around 2,300 BCE?

Noah
Rest. The patriarch; son of Lamech (Gen. 5:29–32). When he was 10 years old, Noah was ordained to the priesthood by Methuselah (D&C 107:52). He became a preacher of righteousness and declared the gospel of Jesus Christ, even as Enoch, teaching faith, repentance, baptism, and the reception of the Holy Ghost (2 Pet. 2:5; Moses 8:19, 23–24). His life was sought by unbelievers, but he was preserved by the power of God (Moses 8:18, 26). He and his sons Japheth, Shem, and Ham, and their wives, making eight in all, were saved from the Flood by the ark he had built at the command of God (Gen. 6–8; Heb. 11:7; 1 Pet. 3:20). We learn from latter-day revelation that Noah is also the angel Gabriel (HC 3:386).

https://www.LDS.org/scriptures/bd/noah

And for Nipper La Peitite,

The tradition of a great flood is found in nearly every ancient culture. A Babylonian account closely resembles the record in the Bible, but the biblical account differs from all others in its religious value and the purpose of it. The scriptural account teaches that the Flood was sent to cleanse the earth because of the wickedness of the people. Noah and his family were saved because they were righteous (Gen. 6:9; Moses 8:27). The authenticity of the Genesis account of the Flood is confirmed by latter-day revelation as recorded in Moses 7:34, 42–43; 8:8–30. See also Ether 13:2.

[_ludwigm]

And for Nipper La Petite:

The tradition of a great flood is found in nearly every ancient culture.

It doesn't exist in Egyptian culture; the year by year flood of Nile is/was the source of Egyptian agriculture.
... and they (Egyptians***) knew the exact date of the next one.
A flood could not be a disadvantage for them.

You know; one's sacred cow is other's McNothing.

-------------------------------------
*** The priests of Amon.

At least THAT priests knew something of reality... (calendar, astronomy --- nothing of Kolob)

[_maklelan]

It doesn't exist in Egyptian culture; the year by year flood of Nile is/was the source of Egyptian agriculture.
... and they (Egyptians***) knew the exact date of the next one.

No, they didn't know the exact date. They knew the time period, but not the exact date. It was not perfectly consistent.

A flood could not be a disadvantage for them.

Actually if the flood hung around for too long, or was not big enough, it could spell devastation not just for the crops, but for the entire culture. Some of Egypt's intermediate periods were thought to have been at least partially the result of inadequate flooding. Since the king was responsible for the cosmic order, an inadequate flood was an indication he wasn't pleasing the gods. Their culture was in a lot of ways propped up on the ideology of kingship, and a vote of no confidence could bring an end to the social order.

You know; one's sacred cow is other's McNothing.

-------------------------------------
*** The priests of Amon.

Those priests only represent a tiny portion of the population informed about the flood cycles, and even then only for a portion of ancient Egypt's history.

At least THAT priests knew something of reality... (calendar, astronomy --- nothing of Kolob)

Uh, no, the Babylonians were really the first with a really accurate astronomical outlook. Egyptians still believed the sun was a great bark rode by a deity across the sky during the day and through the underworld to fight a great dragon during the night.