“Why not?”
Only a very very tiny fraction of possible letter & space sequences have any meaning.
Mindless-at-every-level processes aren’t able to locate and retain the very very tiny fraction of possible nucleotide sequences that code for something useful to an organism.
It takes mind to create information in the form of meaningful letter & space sequences,
it takes mind to create information in the form of useful computer programming,
and it took Mind to create information in the form of useful nucleotide sequences.
“DNA… is the molecule that carries genetic information for the development and functioning of an organism. …. The sequence of the bases along DNA’s backbone encodes biological information, such as the instructions for making a protein or RNA molecule”
“the translation of ‘potter’ is not at all clear in Aramaic”
Yes, there is ambiguity in the Aramaic.
And the translator of Matthew into Greek chose the wrong meaning.
“(note the use of ܦܚܪܐ in Mt 27,10), which is why other translators from the Syriac do not choose it”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Matthew 26:6
(Egbert Nierop’s Dutch Peshitta)
Terwijl Yešúʿ te Bét-Anyā in het huis van Šemʿún de melaatse^of ‘de kruik’.
was,
^, using google translate: or ‘the pitcher’.
google translate:
While Yesúʿ at Bet-Anyā in the house of Shemʿún the leper^or “the pitcher.”
was
(Pad van Waarheid tot die Lewe Afrikaans Peshitta)
Toe Yeshua in Beit-Anyah, in die huis van Shim’on, die pottebakker was,
google translate:
When Yeshua was in Beit-Anyah, in the house of Shim’on, the potter,
“Is it only chosen as an argument of Peshitta primacists?”
Not that I know of.
Do you consider Charles Cutler Torrey– who thought Matthew thru Acts 16 plus Revelation were originally in Aramaic– among the “Peshitta primacists”?
“one who has been cured of leprosy can still be referred to as a leper (eg, Lev 14,3 LXX)”
(Brenton Septuagint)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
And the priest shall come forth out of the camp, and the priest shall look, and, behold, the plague of the leprosy is removed from the leper.
So translators of Hebrew Leviticus into Greek considered an ex-leper a leper. Interesting.
If somebody continued to call me a leper, despite my having had leprosy in the past but not currently, I’d sue for defamation.
“Yet others can also see this as the willingness of Jesus to engage with lepers, even those with active disease”
Jesus healed people of leprosy, and hence had “willingness… to engage with lepers.”
Lepers weren’t permitted to host non-lepers. The Greek Matthew has a leper hosting non-lepers.
“Yes, indeed if you change the vocalized verb of the Peshitta, changing it from the Paʿʿel to the Pəʿal. Is that what you’re saying, that the Peshitta has an error in it that needs to be corrected?”
There weren’t vowel points originally.
Mindless-at-every-level processes can’t create information.
You don’t pay much attention to American politics I guess.
Mindless-at-every-level processes operating over a long period of time can’t create information.
But they can. They can. Counterintuitively perhaps. Spontaneously arising self-regulating processes, order from chaos, complexity springing from simple steps; nature continuously surprises us.
I’m unaware of anybody who has expertise in coaxing nonliving matter into becoming biological life totally apart from already-existing life.
Except for God, right? And how does He do it?
What’s your explanation for the origination of organisms seen in the ‘Cambrian explosion’ aka “biology’s big bang”?
We’re on much firmer ground here. Natural selection. Evolution.
Easy to refute for anyone who is willing to look at all the evidence with an open mind.
Isn’t that against the law now?
Mindless-at-every-level processes aren’t able to locate and retain the very very tiny fraction of possible nucleotide sequences that code for something useful to an organism.
It takes mind to create information in the form of meaningful letter & space sequences,
it takes mind to create information in the form of useful computer programming,
and it took Mind to create information in the form of useful nucleotide sequences.
Remember. Only the madman is absolutely sure.
“Mindless-at-every-level processes operating over a long period of time can’t create information”
“But they can”
2 examples?
“explanation for the origination of organisms seen in the ‘Cambrian explosion’”
“Natural selection”
Darwinian NS postulated a vast number of tiny, incremental changes.
Do you think that’s seen in the fossil record in connection with the Cambrian explosion?
“Isn’t that against the law now?”
Not that I know of.
“Only the madman is absolutely sure”
Are you sure of that?
“I’m unaware of anybody who has expertise in coaxing nonliving matter into becoming biological life totally apart from already-existing life”
“Except for God, right?”
Right.
“And how does He do it?”
Beats me.
For over a century, intelligent scientists have been using their intelligence to try to get life out of non-life.
They haven’t succeeded yet, but might someday.
Bateson, William. 1915. “Heredity” _Annual Report of
the Smithsonian Institution, 1915_, 359-394. On 375:
….when we hear the spontaneous formation
of formaldehyde mentioned as a possible first
step in the origin of life we think of Harry Lauder in the
character of a Glasgow schoolboy pulling out his
treasures from his pocket– “That’s a wassher– for
makkin’ motor cars.”
“This is a Medieval text, it is expected to have lots of variants”
_The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew_ (2021), version 2.2, 104pp., on 2, author’s bracket
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
PDF: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
16 Ya’aqov begot Yoseph, the [betrothed]^b of Miryam, of whom was born Yeshua^c who is called Mashiach.
b: Or acc. to some Shem-Tov mss.: “the father of Miryam.”
“Mindless-at-every-level processes operating over a long period of time can’t create information”
“But they can”
2 examples?
The origin and formation of the universe.
The origin and diversity of life on earth.
The two best examples I can think of within nature of spontaneous self-regulating non-guided processes are the formation and lifespan of hurricanes and black holes. Both phenomena spontaneously arise when the initial conditions are right and go through a process of development and eventual cessation. At no point in the process is there evidence for or need to resort to any kind of supernatural explanation. It seems reasonable to extrapolate that the formation of the universe was similar. Universes arise when the initial conditions are right and go through a lifecycle. The fact that we don’t understand all the factors involved in universe formation is neither here nor there.
Darwinian NS postulated a vast number of tiny, incremental changes.
Do you think that’s seen in the fossil record in connection with the Cambrian explosion?
Modern evolutionary biology began with Darwin but it did not end there. What’s known as the Cambrian Explosion is an example of biodiversity. It’s when most of the animal phyla with descendants around today first appeared in the fossil record. The problem is the dearth of pre-Cambrian fossils. It may be the Cambrian Explosion is more apparent than real because of it. What we can observe is perfectly consistent with evolution. And we do have some examples of pre-Cambrian fossils.
“I’m unaware of anybody who has expertise in coaxing nonliving matter into becoming biological life totally apart from already-existing life”
“Except for God, right?”
Right.
“And how does He do it?”
Beats me.
For over a century, intelligent scientists have been using their intelligence to try to get life out of non-life.
They haven’t succeeded yet, but might someday.
David my point is that God is not an explanation. God is the lack of an explanation. If you ask me why the Allies won WWII and I say, “God’s will”, that’s NOT an explanation. Historians want to know what actually happened. It’s the same with evolution. Saying “God dd it” is just an excuse not to think about it.
“The origin and formation of the universe.
The origin and diversity of life on earth”
What information in connection with “the universe” and with “life on earth” is referred to?
“The two best examples I can think of within nature of spontaneous self-regulating non-guided processes are the formation and lifespan of hurricanes and black holes. Both phenomena spontaneously arise when the initial conditions are right and go through a process of development and eventual cessation. At no point in the process is there evidence for or need to resort to any kind of supernatural explanation.”
What information in connection with “hurricanes and black holes” is referred to?
“It seems reasonable to extrapolate that the formation of the universe was similar”
Biology is very different from physics.
Physics is characterized by order, by regularity, by periodicity.
Biology is characterized by aperiodicity. Knowing the beginning of a DNA sequence, one can’t predict what the remainder of the sequence will be.
“Universes arise when the initial conditions are right and go through a lifecycle. The fact that we don’t understand all the factors involved in universe formation is neither here nor there”
Do you agree with this?:
‘Biological life arises from non-life when the initial conditions are right and go through a lifecycle. The fact that we don’t understand all the factors involved in spontaneous generation is neither here nor there.’
“The problem is the dearth of pre-Cambrian fossils. It may be the Cambrian Explosion is more apparent than real because of it”
There are pre-Cambrian fossils.
“we do have some examples of pre-Cambrian fossils”
Indeed. There’s no “dearth of pre-Cambrian fossils.” We have Ediacaran fossils.
“God is not an explanation”
Is Mind “an explanation”?
If I say, ‘mind was responsible for the origination of this communication in English,’ is that “an explanation” for the origination of the information in that communication?
“Saying ‘God dd it’ is just an excuse not to think about it”
If I said, ‘matter did it; life became non-life, and zero mind was involved anywhere,’ would that be “an excuse not to think about” how non-life could have become life?
David I think when we reach the level of parsing words we’ve probably exhausted the conversation.
I was raised to believe in the Lord of Hosts come out of the whirlwind smiting his foes with the mighty sword of his wroth. It’s kind of sad when he’s been reduced to hiding in the gaps in our knowledge. Believers are fortunate in that it is almost certain we will never know everything. There will always be somewhere for God to hide.
“the Lord of Hosts…. he’s been reduced to hiding in the gaps in our knowledge”
For many years, atheism hid in “the gaps in our knowledge.”
Darwin’s spontaneous generation hypothesis hasn’t survived the massive 20th-century increase in knowledge of the enormous complexity of even the ‘simplest’ organisms. As the decades have passed, there’s been increasing awareness of the massive chasm between non-living matter and ‘simple’ biological organisms, which man with all his intelligence hasn’t yet come remotely close to reverse-engineering. Atheism lacks any explanation for the origin of life.
Atheism lacks any explanation for the origin of the large amount of information in biology.
Mind, on the other hand, plausibly accounts for where the information in biology came from.
Darwin’s theory of natural selection of tiny mutations can’t survive confrontation with the biochemical complexity revealed by 20th-century investigation of biology. The ‘black box’ of biochemical complexity has been opened, and Darwin’s claims shown to be rubbish.
Darwin’s theory of natural selection relied on “the gaps in our knowledge” of pre-Cambrian fossils. Some thought pre-Cambrian fossils were destroyed. Since Darwin’s speculations, people acquired knowledge of the strange Edicaran organisms. The ‘Cambrian explosion’ is real.
Further study of the fossil record only confirmed that the fossil record doesn’t depict gradual, step-by-tiny-step appearances of new plants and new animals. The sudden appearance in the fossil record of various sets of organisms is real. Darwin’s theory of natural selection is false.
The more biological knowledge has increased, the more obvious becomes the absurdity of the claims that ‘non-life became life entirely mind-lessly’ and ‘random alterations in DNA plus the environment result in new body structures having novel functions.’
In Peshitta Matthew, there are 20 instances of MrYa i.e. Master YHWH while looking at Magiera’s concordance to the Peshitta. [22:44 has only 1 MrYa.]
Munster’s Hebrew Matthew lacks YHWH in Matthew 12:4, 22:43, and 22:45– while Peshitta Matthew has YHWH in those locations.
Howard’s Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew similarly lacks an indication of ‘The Name’ in Matthew 12:4, 22:43, and 22:45,
plus Shem Tov has corruption with ‘HaShem’/’The Name’ added to Matthew 21:12, 22:31, 22:32, 27:9, and 28:9.
table in
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Those 5 additions of ‘The Name’ are just a few instances of Shem Tov’s many corruptions. It’s surprising that anybody pays the blatantly-corrupted Shem Tov much attention.
_The Hebrew Pages of the New Testament_ (2016), 464pp. Pages 240-406 has Matthew in:
duTillet, Munster, duTillet/Munster as English, Shem Tov as English, and Shem Tov.
“Only a very very tiny fraction of possible letter & space sequences have any meaning.
Mindless-at-every-level processes aren’t able to locate and retain the very very tiny fraction of possible nucleotide sequences that code for something useful to an organism.”
“This is an assumption on your part”
What’s a counterexample?
“If a random ‘choice’ succeeded and was built upon successfully over billions of years, how would you determine that the initial success was the product of a thoughtful choice or merely random?”
What’s a “random ‘choice’”?
“Random ‘choice’” made by who or what?
“You assume that the development of life is analogous to human computer programming”
Analogous in what way(s)?
“Are your arguments about the creation of life as circular as”
What’s 1 circular argument I’ve presented about the origin of life?
“we’re dealing with something like the anthropic principle”
There are various versions of “the anthropic principle,” including the CRAP– the ‘Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle.’
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
2 Guest(s)