Inteligent Design

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 3:45 pm

Once more, Arch, more bible nonsense. Do a little study of linguistics and you will find that the Phoenecians are credited with the invention of the alphabet...and for good reason. They were a mercantile people who had need of record keeping. The Israelites, at their inception were a bunch of goat/sheep herders for whom writing was an uneccessary skill.

I think you'll find, Frank, that Aramaic was the lingua franca for most of the Syria-Palestine area for the common people. Had he been an actual person, instead of a marketing ploy by some of his followers, Jesus would have spoken Aramaic.

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:19 pm

Minimalist wrote:[...] Had he been an actual person, instead of a marketing ploy by some of his followers, Jesus would have spoken Aramaic.

Yes, Jesus would have spoken Hebrew at home and Aramaic in the street. But he would also have spoken Greek, as the intellectual language. And Latin, the language of the occupier.
So he would have spoken 4 languages! Jesus was a miracle linguist!
Not really. Many people could (and can) do that. Palestine is an ancient nexus of trading routes where people from all directions of the compass meet. You get to be a multiple linguist easily in such an environment.
I know. I am.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:51 pm

But he would also have spoken Greek, as the intellectual language. And Latin, the language of the occupier.

You're assuming he would have been an intellectual. If the reports were true he would have been a manual laborer....tekton, in Greek, apparently means "hand-worker" not "carpenter."

And the Roman "occupation" of Judea at the time was exceedingly mild. The prefect stayed in Caesaria enjoying the cool sea breeze while the Sanheddrin handled day to day affairs. Judea was a semi-independent vassal state until 6 AD when they asked Augustus Ceasar to get rid of Herod the Great's son and become a Roman prefecture.

Leona Conner · Post by **Leona Conner** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:03 pm

IF the Hebrews had been in Egypt for 300 years, they probably spoke Egyptian. Look at families that came over to the U.S. after WWII. In just a couple of generations, most of the children speak very little of their grandparents native tongue. My grandparents came from Quebec and I didn't speak any English until the age of 7, now nada.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:04 pm

Current archaeological thinking is that they were NEVER in Egypt.

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:25 pm

Minimalist wrote:[...] If the reports were true he would have been a manual laborer....tekton, in Greek, apparently means "hand-worker" not "carpenter."

See? He should've listened to his father and learnt a trade. But nooooo, he didn't need that. Got into trouble with the authorities. Became a gang leader. And ended up crucified.
What do you expect?

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:30 pm

Sounds like a cheap screenplay...

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 6:29 pm

Rokcet Scientist wrote:
Minimalist wrote:[...] If the reports were true he would have been a manual laborer....tekton, in Greek, apparently means "hand-worker" not "carpenter."
See? He should've listened to his father and learnt a trade. But nooooo, he didn't need that. Got into trouble with the authorities. Became a gang leader. And ended up crucified.
What do you expect?

His mother would have wanted him to be a doctor.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 1:49 am

i think this has gone to far afield of the topic so i will reply when it returns to the subject at hand.

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 3:33 am

Promises, promises.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 2:21 pm

i see that who ever started this thread can not spell the word 'intelligent'

i will submit that even micro-evolution does not exist given the present definition and use of the word 'evolution'. i can easily understand the use of 'adaption' or 'mutation' as it implies alternatives and does not support the main idea of the evolutionary process.

plus i am not inclined to compromise especially if one believes in creation. any changes in species , if one believes in creation like i do, must be attributed to the possibility of variety that God instilled at the original act of creation.

each species that does make some mutation still gives birth to their own kind, thus follows the command at creation and eliminating any possibility of evolution being in the mix.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 4:07 pm

Blah, blah, blah,................

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 5:13 pm

Naah, Frank. Don't be too harsh on him. That was just one more burp in a endless string of incantations. It's a complicated enough story he wants to get across. So these people need to remind themselves all the time what and how exactly they believe.
You might also call it auto-brainwashing.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 11:26 pm

Blah, blah, blah

You might also call it auto-brainwashing.

not really, it is being called non-hypocritical.

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 3:41 am

archaeologist wrote:
Blah, blah, blah

You might also call it auto-brainwashing.
not really, it is being called non-hypocritical.

"Non-hypocritical" . . . ?

Do I detect a (warped) sense of humor? Naaah...