Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Censorability

2010-05-28T13:28:18Z

TSpencer: re-arranged, added 'creationsim'

The '''censorability''' of a concept, movement or ideology is its vulnerability of being censored by its opponents.

'''Censorability''' can be quantified on a scale from "0" to "1", where "0" reflects an ideology that can completely withstand efforts to censor it, while "1" indicates easy suppression through [[censorship]]. A perfect score for censorability is "0", reflecting maximum strength.

The score is dependent in part on how the ideology or movement is expressed. For example, if a unique statement or outward sign is required as an essential part of the ideology, then it will have higher censorability than if its articulation is varied.

Ideologies can be rated for relative censorability as an indication of long-term strength.

Over time, movements that are relatively difficult to censor -- i.e., have a low censorability -- can thrive. An example is the [[pro-life]] movement: it has virtually a perfect "0" degree of censorability.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Concept or Ideology
!Censorability (Scale 0 to 1)
!Comments
|-
|[[Pro-Life]]
|0
|Virtually impossible to censor.
|-
|[[Atheism]]
|0.2
|Many do not quickly recognize its forms.
|-
|[[Tea Party Movement]]
|0.3
|[[liberals]] haven't been able to censor it yet
|-
|[[Homosexual agenda]]
|0.3
|By claiming that criticism of immoral and unhealthy lifestyles is "bigotry," pro-homosexual activists are able to censor critiques of their political agenda.
|-
|[[Christianity]]
|0.5
|Dimwitted censorship of Christian references often occurs
|-
|[[Creationism]]
|0.9
|Absent from virtually every public school curriculum world-wide
|-

|}

== Censor-Prone Environments ==

Different media, institutions and environments are more censor-prone than others. Colleges are extremely censor-prone environment, perhaps due to a small group of people acting with no accountability. The [[internet]] is at the opposite end of the spectrum, and is relatively immune to censorship.

[[category:Conservapedia]]

Hollywood values

2010-04-19T11:59:23Z

TSpencer: /*Religion*/ a first take

[[File:Hollywood-sign wikimedia.jpg|right|200px]]
'''Hollywood values''' are characterized by decadence, [[narcissism]], rampant [[drug|drug use]], [[adultery|extramarital sex]] leading to the spread of sexually-transmitted [[disease]], lawlessness, promotion of the [[homosexual agenda]] and death. A 2006 poll by MSNBC said that 60% of [[Americans]] agree that "Hollywood's values are not in line with the rest of America and that the quality of movies has diminished in recent years."<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11714540/</ref>

The lack of [[morals]] and [[values]] in [[Hollywood]] culture has been destroying the fabric of American culture, particularly the family.

There have been, however, a handful of prominent people whose work in Hollywood opposed these values. [[Ronald Reagan]], [[James Stewart]], [[Charlton Heston]], [[Walt Disney]] and many others practiced conservative values while working in Hollywood and the productions of these and many others also reflect these values, irrespective of the star names associated with them: [[The Chronicles of Narnia]] and [[Independence Day]] being recent examples.

Hollywood values include a flagrant disrespect and disregard for:

* [[marriage]] and [[abstinence]]
* [[patriotism]]
* [[religion]]
* [[accountability]]
* the U.S. military <ref>[http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/hollywood_gets_it_right_p4d84a9jyymsfLw0THb7EM Hollywood gets it right, New York Post, March 09, 2010]</ref>
* family responsibilities, like childrearing<ref>[[Britney Spears]] "doesn't want [her] kids back." [http://www.nypost.com/seven/02132008/news/nationalnews/brit_doesnt_want_her_kids__1st_ex_97425.htm]</ref>
* laws that apply to everyone else
* Commonly accepted behavioral boundaries and values of human decency

==Deaths ==
Hollywood values are deadly. Tourists in Hollywood can visit over 30 sites of typically self-inflicted Hollywood celebrity deaths.<ref>http://www.hollywoodusa.co.uk/celebrity-death-sites.htm</ref> A sampling of deaths caused by Hollywood values include:<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=4174733&page=1</ref><ref>http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/entertainment/news/article/20021--list-of-celebrities-taken-by-drug-use-tragic-and-growing</ref>
*[[John Barrymore]], 60, cirrhosis of the liver from heavy drinking
*[[John Belushi]], 33, was a repeated drug abuser who ultimately died of a lethal injection of cocaine and heroin
*[[Clara Blandick]], 81, suicide
*[[John Bonham]], 32, after too much drinking, asphyxiated on vomit
*[[Elisa Bridges]], 28, 'Playboy' magazine model, drug overdose combining heroin, methamphetamine and other drugs
*[[David Carradine]], 72, died from suffocation most likely suicide, had history of suicidal thoughts, alcohol and narcotics abuse <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525177,00.html Thai Police: Carradine Death May Be Accidental Suffocation] Fox News, June 05, 2009 </ref>
*[[Stephen Clark]], 30, Def Leppard guitarist, drug and alcohol overdose<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1108020/bio</ref>
*[[Lana Clarkson]], 40, actress and model murdered by [[Phil Spector]]
*[[Kurt Cobain]], 27, lead singer from the band Nirvana, a heroin addict who committed suicide with a shotgun blast to the head.
*[[Ray Combs]], 40, host of the TV game show Family Feud committed suicide by hanging himself in a psychiatric ward.
*[[John Costelloe]], 47, actor from HBO's The Sopranos known as "Johnny Cakes", shot himself in the head. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,472864,00.html 'Sopranos' Actor Shocks Fans, Loved Ones With Holiday Suicide] NYPost, December 25, 2008</ref>
*[[Bob Crane]],49, the actor's success led to a bizarre life of sex addiction. He was bludgeoned to death.
*[[Karl Dane]], 47, suicide by gunshot
*[[James Dean]], 24, a notoriously reckless and frequently ticketed driver crashed fatally head-on into a car turning left in front of his Porsche (see also crime, below)
*[[Eazy-E]], 31. [[AIDS]] contracted through drug use.
*[[Brian Epstein]], 32, overdosed on sleeping pills and alcohol
*[[Chris Farley]], 33, overdose of morphine and cocaine
*[[Judy Garland]], 47, overdosed on sleeping pills
*[[Lucy Gordon]], 28, British actress from the movie Spiderman 3, hung herself <ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/Movies/wireStory?id=7642829 Actress Lucy Gordon Found Dead at Age 28 in Paris, ABC News, May 21, 2009]</ref>
*[[Lee Grivas]], 26, the on-again, off-again boyfriend of actress Christina Applegate, 36, was found dead of an apparent drug overdose<ref>http://www.bloggernews.net/116552a</ref>
*Corey Haim, 38, teen idol who starred in many movies and then a reality show, died of a drug overdose.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8560246.stm</ref>
*[[Phil Hartman]], 49, murdered in his million-dollar house by his third wife Brynn Hartman
*[[Margaux Hemingway]], 42, suicide
*[[Jimi Hendrix]], 27, an enthusiastic abuser of illegal drugs, choked on his own vomit after overdose of sleeping pills.
*[[Rock Hudson]], 59, AIDS
*[[Michael Hutchence]], 37, asphyxiated during an auto-erotic act while alone in a Sydney hotel. His wife, Paula Yates (see below), also fell victim to Hollywood Values.
*[[Richard Jeni]], 49, suicide<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258231,00.html</ref>
*[[Janis Joplin]], 27, heroin overdose
*[[Andrew Koenig]], 41, child actor in the TV series Growing Pains committed suicide. <ref>[http://omg.yahoo.com/news/andrew-koenigs-body-found-in-vancouver-park/36485?nc Andrew Koenig's Body Found in Vancouver Park, Yahoo News, February 25, 2010]</ref>
*[[Heath Ledger]], 28, found dead in his [[Manhattan]] apartment. "Prescription sleeping pills and anti-anxiety pills were found in bottles in Ledger's bedroom and bathroom, and police have speculated the death was caused by an accidental drug overdose." "Ledger died of an accidental overdose of painkillers, sleeping pills, anti-anxiety medication and other prescription drugs, the New York City medical examiner said Wednesday." <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,328828,00.html</ref>
*[[Bruce Lee]] (Li Xiaolong), actor, 33, collapsed and died; trace amounts of cannabis found in bloodstream at postmortem; the official cause of death was acute cerebral edema (swelling of the brain) from hypersensitivity to aspirin.
*[[Stuart Lubbock]], 31, found dead in the swimming pool of popular TV entertainer [[Michael Barrymore]], having suffered severe anal trauma, after a drug-fueled party at the star's home
*[[Queen (band)|Freddie Mercury]], 45, born Farrokh Bulsara, lead singer of the band Queen, died from AIDS-related bronchial pneumonia.
*[[Sal Mineo]], 37, murdered under circumstances that suggested "a homosexual motive".
*[[Marilyn Monroe]], 36, overdosed on sleeping pills.
*[[Keith Moon]], drummer of [[The Who]], 32, overdose of Clomethiazole prescribed to treat his [[alcoholism]].
*[[Jim Morrison]], 27, died of an apparent heroin overdose.
*[[Brittany Murphy]], 32, motion picture film actress died of cardiac arrest from combining prescription drugs <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/02/27/brittany-murphy-taken-vicodin-days/ Brittany Murphy May Have Taken 109 Vicodin in 11 Days, Fox News, February 27, 2010]</ref> Official death from pneumonia and drug intoxication.
*[[Chris Penn]], 40, brother of [[Sean Penn]], "died accidentally from an enlarged heart and the effects of a mix of multiple medications".
*[[River Phoenix]], 23, died from an overdose of cocaine and heroin.
*[[Dana Plato]], 34, ''Diff'rent Strokes'' star, suicide by drugs overdose after posing for lesbian pornography.
*[[Elvis Presley]], 42, large drug intake causes a cardiac arrhythmia and rumored to have suffocated on the carpet when he collapsed from a drug overdose.
*[[Virginia Rappe]], 30, died of a ruptured bladder incurred at a party hosted by [[Roscoe Arbuckle]].
*[[Robert Reed]], 59, actor known as Mike Brady was a homosexual with AIDS, died from cancer in 1992. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/entertainment/2009/08/14/brady-bunch?slide=25 Robert Reed in 1990, Fox News]</ref>
*[[Brad Renfro]], 25, became addicted to heroin and was found dead after a night of drinking
*[[George Reeves]], 45, played Superman from the series Adventures of Superman, suicide by gunshot
*[[Anna Nicole Smith]], 39, accidental overdose on prescription drugs
*[[Sharon Tate]], 26, an actress with a [[hippie]] lifestyle who was murdered by followers of [[Charles Manson]], a [[Beatles]]-obsessed musician wannabee; Manson's followers murdered Tate, who was pregnant and only two weeks from birth, her unborn child, her prior lover, who was staying with her while her husband, movie producer [[Roman Polanski]] (see 'Crime', below), was away, and another unmarried couple staying in the house. (It is believed that Manson had actually intended his followers to kill the home's previous residents, [[Terry Melcher]] (son of [[Doris Day]]) and [[Candice Bergen]].) <ref>The Polanski Problem [http://moviegeeksclub.blogspot.com/2008/04/polanski-problem.html]</ref> <ref>Sharon Tate Official Site: Sharon's Biography [http://www.sharontate.net/bio4.html]</ref>
*[[Lou Tellegen]], 52, suicide
*[[Sid Vicious]], 21. [[Heroin]] overdose while awaiting trial for his girlfriend's murder.
*[[Kenneth Williams]], 62, overdose.
*[[Natalie Wood]], 43, drowned while intoxicated.
*[[Paula Yates]], 41, heroin overdose.
*[[Layne Staley]], 34, found dead in apartment two weeks after a drug overdose.<ref>http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/staley1.html</ref> Layne promoted the use of hard drugs in the 1992 [[Alice in Chains]] song "Junkhead"<ref>http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Junkhead-lyrics-Alice-In-Chains/3A665DABDFC00AD54825688F0010CD45</ref>

==Sexually Transmitted Diseases==
The loose sexual morals characteristic of the lifestyle defined by Hollywood Values often lead to sexually transmitted diseases. Examples include,

* [[Rock Hudson]] died of AIDS-related complications after contracting the disease through homosexual intercourse.
* Michael Jeter, who was homosexual, also died due to AIDS-related complications.
* Freddie Mercury of the rock group [[Queen (band)|Queen]], notorious for his flamboyant onstage presence, also contracted AIDS through his wildly promiscuous homosexual lifestyle, and subsequently perished of the self-inflicted condition.

== Crime ==
Hollywood values often include being arrested or convicted for a variety of crimes. Here are some examples:

* Actress Lori Petty, who was featured in "Free Willy" and "A League of their Own" and "Free Willy," ran into a 14-year-old skateboarder and was arrested for felony drunk driving charges.<ref>http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7015343906</ref>
* Craig Phillip Robinson, the actor famous for playing Darryl Philbin on NBC's "The Office," "was arrested on June 29, 2008, on suspicion of possessing MDMA, also known as ecstasy, and methamphetamine."<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/TV/08/15/office.actor.arrested.ap/index.html</ref>
* [[Winona Ryder]] was convicted of convicted of vandalism and grand theft for stealing designer merchandise worth $5,560.40.<ref>http://www.courttv.com/trials/ryder/</ref>
* [[O.J. Simpson]] is widely believed to have murdered his wife and her friend, and was found liable in a civil (but not criminal) trial. He has since been convicted of unrelated felonies.
* [[Paris Hilton]] was convicted of driving while intoxicated, and then violated the terms of her probation, leading to a 45-day prison sentence.<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18472845/ Paris Hilton sentenced to 45 days in jail], MSNBC, May 4, 2007</ref>
*[[Hugh Grant]] was arrested in 1995 when found in a car with a prostitute.<ref>[http://www.mugshots.org/hollywood/hugh-grant.html]</ref>
*[[Stacy Keach]], movie actor, was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment in the [[United Kingdom]] in 1984 after being arrested at [[London]] [[Heathrow Airport]] in possession of a large quantity of [[cocaine]].
*[[Kiefer Sutherland]] was given a 48-day sentence for DUI in 2007, an offense committed while still on probation following a 2004 conviction for DUI.<ref>Sutherland is released from jail [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7200633.stm BBC]</ref>
*[[George Michael]] was convicted of "Committing a lewd act in public", having been arrested in a public restroom by a plain clothes police officer. Arrested in September 2008 in a [[London]] public lavatory, he was found in possession of crack cocaine and cannabis - but merely received a caution. <ref>http://uk.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUKLL28201720080921</ref>
*[[Snoop Dogg]], a popular [[rap|rapper]], was arrested in 2006 for [[marijuana]] possession. He is a libertarian<ref>http://www.ucllibertarians.com/celebrities.html</ref> who advocates marijuana use.<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/dailydish/detail?blogid=7&entry_id=21457</ref>
*[[Roman Polanski]], Polish-born film producer, is unable to return to Hollywood as he skipped bail and fled to [[France]] after being convicted in 1978 on charges of unlawful sexual intercourse with a thirteen-year old girl.
* Rapper DMX (Earl Simmons) was caught on camera drag racing at a speed over 110 miles on a freeway, and then a SWAT team was used to arrest him three days later on drug and animal cruelty charges. "The Maricopa County sheriff's office says the 37-year-old, whose real name is Earl Simmons, at first tried to barricade himself in his bedroom. He came out as a SWAT team entered during the early-morning raid Friday."<ref>http://news.aol.com/entertainment/music/music-news-story/ar/_a/dmx-arrested-on-animal-cruelty-charges/20080509163709990001</ref>
*[[Tatum O'Neal]] arrested in 2008 for [[cocaine]] possession. <ref>
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361361,00.html Tatum O'Neal Released After Drug Arrest], [[Associated Press]], ''[[Fox News Channel|Fox News]]'', June 02, 2008.</ref>
*[[James Dean]] displayed an unhealthy interest in a twelve-year-old boy. His former director Elia Kazan later commented: "I've known many actors who have been twisted up in their sex lives, but never anybody as sick and unhealthy as Dean was."
*Redmond O'Neal, son of Farrah Fawcett and Ryan O'Neal, plead guilty to possessing heroine and methamphetamine as well as driving under the influence of drugs.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080627/ap_on_en_ot/people_redmond_o_neal;_ylt=AiQCBwpJpxqBOFWVyqEycXsDW7oF Redmond O'Neal pleads guilty to drug charges</ref>
*[[Actor]] Nick Nolte was arrested for drunk driving in 2002<ref>http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/nolte1.html</ref>
*[[Sean Bean]] was arrested and spent the night in a cell after allegedly beating his wife.<ref>http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hR3pX0eEytJcMo7m5LRLHOYpasSA</ref>
*[[Shelley Malil]], 43, worked as an actor in [[movies]] and television. He is charged with causing great bodily injury and using a deadly weapon on Kendra Beebe, a 35-year-old [[mother]] of two. He appeared on the back patio of Kendra's house and stabbed her 20 times. Now held on a $10 million dollar bond. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Aug13/0,4670,ActorArrested,00.html 40-Year-Old Virgin' actor pleads not guilty] AP, August 13, 2008</ref>
*Former Power Rangers actor [[Skylar Deleon]], will have three separate trials for four murders. The first trial is set for the murder of Tom and Jackie Hawks, who were allegedly bound to the anchor of their yacht and tossed overboard. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,433765,00.html 'Power Rangers' Actor Set to Stand Trial in Yacht Killings] AP, October 7, 2008</ref> he was sentenced to death for committing murder.<ref>http://www.dcourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=66850</ref>
*Musician George O'Dowd, better known by his stage name, [[Boy George]], has been convicted (and will likely go to prison) for handcuffing a male escort to a bed against his will and then beating him with a chain.<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1092168/Guilty-Boy-George-warned-judge-faces-jail-falsely-imprisoning-male-escort.html</ref> Earlier he had been convicted of cocaine possession.
*Dana Plato was arrested for armed robbery and prescription forgery.
*Todd Bridges assaulted a motorist and was repeatedly arrested for drug-related offenses.
*Gary Coleman was arrested for assaulting a woman by punching her in the face.
*Musician/Producer [[Phil Spector]] was found guilty of second-degree murder for the shooting death of actress Lana Clarkson. He was convicted of second-degree murder. <ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30194936/</ref>
*Kiefer Sutherland, Fox television's "24" star was charged with misdemeanor assault for allegedly head-butting a fashion designer at a nightclub. <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=47880 ‘24’ Star Kiefer Sutherland Charged for Allegedly Head-Butting a Fashion Designer] Associated Press, May 8, 2009</ref>
*Actor Elmore "Rip" Torn was arrested for breaking into a bank and carrying a firearm while intoxicated. In 2009, he was given probation in a drunk-driving case. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/01/30/actor-rip-torn-arrested-allegedly-breaking-connecticut-bank/?test=latestnews Actor Rip Torn Arrested for Allegedly Breaking Into Connecticut Bank, Fox News, January 30, 2010]</ref>
*Former teen actor Leif Garrett was arrested for possession of a controlled substance. He has a number of former arrests including [[heroin]] possession. <ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/03/crimesider/entry6170622.shtml Leif Garrett Arrested: Former Teen Idol Busted for Controlled Substance, CBS News, February 3, 2010]</ref>
*[[Sean Penn]] was charged with criminal battery and vandalism for attacking the paparazzi in October 2009. <ref>[http://www.tmz.com/2010/02/19/sean-penn-crime-battery-vandalism-prosecution-jail-paparazzi/ Sean Penn Charged With Crimes, TMZ, February 19, 2010]</ref>
*Comedian [[Andy Dick]] was arrested for groping an employee and a patron of a nightclub in West Virginia. <ref>[http://www.herald-dispatch.com/breaking/x818845820/Andy-Dick-arrested-by-HPD Andy Dick charged with felony, shows still on, Herald Dispatch, January 23, 2010]</ref>
*Actor Nicholas Brendon had been arrested March '10 in a drunken scuffle with police. He is charged with resisting arrest, two counts of battery against a police officer and felony vandalism. Brendon has a history of alcoholism. <ref>[http://www.popeater.com/2010/04/07/nicholas-brendon-arrested-charged/ 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' Star Charged With Police Battery, Vandalism, PopEater.com, April 7, 2010]</ref>
*Hollywood television producer Bruce Beresford-Redman of CBS's "Survivor" series is arrested as the lead suspect in the murder of his wife. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/04/08/mexican-official-hollywood-tv-producer-suspect-wifes-death/?test=latestnews 'Survivor' Producer 'Suspected' in Wife's Death in Mexico, FOX News, April 8, 2010]</ref>

== Falsehoods ==

[[Hollywood values]] perpetuate [[liberal]]-driven [[Essay:Liberal Falsehoods|falsehoods]]:

*Matthew Shepard Fallacy
:Adherents to Hollywood values "green-lighted a troika of [[Matthew Shepard]] movies after he was senselessly killed because it affirmed their gut feeling that a gay young man living in backward America is destined for death at the hands of hateful ultraconservatives. A street in West Hollywood still stands in his name despite ABC News reporting the story false: He was killed by crazed meth addicts for drugs and money -- not because he was gay. Isn't that tragic enough? Yet Shepard is still the icon of gay victims' rights, and the mistaken story of his 'fate' soon thereafter befell Jake Gyllenhaal's character in 'Brokeback Mountain.' The Oscar statuette stands as the exclamation point."<ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-dustup26sep26,0,1800794,full.story</ref>

*[[Inherit the Wind]]
:Hollywood perpetuated complete lies about the [[Scopes Trial]] in order to smear Christianity, including:

:*portraying [[William Jennings Bryan]] as being ignorant, harsh and punitive, based on a false portrayal of his actions and testimony

:*falsely claiming that at the end Bryan, in a senseless fit of madness, died in the courtroom amid caring and reasonable Darwinists

:*falsely portraying the Darwinists in a positive light and the Christians as deceitful

:In real life, Bryan and the Christians won the trial and were charitable to the end, while the Darwinist Darrow was deceitful in reneging on his deal to take the witness stand after Bryan did.

*[[U 571]]
:The 2000 film [[U 571]] had a plot which was based on the first capture of a German Enigma machine in [[World War 2]]. However, in the film the capture is made by Americans. In fact the first Enigma machine was captured by the British in 1941 prior to the Americans entering the war.

*[[Recount]]
:The 2008 [[HBO]] movie on the 2000 Presidential elections and its aftermath in Florida. A look into how the [[Republicans]] stole the election and the role of its party members that made it happen. Republicans are portrayed as ghoulish and cited as manufacturing demonstrations. Both the real Warren Christopher and James Baker contend the film’s portrayal of the former is hopelessly untrue. <ref>[http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/hbos-recount-hanging-chads-and-black-humor/ HBO’s Recount: Hanging Chads, Black Humor] The Washington Times, May 4, 2008</ref>

*[[Winter Soldiers]]
:The 1972 film about U.S. troops from Vietnam put on record as baby killers, human rights violators, and general disservice to America. This myth was propagated by a few anti-war activist liberal actors that never did see combat in [[Vietnam]] and some were never in the country. The initial result was to hold hearings in Congress over the matter. All allegations were proven fabrications, falsehoods, and lies.

*[[An Inconvenient Truth]]
:The 2006 false documentary about man-made [[global warming]] created & hyped by [[Al Gore]]. A [[British]] court found the film contained at least [http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_warming#Al_Gore.27s_.22Inconvenient_Truth.22_Movie_Claims 11 material falsehoods]. The Science and Public Policy Institute has found 35 falsehoods associated with the film. <ref>[http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html 35 Inconvenient Truths, Science and Public Policy Institute]</ref>

*[[Fahrenheit 911]]
:A [[Michael Moore]] film that was a false portrayal of why America fought a war against [[Saddam Hussein]]'s Iraq. The main theme was to attack [[George W. Bush]] during wartime.

*[[Sicko]]
:Another [[Michael Moore]] film which spread many falsehoods about American healthcare while unduly glorifying the so-called benefits of socialized healthcare. Memorably referred to Cuban healthcare as being better than American healthcare.

==Disrespect for marriage==

Many celebrities and other exponents of Hollywood Values have no respect for the sanctity of marriage - their own or anyone else's. This is manifested in a high rate of marriage breakdown, and by the home-wrecking activities of the promiscuous, whose moral outlooks have been distorted by Liberal and atheistic teachings.

*[[Elizabeth Taylor]] has been married eight (8) times, including a nearly 6-year marriage to [[John Warner|Senator John Warner]] (R-VA).<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000072/bio</ref>
*[[Valerie Bertinelli]] said her divorce from [[Eddie Van Halen]] was caused by infidelity and drug use - by her too. She said she was "destroying my body," trying to keep up with a rock-star lifestyle. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,332551,00.html Valerie Bertinelli About Divorce From Eddie Van Halen: 'I Wasn't An Angel Either'], [[Fox News Channel]], ''[[Associated Press]]'', February 26, 2008</ref>
*[[Zsa Zsa Gabor]] has been married nine (9) times.
*[[Mickey Rooney]] has been married eight (8) times, but has been with his last wife for 30 years after embracing religion and abandoning his previous lifestyle.
*[[Charlie Chaplin]] married four (4) times, including his marriage at the age of 54 to an 18-year-old bride.
*[[Johnny Carson]] married four (4) times, and frequently made light of his having divorced three times, as if this were something funny.
*[[Meredith Baxter]] married and divorced four (4) times; she finally admitted in 2009 that she was a [[homosexual]].
*In 2009, the married [[David Letterman]] admitted to having had adulterous sexual relationships with multiple members of his staff; he had previously fathered a child out of wedlock.

== Offensive Behavior ==

* Trashing hotel rooms is a favorite form of offensive behavior by Hollywood types. Many examples are readily available on the [[internet]].<ref>See, e.g., [http://www.budgettravel.com/bt-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122101034.html]</ref>
*[[Mel Gibson]], who had started drinking again, was arrested after being stopped for driving at 84 mph in a 45 mph zone on a notoriously dangerous road in Malibu, California.<ref>''Mel Gibson apologizes after DUI arrest'' [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14080210/ Associated Press]</ref> A breathalyzer test confirmed he was drunk and next to him was an open bottle of Tequila; after being arrested he hurled Anti-Semitic abuse at a Jewish police officer.<ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2292336,00.html Mel Gibson rants against Jews in drink-drive arrest], Times Online, July 30, 2006</ref>
*The parents of [[Miley Cyrus]], just 15 years old, allowed [[Annie Liebowitz]] to pose the starlet without a shirt or bra (nominally [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/topless "topless"]) and with just a sheet covering her front for Vanity Fair magazine.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/business/media/28hannah.html?_r=1&oref=slogin</ref><ref>http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20195785,00.html</ref><ref>http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23608789-5001026,00.html</ref> "I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be 'artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed," Cyrus said Sunday in a statement through her publicist. "I never intended for any of this to happen and I apologize to my fans who I care so deeply about." <ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0</ref>
:"... a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines," a network statement said. <ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0</ref>
*Many Hollywood stars who have purposely sought fame have then turned upon photographers and fans. [[Sean Penn]] is well known to lash out at photographers.
*The parents of 16-year old Jamie Lynn Spears allowing her unwed pregnancy to be publicly portrayed as a normal act even though she is a role model for millions of underage teenagers. Mayor of Gloucester, Carolyn Kirk recently blamed the glamorizing of teen pregnancy by Jamie Lynn Spears for the 17 high school teenagers that got pregnant at the same time. <ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/06/gloucester_mayo.html Gloucester mayor rebuts report of teen pregnancy pact], June 23, 2008</ref>
*Despite an upcoming ballot initiative to remove gay marriage from California law, [[Ellen DeGeneres]] proudly displays her [[gay]] sexuality for all to see. On August 16, 2008, DeGeneres "married" Portia de Rossi in a small ceremony in Beverly Hills. Fox News called it "the biggest celebrity union since California legalized same-sex marriage." <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,405085,00.html Reports: Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi Wed] AP, August 17, 2008</ref> Now, her fans and millions of young girls can read about her gay marriage in magazines such as People and Us Magazine, hear about it on celebrity news television shows.
*Rapper [[Kanye West]] and bodyguard attacked the paparazzi at [[LAX]] airport and allegedly smashed a camera on the floor valued at $10,000. The pair were arrested for felony vandalism. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,420869,00.html Kanye West Arrested in Altercation With Paparazzi] Ap, September 11, 2008</ref>
*[[Heather Locklear]] was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of a controlled substance. The officer noticed Locklear's car parked on a state highway and blocking a lane in Montecito, Ca. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,429388,00.html Heather Locklear Arrested on Suspicion of DUI] AP, September 29, 2008</ref>
*[[Charlie Sheen]] was arrested on Christmas Day for domestic abuse of his current wife Brooke. He was booked for second-degree assault, menacing, and criminal mischief. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2009/12/25/actor-charlie-sheen-arrested-domestic-violence-charges/?test=faces Actor Charlie Sheen Released From Jail After Domestic Abuse Arrest, Fox News, December 25, 2009]</ref> Sheen has a history that includes assaults against girlfriends and his former wife.
*Celebrity of the moment [[Kourtney Kardashian]] gave a risque lingerie shoot while pregnant with her boyfriend's child. After birth, Mom and baby adorned magazine covers, highlighting the modern acceptance of single motherhood. The cover reads ''"Baby Mason will bring our family together,"'' obscuring the traditional meaning of family. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/entertainment/2009/10/16/kardashian-sisters?slide=2 The Kardashian Family, Fox News]</ref>
*Actor [[Jude Law]] had a sexual relationship with model Samantha Burke that produced a daughter. It is reported that Law finally went to visit his daughter for the first time, 5 months after she was born. <ref>[http://www.celebrity-gossip.net/celebrities/hollywood/jude-law-makes-first-visit-to-love-child-216056/ Jude Law Makes First Visit To Love Child, CelebrityGossip.net, March 1, 2010]</ref>
*Actor [[Tom Hanks]] called Mormons 'un-American' for their support of Proposition 8 in California. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2009/01/23/tom-hanks-apologizes-calling-mormon-supporters-proposition-american/ Tom Hanks Apologizes for Calling Mormon Supporters of Proposition 8 'Un-American', Fox News, January 23, 2009]</ref>

== Rehab ==
Hollywood values often result in [[Celebrity|celebrities]] going into rehab. Here are some examples:

*[[Kirsten Dunst]] checked into the [[Cirque Lodge]] treatment facility in [[Utah]] after a week of hard partying at the [[Sundance Film Festival]], according to a source at the lodge, although the lodge's director of operations denies this. <ref name = "foxkirsten">
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,329545,00.html Reports Say Kirsten Dunst in Rehab; Rep for Facility Denies It], ''[[Fox News]]'', February 08, 2008</ref>

The following all checked into the above facility seeking treatment for various psychological problems:

*[[Lindsay Lohan]]<ref name = "foxkirsten"/>
*[[Eva Mendes]]<ref name = "foxkirsten"/>
*[[Mary-Kate Olsen]]<ref name = "foxkirsten"/>
*[[Robert Downey Jr.]]
*[[Courtney Love]]

*[[Heather Locklear]]<ref>"A spokeswoman for the 47-year-old star said: 'Heather has been dealing with anxiety and depression.'" She "checked into a clinic in [[Arizona]] that treats depression."[http://www.pnas.org/content/101/11/3721.full]</ref>

*[[David Duchovny]], having boosted Hollywood Values through his role in a decadent television series, now finds himself trapped by the depravity that he promoted, and has had to enter rehab for his addiction to unchastity<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN2835847820080829</ref>.

== Hypocrisy ==

Hollywood personalities often propose legislation such as outlawing private gun ownership, or speak out against things such as anti-gun laws, but have at the same time acted in movies contrary to their public opinions:

* [[George Clooney]] on hearing that fellow actor and gun-rights advocate, [[Charlton Heston]], suffers from Alzheimer's disease, said: ''"I don't care. Charlton Heston is the head of the [[National Rifle Association]]. He deserves whatever anyone says about him."''<ref>http://www.funnyreign.com/quotes-georgeclooney.shtml</ref> Clooney starred in the film ''The Peacemaker'', in which he played an American military man defending the country from a nuclear attack; scenes in the film showed him using a gun to defend himself and others.

* [[Mark Wahlberg]] upon meeting Charlton Heston on the set of the remake of ''Planet of the Apes'', Wahlberg rudely told Heston, "It was very disturbing meeting you." Later, Wahlberg would have this to say at the MTV Movie Awards: ''"I believe Charlton Heston is America's best villain because he loves guns so much. Maybe he should get the award for being president of the National Rifle Association."''<ref>http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2360</ref> Wahlberg's character in ''Planet of the Apes'' uses a gun to defend himself and other humans from the apes who would rule over them.

* [[Helen Mirren]] played Queen Elizabeth II in a movie 'The Queen', but [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,414361,00.html admits she used to use cocaine and was date-raped] as a result of her poor life choices as a younger woman.

==Moral depravity==
*[[Woody Allen]] seduced and took pornographic photographs of the youthful daughter of his then girlfriend [[Mia Farrow]].

==Using appearances to promote their [[liberal]] political views==
*Rapper Kanye West infamously went way off script during a live benefit concert for victims of Hurricane Katrina, criticizing the media's treatment of images of black and white people and saying President [[George W. Bush]] "doesn't care about black people."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/03/AR2005090300165.html</ref>
*During the live broadcast of the 2007 Emmy Awards, actress Sally Field went on a sputtering anti-war rant, eventually concluding by saying, "If the mothers ruled the world, there would be no g**d*** war in the first place." She received thunderous applause from the Hollywood audience for her vulgar remark.<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=3610891</ref>
*[[Michael Moore]] surprised no one by criticizing President Bush during his 2003 Oscar acceptance speech for "Bowling for Columbine," saying, "We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man who's sending us to war for fictitious reasons, whether it's the fiction of duct tape or the fiction of orange alerts. We are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush. Shame on you."<ref>http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/features/20030323-2028-oscars-moore.html</ref>
*Actress Jessica Lange verbally attacked President Bush and the Iraq War during a 2008 commencement speech at Sarah Lawrence College in Yonkers, New York, stating, "We are living in an America that, in the last seven and a half years, has waged an unnecessary war, established prison camps, condoned torture, employed corporate armies, eliminated the right of habeas corpus, practiced extraordinary rendition, and believe me, this is only a partial list."<ref>http://cbs5.com/politics/Jessica.Lange.President.2.732264.html</ref>
*Actress Megan Fox was recently quoted by MSN in a piece entitled "The Wit and Wisdom of Megan Fox" discussing her new movie Transformers 2. She said "why not just take out all of the white trash, hillbilly, anti-gay, super bible-beating people in Middle America?” <ref>[http://www.onenewsnow.com/Blog/Default.aspx?id=559876 Megan Fox would barter using ‘Bible-beating white trash’]OneNewsNow.com</ref>

==Vanity and [[Idol]] Worship==
[[Hollywood]] places a value on appearance and it is driven into the minds of those who they seek profits and adulation from. There is such the need to be rich and famous that anything goes. It may be glamorizing to reveal skin <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/entertainment/2009/07/15/lovely-talented-khloe-kardashian?test=faces The youngest of the Kardashian gals decided flashing photographers was the best way to get some attention, FOX News, April 1, 2010]</ref> or shamelessly being sex symbols to audiences. Pat-your-back awards ceremonies whereby we breathlessly await the ''Stars'' to arrive. Naturally, scandals make big headlines and these people are no stranger to controversy, for [[money]]. These fake [[Gods]] have captured the hearts of millions upon millions who follow their every move. Negative stereotypes poison the minds of their followers. Women feel less worthy due to the overwhelming influence touching every part of society. Penn State's Media Research found the following regarding Women's magazines, "Past research indicates that exposure to thin models results in lower [[self-esteem]] and decreased weight satisfaction, and to increased depression, guilt, shame, [[stress]], insecurity and body dissatisfaction." <ref>[http://www.psu.edu/dept/medialab/research/selfworth.html Construction of Beauty as a Measure of Self-Worth] Penn State Media Research</ref>

==Award Shows==
Fans of Hollywood are served copious amounts of vanity and glamour as celebrities are greeted on the red-carpet attending award events. Paparazzi snap pictures and the stars are rated for their appearance in various tabloids and entertainment television. Once the celebrities have arrived at the awards, television cameras capture for the masses acceptance speeches of their beloved stars. Once limited to couple of banquets such as the [[Emmy Award|Emmys]] or [[Golden Globe]]s, now some two-dozen award shows are vying for exposure. These new award shows offer glimpses into ego and moral depravity of Hollywood. It's not uncommon for the stars to act cool by cussing to the audience during acceptance speeches. These awards shows have become tawdry events that are marketed mostly to teens.

*Madonna engages in a lustful-lesbian kiss onstage to [[Britney Spears]] at the 2003 MTV Music Video Awards. <ref>[http://top40.about.com/od/britneyspears/ig/Britney-Spears-Photo-Biography/Britney-Spears-Kissing-Madonna.htm Britney Spears and Madonna Kiss, About.com, 2003]</ref>
*A notoriously self-serving [[Kayne West]] jumped onstage at the [[MTV Video Awards]] to interrupt an acceptance speech by Taylor Swift. <ref>[http://www.examiner.com/x-15972-Raleigh-Pop-Culture-Examiner~y2009m9d14-MTV-Video-Music-Awards-inspire-annual-controversy MTV Video Music Awards inspire annual controversy, Examiner.com, September 14, 2009]</ref>
*[[Mariah Carey]] attended the Palm Springs International Film Festival. Her acceptance speech was made while completely drunk. <ref>[http://neonlimelight.com/2010/01/06/video-mariah-carey-accepts-film-festival-award-drunk/ Video: Mariah Carey Accepts Film Festival Award Drunk, Neonlimelight.com, January 6, 2010]</ref>
*[[Miley Cyrus]] performed at the [[Teen Choice Awards]] in August 2009. The 16-year old was dancing around on a stripper pole. <ref>[http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1619183/20090820/cyrus__miley.jhtml Billy Ray Cyrus Defends Miley's Teen Choice Pole Dance, MTV.com, August 20, 2009]</ref>
*Actor [[Jack Black]] opened the 2009 MTV Video Awards by leading everyone in a prayer to [[satan]]. <ref>[http://christianpress.com/content/entertainment/11-lifestyle/360-jack-black-leads-a-prayer-to-the-devil-at-the-2009-mtv-awards satan Jack Black Leads A Prayer To The Devil At The 2009 MTV Awards, Christian Press, September 14, 2009 ]</ref>
*Adam Lambert’s [[American Music Awards]] performance received over 1500 complaints for flipping off the audience, kissing a male keyboard player, and fondling several of his backup dancers. <ref>[http://www.ecanadanow.com/entertainment/2009/11/28/did-you-find-adam-lamberts-american-music-awards-performance-offensive/comment-page-1/ Did You Find Adam Lambert’s American Music Awards Performance Offensive?, eCanadanow.com, November 28, 2009]</ref>

==Preying on Underage Stars==
Debbie Gibson reflects on her life as a sixteen-year-old teenage Pop star and her exposure to the very sinister side of show business. “It is very disheartening that there are so many older men that prey on young performers.” What is even more disturbing than dirty male fans would be older male record executives trying to take her to adult parties and corrupt her with alcohol. Even the way the paparazzi stalk the younger artists is very different from following around adults. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,533542,00.html?test=faces Debbie Gibson Speaks Out About Pedophile Fans Wanting to 'Corrupt Little Girls' Fox News, July 17, 2009]</ref>

==Productions==
The diseased moral values of the Liberal-dominated entertainment industry are manifested all too clearly in many of the products of that industry - motion pictures and television programs that offer no edification or instruction to the viewer, but plumb a cesspit of license and depravity. Some recent examples include the television series ''Desperate Housewives'' and the TV series/movie ''[[Sex and the City]]''.

==Religion==
A short study of the ten most successful actors <ref>http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-successful-actors-at-the-box-office.php 10 most successful actors] </ref> shows that only 50% are Christian (compared to 76% for the general population), with 30% expressing no religious beliefs at all (15% in the general public). These actors have had successful careers and it is very likely that religious affiliation in regular actors is much lower, exposing or predisposing them to the influence of Hollywood values.

==Books==
* ''Hollywood Against America''
* ''Hollywood Babylon'' (1965) by Kenneth Anger (US edition)
* ''Hollywood Babylon II'' (1984) by Kenneth Anger

==See also==
*[[Supermodel]]s
*[[Gallery of American Heroes]]
*[[World Famous Pictures]]

== References ==
{{Reflist|3}}

==External Links==
*[http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ic_Q3agTpruvzoCJ5UxWaAqGJW3A Bush attacks 'Hollywood values'], ''AFP'', Oct 1, 2007
*[http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/index.html Mug-shots of arrested Hollywood stars]

{{Liberalism}}
[[category:entertainment]]
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]
[[Category:Social Problems]]

Talk:Hollywood values

2010-04-16T16:22:38Z

TSpencer: /* Religion */

==Possible Inclusions==

A few suggestions for the list, off the top of my head: Marilyn Monroe would be a prime (and notorious) example. Chris Farley, who's stated goal was to live and die like Belushi. Janis Joplin. Anna Nicole Smith. Freddie Prinze. Rock Hudson. And depending on how comprehensive you want the list to be, there's an almost endless parade of people who were more famous as part of a group than as individuals, such as Keith Moon or Dennis Wilson.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:16, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:I did a search for Hollywood liberals and came up with [http://www.nationalenquirer.com/ this] website. On the front page I see that the cops are invertviewing Mary Kate Olsen about the suspicious circumstances in Ledger's death, David Copperfield has had two childred out of wedlock, Britney Spears is finally making it to her custody hearing to see if she can stay off drugs long enough to take care of her own kids, and Kiefer Sutherland is being let out of jail after a DUI charge. Hollywood values at their best! (Or should I say worst?) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:13, 25 January 2008 (EST)

If an MTV reference is frowned upon, I can hardly see a credible argument for references to The National Enquirer? It's not exactly known for its adherence to fact-based logic, is it? [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 12:29, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:Why not? I bet they had articles on every one of the people we have in the article right now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:21, 26 January 2008 (EST)

::There's a reason that tabloids are also known as "Gossip rags." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:36, 26 January 2008 (EST)

The people putting these lists together do not seem to realize that in making a case linking "Hollywood values"--not coherently defined in the article, by the way--to early death or criminality it is not enough simply to cite examples; it needs to be demonstrated that these alleged consequences are ''more likely'' to occur to those who adopt these values than to the general population. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:19, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==Heath Ledger==

How did Hollywood values contribute to his death? [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 04:49, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:It is clear upon reviewing [[User_talk:Fox#Heath_Ledger|this]] and [[Talk:Main_Page#Milking_deaths_for_political_gain|this]] that nobody has justified how Hollywood values contributed to Ledger's death. We all acknowledge that during his life he probably did take drugs and was a selfish individual, however there is no evidence that his overdose on legal prescription drugs was a suicide attempt or reasonably affected by his drug habit. Given that the example is used in the context of death ("Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:") then I think it would be prudent to remove Ledger's entry until sufficient evidence connecting Hollywood to his death has been found, otherwise we are just sponsoring gossip. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 07:22, 2 February 2008 (EST)

Of what significance is it that he was found naked in his bed? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:20, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==So?==

So? What does this article intend to prove? What is its thesis? Is this article intended to somehow connect the unfortunate deaths of some people who got too involved in drugs or alcohol as an indicator that hollywood films are a bad influence?
Is this article supposed to somehow connect these so-called "Hollywood Values" with liberal politics?
Last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh had had an embarrassing addiction to opiate painkillers, George W. Bush had admitted to a cocaine problem, and Mel Gibson had such a drinking problem that he was accusing "the Jews" of all the evils that had ever plagued him. These three men, for example, are CONSERVATIVES. Mel Gibson even functions as part of the industry centered in HOLLYWOOD. Why is good ol' Mel not mentioned in this article?
Is the anti-liberal bias in this article too overwhelming to include even one conservative who's had problems?
Or, as I suspect, is Conservapedia wearing the type of blinders that see any conservative's troubles with drugs or alcohol as a momentary temptation by the liberal side?

If you simply blame everything on your opponents, all the time, then you never have to think it through or acknowledge reality. Seems to be the basic M.O. here.

I, for one, fail to see how Heath Ledger's accidental death from combining the wrong medications (all of which seem to have been prescribed for him) as indicative of a "Hollywood Value" system. Well, I'm sure the response will go like this: "He was NAKED! Surely, nakedness is indicative of SOME evil-doing. After all, LIBERALS SLEEP NAKED! No God-fearing person should sleep sans pajamas!"

I'm disgusted.

[[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 14:34, 12 February 2008 (EST)

== What about Britney Spears? ==

Britney is a very famous person, and hasn't she been to rehab?
Shouldn't she be mentioned in connection with "Hollywood Values"?
Just a suggestion. [[User:MikeSchwartz|MikeSchwartz]] 20:07, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Not entirely accurate ==

This article doesn't really give an accurate definition of the phrase, 'Hollywood Values'. I don't really blame you, as it is very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately define it. I also made this point on the 'Liberal Denial' Talk Page, so I'll just copy the relevant part of what I said here:

This phrase means different things to different people. Simply Googling the phrase gives many different meanings. To some, 'Hollywood values' means exactly what Conservapedia says it means. To others, it is summarised as, 'Save a tree, kill a baby. Ban cigarettes, legalize pot. Screw the Iraqi’s, save Darfur. McCarthy is bad, Castro is good. Bush is Hitler, Che is a hero. Save the planet, live in a mansion.' To still others, it means being very egotistical, not very well grounded in reality, and not having a lot of common sense. To yet others, it's all about doing anything at all, as long as you're paid enough. And, by far, that is not a complete list of the various different things this phrase actually means to various different people. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:48, 13 February 2008 (EST)

It should also be noted that the meaning of 'Hollywood Values', according to some, is directly contradicted by what others mean by 'Hollywood Values'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:50, 13 February 2008 (EST)

== Wikilinks ==

Why are all these actors, singers, etc. wikilinked? Do we plan to have articles on them all? I removed most of them at some point, but I see they were added back. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 16 February 2008 (EST)

: I think it's valid for two reasons: it draws attention to the fact that CP doesn't yet have articles on them, and may make someone write one. Also, when an article is eventually written, the links are already there, so nobody has to go back and add them retroactively. If they're already there, you may as well leave them. [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 15:25, 15 February 2010 (EST)
== Crime ==
For the crime section, please stick to actual crimes. Maybe there could be another section for offensive comments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:48, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:TBH Roger, I think the linked [[Mel Gibson]] article covers it sufficiently, so - in Gibson's case at least - there's probably no need to mention it in the article at all. But perhaps you're right that there should be a section for those celebs who have demonstrated consistent/repeated immoral behaviour/outbursts but have stopped short of actually breaking the law. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)

==Hollywood==

Why are musicians and athletes included in an article about [[Hollywood]]? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 14:34, 18 February 2008 (EST)

I share Maestro's confusion. Can a sysop address this issue, please? I don't think I should just edit the article.--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 12:29, 2 November 2008 (EST)
:It doesn't do to be too literal. Hollywood obviousdly doesn't apply just to the motion picture studios in Hollywood, CA. The term is used in its broader sense of applying to the entertainment 'industry'. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:35, 2 November 2008 (EST)
::I suppose...but I wouldn't call that obvious.--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 18:06, 2 November 2008 (EST)

== What do we do? ==

Even if Hollywood values are in fact a problem, what can we possibly do about it? Make extramarital and premarital sex illegal? Or just force everyone to convert to Christianity? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 23:18, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Bix Biederbecke ==

Not really a "Hollywood" star - Jazz musicians at the time were more liable to spend their lives in NY (as he did), Chicago, or New Orleans. Lots of jazz musicians, of course, had serious addiction problems, but it's not really intellectually honest to lump in struggling musicians - many of America's greatest jazz artists never made much money - in with wealthy movie stars. Remove? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:56, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:I just removed him from the list. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 20:05, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

== Who compiled this silly list? ==

Bix Biederbecke is hardly the only problem here. What about Brian Epstein? What did he have to do with Hollywood? What about Sid Viscious? Hollywood? I hardly think so. Richard Jeni suffered from clinical depression. Do you think that might have had something to do with his suicide? Clara Blandick was in pain and facing blindness. What has her suicide got to do with Hollywodd values? Sharon Tate was murdered by the Manson family. Why is she in the article? The circumstances of Virginia Rappe's death remain unknown and controversial. What has Heath Ledger's accidental overdose got to do with Hollywood or any other values? What has John Bonham got to do with Hollywood? The inquest into the death of Kenneth Williams returned an open verdict as it was not posibble to determine whether his overdose was accidental. In any case he was suffering from declining health and depression at the time.

This is extremely sloppy work. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 22:33, 5 March 2008 (EST)

''Forrest Gump'' was not "a clumsy attempt to imply that conservatives have learning disabilities." I'm taking it out. {{unsigned|Grapes}}
:On what grounds? o.O [[User:NathanG|Nate]] [[User_talk:NathanG|my opinion matters?]] 19:56, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
::On the grounds that it isn't a clumsy attempt to imply that conservatives are conservative because of a mental disability. [[User:Grapes|Grapes]]

== Tate ==

Tate was murdered. How is that her fault? Maybe that part should just mention the Manson Family--a depraved group, indeed. [[User:Cisnon|Cisnon]] 22:38, 5 March 2008 (EST)

reply to the above criticisms (prior to Tate): [[liberals]] become so literal when it becomes a basis for censoring things they don't like. [[Hollywood values]] are not literally confined to Hollywood, California, and, by the way, things like depression and overdosing on prescription drugs are a symptom of [[Hollywood values]] and occur in that group in far higher percentages than the general public. Please, no [[liberal denial]] on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)

As to Tate, I welcome more information before censoring it from the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:Again, I think [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor censor] has a different meaning than [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delete delete.] Now, I'm no big city lawyer. Wait, yes I am.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:44, 5 March 2008 (EST)

:: Riiight... So, any time any entertainer somewhere in the (English speaking?) world suffers depression or overdoses on drugs, whether legal or prescription, whether accidentally or on purpose, that goes to show that "Hollywood values" (whatever they are) are evil. Did I say sloppy work? I withdraw that. I meant stupid, religiously driven nonsense. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 23:04, 5 March 2008 (EST)

:::Listing a pregnant murder victim as somehow indicative of "Hollywood values" is a disgrace. Sharon Tate did nothing to encourage Charles Manson to murder her; no aspect of her behavior or beliefs can excuse that, or played any role in it. Perhaps we should list her fetus as another sinner who deserved to be murdered? -- [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 23:08, 5 March 2008 (EST)

==You're bloody kidding me==
Death is a value? Sexually-transmitted disease is a value? I have no clue what you're trying to say here-- That Hollywood is responsible for death and STDs? Or that actors somehow worship these two things? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:08, 6 March 2008 (EST)

: You are clueless. Drug use and promiscuity are [[Hollywood values]], and they cause death.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:11, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::The paranoia in that comment aside, that still doesn't make death a value... Or disease, for that matter. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:18, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::You're misreading (or misunderstanding) the entry, Bari. It doesn't say that disease and death ''are'' Hollywood values, it says that Hollywood values breed a culture that ''leads to'' disease and death.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::My apologies, it appears that you are correct... or at least you were, before the last grammar fix. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:53, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Hypocrisy ==

Why was the new section Hypocrisy deleted? It was a fair point as explained eloquently at [[Liberal Hypocrisy]] I would have asked the reverting Sysop but the talk page is locked. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:35, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
:The context of Clooney portraying a US military officer was not explained. Please cease trying to attract my attention, and go back to your own website where I'm sure you will be much happier. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:39, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
::Context has now been added. I don't have a website. But thank you for your concern about my happiness. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:51, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

This article is full of finger-pointing. I realize that Hollywood stars live lives full of questionable behavior, and I agree that they do not set good role models for all of the young fans that watch their movies and follow their lives, but we should look at our own lives, and not be so quick to point fingers like this. Shouldn't we be promoting forgiveness, as the Lord intends us?

: This isn't "finger-pointing", and of course forgiveness remains available to anyone who requests it. But we're not going to stand by quietly as certain values destroy people. Would you also object if we identified how smoking has killed many people who smoke?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:46, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, perhaps finger-pointing was the wrong word. I'm just saying, we shouldn't piously observe Hollywood stars and forget our own behavior. I would not object to identifying the wrongs of smoking, but what I find a little silly is the big list of stars and their own individual crimes. I think a more general article would be better, and we should avoid a "more words is better" approach, like Wikipedia does.

: There is nothing "pious" about this. Values and lifestyles can cause harm just as surely as smoking can. Do we criticize anti-smoking statements as "pious"? Of course not. Highlighting the harm caused by [[Hollywood Values]] is not pious either. In fact, it can be scientifically studied.

: The individual examples, just like individual examples of prominent smokers who died young, are powerful and just as compelling as more-difficult-to-find statistics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

To quote Aschlafly (look at the talk page for the Mathematics page) "Conservapedia does not take the childish approach of "more words is better." We strive to be concise as a good encyclopedia should. Godspeed." Perhaps this principle should be applied to this page. I think everyone understands that Hollywood values are corrupted. I don't see the need for a long list of people who have done wrong things.

== removal ==

How can you justify Tate being a victim of hollywood values? Please point to it? I dont want to get into an edit but you cant just add with the tag "because I say so"
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:05, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

: It's self-evident from the explanation given. Tate was not a perpetrator of the crime, but became a victim of the culture in which she joined.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

No it is not self evident. What culture did she join? married a film director? Associated with hippies? If that so then she was a victim of hippies values. Her 'culture' lead her to be murdered? many people get murdered and she was targeted because she was famous. That has nothing to do with so called holloywood values.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:57, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Right removing the Tate stuff again. At the time of the murder Sharon Tate has not been using drugs or alcohol, she was pregnant and the Mason family was actually interested in killing a man who refused to sign his band up. Tate was unlucky but it is clearly at odds with other deaths listed with hers as she was murdered!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:55, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

: Wow: Tate's murder was just the product of chance, like getting hit by a car! No, AdenJ, Tate's murder was the result of [[Hollywood values]]. Maybe the initial intended victim was someone else, but that reinforces how [[Hollywood values]] work that they killed her instead. The entry is staying in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I give up, its totally ridiculous. Sharon Tate was murdered, It was nothing, repeat, NOTHING to do with values. Unless its the values of Manson.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: AdenJ, Tate's murder had ''everything'' to do with values. And, duh, that does include the [[Hollywood values]] of Manson and his followers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

So its 'duh' now is it? How did Mason have hollywood values? He was in no movies and was a poor musician. How was he affected by hollywood values? Because he was obessed with The Beatles? Who wasnt at that time. He was a drug crazed hippie with a severe mental problem.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:31, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I thought the parents of Jamie Lynn Spears statement was accurate but it was removed in its entirety, just curious as to the decision.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:35, 19 July 2008 (EDT)
:Apologies - I may have inadvertantly removed this while dealing with vandalism. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:38, 19 July 2008 (EDT)

==Ridiculous==

This article just cherry-picks famous people (or...not, in the case of "1920s cornettists" and similar cases), and stretches a granule, albeit a malleable one, miles and miles away from the true root causes of their deaths to make some point that these people's deaths are connected to some Spectre of Glittery Death looming up over Mulholland. How many famous people are there? There must be...untold millions of YouTube phenoms, game show contestants, sandwich shop spokesman, and to highlight a few flare-ups is entirely counter to any kind of legitimacy an encyclopedic volume should have. When I look at that list, I see Sid Vicious, who, as far as I know, lived in the UK for 98% of his life. I see Elvis Presley (maybe there should be a "Memphis values" page). And Sharon Tate...Sharon Tate? Wasn't Manson actually trying to kill somebody else, someone who wasn't there (supposedly a record honcho or someother such person who denied him a chance to be on a Beach Boys record). If that's how we're gonna be about it, and say innocent pregnant sober bystanders are perpetrators of Hollywood values, then let's say those whores that Jack the Ripper killed were victims of "West End values". [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 18:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: Linus has given us the fundamental [[liberal denial]]: denying that [[liberal]] values have consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly has given us the fundamental conservative denial.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:24, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

::'''I don't see anywhere in my graph where I denied that liberal values have consequences'''. I think that this whole liberal/conservative jive is basically a distraction, an abstract that exists only theoretically, and even then, as a theory lend creedence by consensus. If these people's death is going to be attributed to a set of industries in a geographic location, then it's already got the integrity of arguing about air temperature. Who cares? I'm not some objectivist/nihilist (probably mutually exclusive philosophies, but often combined nonetheless by people who don't understand them), so I'm not going to deforest the issue by going on some bleat about how we're all just "computers made out of meat" or whatnot, but I think this issue is...not an issue. I'm not arguing at it from any perspective other than one which states all perspectives are already invalid if it comes from a person who cares about things like this. So to say that anybody's neurons are any better than anyone else's simply because of the choices which all the electric 1's and 0's in our brains combine to create, is stupid. Even the whole idea of "liberal denial", which is supposed to be some kind of searing label which supercedes all the fray of bickering and mudslinging, has been trampled on by reductive childishness that's rampant here. Liberal denial. That's all your arguement is here. You'll say, I'm using liberal denial because what I'm saying is a denial coming from a liberal viewpoint. You define my point of view, incorrectly, sure, but you're still just defining it. Not '''re'''fining it, not clarifying or showing how it's wrong and maybe trying to excise the benign liberal tumors you probably surmise exist within my brain stem, you're just defining it. I should have taken a hint from the logo and realized that "applying logos" and "slapping labels" is basically the fundamental economy of Conservapedia. All apologies.
[[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 21:22, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
==Miley Cyrus==
see http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0
"They include shots of the teen wrapped in what appears to be a satin bedsheet, looking over her shoulder with her back exposed."

she was not topless-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:34, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:That's your opinion and you are not an accepted reference for material. I provided not one, not two but THREE references that described the photo as "topless." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:42, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

::She was topless unless you are prepared to call a sheet a "top".

::Do we want to put our cards on the table people? Clearly the reason that some here do not want this addition to the Hollywood values page is that Ms Cyrus appeared on the Main Page here not long ago as an exemplar of Christian virtue when she spoke of her ambition to abstain from sex until marriage (if memory serves).

::Well, now she's been photographed topless. I'll bet if it were Hillary Clinton you would all be loudly insisting that the description "topless" was absolutely accurate. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:44, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Er, no. What *is* clear is that her parents and Disney decided to let her be posed in as risque a fashion as possible - thus largely '''negating''' her value as a role model. My only objection is to the word ''topless'' which implies visible headlights rather than shrouded ones. Perhaps you'd like to right about teen [[role model]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:48, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

::::As I said, three references described the photo as "topless." However, I've now clarified the extend of the toplessness in the article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:50, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

topless requires that the breasts be exposed since they were not she was not topless -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:49, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:*sigh* Jinx, you can say that some sources said the girl was topless. That would come under the heading of "exaggeration", I'd say. Unless the editor in chief overturns my decision, I intend to have us all avoid that word. Let's not embarrass the girl any more than she already has been. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:52, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::That's pretty rich having regard to a number of the other accustaions and comments in the article. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:55, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:No, it actually doesn't require that the breasts be exposed. Neither does "nude" require that genitals be exposed. Demi Moore was nude when she posed for Vanity Fair's cover when pregnant even though neither her breasts or genitals were exposed. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:08, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm an easily lead, ignorant Christian. Tell me what change you'd like to see in the article - or make it yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:56, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Let's dial down the fuss a bit, folks. I was the one who originally posted the Cyrus line, and I didn't intend to start a war. I used the term "topless" because, a) that's the way I've heard it reported today, and b) it's accurate, strictly speaking. However, while I recognize that in common vernacular, "topless" implies a more explicit condition than exists in this case, I expected someone to come up with a better term rather than a complete (and unwarranted) reversion. So, maybe we can keep the item, but change the descriptive word? "Suggestive"? "Racy"? "Controversial"? "Provocative"? "Naughty"? Suggestions welcome...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 21:58, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:I'm letting Deborah decide this one. (If you must apply an adjective, try "risqué".) Anyway, the emphasis should be on the parents, as she is a minor and not responsible for photo shoot decisions.

:We can write an article on how parents of teen stars, such as Britney Spears, Hillary Duff & Lindsay Lohan, have managed their daughters' careers. But do we have a decent article on [[Modesty]] yet? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:05, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::All good suggestions. And don't forget Brooke Shields and her mother--They were a notorious pair a quarter-century ago (not that I'm old enough to remember such things [cough]).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:28, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:::As a former Disney employee, I must say the company needs to pay more attention to its [[role model]]s for tweens. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:32, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Call me cynical but I think it's just like any mega multi-national corporation, all that matters is the bottom line. And let's face it, sex (and abstinence) sells. You know back in the studio days women had to behave very nicely otherwise they'd be fired from their contract, then the supreme court broke them up and there went the Golden (or was it Silver?) age of Hollywood.
::::And anyway, shouldn't their '''parents''' be more concerned then a board of directors? '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:38, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Lenny Bruce/Sharon Tate/Blaming the victim ==

While Lenny did die because of a heroin OD, he was a standup comic (Comedian Values?), not an actor he only appeared on TV six times on variety/talk shows, definitely not Hollywood. I'd like to believe the government's horrible persecution of him led to his downward spiral.

As far as the Tate case. Andy, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't familiar with the story, here is a [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/manson/mansonaccount.html link to it,] '''if you still think that she did herself in because of Hollywood values, then ''by all means'' put it back in.

As for me, it makes me sick to my stomach to somehow imply that she was anyway responsible for her own death, that's worse then saying "well if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn that low-cut dress".'''

And just to make sure you don't go off subject and say that I'm a typical liberal, I'll admit that I '''agree''' with the premise of the article.
'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:02, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:Goodness, no, we would never insult you like that. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:06, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

A little disgusted by the bit on Sharon Tate, I must say. Hollywood values may be partially to blame for her death, but it wasn't her HV or her husband's HV, it was the Family's HV. It reads like a cheap shot at a woman who was brutally murdered, or one at her bereaved husband (or both).--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 18:58, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

==Bruce Lee==

ATang, please stop removing this item. Edit wars are frowned on at CP, so I suggest that if you want it deleted you seek the advice of a sysop. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:29, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Bruce Lee died of cerebral edema. Traces of a painkiller and cannabis were found postmortem. However, the cause of death was not cannabis; ergo, the link between Hollywood values and his death was not established.

:Otherwise you should list every cannabis user who died, regardless of cause of death. For example - if a lone hunter was attacked by a black bear and died as a result, and they found traces of THC in his body, would you say that's the cause of death? That he died of drug use? Or that he died because of Hollywood values? (Now... if he got high and provoked the bear, that's an entirely different story...)

:[[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:33, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:PS. Heh, I just saw what you typed. Merging the topics. (And I'm trying to avoid an edit war by pointing to the talk page)

::He was a cannabis user, and the health risks of cannabis are well known; even today (literally) the leftist British government has reclassified cannabis as a class B drug (from being class C, the lowest class of illegal substance, A being the highest). It is scarcely surprising that cannabis use - an HV practice in itself - may well have contributed to Lee's early death. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:32, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Yeah, it 'may' have - but by the same argument, UV exposure or asbestos inhalation may have contributed to his death too. My point is - when the cause of death is not conclusive, you cannot point to one single factor. Cannabis is not known to cause swelling of the brain; until there is an established link between the cerebral edema and cannabis use, I don't see how HV caused his death. Like I stated before, you cannot list every death of persons who have Hollywood Values. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 09:37, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

==Rob Knox==
He died protecting his little brother from two armed assailants. If those are Hollywood Values, sign me up.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:38, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

I have to agree with Tom Moore on this one... There has been some mistake, just a misunderstanding.

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2026826/Harry-Potter-actor's-father-Colin-Knox-visits-murder-scene.html "The father of a teenage actor who appears in the next Harry Potter film today visited the scene where the 18-year-old was stabbed to death trying to protect his younger brother from a knifeman."] [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:30, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, we need more than a few minutes to discuss something before deleting it like that. Some good new information is provided above, but some of it missed the point. No one is trying to blame the victim here. [[Hollywood values]] include carousing amid drunken people, and can often include underage drinking. Trouble breaks out and victims get killed. This doesn't happen as often to people who are, for example, sleeping by midnight. More comments welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::Hey, like I said, if Hollywood values include defending your little brother from being one of the many stabbed by a stranger with two knives, sign me up as a proponent.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, that's not saying much, because I would expect you to have been a proponent before. By the way, before you jump to conclusions, do you know who brought Rob Knox's under-aged 16-year-old brother to that drunken, late-night mayhem? Or is that question considered inappropriate when the controlling standards are [[Hollywood values]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:28, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::::I have no notion who brought him there. I am not sure it matters, since the problem there would be a young man bringing his under-age brother out on the town drinking, something that is relatively minor and which doesn't seem worthy of condemnation. But since you bring it up, do you know? If not, why did you put this up in the article before you found out?
::::Eh, who cares... it's your site.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:36, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::::I looked, and can't find that information. I'll check the CNN report of the story.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:37, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Nope, doesn't seem to have been reported. Although incidentally, while you're reading this, you might want to add to the News section that Bob Barr was nominated as the Libertarian candidate for this year. [http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/25/barr.election/index.html Story is here], and conservatives are probably interested.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:40, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: The account the fight which killed Rob Knox is described differently from your accounts above here: [http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1204418.ece]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:09, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::I was going by the link above, wherein a stranger with two kitchen knives approached them and began stabbing people. This is a much more detailed account, but no less tragic. His friend thought a stranger had stolen his phone and accused the guy of it, and later the guy comes back with some friends, one of whom starts stabbing people.
::::::At the very least, this change to the article is in very bad taste so soon. But again, you own this place, so I guess you get to make that final call. I obviously disagree with the whole premise of the article, so I don't expect you to take my views much to account on the matter.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 20:14, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

::At best, it's a weak example that doesn't serve the broad thrust of your argument particularly well. As charity decreases, it looks variously: inappropriate -> ridiculous -> mean-spirited. If you insist on keeping it, I'd suggest making a new section and leading in with the kind of qualifications you made above. --[[User:Leda|Leda]] 20:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm seeking the truth just as others should be here, and there is obviously more to the Rob Knox tragedy than the simple story that you insisted upon above. According to the more detailed account, the fight was expected. Note also that the victim's under-aged brother is an Olympic-level expert in karate, and that the fight was in or around a bar after midnight. This is still a terrible tragedy, to be sure, but values undeniably played a role in it, as in deaths from drunken driving. We'll say prayers for the victims '''and''' speak out against the causes. Liberals do neither.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:26, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

A young man who has played a minor role in a movie is stabbed to death in London, and within hours of his death you add him to this page as an example of "Hollywood values". That is '''vile'''. I do not know the details of the case, but nor do you, and nor does anyone. Someone has just been arrested, and the facts are simply not known. Jumping to conclusions like this, and acting with unseemly haste to use the Knox family's tragedy as fuel for your anti-Hollywood/anti-liberal campaign is disgusting. Please delete this appalling addition to the article. It does not do the Conservapedia image any good at all. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:29, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
:There's probably a name for those who make capital out of the suffering of others. Oh yes - SCUM! [[User:WarrenG|WarrenG]] 08:31, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

I would like to reopen the dabate to remove Knox's name from this list, whilst I have issue with the page as a whole and other entries, I feel that this in particular is a totally unwarranted addition. If for no other reason than it detracts from the article's thrust as there is no evidence that Knox ever exibited any 'Hollywood values'. All you seem to be basing this assertion on is the facts that a) he was an actor and b) he was at a pub when he was murdered. He was not under-age drinking (as he was 18, and there is no evidence both cited or that I can uncover that he was drinking alcohol at all). Although not outside the realms of possibility, there is no evidence either to suggest he was encouraging others to under-age drink (added to the fact that his brother, despite being 17 at the time, could legally drink alcohol at that age provided an 18+ year old bought the drink).

For goodness sake this kid was tragically murdered, and I for one have no doubt that he now resides peacrfully in Heaven. [[User:j00ni|j00ni]] 19:05, 30 Jun 2008 (GMT)

==Chaplin==
I saw the addition for Chaplin under divorce and I wonder if it's not worth mentioning some of the large age gaps between married Hollywood types? Chaplin met his last wife (Oona?) when she was dating one of his sons. --[[User:JessicaT|JessicaT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']] 10:35, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

: Wow, that's shocking. Yes, please add that with a citation. (I should have added a citation for mine also.) Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:45, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

::Thank you, will do so. I have it mentioned in a book at home, so I'll put it up later tonight, with a few other examples I know are in there. --[[User:JessicaT|JessicaT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']] 10:51, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

== Hypocrisy - all specious ==

Would someone please tell me what is ''hypocritical'' an actor "act[ing] in movies contrary to their public opinions"? Isn't that simply what actors do - '''act'''? This section of the article seems to be based on a very naive confusion of an actor's role-playing with his or her real-life views and actions. In its present form, I don't think it adds anything of value. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

: To a degree, you're right, but when an actor profits enormously by exploiting a sentiment which he simultaneously harshly criticizes (in appeasement of [[liberals]]), it begs the question: dude, if you think it's so wrong, then why do you profit so much from it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:34, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

::Not convinced. You seem to be saying that no actor should accept an offer to play roles like Shylock, Iago, or Hannibal Lecter. That would make for some pretty thin plot-lines... [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 10:34, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

::: No, you overstate it. A better example would be if a [[conservative]] starred in a movie featuring sex and nudity. The howls of protest by [[liberals]] would be deafening!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

::::But, [[Hollywood values]] embrassed by all [[Liberals]] would mean they were desensortised to this.

::::Actually could you explain this why would "liberals" be out raged, you have spent all this time saying they like that in their movies. People only seem to care about movies featuring sex and nudity when some former child star appears in them and news reporting go along the line "she (it is always she they care about) is sheading her innocent image". This might comes as a shock to you but most of the world doesn't think of actors as liberal/conservative and judge their movies on that basis. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:30, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

== At a certain point, it would probably pay to be selective ==

At some point I would advise to only use examples that best show the point trying to be made. For instance there are certainly many Hollywood divorces, but we have chosen to only point to a few that give the greatest examples of particular excess. Other areas of the article may wish to do the same. Drew Barrymore's stint in rehab as a young girl would be a good one. Ryan O'Neal thinking that Lee Majors telling him to look out for his wife while he was away on a trip meant to have sex with her would be another. Woody Allen's picture taking, the death of Dorothy Stratten, Morrison's burnout death and his girlfriend being beaten to death by a baseball bat by her next boyfriend, all would be notable examples. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:20, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

== Crime: Innocent until proven guilty ==

I think that there may be a certain level of contradiction here. Although we ''can'' use arrests as a way to suggest hedonistic activity of Hollywood stars, we're mentioning an accusation without proof they were convicted of the actual crime.

Perhaps we can delete and find other conviction examples. If not we can provide a reminder that we recognize that they are innocent until proven guilty. BTW: I'm not suggesting it's wrong in essence, but it could potentially confuse readers who are trying to understand things.
--[[User:Borneo|Borneo]] 05:34, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

== Is it just me, or is this a bit one-sided? ==

I think that this entire article, from the first line, is very condescending and even slanderous. This isn't an article about "Hollywood Values" (which I am convinced is a made up word), it's simply a list of drug deaths and crimes committed by people who happen to be / have been in Hollywood.

While the sources for the statistics are cited, perhaps it would be more appropriate to include interviews and quotes from Hollywood stars on their values. One could also delve into the history of Hollywood, and how it has molded the culture and values that are present there now.

If this is really an article on Hollywood Values, someone needs to gather up primary sources relevant to this topic. Otherwise, this article should be renamed "List of Bad Things about Hollywood People."

==Charity work==
I notice that a section on charity work has been removed. If entertainers are in fact sincerely raising money to help the needy isn't that part of their values and should be included in "Hollywood values"? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 10:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:No, because Hollywood Values are not the across-the-board-values of all who have worked in Hollywood. Do not be fooled into over-literalism, a crutch of [[Liberals]] who are unable to make logical pointsin debate. [[Ronald Reagan]] and [[Charlton Heston]] worked in Hollywood, and did a huge amount for good causes, but were a world away from 'Hollywood Values'. Try reading the article properly! Best wishes, [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:47, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
So, let me get this straight...

Only some liberals follow liberal style and every other article beginning with the word "Liberal"

Only some people in Hollywood follow Hollywood values.

So really, nothing substantiative is in these articles, and it's little more than a shoddy smearjob against the rich (Hollywood) and the Left.

Trustworthy indeed. [[User:EBrown|EBrown]] 10:49, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

So are you saying that "Hollywood values" refers only to the ''negative'' values of people who work in Hollywood, and that any positive values that might be held by people in Hollywood are ''not'' considered part of Hollywood values? Isn't that a bit biased? How would we feel if people started talking about "Republican values" but meant only the negative aspects? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 11:20, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:Daphnea and EBrown, you are hopeless cases. HV refers to the pernicious effects of the cult of celebrity, which leads sufferers to feel that they are above all legal, moral or societal rules. It is, perhaps, significant that you are quibbling with the title and definitions through the medium of an absurd literalism. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:29, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:I assumed that "Hollywood values" would be about the values espoused by Hollywood; while that is largely negative in contrast with conservative values I feel it is only honest to mention the positive aspects when they occur; unless the article ''by definition'' is only about the negative aspects, which is the question I asked. I'm assuming from your reply that it ''is'' only about the negative values. Now I can edit it accordingly. When did asking for clarification become an "absurd literalism"? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:32, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

I agree with Daphnea; it does appear that you are saying that Hollywood Values really are the "across the board" values held by many celebrities. And when you say "lack of morals and values in Hollywood culture", doesn't that suggest that Hollywood entertainers hold few of these, which of course isn't true. They may well not hold all values that you and I hold dear, but they hold many.

Also a few other criticisms:
¬Patriotism is listed as a value disrespected in Hollywood; however, the tone of this article suggest that these values are deemed desirable. Whilst you may argue that patriotism is a virtue (I will note that I don't agree), there are certainly Christian arguments against patriotism, and I think it is a bit shaky to use it as an example of something "good".
¬Is Narnia really conservative? I'm an evangelical, charismatic Christian from the UK, and I am convinced that Christianity is neither conservative nor liberal, but rather a mixture of both, slightly veering to liberalism. Yes, liberalism is associated with atheism (in the States, anyway); however, this says nothing about the essence of Christianity and the essences of liberalism and conservatism.
[[User:Trinity123|Trinity123]]

==Productions==
I put back a deleted edit after revising it on the advice of [[User:Bugler]]. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:09, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Please don't revert edits that '''you told me to do'''! To be a little more conversational, I was following an edit which was approved by another editor pointing out that not everybody in Hollywood goes along with "Hollywood values". Likewise it is sensible to point out that not all Hollywood productions go along with "Hollywood values". If we don't do this then in the first case someone reading this (especially a child) might go away with the impression that ''everyone'' involved in Hollywood is evil, and thus grow up hating Ronald Reagan and Charlton Heston. I the second case they might avoid seeing The Chronicle of Narnia because it's a "Hollywood" production. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:18, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
:I didn't tell you to do it here, Daphnea. I said that the correct place for such a statement was on a page bout Hollywood, or about the entertainment industry. HV is not the same as Hollywood. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:20, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
:So what do you think of what I said above? Do you want people to start thinking Ronald Reagan went along with Hollywood Values? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
::Add it to [[Hollywood]] [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:28, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
::I asked you a question. Are you intending to answer it? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:31, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
::I will certainly not answer if addressed in so aggressive a fashion. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:32, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
::OK, let's be polite. Are you going to answer my question, please? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:33, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
Yes. Naturally RR is not an example of HV, nor is James Stuart, or Charlton Heston, or Audie Murphy. Perhaps a line at the start to differentiate the industry as a whole from HV might be appropriate. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:35, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
: ... and in fact already exists. ''Not all people who currently work or have worked in Hollywood espouse Hollywood values. [[Ronald Reagan]], [[Charlton Heston]], [[Walt Disney]] and many others practiced conservative values while working in Hollywood''. That would seem to cover matters. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:37, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

::Good, good, now we're getting somewhere. You've just found out that there already is a line at the top pointing this out. I knew that already because I helped put it there. All I'm doing is saying the same thing about productions: just as not all people in Hollywood go along with "Hollywood values", not all productions do either. That's all I'm saying. If you like I can move the statement about the production up to the top of the article too. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:40, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
::See, that wasn't so hard. Now all I'm going to do is add some production examples, because productions aren't always about who is in them; Chronicles of Narnia doesn't have an outstanding "non-Hollywood values" person at the helm, yet it reflects conservative values. Again, we don't want to give the idea that people should judge a production entirely on the basis of what stars are associated with it. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:45, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
:::The phrase 'their productions' refers (in my interpretation) to the 'many others' as well as to Ronny, Jimmy, Chuck and Walt, so I would argue that the sentences could be merged, but otherwise that is OK and in an appropriate part of the page. Thank you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:49, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

==Divorce==
A story on Yahoo news backs up this articles assertions about Hollywood divorces. It is called "Want a successful marriage? Don't marry a celebrity!"[http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=8576056&ch=4226715&src=news]--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 13:25, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== "Paedophile" movie producer Roman Polanski ==

The article describes Roman Polanski as a paedophile, referring to his charges of violating a teenage girl. Yet the article [[Roman Catholicism]] reads, and I quote, "''in truth 90% of the cases involved priests making overtures towards teenage boys, and not pedophilia.''" So do we claim that Polanski isn't a paedophile, or that the priests are? It's inconsistent. I've removed the paedophile claim from this article before, but it got re-inserted. [[User:MrGrieves|MrGrieves]] 23:02, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
:From a technical standpoint you are correct, although he certainly did seek out a very young girl when he could have chosen a woman of any age. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:54, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
::Creepy, but by CP's definition, not paedophilia. I see the inconsistency is still there.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 19:43, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

==Bruce lee==

I had removed his name from the list because the people there were included because of the assertion that "Hollywood Values" had something to do with their deaths. Lee's cerebral edema was completely unrelated to his lifestyle, and the presence of cannabis in his bloodstream had nothing to do with his death. If you want to add his name to a list of people who use cannabis that's fine, but he should ''not'' be on this "cause of death" list. I'd suggest that anyone who thinks Bruce Lee represents the stereotype of "Hollywood Values" on this page should read ''Striking Thoughts: Bruce Lee's Wisdom for Daily Living'' first, and then reconsider. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:19, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

: There's a whole industry of people who have a financial interest in denying that illegal drugs played a role in an unexpected death of a healthy, young person like Bruce Lee. They're right that the link may not be proved. They're wrong to try to censor the possibility. We provide the information and let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:37, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::I'm not taking issue with the other names on the list, but in this specific case like this I have to disagree. The coroner confirmed the cause of death, and unless there is verifiable medical evidence to prove that his death was cannabis-related, implying that this was the case is misleading. Conservapedia is supposed to be a trustworthy encyclopedia, and articles like this need to be based on facts like medical autopsies, and not innuendo. There are enough valid entries on the list to not have to add those based on unfounded speculation as well. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:20, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

==Sexually Transmitted Diseases==

We note that one characteristic of hollywood values are rampant sexually transmitted diseases. we need a section on this to support the claim. For example: Rock Hudson and AIDS, Paris Hilton and herpes (herpes medication was found in storage that she defaulted payment on) --[[User:Ank|Ank]] 14:41, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

''Freddie Mercury also contracted AIDS through his homosexual lifestyle and flamboyant onstage presence.''
One cannot contract AIDS through a flamboyant onstage presence. I'll leave it to someone else to straighten this one out.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 19:44, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

== Proposed new section: "Shunning actors who disagree with Hollywood's values" ==

The recent hubbub over John Voight's comments about Obama is just the latest in a long line of Hollywood attacks on anyone who dares use their freedom of speech to disagree with Hollywood's far-left ''status quo''. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:12, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:This would appear to be a valid subsection. The treatment of Charlton Heston comes to mind. As President of an organization that has the support of most Americans (although it obviously has its detractors) you would think by the way he was attacked that he was head of the KKK. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:51, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

==How to write an article==

Never imply that a sweeping condemnation of liberal evils is "wrong" or "exaggerated". The intro to this article, until I corrected it just now, had implied that Reagan, Disney, et al., were counterexamples which disproved the thesis.

I rewrote it to show that these men were trying to push back the tide.

(If you disagree with a critique of liberal values or actions, discuss it on the talk page - do not distort the truth. And in the rare case where a conservative writer appears to make an error, contact him for a clarification FIRST. Keep in mind the purpose of the project whenever you edit an article or comment on it. Debates and declarations of personal values are confined to debate pages and user pages.)

== Renaming suggestion ==

The title is somewhat inaccurate and potentially misleading since it seems to be applied to all sorts of celebrities (not just people in the movie industry) all around the globe (most recent case being the current main page headline accusing two English singers and an English model of ''Hollywood'' Values). So maybe [[Celebrity values]] would be a more fitting location for this term. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 08:21, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

:You've got the cart before the horse, Dirk; if celebrities outside the movie industry have Hollywood values, that shows how pervasive they are.

:Please write about the influence Hollywood has had on the world at large. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:18, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

::If they don't apply to all the people within Hollywood but do apply to a truckload of people with absolutely no connection to Hollywood, then I think we might as well call them '''American Values''' because "decadence, narcissism, rampant drug use, extramarital sex, sexually-transmitted disease, lawlessness and death" can be found pretty much in every corner of the country. And the fact that non-Americans are influenced by it only shows how pervasive they are. See, that's the "reasoning" I see here.
::I really don't want to be difficult, but I think this is a case of a poorly named "[[discovery]]" (which, btw, doesn't link to what you'd expect - could you move it?).
::I think these symptoms had been around before Hollywood existed (actually, I'd be quite willing to bet that they were around before America had been discovered), and some of the cases shown here have zero connection to Hollywood or even the movie industry (which is what "Hollywood" is usually a synonym of). They are, however, all ''celebrities'', and I can readily agree that ''celebrities'' are somehow more prone to strange and questionable behavior.
::And while I'm by God no fan of liberals, I'd guess that the explanation here is not that they're being influenced by some sort of "liberal evil", but rather that they don't have the [[willpower]] to cope with the fame and media attention. I'm not happy with how Wikipedia is slightly tilted in favor of liberals (especially during the election times), but this sort of demonization of liberals and glorification of conservatives is at least equally troubling.
::About that "writing assignment" (as you called it on my talk page), I think I'll decline. When I'm not working on Dean's Wanted List (for the News Project), I'm trying to fix existing articles. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 14:12, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

==don't know where to put this==
This should probably go on this page, but I'm not sure what subsection to put it under, because it includes booze, drugs, divorce, child endangerment, rehab, ''and'' mental illness: http://www.ktla.com/landing_news/?Heather-Locklear-Arrested-on-Possible-DU=1&blockID=71448&feedID=171
--[[User:AngelaK|AngelaK]] 22:38, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

==OJ Simpson==

The part about OJ being "widely believed to have murdered his wife and her friend" should be deleted. We shouldn't try to appease little crybabies who long ago stuffed their ears with cotton to avoid hearing the truth. Just come out and say "he brutally murdered his wife and Ron Goldman" because '''he did'''. Nuff said. He's written a book outlining the "hypothetical" situation, there's overwhelming evidence, and he was found guilty in civil court. It's not fair to act like public opinion is the only thing that matters here, especially when his acquittal was only the result of exploiting anti-police bias and what basically passes judicial affirmative action. [[User:Mcliff|Mcliff]] 09:34, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
:It's not our place to accuse people. Only God and OJ himself know whether OJ did it, and neither of them edit this wiki. An encyclopedia states the facts, and the facts are that he was acquitted, even though popular opinion holds that he was guilty. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:19, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:: And it's not just popular opinion that says OJ Simpson murdered his wife and her friend. Scientific tests proved it with overwhelming odds.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:44, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:::I hadn't heard that. I guess I din't really pay close enough attention to OJ news. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:52, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

== Actors, Actresses... What about the older shows ==

When I heard that TVLAND was going to air reruns of M*A*S*H*, I was heartbroken. I cannot find a single reference to how shows like M*A*S*H* encouraged bad behavior. In a moment, I will find a good website or book--[[User:CindyP|CindyP]] 17:01, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

==Independence Day==

Precisely what conservative or 'non-Hollywod' values are being conveyed in ''Independence Day''? It's OK to punch aliens if they want to raise your taxes? Sneaking diseases on board alien spaceships will prevent them from making us abort our children? Conspiracy theories about government cover-ups are actually all true? It really is a tremendously stupid film, and it makes no sense whatsoever as an example of a film without Hollywood Values. You might as well pick Pineapple Express, for all the sense it makes. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 15:55, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

== Another example? ==

I'm not sure if [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,478607,00.html?sPage=fnc/us/crime this] example is suitable for this article or not but i thought i'd suggest it. I'm not sure because i think the person in question worked mainly in New York. [[User:JamesDW|JamesDW]] 22:15, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Michael Jackson ==

This is yet another conspicuous example and I have readded the entry for it. I do not understand why the entry was blanked when someone else had added it earlier (or was it because the claim about the drugs was not entirely accurate and came about due to media hysteria?). [[User:BillyD|BillyD]] 08:57, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

: This is an encyclopedia. Don't insert rants, or [[gossip]], or claims that lack proper substantiation. Clear enough?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:14, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

== James Dean ==

Could someone explain to me how James Dean's tragic death in an automobile accident was the result of 'Hollywood values'? [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 17:07, 5 July 2009 (CDT)

:Dean was a reckless driver who had been ticketed for speeding two hours earlier, and was going at a high speed to cause the fatal accident. He ran into a car turning in front of him, injuring not only himself but others also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:25, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

I understand that his driving record was far from acceptable and that he played a clear role in his demise, but I don't see this as directly attributable to Hollywood values. I belong to a staunchly conservative family, but I freely admit that relatives of mine have been reckless in their driving. Some have been lucky enough to escape deserved punishment, others have been ticketed. It saddens me to suggest that such behavior is rife in our society regardless of political affiliation. Thoughts? [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 18:12, 5 July 2009 (CDT)

== "For years, fans of Hollywood get to watch the celebrities" ==

JPatt, there's some serious verb-tense disagreement going on in your reversion of me. What tense do you want the sentence in? 01:06, 24 January 2010 (EST)
:I didn't revert you and feel free to rearrange the grammar properly. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 01:08, 24 January 2010 (EST)

::Also feel free to sign your posts! It's the box above when you compose, next to the circle with the slash through it. ;-) --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 02:37, 24 January 2010 (EST)

== Brittany Murphy ==

I've just removed Brittany Murphy's name from the list. A coroner's report found pneumonia was the cause of her death and while prescription drugs were found in her system, they were prescribed for specific illnesses she had at the time of her death.[http://www.cbc.ca/arts/film/story/2010/02/04/brittany-murphy.html] [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 15:23, 15 February 2010 (EST)

== Reversion needed? ==

I'm inclined to revert Lorddragyn's edits, which repeatedly downplay the culpability here by the Hollywood "stars". For example, James Dean was a notoriously irresponsible driver who died by running into someone else, and could have killed him too. It doesn't matter that the investigation could not conclude that speeding was the cause of the fatal wreck. Often such investigations are inconclusive.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:52, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

==[[User:Lorddragyn]]==
I dislike the username in addition to his edits. Hollywood values done to Wikipedia style of editing does not impress me. You can minimize that it was just an overdose, not a suicide, list all the fancy drug names, but it's still a suicide. He knew what he was doing was illegal and harmful. To reflect more on Wikipedia style you need look no further than The December 25th Bomber [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northwest_Airlines_Flight_253&oldid=334150190] as an example. What is more important, knowing the plane model and color or that it was an Islamic Terrorist trained to kill Americans?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:55, 7 April 2010 (EDT)
:I have to second/third this. His entire objective is watering down hollywood behavior. And note that this is his behavior immediately upon receiving a second chance. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:58, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

::My objective is not to water down Hollywood behavior. My objective is to clarify that some of the people on the list died accidentally, while fully knowing the consequences of their actions, some died because they were trying to. Knowing that someone died because they ingested multiple different types of pills, or had a history of reckless driving before dying in a car accident, proves Hollywood values more than just saying suicide. And providing more details surrounding the deaths of these people shows the inherent corruption in Hollywood as a whole, not just the people on this page, which is what I thought we were trying to show with this article in the first place. If I'm wrong let me know, but I think my argument makes sense.[[User:Lorddragyn|Lorddragyn]] 18:52, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

:::Cleared up some dead links in the references. Working on a substantial rewrite on the article, adding subcategories and trying to cover more of the entertainment industry as a whole. There is definitely room for improvement in this article, hence why I am devoting to much attention to the subject.[[User:Lorddragyn|Lorddragyn]] 23:04, 8 April 2010 (EDT)

:::: ''"some of the people on the list died accidentally, while fully knowing the consequences of their actions"''- That statement is not proper. It's not an accident if fully knowing. You can argue that the person thought they could cheat the devil, didn't want to die, but did. That is like saying they wanted to live but drugs ruined it for them. Drugs were the consequences of their decisions, suicide was the consequences of their actions. I'm for making the page better but I agree with Douglas, you have watered-down the meaning of suicide. Just make sure you add to- while making better, and a little less rewording.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:48, 9 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::I admit my choice of words there was a bit faulty, but what I'm really trying to say is that we aren't trying to demonize the individuals on this page, we are trying to show that Hollywood itself is the causation of these problems. Drawing a distinction between those who meant to kill themselves by ingesting too much of a prescription, or illegal drug, and someone who accidentally dies from the same shows the inherent risk in the action and that both carry a heavy cost. The intent of suicide may not have been there, but the end result is the same in both cases. And if we can have details that have nothing to do with a persons death , like that Bruce Lee had trace amounts of weed in his system when he died of hypersensitivity to aspirin, then details surrounding the death of these people belong in the article too. Unless you believe that putting these details in would somehow discredit the argument we are trying to prove.[[User:Lorddragyn|Lorddragyn]] 14:44, 9 April 2010 (EDT)

"Hollywood" isn't an entity of and by itself. It is comprised of individuals, and like all communities the bigger players, have more influence and dictate the social mores that the others follow. It isn't arguable that the Hollywood community is anything other than liberal...and that liberal bias influences how they wish to spin drug abuse and infanticide by abortion as well. I have to agree with Jpatt and Douglas that if one chooses to do illegal drugs, or abuse legal ones, they know, unless they are literally mentally incapacitated, there is always a possibility of death. Hollywood can spin it anyway they choose (and does), but even subconsciously, they like that risk...its part of the "high". --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:54, 9 April 2010 (EDT)

: Yes Hollywood is comprised of individuals, as you point out. But so is the rest of the country. Could it not be argued that Hollywood is a cross-section of the United States, and that problems in the whole country look larger in Hollywood because of the smaller amount of people and the media coverage concerning said people? People travel from all across the globe to make it big in Hollywood, can it not be said that the problems of the people in Hollywood started where they were raised, or is it that Hollywood itself is the corrupting influence? And to say that it isn't arguable that Hollywood isn't anything other that liberal is silly when the article you are defending states "Ronald Reagan, James Stewart, Charlton Heston, Walt Disney and many others practiced conservative values while working in Hollywood".[[User:Lorddragyn|Lorddragyn]] 19:41, 9 April 2010 (EDT)

::There are exceptions to any general rule I have found. However the "artsy" culture has always been Bohemian in nature, and they protect their own. Yes, it is magnified out of all measure simply because of the value liberal culture places on celebrity. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:56, 9 April 2010 (EDT)

'''Reply to Lorddragyn''': I looked at many of your edits before reverting them and found a common thread: you would downplay culpability by the Hollywood "star" for something that was due to his culturally bankrupt values. For example, James Dean was a notoriously reckless driver. His fatal accident consisted of ramming head-on into a car that was turning left in front of him. James Dean even received a speeding ticket a few hours earlier, and his Porsche sported the offensive name on the back, "Little Bastard." Yet you tried to downplay his fault by saying that officials could not prove he was speeding when he collided with the other car (thereby endangering that driver's life also).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:21, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

:What I was implying when I wrote that was that just because James Dean wasn't speeding when he died, it doesn't mean that his reckless behavior behind the wheel wasn't dangerous. When he died the other car veered into his lane, but he was lucky that his years of reckless driving hadn't gotten him killed sooner. His death among many others are what I would consider "toying with fate" because, like others on this list, he was doing something he knew to be dangerous (and most likely lethal) with complete disregard of the consequences. Maybe what I wrote could be rewritten to make that thought more clear.[[User:Lorddragyn|Lorddragyn]] 20:00, 11 April 2010 (EDT)

::I just improved the item about James Dean. Feel free to improve further. And while investigators may determine the speed at impact, I don't see how we'd know his speed leading up the impact. The circumstances of the head-on accident strongly suggest speeding, as was Dean's habit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:02, 11 April 2010 (EDT)

==Religion==
Should there be a 'religion' section? I have done a quick check, and among the 5 most successful actors, only two are Christians (one is a Buddhist, one a Scientolgist, and Harrison Ford refers to himself as "Democrat" when asked about his religion! ). Some factual figures could show a direct link between lack of belief in Christ and depraved moral values. Regards, --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 11:19, 16 April 2010 (EDT)
:Go to it! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 11:46, 16 April 2010 (EDT)
:: Very good. I am away all week-end, when I come back I will try with a bigger sample and see what comes out. Regards, --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 12:22, 16 April 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Hollywood values

2010-04-16T15:19:03Z

TSpencer: Religion section

Talk:Essay: Regenerative ability of early humans

2010-04-09T11:59:51Z

TSpencer: Talk:Essay: Regenerative ability of early humans Reply to JimPT

Dear Reader,
This is the first draft of this essay. All contributions would be very much appreciated. The "biblical support" section needs more examples, I only added the most obvious ones, and I am sure there are many more.
Regards,
--[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 17:25, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:Loss of a finger or a limb isn't necessarily "likely" after such a long period of time. You could use this as an argument for organ regeneration, however. Liver damage, gastrointestinal damage and heart damage are all very fatal problems in our society today. That would also question how exactly they died if they're organs could regenerate, though. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 10:33, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

::That's a great point! I will make sure it is included in the essay. For the death of early humans, even if we allow for regenerative abilities superior to that of the Axolotl, I think massive trauma to essential organs would be as lethal as it is today. If we take the example of the Axolotl, we can also see that regeneration is not a miracle cure against decay associated with age. --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 10:52, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

:::That would be assuming that all of these men essentially died of blunt-force trauma. In the case of Methuselah, I think the Bible basically states that he "closed his eyes and died" because all things must die (there's a citation in Genesis for that quote ... I'll try and find it). I'm a bit shady on that ... maybe he died in the flood. An interesting take, nonetheless. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 10:59, 7 April 2010 (EDT)
* Given that the Bible is not precise about ages (we're not sure if ''in his thirtieth year'' means ''when he was 30 years old'' or ''when he was going to celebrate his 30th birthday''), it's reasonable to suppose that Metuselah's death happened in the year of the Deluge, like Noah's father Lamech. But the convergence of death-ages around 900 years suggests that 900 was a natural life limit - the only two exceptions were Enoch (who didn't die naturally) and Lamech (who probably died in the Deluge). BTW, in biology, creatures that don't die naturally tend to grow until they can no longer function adequately - mass grows by the cube of the size, efficiency grows by its square - and tend to die of starvation (sorry, no sources). [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 13:52, 7 April 2010 (EDT)
*: PS: that law is called [[Galileo's square-cube law]], but I found no reliable source to quote it here. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 14:00, 7 April 2010 (EDT)
*:: PPS: without a reliable source, I found a tongue-in-cheek source: [http://hypergojira.deviantart.com/art/DaiKaiju-Biology-Part-1-103784295 Why giant monsters (in Japanese sci-fi movies) can't exist]. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 14:05, 7 April 2010 (EDT)
:::Your remark that there seems to be a natural life limit is interesting. I do not know what you mean by "creatures that don't die naturally tend to grow" indefinitely, could you explain? If we look at the Axolotl for example, specimens are limited to a fairly reasonable size and lifespan. On a related note, I do not think a regenerative ability would necessarily remove the harmful (and ultimately lethal) consequences of old age. Regards, --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 09:09, 8 April 2010 (EDT)
* Unfortunately, I can't quote reliable sources, but I remember that I read somewhere that lifeforms without a biological time-bomb tend to grow until the square-cube law kills them. This article [http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/cnhc/cbd-faq-q2.htm Crocodilian Biology Database, at www.flmnh.ufl.edu] discusses this theory that alligators grow forever. The biological time-bomb is a '''good''' thing for the species, because it allows old and big speciments to leave and give space to the new generation. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 09:33, 8 April 2010 (EDT)
:In order to observe that indefinite growth, we would need to find a lifeform without a "biological time-bomb". The only one I can think of is the [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/4357829/Immortal-jellyfish-swarming-across-the-world.html Turritopsis Nutricula] and it does not grow indefinitely. The article on crocodiles says that they "reach a maximum size where growth stops or becomes extremely slow in old age". We would also expect the presence of gigantic, fossil human skeletons. This brings to mind the theory that [http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/patriarch.html Neanderthal fossils are the remains of the first humans], whose facial bones would have grown for centuries. Regards, --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 09:50, 8 April 2010 (EDT)
::Most Jellyfish are short lived, but all of the sessile cnidarians are immortal, however they reproduce by budding and that helps them dodge the cube-square law. I'm still not sure I agree with your analysis of this study, however you may also want to look for a dinosaur expert who has been saying that as many as 1/3rd of the kinds of dinosaurs that we find are just juveniles and not new kinds. He has done extensive work looking at the structure of the growing bone and might have something you could use. --[[User:JimPT|JimPT]] 11:33, 8 April 2010 (EDT)
:::I'll try to search for that dinosaur expert you mentioned. If you do not agree with my analysis of the study, could you tell me which specific points you object to? Regards, --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 07:59, 9 April 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Essay: Regenerative ability of early humans

2010-04-08T14:41:52Z

TSpencer: fix

Talk:Essay: Regenerative ability of early humans

2010-04-08T13:50:08Z

TSpencer: Editing Talk:Essay: Regenerative ability of early humans Reply to Sunda62

Dear Reader,
This is the first draft of this essay. All contributions would be very much appreciated. The "biblical support" section needs more examples, I only added the most obvious ones, and I am sure there are many more.
Regards,
--[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 17:25, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:Loss of a finger or a limb isn't necessarily "likely" after such a long period of time. You could use this as an argument for organ regeneration, however. Liver damage, gastrointestinal damage and heart damage are all very fatal problems in our society today. That would also question how exactly they died if they're organs could regenerate, though. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 10:33, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

::That's a great point! I will make sure it is included in the essay. For the death of early humans, even if we allow for regenerative abilities superior to that of the Axolotl, I think massive trauma to essential organs would be as lethal as it is today. If we take the example of the Axolotl, we can also see that regeneration is not a miracle cure against decay associated with age. --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 10:52, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

:::That would be assuming that all of these men essentially died of blunt-force trauma. In the case of Methuselah, I think the Bible basically states that he "closed his eyes and died" because all things must die (there's a citation in Genesis for that quote ... I'll try and find it). I'm a bit shady on that ... maybe he died in the flood. An interesting take, nonetheless. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 10:59, 7 April 2010 (EDT)
* Given that the Bible is not precise about ages (we're not sure if ''in his thirtieth year'' means ''when he was 30 years old'' or ''when he was going to celebrate his 30th birthday''), it's reasonable to suppose that Metuselah's death happened in the year of the Deluge, like Noah's father Lamech. But the convergence of death-ages around 900 years suggests that 900 was a natural life limit - the only two exceptions were Enoch (who didn't die naturally) and Lamech (who probably died in the Deluge). BTW, in biology, creatures that don't die naturally tend to grow until they can no longer function adequately - mass grows by the cube of the size, efficiency grows by its square - and tend to die of starvation (sorry, no sources). [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 13:52, 7 April 2010 (EDT)
*: PS: that law is called [[Galileo's square-cube law]], but I found no reliable source to quote it here. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 14:00, 7 April 2010 (EDT)
*:: PPS: without a reliable source, I found a tongue-in-cheek source: [http://hypergojira.deviantart.com/art/DaiKaiju-Biology-Part-1-103784295 Why giant monsters (in Japanese sci-fi movies) can't exist]. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 14:05, 7 April 2010 (EDT)
:::Your remark that there seems to be a natural life limit is interesting. I do not know what you mean by "creatures that don't die naturally tend to grow" indefinitely, could you explain? If we look at the Axolotl for example, specimens are limited to a fairly reasonable size and lifespan. On a related note, I do not think a regenerative ability would necessarily remove the harmful (and ultimately lethal) consequences of old age. Regards, --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 09:09, 8 April 2010 (EDT)
* Unfortunately, I can't quote reliable sources, but I remember that I read somewhere that lifeforms without a biological time-bomb tend to grow until the square-cube law kills them. This article [http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/cnhc/cbd-faq-q2.htm Crocodilian Biology Database, at www.flmnh.ufl.edu] discusses this theory that alligators grow forever. The biological time-bomb is a '''good''' thing for the species, because it allows old and big speciments to leave and give space to the new generation. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 09:33, 8 April 2010 (EDT)
:In order to observe that indefinite growth, we would need to find a lifeform without a "biological time-bomb". The only one I can think of is the [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/4357829/Immortal-jellyfish-swarming-across-the-world.html Turritopsis Nutricula] and it does not grow indefinitely. The article on crocodiles says that they "reach a maximum size where growth stops or becomes extremely slow in old age". We would also expect the presence of gigantic, fossil human skeletons. This brings to mind the theory that [http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/patriarch.htmlNeanderthal fossils are the remains of the first humans], whose facial bones would have grown for centuries. Regards, --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 09:50, 8 April 2010 (EDT)

Essay: Regenerative ability of early humans

2010-04-08T13:13:25Z

TSpencer: /* Biblical support */ adding info

<blockquote>We may be only a decade or two away from a day when we can regenerate body parts <ref name= « findingdulcinea »>[http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/science/2009/june/Axolotl-Salamander-Could-Hold-the-Key-to-Human-Limb-Regeneration.html]</ref></blockquote>
Regenerative abilities in humans are currently limited to the liver and the fingertips. <ref name= »findingdulcinea »>[http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/science/2009/june/Axolotl-Salamander-Could-Hold-the-Key-to-Human-Limb-Regeneration.html]</ref> The axolotl, on the other hand, is able to regrow « limbs, jaws, skin, organs and parts of its brain and spinal chord ». <ref name= » findingdulcinea»>[http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/science/2009/june/Axolotl-Salamander-Could-Hold-the-Key-to-Human-Limb-Regeneration.html]</ref> It turns out that in mice, a single gene, designated « p21 », prevents the occurrence of natural regeneration. <ref name=pnas>[http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/03/08/1000830107.abstract]</ref> By studying the effects of this gene, scientist hope to discover how to enable humans to re-grow lost limbs.

==Assumptions==
This essay is based on the Bible as the main source of knowledge concerning the universe and human origins. The following facts, coherent with Young Earth Creationism, are taken for granted:
*the Earth is approximately 6000 years old
*animals were created by God as baramins, of which currents « species » are the descendants
*mutations of the genome result in a net loss of information

==Thesis==
The p21 gene blocks the latent regenerative ability in mice. It is speculated by scientists that a similar gene exists in humans and prevents natural regeneration from occuring. Since such a gene contains information, it must have been present in a functional form at some point, as expressed in this thesis:
<blockquote>Early humans possessed natural regenerative abilities similar to those of the axolotl. </blockquote>
Subsequent mutations would have damaged the genetic code for this ability, favoring the appearance of a « human p21 » gene more efficient than the broken-down ability.

==Biblical support==
The only definite proof for this thesis would be the discovery of a human skeleton showing signs of regeneration of a limb. Unfortunately, the time period during which the ability was present was probably very short and the chance of such a discovery are slim.
However, early human history has been carefully recorded in the Bible. Although no explicit mentions of limb regeneration is present, several passages seem to support our thesis:
*Creation of Eve: God took one of Adam's ribs and closed his flesh. <ref name= »gateway »>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%202:21-2:22&version=KJV]</ref> We know every creation of God is perfect, but He only closed the flesh and did not replace the lost rib. This means that Adam either lived short of a rib, which seems unlikely given that he was a perfect creation, or God did not replace the rib knowing it would naturally regrow.
*Lifespans of early humans: Adam lived 930 years. (Genesis 5:5). Seth lived 912 years.(Genesis 5:8). Methuselah lived 969 years.(Genesis 5:27). Noah lived 950 years. (Genesis 9:29). These lifespans are incredible by current standards, and people must have been exposed to many risks of injury, particularly with manual occupations such as carpentry ( Noah built an Ark by himself). The loss of fingers or limbs would be almost inevitable in the course of such long lives. A regenerative ability would thus be a necessary condition for these lifespans. Additionally, liver damage, gastrointestinal damage and heart damage are prevalent in people over sixty. A lifespan of 900 years would be unthinkable without correcting mechanisms to repair this damage.
*<blockquote>If further mishap does occur, then you will give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, scorching for scorching, injury for injury, and welt for welt.</blockquote><blockquote>You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.</blockquote> Jesus explicitly disavows the Lex Talionis, which we would expect if early humans had regenerative ability and subsequently lost it.

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Essay: Regenerative ability of early humans

2010-04-08T13:09:15Z

TSpencer: Talk:Essay: Regenerative ability of early humans Reply to Sunda62

Talk:Essay: Regenerative ability of early humans

2010-04-07T14:52:58Z

TSpencer: talk: reply to JLauttamus

Essay: Regenerative ability of early humans

2010-04-07T14:26:30Z

TSpencer: Lex Talionis

<blockquote>We may be only a decade or two away from a day when we can regenerate body parts <ref name= « findingdulcinea »>[http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/science/2009/june/Axolotl-Salamander-Could-Hold-the-Key-to-Human-Limb-Regeneration.html]</ref></blockquote>
Regenerative abilities in humans are currently limited to the liver and the fingertips. <ref name= »findingdulcinea »>[http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/science/2009/june/Axolotl-Salamander-Could-Hold-the-Key-to-Human-Limb-Regeneration.html]</ref> The axolotl, on the other hand, is able to regrow « limbs, jaws, skin, organs and parts of its brain and spinal chord ». <ref name= » findingdulcinea»>[http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/science/2009/june/Axolotl-Salamander-Could-Hold-the-Key-to-Human-Limb-Regeneration.html]</ref> It turns out that in mice, a single gene, designated « p21 », prevents the occurrence of natural regeneration. <ref name=pnas>[http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/03/08/1000830107.abstract]</ref> By studying the effects of this gene, scientist hope to discover how to enable humans to re-grow lost limbs.

==Assumptions==
This essay is based on the Bible as the main source of knowledge concerning the universe and human origins. The following facts, coherent with Young Earth Creationism, are taken for granted:
*the Earth is approximately 6000 years old
*animals were created by God as baramins, of which currents « species » are the descendants
*mutations of the genome result in a net loss of information

==Thesis==
The p21 gene blocks the latent regenerative ability in mice. It is speculated by scientists that a similar gene exists in humans and prevents natural regeneration from occuring. Since such a gene contains information, it must have been present in a functional form at some point, as expressed in this thesis:
<blockquote>Early humans possessed natural regenerative abilities similar to those of the axolotl. </blockquote>
Subsequent mutations would have damaged the genetic code for this ability, favoring the appearance of a « human p21 » gene more efficient than the broken-down ability.

==Biblical support==
The only definite proof for this thesis would be the discovery of a human skeleton showing signs of regeneration of a limb. Unfortunately, the time period during which the ability was present was probably very short and the chance of such a discovery are slim.
However, early human history has been carefully recorded in the Bible. Although no explicit mentions of limb regeneration is present, several passages seem to support our thesis:
*Creation of Eve: God took one of Adam's ribs and closed his flesh. <ref name= »gateway »>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%202:21-2:22&version=KJV]</ref> We know every creation of God is perfect, but He only closed the flesh and did not replace the lost rib. This means that Adam either lived short of a rib, which seems unlikely given that he was a perfect creation, or God did not replace the rib knowing it would naturally regrow.
*Lifespans of early humans: Adam lived 930 years. (Genesis 5:5). Seth lived 912 years.(Genesis 5:8). Methuselah lived 969 years.(Genesis 5:27). Noah lived 950 years. (Genesis 9:29). These lifespans are incredible by current standards, and people must have been exposed to many risks of injury, particularly with manual occupations such as carpentry ( Noah built an Ark by himself). The loss of fingers or limbs would be almost inevitable in the course of such long lives. A regenerative ability would thus be a necessary condition for these lifespans.
*<blockquote>If further mishap does occur, then you will give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, scorching for scorching, injury for injury, and welt for welt.</blockquote><blockquote>You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.</blockquote> Jesus explicitly disavows the Lex Talionis, which we would expect if early humans had regenerative ability and subsequently lost it.

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Essay: Regenerative ability of early humans

2010-03-30T21:25:43Z

TSpencer: First draft

Essay: Regenerative ability of early humans

2010-03-30T21:23:21Z

TSpencer: Essay: Regenerative ability of early humans

Talk:Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness

2010-03-07T16:31:34Z

TSpencer: link to article

::''If you wish to discuss whether Newtonian gravity could have a different exponent than 2, see [[Debate:What is the exponent of r in Newtonian gravity?|the debate page]].''

== Not a suitable criterion ==
I don't think that "a genuine willingness to accept something as possibly being true" is a suitable criterion. It doesn't take into account the difference between the following two scenarios:
* A person who has never considered the evidence. For example, I would be close-minded to say that [[Noah]] could not have fitted all the animals on the ark if I didn't know how big the ark was and how many animals would have qualified.
* A person who has considered the available evidence and has formed a considered opinion. For example, I would be not be close-minded to say that evolution is impossible if I had studied [[information]] theory and knew how it negated the possibility.
A better definition might be "a genuine willingness to consider the evidence before rejecting an idea".

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Excellent! I've made the change. God bless you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:31, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks! I'm glad you appreciated it.
:However, I believe that it now renders your examples tests invalid. You can't test for a willingness to consider the evidence by asking someone if they accept the possibility of something. If they've already considered the possibility and have concluded that it is impossible, they have been open minded on it, but would still "fail" the test.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:45, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: We can ask subjects a mixture of new ideas and ones they've already heard. It can be two questions:

1. Have you seriously considered the evidence for this idea?
2. If no, then would you?
3. If yes, then describe what evidence you looked at.

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:02, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Would saying that something is absolutely the case be just as bad as impossible that something is the case? Are people who believe without equivocation that (say...) trickle down economics works just as close minded those who believe that without equivocation that it does not? I would assert that there are people who are just as close minded about the possibility the examples that you gave as there are people who are close minded about the impossibility of the examples. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:08, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

: But look at the definition of openmindedness, "a genuine willingness to consider the evidence before rejecting an idea." That's the difference.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:47, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: You've got the Shroud of Turin as an example. What is your stance on that? What evidence have you considered? If presented with evidence to the contrary, are you willing to change your mind? The last two questions are potentially critical ones. This is not something that someone can eaisly say "your OMQ is such and such based on this test." What about situations where there is not 'evidence' to be considered? There are a multitude of social issues out there that people feel quite strongly upon with very little open mindedness on either side. One extreme difficulty with this test is that the questions can very easily be weighted to one political view or another to make it look like the other side are a bunch of close minded fools. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:59, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::: No, I think the three questions are simple and straightforward. We can elaborate a bit as follows:

'''Have you seriously considered the evidence for this idea?'''
:1a. If no, then is that because you have never heard of it?
::1aa. If if you have never heard of it, then will you seriously consider the evidence?
::1ab. If you have heard of it, but have never seriously considered the evidence, then on this question you lose a point for lack of openmindedness.
:2b. If yes, then how much time have you spent reviewing the evidence? What evidence did you look at?
::2ba. If less than 1 hour, then you lose a point for lack of openmindedness.
::2bb. If more than 1 hour, then you gain a point for openmindedness.

(the time period may vary depending on the complexity of the topic).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:15, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:Now that's getting much closer to a suitable test. I'm glad you put that last point in; before I read it, my reaction was, "but one hour may not always be appropriate".
:Another thought that needs developing: There are lots of things that I won't spend the time considering, simply because I don't have the time. But in those cases, I try not to criticise the idea because I haven't properly considered it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:52, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: Good point. I'll incorporate all these concepts now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:12, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: I have a question about your 1ab point. If for example, someone says no, they haven't seriously considered the evidence for the Shroud of Turin, but have heard of it, how does that make them less open minded? What if to that person the topic is just not found to be very interesting, and they prefer to spend time researching topics that are more interesting to them? --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:23, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:: OK, in that case the follow-up question should be whether the person forms an opinion for himself about this topic without looking at the evidence. If the answer is yes, then that is quintessential closemindedness. I'll update the content page based on your excellent point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:26, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Something else I think you have to consider with this kind of test is that it is easy to misrepresent yourself on it. I believe "openmindedness" to be a trait which most people would deem to be a good trait. Therefore going into this exam, people will want the outcome to give them a more favorable score so it is heavily reliant on the test takers being 100% accurate in their responses. Whereas with an IQ test, you are asked questions with definitive answers where you either know the answer, or you don't. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:33, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: Good point, but asking about specific amounts of time spent considering the evidence would seem to minimize the problem you describe. If further precautions are warranted, then follow-up questions about when, where, what, how could be asked concerning reviewing evidence. In fact, I'll add that now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Colest, you've done a better job then I could've explaining why I'm dubious (but not shut-off to the idea) about this test. If it is subjective enough that a person can misrepresent himself, are we really quantifying anything with this score? That political compass thing that some CPers advertise their scores from is neat and all, but I'd never try to use the number in any meaningful way.

::If this is just a conversation starter then cool, but from the other endeavors Andy is involved in that sounds a little trivial to me. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 20:32, 2 July 2007 (EDT) ''<- pursuing the trivial...''

== Example Questions and Topics ==

I see a couple of problems with the topics section of this essay. The first concern is a minor one. You have, as an example, “For example, did our subject think that President Ronald Reagan's exhortation, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this [Berlin] wall!" was an impossibility?” But, properly, speaking, it is not a statement that can be examined as a possibility (or impossibility) , since imperatives are neither true nor false. A better way to word this question would be, “When President Regan told Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, did you think that it was impossible for the Berlin Wall to be torn down?” Of course, this is not an especially good measure in the present, since, most people will report that they thought it was possible (even if they did not at the time, as people tend to misremember their past, to bring their past in line with there present reality).

The second problem I see is that the questions, as they now stand will clearly skew the results toward Conservatives being more open-minded—questions asking whether conservatives are open to liberal ideas should be included to make sure that the data is not inadvertently slanted. For example, “Did our subject think, or still think, that his/her understanding of the Bible may be wrong?” “Did our subject think, or still think, that evolution is possible?” “Did our subject think, or still think, that human behavior could warm the global climate?” and “Did our subject think, or still think, that homosexuality could be a natural behavior?”--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 11:26, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: You rewording of the Reagan is longer, but fine. I'll change it per your comment.

: I think we should add liberal-oriented questions. But your examples do not focus on a belief in impossibility, which is the essential element here. Perhaps you'd like to refine some liberal questions that ask about impossibility, for me to add?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::I’ll take a second stab at it:
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that evolution could have occurred?”
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that he/she could be mistaken about the truth of the Bible?” (I rather like this one as it cuts both ways, a believer is (implicitly) being asked if he/she thinks that atheism or some other religion could possibly be true, while a non-believer is asked if he/she thinks Christianity could be true.)
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that homosexuality is a natural behavior?”
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that the global climate is currently warming as a result of human behavior?”
::How do those look to you? --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 23:04, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Those questions look fine to me. Some further refinements to limit them to facts might be helpful. But basically they look OK, and I'll add them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: Couldn't this method of quantifying openmindedness be manipulated to receive any set of desired results? For example, if I was to ask "does our subject think that it is impossible for God to exist", then I could automatically chalk up one closed-mindedness point from anybody who is a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. There are bound to be many questions like this, no? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:43, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:For all queries for 'do you believe it is imposssible that x' there should be a matching 'do you believe that it is possible that not x'. X then merely has to cover all ideological issue. You could even have some a priori ones as control questions. {{unsigned|Lookamoose}}

== Curious About... ==

So, there's a conversation on the Main Page that directs to this essay; it's an interesting read. However, the poster is asked "By the way, what's your score on Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness?" I thought I'd be better able to follow the conversation if I found out my own score. Am I missing a link or something? I don't see any way that I can derive a score.

I have to admit, at the risk of sounding close-minded, I'm dubious about coming up with a useful measurement. That said, here I am, checking out the source. I'll even give it more than an hour. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 10:41, 2 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-An open mind and a closed parentheses''

: I suspect your real objection is to trying at all. Six questions are posted. What's your score on those six?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:49, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:: *blink* Andy, you and I have actually agreed on things on the front page. I know we're not of one mind on a lot of things (and I really do worry about isolating rather than engaging, but I know you'd disagree on that characterization), and I know you're too busy to remember who's who all the time (and I'm a pretty minor poster, I know), but an aggressive stance seems unwarranted.

:: Anyway, here are my answers:

:: 1) No, but to be fair I wasn't particularly engaged in national and world affairs back then so I shouldn't get too much credit for that.

::: Evidence issue - maybe I'm favoring myself, but I choose not to deduct a point for failing to look at the evidence when it wasn't a conscious decision; I barely noticed the event taking place.

:: 2) I never thought it was impossible. I have no advanced scientific knowledge so it would be ludicrous for me to assume that a technology is or is not possible. It actually sounds simple to me, but I've been told that it's harder than it looks.

::: Evidence issue - if I'm reading the essay correctly, I lose a point for having heard of the issue but not investigating the evidence, even though I agree it's possible. Is that correct?

:: 3) Sure it can be authentic. There's a lot stranger things in the world than that.

::: Evidence issue - Same as #2. I accept the possibility but haven't looked into it. Do I lose a point?

:: 4) I don't think the speed of light changing over time is impossible. I also don't know the arguments for or against it.

::: Evidence issue - same as #3.

:: 5) I don't think it's impossible, but of course as I mentioned before I'm dubious. If you're interested in the conversation I'll tell you why, but you haven't asked and I won't assume.

::: Evidence issue - well, I'm working on it right now, so this would be incomplete.

:: 6) Depends on how far you want to split hairs here. If you mean the evolution vs. creation debate, I absolutely accept the possibility that we were Created. If you mean ANY evolution whatsoever... well, I guess I live by "never say never" but we're talking about a very low level of accepting the possibility.

::: Evidence issue - Not to split hairs again, but on the one hand I've clocked in many hours going to church, reading books, and browsing sites like this one. On the other hand, I'm not particularly interested in the evolution debate, so I haven't tried to digest all of the arguments. So... point? No point? Again, I accept the premise, so it seems kind of moot.

:: So, my raw score for accepting the ideas presented is either 5 or 6, depending on how you score #6. Depending on how you adjust for the follow-up questions, my score ranges from 1 to 7 (and possibly 8 depending on how long this goes on).

:: [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 11:36, 2 July 2007 (EDT) ''<- my mind is open, but there's a bouncer''

== Definition ==
I see Andy "removed claims that no scientists or significant groups support". Perhaps "openmindness" should be redefined as a genuine willingness to consider the evidence ''for an idea that scientists and significant groups support'' before rejecting the idea. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:12, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

: Insert "some" before scientists and "or" rather than "and", which would be consistent with the quote above, and I wouldn't object to that modified definition: a genuine willingness to consider the evidence ''for an idea that some scientists or significant groups support''--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Define it any way you want. But as it is, your questions don't really match your definition. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:01, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

==new question==

We need a question in this essay that asks the user if they believe it is possible that God doesn't exist. This question drives to the heart of open-mindedness. Please do not remove it without legitimate discussion. --[[User:AntnyGonzo|AntnyGonzo]] 19:34, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:No, Gonzo...YOU will ask the author of the essay first if you can alter it. As far as I'm concerned, you have no authorization to alter an essay of any kind. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:36, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:And why do we need such a question?
:FYI, the question you pose runs entirely counter to the thrust of the essay. An essay is not an ordinary article. It is an original work. As such, it is for the author of that original work to decide whether to include anything or not.
:Publish your question here, by all means--and be prepared to take criticism as to the appropriateness of the question.
:But '''you''' do not unilaterally change the essayist's work. If you are serious about whether being open-minded means deciding that God need not exist, write your own essay. But don't go ruining someone else's.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:38, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::The user has been indef blocked, anyway. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 19:39, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::So he has. But I'll let my comment stand anyway, as a warning to anyone who might feel the slightest temptation to repeat his bad example.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Gonzo's demand was we talk about his "alteration" on the talk page only, rather than him bring it up on the talk page, ar ask the author if he could change it first. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:43, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::The essay started with the request ''comments or improvements welcome'' [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Quantifying_Openmindedness&diff=250174&oldid=146961]. [[User:JohnMalin|JohnMalin]] 19:50, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes it did, but since it's an essay, those comments or improvements needed to be posted and disgussed on the talk page. Gonzo was more willing to shoot first and aks questions later. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:55, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Ok, well I'm interested in the discussion that was so poorly started. I don't really care if the question is about the existence of God, since that's probably a lightning rod of argument, but with the possible exception of the last question about the precision of Newtonian gravity, and I don't understand it so I say "possible", all of those questions clearly drive at "ok, lib, you really think you're open-minded?"

I believe that the Essay would benefit from example questions like "Is it possible that President Bush knowingly presented misleading evidence to the nation, rather than by mistake?" or "Do you think that it is impossible that, through mistranslation or any other reason, the age of the Earth is misunderstood by Young Earth Creationists?" [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 20:07, 25 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-ponderously...''

: I'm open to adding liberal questions. I deleted an earlier attempt to do this because the questions referred to crackpot theories for which there is neither scientific nor public support, like claiming that humans were populated by UFOs from outer space.

: I don't have any problem with the questions posed by Aziraphale above as part of a test of open-mindedness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:42, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==Unclear questions==

Interesting idea, I answered the questions. However there are two questions that are not completely clear:
8, "Do you think that there ''must'' be a material explanation for remarkable homing and migration behavior of birds and butterflies?" ''Material'' is unclear. Of course there is some physical ability that they have that allows them to home, so do you mean "naturalistic" instead, as in shaped without God?

11, "Do you think that it is possible that evolution did not occur?" I take it you mean universal common descent, so perhaps it should read "...that the theory of evolution is false?" Evolution is a vague term and it encompasses speciation and descent with modification, which are accepted by virtually everyone. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:23, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

: Your point about question 8 is interesting, but I don't see how use of the term "naturalistic" improves it. Everyone understands what "material explanation" means, but "naturalistic" is far from clear. The question is whether the homing must be guided by something material, such as magnetism, or can it be guided by non-material phenomena, such as intelligent design that might allow for abstract programming features or divine guidance or another mechanism that transcends materialism.

: As to question 11, I think the term "evolution" is widely understood to have the meaning that Darwin used for it. I realize that some have attempted to change its meaning to salvage the concept, such as redefining evolution to be any change, but I'm reluctant to use jargon like "universal common descent" rather than commonly understood terminology. Perhaps a footnote could explain further, which you're welcome to add!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:31, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

==Unjustified Edit?==
Regarding Question Two ("# Have you ever admitted that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false? "), I reversed the question to "Have you ever realized that something you accepted for over a decade was, in fact, completely false?" and it was reverted as an unjustified edit. I did this because a yes means closed-minded, while accepting and admitting that you have changed your mind on one of your long-term beliefs is more openminded. It´s the same question, but phrased differently so it doesn´t corrupt the taker´s score. [[User:MaryC|MaryC]] 17:43, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:You're right about the need to reverse the question to avoid corrupting the score. Thank you. I've made that change. But the reason for the reversion is that you conditioned the question on a realization. It is the closed mind that refuses to attain that realization, so that condition had to be reverted.

:Thanks for your insightful edit and comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:23, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Just my answers, for fun! ==

1. No, of course not.
2. A decade ago, I was 13... so, no
3. Who would? I'VE never been to jail, unlike basically every celebrity I can name.
4. What's that town in Montana with MANDATORY gun ownership, and ZERO crime?
5. I was 11 months old.
6. I thought SDI was demonstrated to work - haven't we shot down satellites? Haven't the Chinese, as well?
7. I think it is unlikely, not impossible. I've researched it a bit.
8. I think there must be an explanation, material or not.
9. No, but I think if it was there would be evidence, possibly evidence we have yet to find.
10. You can obviously measure it - take a man like [[Lee Strobel]], compare to [[Richard Dawkins]]... there ya go!
11. It is possible, yes.
12. Actually, yes, I do think this is impossible. Very simply, because the power of 2 wasn't arrived at by experimentation or observation, but by pure hard logic. Additionally, in Newtonian gravity, it is 2 - that is part of what defines Newtonian gravity. If it wasn't 2, then we wouldn't be talking about Newtonian gravity anymore.
13. A lot of what I was taught was definitely false.
14. There may be elements of Catholicism which are false, but on the whole, I'm pretty committed to it.

I just did this for fun, don't go jumping down my throat for anything! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:40, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

: You're open-minded. Congratulations! (I altered two of the questions since you responded.)

==Test Answers==
1. No. And I don't resist admitting the idea that a liberal, libertarian or etc., education is far more effective than a conservative education.

2. No. I have done this more than once throughout my life with religious and political philosophies.

3. No. Just as any value system has the possibility of harming different people, whether it's Hollywood values, so-called family values, religious values, secular values, etc.

4. No. The crime rate is affected by many variables, and using a simplistic statistic like gun ownership to predict causation for overall crime rates is nonsense. For example, private gun ownership or a lack thereof will not affect tax cheats.

5. No. People and societies have overcome barriers like the Berlin Wall many times before.

6. No. SDI was never impossible, yet much of the technology was not practical at the time. Even today some of the technology is still in the concept or development stage.

7. No. But there is very little evidence that shows the shroud was not painted by an artist. That is why many people accept the Shroud on faith.

8. No. But there is plenty of natural evidence that birds use landmarks and natural direction finding to navigate.

9. No. The speed of light in a vacuum may have been different in the past, for example, just after the Big Bang. But there is no convincing evidence that I know of that demonstrates the speed of light has changed over the past millennia.

10. No. But using a biased simplistic test is not the way to go about it.

11. No. There may be another explanation for life on Earth besides evolution, but the convincing evidence is not there according to 99% of the world's biologists.

12. No. There is a difference between 2 and 2.00000001, but why make things more difficult than what they already are? In other words, my 20 mile trip to work would be 25 thousands of an inch longer or shorter if we used such maddening precision.

13. No. No one person or organization is correct all the time. I have known for years some of what I was taught in class was false and I suspect the teachers knew it was because they were required to teach the material.

According to Conservapedia standards, I am a very open-minded person.
--[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 12:47, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

: You may well be open-minded. [[Ronald Reagan]] and other former liberals must have been open-minded or they never would have become conservatives. The famous atheist [[Anthony Flew]] must have been open-minded or else he never would have found [[faith]] late in life.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:16, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

==Another question==

"If it were proved to your satisfaction that some idea you've been using to bolster a political argument was false, would you keep using that idea in your argument?" --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:12, 27 December 2009 (EST)

==More questions==

I added a couple of questions. Previously it was only able to discern liberal closed minded people. However being open minded means also being open minded to liberal ideas because only this way you can debunk them. Therefor it's important to have liberal questions in order to make this a better test.[[User:Marnick|Marnick]] 13:35, 25 February 2010 (EST)

==A thought==

I tried this test, because I think is an interesting idea. Six "yes," twelve "no." But some of these questions were confusing to me. I know your website is for mostly Americans who understand these things, but would it not be better to have more general questions? The questions about specific political issues may be hard for people who do not follow American politics. Thank you.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 00:47, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:Thanks for your suggestion, but could you be a bit more specific? I glanced at the questions and they do seem to be general in nature.

:Also, I wonder about the last one, which you added. It's rare to find someone who thinks a democracy is ''impossible'' for a people. Democracy may be incompatible with other forms of government, such as a theocracy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:38, 27 February 2010 (EST)

::Most of them are general but I had troubled with 6, 7 and 8. I had to look up the Shroud of Turin, and I am not so familiar with Mr. Reagan's specific policies. As for my question, it was a thought based on what I have heard from some people. Some people think that a certain culture can be incompatable with liberty. Of course, I do not believe this. If liberty is natural state of people, then all people can enjoy it. I will accept your judgment on my question, though.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 11:03, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:::The Shroud of Turin (question 8) has nothing to do with America. The Berlin Wall (question 6) was, of course, in Berlin and not America. SDI/Star Wars (question 7) is well-known in Europe also, because some of the defenses would be put there, but I agree it may be unfamiliar to those on other continents. I don't think these questions change the overall score significantly for those who might be unfamiliar with them. But thanks for your suggestions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:51, 27 February 2010 (EST)
Most of the questions seem to ask "do you think it's possible," not "do you think it's true," which is very important. I don't buy that the Shroud of Turin is any more than a fraud (along with the rest of the relics Rome likes to peddle), but I wouldn't say it's ''impossible.'' The only one I'm inclined to say "yes" for is SDI - it's probably impossible to get it functional with today's technology, but give it a few years and we'll see, and I have to go with N/A for the Berlin Wall question, not having existed at the time. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:22, 27 February 2010 (EST)

: You're right in explaining how this is a test of open-mindedness, not a test of knowledge or opinions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:31, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::Very well, this makes sense to me. Good luck on this project.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 14:45, 27 February 2010 (EST)

==Link to article==
This essay is very interesting! I am curious about the score one can achieve: is 'maximum' open-mindedness really a good thing? I have seen many talented people led astray by liberal philosophy during their studies, some going as far as to forsake their religion. In a liberal environment, open-mindedness would then be less useful than faith.
On the question on the laws of motion, I have recently come across an article which may interest conservapedian editors:
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-03/spinning-disc-could-test-modified-newtonian-physics-and-kill-dark-matter-explanation
Regards, --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 11:31, 7 March 2010 (EST)

Second Epistle to Timothy (Translated)

2010-01-14T18:47:26Z

TSpencer: /* Chapter 2 */ a start

{{ConservativeBible}}
==Chapter 1==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,
|From Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life in Christ
|
|-
|2
|To Timothy, [my] dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, [and] peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
|To Timothy, my dear son: Grace, mercy and peace, from God the Father and Jesus Christ.
|
|-
|3
|I thank God, whom I serve from [my] forefathers with pure conscience, that without ceasing I have remembrance of thee in my prayers night and day;
|I thank God, whom I serve as my ancestors did, with a pure conscience, that I constantly remember you in my prayers.
|
|-
|4
|Greatly desiring to see thee, being mindful of thy tears, that I may be filled with joy;
|When I remember your tears, I greatly desire to see you and be filled with joy.
|
|-
|5
|When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also.
|I remember the sincere faith that lives in you, that your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice also had.
|
|-
|6
|Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.
|For this reason, remember to fan into flame the grace of God that I gave when I laid my hands on you.
|
|-
|7
|For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
|For God did not give us a fearful spirit, but one of power and love, and a logical mind.
|
|-
|8
|Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God;
|Do not be ashamed to testify for our Lord, or of me being his prisoner, but join me in the suffering for the Gospel, by the power of God.
|
|-
|9
|Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
|God has saved us, and called us to his holy works not because of our deeds, but because of a divine purpose that was given to us by Jesus Christ before the world began.
|
|-
|10
|But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:
|This is apparent to all since the coming of our Savious Jesus Christ, who destroyed death and brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel.
|
|-
|11
|Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.
|I was appointed a preacher, an apostle, and a teacher to the world, of this Gospel.
|
|-
|12
|For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.
|For this I suffer but I am not ashamed, because I have faith, and I am sure Jesus Christ will remember what I have done in his name.
|
|-
|13
|Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
|You should remember these logical words form me, in the faith and love of Jesus Christ,
|
|-
|14
|That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.
|and keep this good thing by the Holy Ghost that resides in us.
|
|-
|15
|This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.
|You already know that everybody in Asia is turned against me, including Phygellus and Hermogenes.
|
|-
|16
|The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain:
|May the Lord show mercy on the family of Onesiphorus, as he as often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my bounds.
|
|-
|17
|But, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found [me].
|As a matter of fact, in Rome, he sought me with application until he found me.
|
|-
|18
|The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou knowest very well.
|So may the Lord grant him mercy when the time comes, you know very well how he helped me in Ephesus.
|
|}

==Chapter 2==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.
|You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Jesus Christ.
|
|-
|2
|And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
|And the things I told you, among many witnesses, you shall entrust to believers who will be qualified to teach others.
|
|-
|3
|Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.
|Endure the hardships as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.
|
|-
|4
|No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of [this] life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.
|No soldier meddles with civilian affairs, he obeys his commanding officer.
|
|-
|5
|And if a man also strive for masteries, [yet] is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully.
|In the same way, an athlete does not win if he does not follow the rules of the game.
|
|-
|6
|The husbandman that laboureth must be first partaker of the fruits.
|The hardworking farmer should have the greater part of his crops.
|Some interesting conservative ethos here
|-
|7
|Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.
|Meditate on these things, and the Lord shall provide you with insight on them.
|
|-
|8
|Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:
|Remember that I proclaim that Jesus Christ, descendant of David, was raised from the dead
|
|-
|9
|Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, [even] unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound.
|and for this I am chained like a criminal, but the word of God is not.
|
|-
|10
|Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
|Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they may be saved by Jesus Christ.
|
|-
|11
|[It is] a faithful saying: For if we be dead with [him], we shall also live with [him]:
|It is true that, if we die with him, we will live with him.
|
|-
|12
|If we suffer, we shall also reign with [him]: if we deny [him], he also will deny us:
|If we suffer, we will reign with him. If we deny him, he will also deny us.
|
|-
|13
|If we believe not, [yet] he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.
|If we are faithless, he will not, for he can not disown himself.
|
|-
|14
|Of these things put [them] in remembrance, charging [them] before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, [but] to the subverting of the hearers.
|
|
|-
|15
|Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
|
|
|-
|16
|But shun profane [and] vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
|
|
|-
|17
|And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
|
|
|-
|18
|Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
|
|
|-
|19
|Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
|
|
|-
|20
|But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.
|
|
|-
|21
|If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, [and] prepared unto every good work.
|
|
|-
|22
|Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.
|
|
|-
|23
|But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
|
|
|-
|24
|And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all [men], apt to teach, patient,
|
|
|-
|25
|In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
|
|
|-
|26
|And [that] they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.
|
|
|}

==Chapter 3==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
|
|
|-
|2
|For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
|
|
|-
|3
|Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
|
|
|-
|4
|Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
|
|
|-
|5
|Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
|
|
|-
|6
|For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
|
|
|-
|7
|Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
|
|
|-
|8
|Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
|
|
|-
|9
|But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all [men], as theirs also was.
|
|
|-
|10
|But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience,
|
|
|-
|11
|Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of [them] all the Lord delivered me.
|
|
|-
|12
|Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
|
|
|-
|13
|But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
|
|
|-
|14
|But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned [them];
|
|
|-
|15
|And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
|
|
|-
|16
|All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
|
|
|-
|17
|That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
|
|
|}

==Chapter 4==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|I charge [thee] therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
|
|
|-
|2
|Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
|
|
|-
|3
|For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
|
|
|-
|4
|And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
|
|
|-
|5
|But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.
|
|
|-
|6
|For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.
|
|
|-
|7
|I have fought a good fight, I have finished [my] course, I have kept the faith:
|
|
|-
|8
|Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.
|
|
|-
|9
|Do thy diligence to come shortly unto me:
|
|
|-
|10
|For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia.
|
|
|-
|11
|Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.
|
|
|-
|12
|And Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus.
|
|
|-
|13
|The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring [with thee], and the books, [but] especially the parchments.
|
|
|-
|14
|Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works:
|
|
|-
|15
|Of whom be thou ware also; for he hath greatly withstood our words.
|
|
|-
|16
|At my first answer no man stood with me, but all [men] forsook me: [I pray God] that it may not be laid to their charge.
|
|
|-
|17
|Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and [that] all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion.
|
|
|-
|18
|And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve [me] unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom [be] glory for ever and ever. Amen.
|
|
|-
|19
|Salute Prisca and Aquila, and the household of Onesiphorus.
|
|
|-
|20
|Erastus abode at Corinth: but Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick.
|
|
|-
|21
|Do thy diligence to come before winter. Eubulus greeteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brethren.
|
|
|-
|22
|The Lord Jesus Christ [be] with thy spirit. Grace [be] with you. Amen.
|
|
|}

[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

First Epistle to Timothy (Translated)

2009-12-17T15:33:03Z

TSpencer: /* Chapter 6 */ improvement and suggestion

{{ConservativeBible}}
==Chapter 1==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;
|Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ our hope, by the commandment of God our Saviour.
|I am trying to get rid of the repetition here
|-
|2
|Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
|To Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
|
|-
|3
|As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
|I told you to stay in Ephesus and teach during my trip to Macedonia, and urge you to continue doing so to stop the spread of false doctrine.
|trimmed, reduced repetitious references to "I" as that is disfavored now; retain emphasis on "false doctrine"
|-
|4
|Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
|Debunk junk science and revisionism, as these engender pointless speculation rather than the divine growth which is in faith.
|the 'pointless speculations on myths' have echoes in current issues: global warming, evolution,... <- superb point, I've tentatively proposed making it stronger
|-
|5
|Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:
|The purpose of the commandment is charity from a pure heart, a good conscience, and true Faith.
|
|-
|6
|From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
|Some have strayed from it and started blabbering meaninglessly.
|
|-
|7
|Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
|They want to be teachers of the Law, but they have no understanding of what they say or the point they try to make.
|
|-
|8
|But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
|We know the Law is good when used lawfully,
|
|-
|9
|Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
|and that it does not concern the righteous man: it is made against the lawless and insubordinate, against the atheists and the sinners, against the evil and profane, against the patricides and the matricides, against killers,
|ungodly translates nicely into 'atheist', but it may be too harsh. Unholy is a mistranslation better expressed by 'evil'
|-
|10
|For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
|against pimps, against those who engage in homosexual relations, against kidnappers and slave-traders, against liars, against perjurers, and against everything that is contrary to the sound doctrine
|'pimp' may be too much but fits within contemporary society
|-
|11
|According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
|described by the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was entrusted to me.
|
|-
|12
|And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;
|I give thanks to Jesus Christ our Lord, who gave me strength by recognizing my faith and appointing me to His service.
|endunamOsanti translates as 'invigorating', literally 'giving strength'
|-
|13
|Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
|I was before a blasphemer, a persecutor, and arrogant, but I was given Mercy because I did it out of ignorance and unbelief,
|'hubris' is arrogance.
|-
|14
|And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
|and the Grace of our Lord overwhelmed me with the faith and love of Jesus Christ.
|'huperepleonasen' is 'overwhelming'
|-
|15
|This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|It is an undeniable truth worthy of universal acceptation that Jesus Christ came into the universe to save sinners- and I am the worst of them.
|'kosmos' refers not only to the Earth, but to the whole universe.
|-
|16
|Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.
|It is for this very reason that I received Mercy, as an example of the infinite patience of Jesus-Christ for those who will come to believe in him.
|'makrothumian' is patience
|-
|17
|Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
|To the King eternal, incorruptible, invisible, wise, the unique God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
|'aphthartO' is incorruptible, which has connotation lacking in 'immortal'. 'the only wise God' does not reflect the Greek construction and wrongfully gives the impression that there may be more than one God.
|-
|18
|This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest wage a good warfare;
|This is your duty, son Timothy, as foretold in the prophecies concerning you, that you have to follow to wage an ideal war.
|the 'war' is conspicuously absent from the NKJV
|-
|19
|Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:
|You have to keep your faith and a good conscience. Some lost faith and that ended in disaster,
|
|-
|20
|Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.
|for example Hymaneaus and Alexander, that I gave up to Satan as a punishment for their blasphemy.
|'paideuthOsin' is 'to be disciplined' and is in essence a punishment.
|}

==Chapter 2==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
|I urge then that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all men.
|
|-
|2
|For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
|This includes kings and everyone in superior positions, so that we may live peacefully in godliness and honesty.
|
|-
|3
|For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
|Our God and Saviour is pleased by this,
|
|-
|4
|Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
|who wants all men to be saved and realize the truth.
|The Greek text does not imply that everybody will be saved, only that God wishes so.
|-
|5
|For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
|For there is only one God, and only one mediator between God and men, Jesus Christ,
|
|-
|6
|Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
|who gave himself as a ransom for all, as the testimony will be given in its proper time.
|
|-
|7
|Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
|For this reason I was appointed a preacher and an apostle, a teacher of the true faith for the Gentiles. I speak the truth in Christ.
|There is no need to add 'I lie not'.
|-
|8
|I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
|I want men to lift holy hands in prayer everywhere, without suffering from censorship.
|The original text shows that the people praying should be free from indignation (whether feigned or sincere) and debate, which are covered both by 'censorship'.
|-
|9
|In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
|I also want women to wear modest clothes, with decency and propriety. They should not dress themselves with braided hair, jewelery or expensive outfits,
|gold and pearls were a substitute for 'jewelery'
|-
|10
|But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
|but with their good works, which become women professing godliness.
|
|-
|11
|Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
|A woman should learn in silence and in full submission.
|
|-
|12
|But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
|I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man: she must be silent.
|
|-
|13
|For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
|This is because Adam was created first, and then Eve.
|
|-
|14
|And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
|Adam was not deceived, but the woman was. She is thus responsible for the transgression.
|
|-
|15
|Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
|A woman may nevertheless be saved through childbearing, provided she keeps her faith, charity, holiness, together with propriety.
|}

==Chapter 3==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
|It is true that if a man desires to be a supervisor, he desires a noble task.
|episkopEs traditionally refers to 'bishop', but really applies to any supervising work. Maybe 'administrator' could be used.
|-
|2
|A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
|As such, a supervisor must be blameless, married, sober, self-controlled, hospitable, patient, and a good teacher,
|
|-
|3
|Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
|and certainly not someone who drinks wine, or loves money, or seeks fights, or covets.
|
|-
|4
|One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
|He has to manage properly his own household, and have respectful and obeying children,
|
|-
|5
|(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
|as a man unable to rule his own house would not know how to take care of the church of God.
|
|-
|6
|Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
|He should not be a novice, lest he become conceited and be condemned as Satan was.
|
|-
|7
|Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
|He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, lest he should fall into reproach and Satan's trap.
|
|-
|8
|Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
|Servants must likewise be grave, consistent, not addicted to wine, not pursuing dishonest gain.
|
|-
|9
|Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
|They must keep the deep truths of the faith with a pure conscience.
|
|-
|10
|And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
|They must be tested and found blameless before being authorized to serve.
|
|-
|11
|Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
|In the same way, their wives should be grave, sober, and trustworthy, and not evil.
|the term 'diabolos' is used, usually referring to Satan
|-
|12
|Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
|The servants can marry a woman, and should ideally rule over their children and their house.
|
|-
|13
|For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
|Those who have served well should earn an improvement in standing, and gain much assurance in their faith in Jesus Christ.
|
|-
|14
|These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:
|I hope to come see you soon, but I write to you
|
|-
|15
|But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
|so that, should I be delayed, you know how one ought to behave in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of all truth.
|
|-
|16
|And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
|No-one denies the mystery of godliness is great: God appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, witnessed by messengers, preached to all nations, was believed on in the whole universe, and glorified.
|
|}

==Chapter 4==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
|The Spirit explicitly states that, in times to come, some will lose faith and pay attention to deceiving spirits and the doctrines of demons.
|
|-
|2
|Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
|They will tell lies with hypocrisy, and have closed minds.
|the original text is exactly in the sense of a closed mind.
|-
|3
|Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
|They will forbid to marry and eat certain food, that God created to be received with thanksgivings by believers who know the truth.
|the abstinence from food reminds one of certain muslim beliefs
|-
|4
|For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
|Everything God created is good, and nothing should be refused as long as it is received with thanksgiving,
|
|-
|5
|For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
|for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
|
|-
|6
|If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.
|If you inform the brothers of these things, you will be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up by the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you follow.
|
|-
|7
|But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.
|Steer clear of atheist and superstitious myths and train yourself in godliness.
|Once again 'godlessness', that is nicely translated in 'atheist'
|-
|8
|For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.
|Indeed, physical training has a few beneficial aspects, but godliness benefits all, holding promise for both this life and the one to come.
|
|-
|9
|This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation.
|This is an undeniable truth
|
|-
|10
|For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
|for which we labor and suffer reproach, because we rely on the living God, Saviour of all believing men.
|The 'specially those that believe' feels awkward, and it is explicitly said that only the believers will be saved.
|-
|11
|These things command and teach.
|Command and teach this.
|
|-
|12
|Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.
|Do not let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example to the believers in speech, in behavior, in charity, in spirit, in faith, and in purity.
|
|-
|13
|Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.
|Until I come, devote yourself to the reading of the Scripture, to public preaching and teaching.
|
|-
|14
|Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.
|Do not neglect the grace that was given to you according to the prophecy, when the elders laid their hands on you.
|
|-
|15
|Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.
|Meditate upon these matters and give yourself wholly to them, and everyone will see your progress.
|
|-
|16
|Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.
|Pay attention to your life and the doctrine, continue in them, and you will save both yourself and those who listen to you.
|
|}

==Chapter 5==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;
|Do not rebuke an elder, but treat him as a father, and the younger men as your brothers,
|
|-
|2
|The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.
|the older and younger women, as mothers and sisters respectfully, with all purity.
|
|-
|3
|Honour widows that are widows indeed.
|Take care of real widows,
|
|-
|4
|But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God.
|but if any widow have children or descendants, they should be the ones to show piety in their own home, for this is good and desirable for God.
|
|-
|5
|Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day.
|A real widow, all alone, puts her trust in God and prays day and nights,
|
|-
|6
|But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.
|but one living for pleasure is dead even as she lives.
|
|-
|7
|And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless.
|Instruct people of this, so that they may be blameless.
|
|-
|8
|But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
|Anyone who does not provide for his own family, especially those residing under his roof, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
|
|-
|9
|Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,
|Do not consider a woman a window unless she is over sixty years old, has been married to one man only,
|
|-
|10
|Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.
|has a good reputation, such as raising children, housing strangers, washing the saint's feet, relieving the afflicted, devoting herself to good deeds.
|
|-
|11
|But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;
|Do not care for younger windows, because once their devotion to Christ diminishes, they want to marry,
|
|-
|12
|Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.
|and for this are damned as they recant their first faith.
|
|-
|13
|And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
|Meanwhile, they become idle, and propagate gossip as they wander from house to house.
|
|-
|14
|I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
|Thus, I want younger women to marry, bear children and manage their households, giving no occasion for Satan to spread slander.
|-
|15
|For some are already turned aside after Satan.
|In truth, some are already lost to Satan.
|
|-
|16
|If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.
|If a believer has a window in his family, he should take care of her, so that the church may tend for the widows that most need help.
|
|-
|17
|Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
|The elders that rule well should be doubly honored, especially those who preach and teach.
|
|-
|18
|For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
|For the Scripture says: « Do not muzzle the ox that treads out the corn », and « The worthy worker deserves his wage »
|
|-
|19
|Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.
|Never accuse an elder unless two or more witnesses testify.
|
|-
|20
|Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
|The elders that sin should be rebuked publicly, as an example for others.
|
|-
|21
|I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.
|I instruct you before God, and Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, to carry out these rules without favoring one of them.
|
|-
|22
|Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure.
|Do not be lay hands suddenly on a man, do not share other men's sins: keep yourself pure.
|
|-
|23
|Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.
|Stop drinking only water, and consume a little wine to treat your stomach and your illnesses.
|
|-
|24
|Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after.
|The sins of some men are apparent to all, preceding them to judgment, while for others they only follow them.
|
|-
|25
|Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid.
|In the same way, the good deeds of some people are obvious immediately, but even the ones that are not can not be hidden.
|
|}

==Chapter 6==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
|All slaves should fully respect their masters, so that the name of God and his teaching is not blasphemed.
|'douloi' means slave
|-
|2
|And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.
|Those who have Christian masters must not be allowed to treat them with less respect on the pretext they are brothers. On the contrary, they should serve them even better, because those who benefit from their work are Christians and dear to them. This you must teach and urge on them.
|
|-
|3
|If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
|If any man is teaching otherwise, and does not agree to the logical instruction and holy teachings of Jesus Christ,
|the words are 'sound', ie logical
|-
|4
|He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
|this man is conceited and ignorant. He has an unhealthy interest in debates and questions that generate calumny, suspicion, and altercations.
|it is very close to the Conservapedian definition of 'liberal', is it worth inserting here?
|-
|5
|Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
|Do not acquaint yourself with these men engaging in perverse disputes, with corrupt minds and deprived of the truth, who expect holiness from financial gain.
|this is a very 'inconvenient truth' for some politicians
|-
|6
|But godliness with contentment is great gain.
|That beeing said, godliness with satisfaction is a great gain.
|
|-Th
|7
|For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.
|For we brought nothing into this world, and we will carry noting out,
|
|-
|8
|And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.
|so let's be satisfied with a proper house and decent food.
|'skepasmata' refers to 'protective covering'. Coats were expensive, so the translation has to reflect that.
|-
|9
|But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
|Those who only aspire to become rich are falling to temptation into a trap, experiencing many foolish and destructive desires, that plunge men into ruin and perdition.
|
|-
|10
|For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
|For the love of money above all else is the root of numerous evils, and those who yearn only for money have strayed from the faith and suffered many sorrows.
|
|-
|11
|But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.
|You are a man of God, stay away from these things, and rather pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, and gentleness.
|
|-
|12
|Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.
|Wage the good war of faith. Accept the eternal life that was given to you, when you proclaimed your faith before many witnesses.
|
|-
|13
|I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;
|In the sight of God, who created everything, and in the sight of Jesus Christ who stood tall before Pontius Pilate, I instruct you
|
|-
|14
|That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
|to follow this commandment irreproachably until the coming of Jesus Christ,
|
|-
|15
|Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
|who will be brought about by God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings, and Lord of lords,
|
|-
|16
|Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.
|who only is immortal, living in the light no man can approach, whom no man can see and ever has, to whom be honor and power for all eternity. Amen.
|
|-
|17
|Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;
|Instruct the rich people not to be arrogant and believe in wealth only, wich is uncertain, but rather believe in the living God, who provides us richly in everything.
|
|-
|18
|That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;
|Instruct them to do good deeds and become rich in them, and be generous and to contribute,
|
|-
|19
|Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.
|building up a good fondation for the time to come, that they may gain eternal life.
|
|-
|20
|O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
|Timothy, pay real care to what I entrust you, avoid the vain babbling of atheists, and the false affirmations of junk science,
|'pseudo-science', a conservative word, is here very suitable / Junk science is even better
|-
|21
|Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
|that some, proclaiming them, have departed to the faith. May the Grace be with you. Amen.
|
|}

[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2009-12-17T13:48:56Z

TSpencer: request for help on Timothy

For older discussion, see [[Talk:Conservative Bible Project/Archive 1|here]].

(continuing from archive)

== Comment Here ==
Liberals would have to read the Bible? As a pagan moderate, I've actually schooled conservatives in their knowledge of the Bible. The accusation should be made as a whole. I talked to someone that considered themselves a Christian conservative who once told me he needed to read the Bible. Go to Bass Pro Shops and hang out for a bit. Those people carry camo bibles but don't know what it says in it, other than homosexuals being wrong. This accusation that anyone, liberals, moderates, or conservatives as a whole haven't read the Christian bible should be taken out. - JaffaLycosa

Agreed, from a Christian who sees enough other Christians at church to know the above person is largely correct. -Jones

:Folks, you're not fooling anyone here. "JaffaLycosa" has made 12 edits here, but I haven't seen an intelligent one by him about the Bible yet. Check out the finalists and winners of this years National Bible Bee - virtually all are likely conservatives. Out of 300 million people, might a few "pagans" know the Bible better than a few conservatives? Yes, just as there might be someone who lives 100 years despite smoking several packs of cigarettes a day. But those are rare exceptions, not the rule.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:35, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:You know, whenever you see a high-profile liberal talk about the Bible, they always, always display their profound ignorance of it. They misquote passages out of context, invent new passages either out of whole cloth or via bastardization of one or more passages, get books in the wrong Testament, or conveniently ignore passages with some excuse or another. (Now expecting the obligatory and predictable "I know you are, but what am I?" responses from liberals here or ''elsewhere''- i.e. claiming that everything I mentioned is what conservatives do.) [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 13:14, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::In furtherance of your observation, I doubt the average liberal spends more than 1% of his spare time on the Bible, and he is unlikely to be able to answer the most basic questions about this book, which is the most logical and influential in history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:23, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:It seems unfair to call the Bible the most logical book in history, given that many books have been written that do not include any contradictions and do not rely on non-physical entities to explain physical phenomena.

::Really? Name some examples. Also, back up your suggestion that the Bible contains contradictions. Sounds like you've been misled by liberals, and I urge you to reconsider with an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:36, 12 December 2009 (EST)

Homosexuals are the main cause of people not wanting to read the bible. It is the most sacred literary work ever. The homosexuals think they can do whatever they want and not follow the teachings of the bible. Good thing we have Prop 8 and things of that nature to keep marriage between a man and a woman.

: Getting rid of the Bible, or having it labeled as "hate speech," is a predicable goal of the homosexual movement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:36, 12 December 2009 (EST)

: Here's one of my personal favorites:
GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
The chronological order of creation isn't even consistent. Even if you can explain this to yourself with a mystical reconsideration of non-linear time, it's still a problem that makes a straight read-through of the Bible an experience isolated from logic. You've claimed that this is the most logical book in history - it appears that any book that doesn't say the same two things happened both before and after each other would be more logical.

:Your objection is what is illogical. Are you saying merely that a verse is out of order? The Bible quotes are fine, but I can't make sense of your objection. I hope you can come up with something more substantive to back up your claim. Also, you were going to give examples of alternatives that you think are so much better.

:I urge, beg, plead with you to open your mind and realize that liberals may have misled you, and rethink your position for yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:19, 12 December 2009 (EST)

Who did the Mark translation, and where did the term "Divine Guide," instead of the quite literal and direct "Holy Spirit" come from? I was gonna ask this question on the CBP google board, but write access was restricted (I believe in order to avoid such pesky questions). "Divine Guide" carries so much potential theological baggage that I don't understand HOW it could be considered a more acceptable translation.

== CBP in church ==

Just want to mention that I'm a priest (apparently the only one Conservapedia, according to one administrator!), and I'm planning on using portions of the Conservapedia Bible translation in church. In fact, I've already done this once already (on December 6th - with passages from Mark) with great success. I plan on doing it again this Sunday (with the Gospel of Matthew).
If anyone has suggestions for specific passages where you think the Conservapedia translation really brings out insights not seen in other translations, please let me know. God bless, --[[User:FatherJoseph|FatherJoseph]] 19:05, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:I'm working on the 6th Chapter of Luke, [[Luke 1-8 (Translated)]], and the translation of the Beatitudes (starting around verse 20) create some stark differences with other modern versions. For starters, Jesus directed the Beatitudes to his own disciples, not the public, if the figurative translation of a word is used rather than the literal one. Not all his disciples were "poor" (Matthew wasn't, for example), but all were "powerless", which makes for a possibly superior word choice. In fact, I'm going to check now if the [[ESV]] ever uses the term "powerless".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:16, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:: Excellent example! I'll be sure to use these passages in a few weeks, once more of Luke is translated. Very intriguing about the word "powerless", which I think fits in perfectly. I did a search of the NRSV, and it doesn't use this word anywhere in the New Testament (although it does a few times in the Old). --[[User:FatherJoseph|FatherJoseph]] 19:29, 12 December 2009 (EST)

...

:::I'm curious: about how many Masses, if any, have you said in Latin?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:11, 15 December 2009 (EST)

:::: Very few - after the Second Vatican Council, Latin Mass has been heavily disfavored, and few churches hold Mass in Latin nowadays. --[[User:FatherJoseph|FatherJoseph]] 22:57, 15 December 2009 (EST)

:::::"Very few"??? The odds of that being true are, let's say, "very small" indeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:21, 15 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: I don't understand. Why is this so surprising to you? --[[User:FatherJoseph|FatherJoseph]] 23:30, 15 December 2009 (EST)

::::::: You should understand if you were who you say you are. Ha ha, ask your bishop and he'll explain it to you!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::I'm not sure what this is all about. Vatican II did not forbid priests from doing mass in Latin, indeed there are still some that do special masses in Latin. Latin is also used by those giving mass in Vatican City. Even if Vatican II did ban Latin from being used in mass, Vatican II was opened in 1962, around 20 years after Father Joseph started his ministry. --[[User:JAiken|JAiken]] 00:46, 16 December 2009 (EST)

==Renaming the Epistles==

I would be interested to hear anyone's thoughts on whether the "Epistle to the Corinthians" etc should be renamed as "Letter to the Corinthians". I feel that this would be more in keeping with the intention of the books. They are, after all, first and foremost letters from Paul to distinct peoples. I think we should drop the rather archaic word epistle and change it to letter; or perhaps to advice. Any thoughts?--[[User:PThomson|PThomson]] 21:48, 15 December 2009 (EST)

I would go with "Letter" or "Epistle" but not "Advice". [[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 18:32, 16 December 2009 (EST)

==Possibility of Printing this?==
I am the owner of a small, successful religious printing press in Illinois, and I'm wondering if you have considered submitting this to printers for a print run? I'm relatively confident I could sell a few hundred thousand copies of the Conservative Bible nationally and internationally, and would be glad to talk about a profit participation programme? [[User:DaveSand|DaveSand]] 18:40, 16 December 2009 (EST)

:Really, Dave ... you're from Illinois yet you use English spellings ("programme")??? That's funny, because I grew up in Illinois and never saw anyone else there spell "program" in such an inefficient way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:40, 16 December 2009 (EST)

==Translation of Timothy 1==

I have just completed the first draft of the translation of Timothy. I would very much value any comment and suggestion for improvement.
A few verses have specific issues which I would like to address:
*I took the liberty to translate "godless" with "atheist", which I think conveys nicely the original meaning.
*I translated 'whoremonger' with 'pimp', which appears to be the definition of the job. I have second thoughts about including such a word in a translation of the Bible, though.
Could a respected editor share his opinion on these matters? Regards, --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 08:48, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Talk:Essay: Logic and One View of Christianity

2009-12-17T13:17:03Z

TSpencer: reply to Eoinc

This is a well stated and completely rational essay that is sure to draw much criticism. [[User:DaveGBx|DaveGBx]] 08:35, 16 December 2009 (EST)

The essay seems to go beyond Christianity into speculation in order to try to gin up a contradiction. For example, you claim that "God sets a standard of behaviour which is so high that He knows no man can attain it." Where is the justification for that premise, on which your conclusion is based?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:55, 16 December 2009 (EST)
:To enter Heaven, without first needing to be saved or forgiven by God, a man would need to live a perfectly sinless life. This is not achievable by any person ("for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"). God knows this because of man's Original Sin. This is not mere speculation on my part; it's a widely-accepted theological concept. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 17:57, 16 December 2009 (EST)

I see this as a perfectly logical article. Though it simply could be taken to arrive at the rationale that God is a merciful God who is willing to bend the rules of logic in order to arrive at a conclusion that would save all men save those who reject it. Though it could also expose a flaw in the teachings of Christianity if we apply much of our own standards of logic. Though that merely begs the question of who would have the more supreme logic, man or God? I know it sounds like a cop out but it really should be taken into consideration for this discussiom even if only on theoretical grounds. --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 22:07, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Neither the essay or the comments here even cite or quote the Bible. Hence the title of this essay needs to change. Any suggestions? If none, then I will move this to "Essay:Logic and One Man's View of Christianity"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:13, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly with all due respect he paraphrased the Bible in his last comment. Or does in your opinion a paraphrase not even come close to a quote? Unless you have a valid argument against this articles points or something of your own to contribute it would be nice if you simply stayed out of the discussion as it is very thought provoking and an interesting debate. Inserting a rather pointless comment about changing the title is completely redundant and against the purpose of the discussion. Please put in a comment on content or an argument for or against in your next response as stimulating the discussion is what this essay is for.--[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 22:38, 16 December 2009 (EST)

:The quote "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin", which is uncited in the essay, is Hebrews 9:22. "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God", here on the talk page, is Romans 3:23. The requirement that man should live a perfectly sinless life is Matthew 5:48. Jesus' role as a sacrificial victim is first described in Isaiah 53:6.
:My reference to "earthen vessels" is an allusion to Isaiah 29:16 and Jeremiah 18:6.

:I generally prefer to paraphrase or allude to scripture, because we are all Biblically-literate here, and I assume people can recognise the references even if I don't cite chapter and verse. So, yes, it is true that I did not provide footnotes, but the scriptural basis is there in plain sight (for those with eyes to see).

:The foundational assumptions which I mentioned are found in:
:* Genesis 1, 2
:* Timothy 2:4
:* Revelation 21:27
:* Romans 6:23
:* Hebrews 9:22

:What follows from that is my (very minimal) analysis of that. Most of it consists of the construction of an analogy. If what I had written had been more along the lines of "so, if we take the Christian message ''X'' to be true, then ''Y'' and ''Z'' can be deduced from that, and if ''Z'' is true, then that leads us to ''A'', ''B'', and eventually to ''C''....", then it would be fairer to call it "one man's view". But in fact all I've done is to restate the Christian message. The "final catch" in my last paragraph is the well-known John 3:16. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 07:42, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::Your essay is very interesting, as it shows how Jesus is trying to reach to you, and how you struggle with what you've been falsely taught. You fall just short of explicitly stating the alleged 'contradiction' in the Bible, in the manner you describe here (if X then Y thus Z). I think it would be very beneficial for yourself if you tried to, as you would have the opportunity see where your argument fails. Regards,--[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 08:17, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Second Epistle to Timothy (Translated)

2009-12-17T12:14:59Z

TSpencer: /* Chapter 1 */

{{ConservativeBible}}
==Chapter 1==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,
|From Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life in Christ
|
|-
|2
|To Timothy, [my] dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, [and] peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
|To Timothy, my dear son: Grace, mercy and peace, from God the Father and Jesus Christ.
|
|-
|3
|I thank God, whom I serve from [my] forefathers with pure conscience, that without ceasing I have remembrance of thee in my prayers night and day;
|I thank God, whom I serve as my ancestors did, with a pure conscience, that I constantly remember you in my prayers.
|
|-
|4
|Greatly desiring to see thee, being mindful of thy tears, that I may be filled with joy;
|When I remember your tears, I greatly desire to see you and be filled with joy.
|
|-
|5
|When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also.
|I remember the sincere faith that lives in you, that your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice also had.
|
|-
|6
|Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.
|For this reason, remember to fan into flame the grace of God that I gave when I laid my hands on you.
|
|-
|7
|For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
|For God did not give us a fearful spirit, but one of power and love, and a logical mind.
|
|-
|8
|Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God;
|Do not be ashamed to testify for our Lord, or of me being his prisoner, but join me in the suffering for the Gospel, by the power of God.
|
|-
|9
|Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
|God has saved us, and called us to his holy works not because of our deeds, but because of a divine purpose that was given to us by Jesus Christ before the world began.
|
|-
|10
|But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:
|This is apparent to all since the coming of our Savious Jesus Christ, who destroyed death and brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel.
|
|-
|11
|Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.
|I was appointed a preacher, an apostle, and a teacher to the world, of this Gospel.
|
|-
|12
|For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.
|For this I suffer but I am not ashamed, because I have faith, and I am sure Jesus Christ will remember what I have done in his name.
|
|-
|13
|Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
|You should remember these logical words form me, in the faith and love of Jesus Christ,
|
|-
|14
|That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.
|and keep this good thing by the Holy Ghost that resides in us.
|
|-
|15
|This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.
|You already know that everybody in Asia is turned against me, including Phygellus and Hermogenes.
|
|-
|16
|The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain:
|May the Lord show mercy on the family of Onesiphorus, as he as often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my bounds.
|
|-
|17
|But, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found [me].
|As a matter of fact, in Rome, he sought me with application until he found me.
|
|-
|18
|The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou knowest very well.
|So may the Lord grant him mercy when the time comes, you know very well how he helped me in Ephesus.
|
|}

==Chapter 2==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.
|
|
|-
|2
|And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
|
|
|-
|3
|Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.
|
|
|-
|4
|No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of [this] life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.
|
|
|-
|5
|And if a man also strive for masteries, [yet] is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully.
|
|
|-
|6
|The husbandman that laboureth must be first partaker of the fruits.
|
|
|-
|7
|Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.
|
|
|-
|8
|Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:
|
|
|-
|9
|Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, [even] unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound.
|
|
|-
|10
|Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
|
|
|-
|11
|[It is] a faithful saying: For if we be dead with [him], we shall also live with [him]:
|
|
|-
|12
|If we suffer, we shall also reign with [him]: if we deny [him], he also will deny us:
|
|
|-
|13
|If we believe not, [yet] he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.
|
|
|-
|14
|Of these things put [them] in remembrance, charging [them] before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, [but] to the subverting of the hearers.
|
|
|-
|15
|Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
|
|
|-
|16
|But shun profane [and] vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
|
|
|-
|17
|And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
|
|
|-
|18
|Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
|
|
|-
|19
|Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
|
|
|-
|20
|But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.
|
|
|-
|21
|If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, [and] prepared unto every good work.
|
|
|-
|22
|Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.
|
|
|-
|23
|But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
|
|
|-
|24
|And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all [men], apt to teach, patient,
|
|
|-
|25
|In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
|
|
|-
|26
|And [that] they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.
|
|
|}

==Chapter 3==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
|
|
|-
|2
|For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
|
|
|-
|3
|Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
|
|
|-
|4
|Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
|
|
|-
|5
|Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
|
|
|-
|6
|For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
|
|
|-
|7
|Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
|
|
|-
|8
|Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
|
|
|-
|9
|But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all [men], as theirs also was.
|
|
|-
|10
|But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience,
|
|
|-
|11
|Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of [them] all the Lord delivered me.
|
|
|-
|12
|Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
|
|
|-
|13
|But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
|
|
|-
|14
|But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned [them];
|
|
|-
|15
|And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
|
|
|-
|16
|All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
|
|
|-
|17
|That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
|
|
|}

==Chapter 4==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|I charge [thee] therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
|
|
|-
|2
|Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
|
|
|-
|3
|For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
|
|
|-
|4
|And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
|
|
|-
|5
|But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.
|
|
|-
|6
|For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.
|
|
|-
|7
|I have fought a good fight, I have finished [my] course, I have kept the faith:
|
|
|-
|8
|Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.
|
|
|-
|9
|Do thy diligence to come shortly unto me:
|
|
|-
|10
|For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia.
|
|
|-
|11
|Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.
|
|
|-
|12
|And Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus.
|
|
|-
|13
|The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring [with thee], and the books, [but] especially the parchments.
|
|
|-
|14
|Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works:
|
|
|-
|15
|Of whom be thou ware also; for he hath greatly withstood our words.
|
|
|-
|16
|At my first answer no man stood with me, but all [men] forsook me: [I pray God] that it may not be laid to their charge.
|
|
|-
|17
|Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and [that] all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion.
|
|
|-
|18
|And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve [me] unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom [be] glory for ever and ever. Amen.
|
|
|-
|19
|Salute Prisca and Aquila, and the household of Onesiphorus.
|
|
|-
|20
|Erastus abode at Corinth: but Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick.
|
|
|-
|21
|Do thy diligence to come before winter. Eubulus greeteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brethren.
|
|
|-
|22
|The Lord Jesus Christ [be] with thy spirit. Grace [be] with you. Amen.
|
|
|}

[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

First Epistle to Timothy (Translated)

2009-12-17T12:13:53Z

TSpencer: /* Chapter 6 */

{{ConservativeBible}}
==Chapter 1==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;
|Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ our hope, by the commandment of God our Saviour.
|I am trying to get rid of the repetition here
|-
|2
|Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
|To Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
|
|-
|3
|As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
|I told you to stay in Ephesus and instruct people when I went in Macedonia, and I urge you to continue doing so. They should not teach a different doctrine,
|
|-
|4
|Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
|nor focus on myths and endless genealogies, as these engender pointless speculation rather than the divine growth which is in Faith.
|the 'pointless speculations on myths' have echoes in current issues: global warming, evolution,...
|-
|5
|Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:
|The purpose of the commandment is charity from a pure heart, a good conscience, and true Faith.
|
|-
|6
|From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
|Some have strayed from it and started blabbering meaninglessly.
|
|-
|7
|Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
|They want to be teachers of the Law, but they have no understanding of what they say or the point they try to make.
|
|-
|8
|But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
|We know the Law is good when used lawfully,
|
|-
|9
|Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
|and that it does not concern the righteous man: it is made against the lawless and insubordinate, against the atheists and the sinners, against the evil and profane, against the patricides and the matricides, against killers,
|ungodly translates nicely into 'atheist', but it may be too harsh. Unholy is a mistranslation better expressed by 'evil'
|-
|10
|For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
|against pimps, against those who engage in homosexual relations, against kidnappers and slave-traders, against liars, against perjurers, and against everything that is contrary to the sound doctrine
|'pimp' may be too much but fits within contemporary society
|-
|11
|According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
|described by the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was entrusted to me.
|
|-
|12
|And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;
|I give thanks to Jesus Christ our Lord, who gave me strength by recognizing my faith and appointing me to His service.
|endunamOsanti translates as 'invigorating', literally 'giving strength'
|-
|13
|Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
|I was before a blasphemer, a persecutor, and arrogant, but I was given Mercy because I did it out of ignorance and unbelief,
|'hubris' is arrogance.
|-
|14
|And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
|and the Grace of our Lord overwhelmed me with the faith and love of Jesus Christ.
|'huperepleonasen' is 'overwhelming'
|-
|15
|This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|It is an undeniable truth worthy of universal acceptation that Jesus Christ came into the universe to save sinners- and I am the worst of them.
|'kosmos' refers not only to the Earth, but to the whole universe.
|-
|16
|Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.
|It is for this very reason that I received Mercy, as an example of the infinite patience of Jesus-Christ for those who will come to believe in him.
|'makrothumian' is patience
|-
|17
|Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
|To the King eternal, incorruptible, invisible, wise, the unique God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
|'aphthartO' is incorruptible, which has connotation lacking in 'immortal'. 'the only wise God' does not reflect the Greek construction and wrongfully gives the impression that there may be more than one God.
|-
|18
|This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest wage a good warfare;
|This is your duty, son Timothy, as foretold in the prophecies concerning you, that you have to follow to wage an ideal war.
|the 'war' is conspicuously absent from the NKJV
|-
|19
|Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:
|You have to keep your faith and a good conscience. Some lost faith and that ended in disaster,
|
|-
|20
|Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.
|for example Hymaneaus and Alexander, that I gave up to Satan as a punishment for their blasphemy.
|'paideuthOsin' is 'to be disciplined' and is in essence a punishment.
|}

==Chapter 2==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
|I urge then that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all men.
|
|-
|2
|For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
|This includes kings and everyone in superior positions, so that we may live peacefully in godliness and honesty.
|
|-
|3
|For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
|Our God and Saviour is pleased by this,
|
|-
|4
|Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
|who wants all men to be saved and realize the truth.
|The Greek text does not imply that everybody will be saved, only that God wishes so.
|-
|5
|For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
|For there is only one God, and only one mediator between God and men, Jesus Christ,
|
|-
|6
|Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
|who gave himself as a ransom for all, as the testimony will be given in its proper time.
|
|-
|7
|Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
|For this reason I was appointed a preacher and an apostle, a teacher of the true faith for the Gentiles. I speak the truth in Christ.
|There is no need to add 'I lie not'.
|-
|8
|I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
|I want men to lift holy hands in prayer everywhere, without suffering from censorship.
|The original text shows that the people praying should be free from indignation (whether feigned or sincere) and debate, which are covered both by 'censorship'.
|-
|9
|In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
|I also want women to wear modest clothes, with decency and propriety. They should not dress themselves with braided hair, jewelery or expensive outfits,
|gold and pearls were a substitute for 'jewelery'
|-
|10
|But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
|but with their good works, which become women professing godliness.
|
|-
|11
|Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
|A woman should learn in silence and in full submission.
|
|-
|12
|But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
|I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man: she must be silent.
|
|-
|13
|For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
|This is because Adam was created first, and then Eve.
|
|-
|14
|And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
|Adam was not deceived, but the woman was. She is thus responsible for the transgression.
|
|-
|15
|Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
|A woman may nevertheless be saved through childbearing, provided she keeps her faith, charity, holiness, together with propriety.
|}

==Chapter 3==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
|It is true that if a man desires to be a supervisor, he desires a noble task.
|episkopEs traditionally refers to 'bishop', but really applies to any supervising work. Maybe 'administrator' could be used.
|-
|2
|A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
|As such, a supervisor must be blameless, married, sober, self-controlled, hospitable, patient, and a good teacher,
|
|-
|3
|Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
|and certainly not someone who drinks wine, or loves money, or seeks fights, or covets.
|
|-
|4
|One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
|He has to manage properly his own household, and have respectful and obeying children,
|
|-
|5
|(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
|as a man unable to rule his own house would not know how to take care of the chuch of God.
|
|-
|6
|Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
|
|He should not be a novice, lest he become conceited and be condemned as Satan was.
|-
|7
|Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
|He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, lest he should fall into reproach and Satan's trap.
|
|-
|8
|Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
|Servants must likewise be grave, consistent, not addicted to wine, not pursuing dishonest gain.
|
|-
|9
|Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
|They must keep the deep truths of the faith with a pure conscience.
|
|-
|10
|And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
|They must be tested and found blameless before being authorized to serve.
|
|-
|11
|Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
|In the same way, their wives should be grave, sober, and trustworthy, and not evil.
|the term 'diabolos' is used, usually referring to Satan
|-
|12
|Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
|The servants can marry a woman, and should ideally rule over their children and their house.
|
|-
|13
|For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
|Those who have served well should earn an improvement in standing, and gain much assurance in their faith in Jesus Christ.
|
|-
|14
|These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:
|I hope to come see you soon, but I write to you
|
|-
|15
|But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
|so that, should I be delayed, you know how one ought to behave in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of all truth.
|
|-
|16
|And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
|No-one denies the mystery of godliness is great: God appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, witnessed by messengers, preached to all nations, was believed on in the whole universe, and glorified.
|
|}

==Chapter 4==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
|The Spirit explicitly states that, in times to come, some will lose faith and pay attention to deceiving spirits and the doctrines of demons.
|
|-
|2
|Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
|They will tell lies with hypocrisy, and have closed minds.
|the original text is exactly in the sense of a closed mind.
|-
|3
|Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
|They will forbid to marry and eat certain food, that God created to be received with thanksgivings by believers who know the truth.
|the abstinence from food reminds one of certain muslim beliefs
|-
|4
|For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
|Everything God created is good, and nothing should be refused as long as it is received with thanksgiving,
|
|-
|5
|For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
|for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
|
|-
|6
|If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.
|If you inform the brothers of these things, you will be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up by the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you follow.
|
|-
|7
|But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.
|Steer clear of atheist and superstitious myths and train yourself in godliness.
|Once again 'godlessness', that is nicely translated in 'atheist'
|-
|8
|For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.
|Indeed, physical training has a few beneficial aspects, but godliness benefits all, holding promise for both this life and the one to come.
|
|-
|9
|This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation.
|This is an undeniable truth
|
|-
|10
|For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
|for which we labor and suffer reproach, because we rely on the living God, Saviour of all believing men.
|The 'specially those that believe' feels awkward, and it is explicitly said that only the believers will be saved.
|-
|11
|These things command and teach.
|Command and teach this.
|
|-
|12
|Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.
|Do not let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example to the believers in speech, in behavior, in charity, in spirit, in faith, and in purity.
|
|-
|13
|Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.
|Until I come, devote yourself to the reading of the Scripture, to public preaching and teaching.
|
|-
|14
|Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.
|Do not neglect the grace that was given to you according to the prophecy, when the elders laid their hands on you.
|
|-
|15
|Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.
|Meditate upon these matters and give yourself wholly to them, and everyone will see your progress.
|
|-
|16
|Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.
|Pay attention to your life and the doctrine, continue in them, and you will save both yourself and those who listen to you.
|
|}

==Chapter 5==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;
|Do not rebuke an elder, but treat him as a father, and the younger men as your brothers,
|
|-
|2
|The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.
|the older and younger women, as mothers and sisters respectfully, with all purity.
|
|-
|3
|Honour widows that are widows indeed.
|Take care of real widows,
|
|-
|4
|But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God.
|but if any widow have children or descendants, they should be the ones to show piety in their own home, for this is good and desirable for God.
|
|-
|5
|Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day.
|A real widow, all alone, puts her trust in God and prays day and nights,
|
|-
|6
|But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.
|but one living for pleasure is dead even as she lives.
|
|-
|7
|And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless.
|Instruct people of this, so that they may be blameless.
|
|-
|8
|But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
|Anyone who does not provide for his own family, especially those residing under his roof, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
|
|-
|9
|Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,
|Do not consider a woman a window unless she is over sixty years old, has been married to one man only,
|
|-
|10
|Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.
|has a good reputation, such as raising children, housing strangers, washing the saint's feet, relieving the afflicted, devoting herself to good deeds.
|
|-
|11
|But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;
|Do not care for younger windows, because once their devotion to Christ diminishes, they want to marry,
|
|-
|12
|Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.
|and for this are damned as they recant their first faith.
|
|-
|13
|And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
|Meanwhile, they become idle, and propagate gossip as they wander from house to house.
|
|-
|14
|I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
|Thus, I want younger women to marry, bear children and manage their households, giving no occasion for Satan to spread slander.
|-
|15
|For some are already turned aside after Satan.
|In truth, some are already lost to Satan.
|
|-
|16
|If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.
|If a believer has a window in his family, he should take care of her, so that the church may tend for the widows that most need help.
|
|-
|17
|Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
|The elders that rule well should be doubly honored, especially those who preach and teach.
|
|-
|18
|For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
|For the Scripture says: « Do not muzzle the ox that treads out the corn », and « The worthy worker deserves his wage »
|
|-
|19
|Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.
|Never accuse an elder unless two or more witnesses testify.
|
|-
|20
|Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
|The elders that sin should be rebuked publicly, as an example for others.
|
|-
|21
|I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.
|I instruct you before God, and Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, to carry out these rules without favoring one of them.
|
|-
|22
|Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure.
|Do not be lay hands suddenly on a man, do not share other men's sins: keep yourself pure.
|
|-
|23
|Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.
|Stop drinking only water, and consume a little wine to treat your stomach and your illnesses.
|
|-
|24
|Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after.
|The sins of some men are apparent to all, preceding them to judgment, while for others they only follow them.
|
|-
|25
|Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid.
|In the same way, the good deeds of some people are obvious immediately, but even the ones that are not can not be hidden.
|
|}

==Chapter 6==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
|All slaves should fully respect their masters, so that the name of God and his teaching is not blasphemed.
|'douloi' means slave
|-
|2
|And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.
|Those who have Christian masters must not be allowed to treat them with less respect on the pretext they are brothers. On the contrary, they should serve them even better, because those who benefit from their work are Christians and dear to them. This you must teach and urge on them.
|
|-
|3
|If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
|If any man is teaching otherwise, and does not agree to the logical instruction and holy teachings of Jesus Christ,
|the words are 'sound', ie logical
|-
|4
|He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
|this man is conceited and ignorant. He has an unhealthy interest in debates and questions that generate calumny, suspicion, and altercations.
|
|-
|5
|Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
|Do not acquaint yourself with these men engaging in perverse disputings, with corrupt minds and deprived of the truth, who expect holiness from financial gain.
|
|-
|6
|But godliness with contentment is great gain.
|That beeing said, godliness with satisfaction is a great gain.
|
|-Th
|7
|For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.
|For we brought nothing into this world, and we will carry noting out,
|
|-
|8
|And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.
|so let's be satisfied with a proper house and decent food.
|'skepasmata' refers to 'protective covering'. Coats were expensive, so the translation has to reflect that.
|-
|9
|But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
|Those who only aspire to become rich are falling to temptation into a trap, experiencing many foolish and destructive desires, that plunge men into ruin and perdition.
|
|-
|10
|For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
|For the love of money above all else is the root of numerous evils, and those who yearn only for money have strayed from the faith and suffered many sorrows.
|
|-
|11
|But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.
|You are a man of God, stay away from these things, and rather pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, and gentleness.
|
|-
|12
|Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.
|Wage the good war of faith. Accept the eternal life that was given to you, when you proclaimed your faith before many witnesses.
|
|-
|13
|I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;
|In the sight of God, who created everything, and in the sight of Jesus Christ who stood tall before Pontius Pilate, I instruct you
|
|-
|14
|That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
|to follow this commandment irreproachably until the coming of Jesus Christ,
|
|-
|15
|Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
|who will be brought about by God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings, and Lord of lords,
|
|-
|16
|Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.
|who only is immortal, living in the light no man can approach, whom no man can see and ever has, to whom be honor and power for all eternity. Amen.
|
|-
|17
|Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;
|Instruct the rich people not to be arrogant and believe in wealth only, wich is uncertain, but rather believe in the living God, who provides us richly in everything.
|
|-
|18
|That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;
|Instruct them to do good deeds and become rich in them, and be generous and to contribute,
|
|-
|19
|Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.
|building up a good fondation for the time to come, that they may gain eternal life.
|
|-
|20
|O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
|Timothy, pay real care to what I entrust you, avoid the vain atheist babblings, and the oppositions of pseudo-science,
|'pseudo-science', a conservative word, is here very suitable
|-
|21
|Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
|that some, proclaiming them, have departed to the faith. May the Grace be with you. Amen.
|
|}

[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

First Epistle to Timothy (Translated)

2009-12-17T12:12:18Z

TSpencer: /* Chapter 6 */

{{ConservativeBible}}
==Chapter 1==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;
|Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ our hope, by the commandment of God our Saviour.
|I am trying to get rid of the repetition here
|-
|2
|Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
|To Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
|
|-
|3
|As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
|I told you to stay in Ephesus and instruct people when I went in Macedonia, and I urge you to continue doing so. They should not teach a different doctrine,
|
|-
|4
|Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
|nor focus on myths and endless genealogies, as these engender pointless speculation rather than the divine growth which is in Faith.
|the 'pointless speculations on myths' have echoes in current issues: global warming, evolution,...
|-
|5
|Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:
|The purpose of the commandment is charity from a pure heart, a good conscience, and true Faith.
|
|-
|6
|From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
|Some have strayed from it and started blabbering meaninglessly.
|
|-
|7
|Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
|They want to be teachers of the Law, but they have no understanding of what they say or the point they try to make.
|
|-
|8
|But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
|We know the Law is good when used lawfully,
|
|-
|9
|Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
|and that it does not concern the righteous man: it is made against the lawless and insubordinate, against the atheists and the sinners, against the evil and profane, against the patricides and the matricides, against killers,
|ungodly translates nicely into 'atheist', but it may be too harsh. Unholy is a mistranslation better expressed by 'evil'
|-
|10
|For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
|against pimps, against those who engage in homosexual relations, against kidnappers and slave-traders, against liars, against perjurers, and against everything that is contrary to the sound doctrine
|'pimp' may be too much but fits within contemporary society
|-
|11
|According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
|described by the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was entrusted to me.
|
|-
|12
|And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;
|I give thanks to Jesus Christ our Lord, who gave me strength by recognizing my faith and appointing me to His service.
|endunamOsanti translates as 'invigorating', literally 'giving strength'
|-
|13
|Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
|I was before a blasphemer, a persecutor, and arrogant, but I was given Mercy because I did it out of ignorance and unbelief,
|'hubris' is arrogance.
|-
|14
|And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
|and the Grace of our Lord overwhelmed me with the faith and love of Jesus Christ.
|'huperepleonasen' is 'overwhelming'
|-
|15
|This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|It is an undeniable truth worthy of universal acceptation that Jesus Christ came into the universe to save sinners- and I am the worst of them.
|'kosmos' refers not only to the Earth, but to the whole universe.
|-
|16
|Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.
|It is for this very reason that I received Mercy, as an example of the infinite patience of Jesus-Christ for those who will come to believe in him.
|'makrothumian' is patience
|-
|17
|Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
|To the King eternal, incorruptible, invisible, wise, the unique God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
|'aphthartO' is incorruptible, which has connotation lacking in 'immortal'. 'the only wise God' does not reflect the Greek construction and wrongfully gives the impression that there may be more than one God.
|-
|18
|This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest wage a good warfare;
|This is your duty, son Timothy, as foretold in the prophecies concerning you, that you have to follow to wage an ideal war.
|the 'war' is conspicuously absent from the NKJV
|-
|19
|Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:
|You have to keep your faith and a good conscience. Some lost faith and that ended in disaster,
|
|-
|20
|Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.
|for example Hymaneaus and Alexander, that I gave up to Satan as a punishment for their blasphemy.
|'paideuthOsin' is 'to be disciplined' and is in essence a punishment.
|}

==Chapter 2==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
|I urge then that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all men.
|
|-
|2
|For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
|This includes kings and everyone in superior positions, so that we may live peacefully in godliness and honesty.
|
|-
|3
|For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
|Our God and Saviour is pleased by this,
|
|-
|4
|Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
|who wants all men to be saved and realize the truth.
|The Greek text does not imply that everybody will be saved, only that God wishes so.
|-
|5
|For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
|For there is only one God, and only one mediator between God and men, Jesus Christ,
|
|-
|6
|Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
|who gave himself as a ransom for all, as the testimony will be given in its proper time.
|
|-
|7
|Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
|For this reason I was appointed a preacher and an apostle, a teacher of the true faith for the Gentiles. I speak the truth in Christ.
|There is no need to add 'I lie not'.
|-
|8
|I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
|I want men to lift holy hands in prayer everywhere, without suffering from censorship.
|The original text shows that the people praying should be free from indignation (whether feigned or sincere) and debate, which are covered both by 'censorship'.
|-
|9
|In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
|I also want women to wear modest clothes, with decency and propriety. They should not dress themselves with braided hair, jewelery or expensive outfits,
|gold and pearls were a substitute for 'jewelery'
|-
|10
|But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
|but with their good works, which become women professing godliness.
|
|-
|11
|Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
|A woman should learn in silence and in full submission.
|
|-
|12
|But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
|I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man: she must be silent.
|
|-
|13
|For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
|This is because Adam was created first, and then Eve.
|
|-
|14
|And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
|Adam was not deceived, but the woman was. She is thus responsible for the transgression.
|
|-
|15
|Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
|A woman may nevertheless be saved through childbearing, provided she keeps her faith, charity, holiness, together with propriety.
|}

==Chapter 3==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
|It is true that if a man desires to be a supervisor, he desires a noble task.
|episkopEs traditionally refers to 'bishop', but really applies to any supervising work. Maybe 'administrator' could be used.
|-
|2
|A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
|As such, a supervisor must be blameless, married, sober, self-controlled, hospitable, patient, and a good teacher,
|
|-
|3
|Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
|and certainly not someone who drinks wine, or loves money, or seeks fights, or covets.
|
|-
|4
|One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
|He has to manage properly his own household, and have respectful and obeying children,
|
|-
|5
|(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
|as a man unable to rule his own house would not know how to take care of the chuch of God.
|
|-
|6
|Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
|
|He should not be a novice, lest he become conceited and be condemned as Satan was.
|-
|7
|Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
|He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, lest he should fall into reproach and Satan's trap.
|
|-
|8
|Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
|Servants must likewise be grave, consistent, not addicted to wine, not pursuing dishonest gain.
|
|-
|9
|Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
|They must keep the deep truths of the faith with a pure conscience.
|
|-
|10
|And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
|They must be tested and found blameless before being authorized to serve.
|
|-
|11
|Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
|In the same way, their wives should be grave, sober, and trustworthy, and not evil.
|the term 'diabolos' is used, usually referring to Satan
|-
|12
|Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
|The servants can marry a woman, and should ideally rule over their children and their house.
|
|-
|13
|For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
|Those who have served well should earn an improvement in standing, and gain much assurance in their faith in Jesus Christ.
|
|-
|14
|These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:
|I hope to come see you soon, but I write to you
|
|-
|15
|But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
|so that, should I be delayed, you know how one ought to behave in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of all truth.
|
|-
|16
|And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
|No-one denies the mystery of godliness is great: God appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, witnessed by messengers, preached to all nations, was believed on in the whole universe, and glorified.
|
|}

==Chapter 4==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
|The Spirit explicitly states that, in times to come, some will lose faith and pay attention to deceiving spirits and the doctrines of demons.
|
|-
|2
|Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
|They will tell lies with hypocrisy, and have closed minds.
|the original text is exactly in the sense of a closed mind.
|-
|3
|Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
|They will forbid to marry and eat certain food, that God created to be received with thanksgivings by believers who know the truth.
|the abstinence from food reminds one of certain muslim beliefs
|-
|4
|For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
|Everything God created is good, and nothing should be refused as long as it is received with thanksgiving,
|
|-
|5
|For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
|for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
|
|-
|6
|If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.
|If you inform the brothers of these things, you will be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up by the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you follow.
|
|-
|7
|But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.
|Steer clear of atheist and superstitious myths and train yourself in godliness.
|Once again 'godlessness', that is nicely translated in 'atheist'
|-
|8
|For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.
|Indeed, physical training has a few beneficial aspects, but godliness benefits all, holding promise for both this life and the one to come.
|
|-
|9
|This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation.
|This is an undeniable truth
|
|-
|10
|For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
|for which we labor and suffer reproach, because we rely on the living God, Saviour of all believing men.
|The 'specially those that believe' feels awkward, and it is explicitly said that only the believers will be saved.
|-
|11
|These things command and teach.
|Command and teach this.
|
|-
|12
|Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.
|Do not let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example to the believers in speech, in behavior, in charity, in spirit, in faith, and in purity.
|
|-
|13
|Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.
|Until I come, devote yourself to the reading of the Scripture, to public preaching and teaching.
|
|-
|14
|Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.
|Do not neglect the grace that was given to you according to the prophecy, when the elders laid their hands on you.
|
|-
|15
|Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.
|Meditate upon these matters and give yourself wholly to them, and everyone will see your progress.
|
|-
|16
|Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.
|Pay attention to your life and the doctrine, continue in them, and you will save both yourself and those who listen to you.
|
|}

==Chapter 5==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;
|Do not rebuke an elder, but treat him as a father, and the younger men as your brothers,
|
|-
|2
|The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.
|the older and younger women, as mothers and sisters respectfully, with all purity.
|
|-
|3
|Honour widows that are widows indeed.
|Take care of real widows,
|
|-
|4
|But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God.
|but if any widow have children or descendants, they should be the ones to show piety in their own home, for this is good and desirable for God.
|
|-
|5
|Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day.
|A real widow, all alone, puts her trust in God and prays day and nights,
|
|-
|6
|But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.
|but one living for pleasure is dead even as she lives.
|
|-
|7
|And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless.
|Instruct people of this, so that they may be blameless.
|
|-
|8
|But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
|Anyone who does not provide for his own family, especially those residing under his roof, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
|
|-
|9
|Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,
|Do not consider a woman a window unless she is over sixty years old, has been married to one man only,
|
|-
|10
|Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.
|has a good reputation, such as raising children, housing strangers, washing the saint's feet, relieving the afflicted, devoting herself to good deeds.
|
|-
|11
|But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;
|Do not care for younger windows, because once their devotion to Christ diminishes, they want to marry,
|
|-
|12
|Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.
|and for this are damned as they recant their first faith.
|
|-
|13
|And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
|Meanwhile, they become idle, and propagate gossip as they wander from house to house.
|
|-
|14
|I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
|Thus, I want younger women to marry, bear children and manage their households, giving no occasion for Satan to spread slander.
|-
|15
|For some are already turned aside after Satan.
|In truth, some are already lost to Satan.
|
|-
|16
|If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.
|If a believer has a window in his family, he should take care of her, so that the church may tend for the widows that most need help.
|
|-
|17
|Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
|The elders that rule well should be doubly honored, especially those who preach and teach.
|
|-
|18
|For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
|For the Scripture says: « Do not muzzle the ox that treads out the corn », and « The worthy worker deserves his wage »
|
|-
|19
|Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.
|Never accuse an elder unless two or more witnesses testify.
|
|-
|20
|Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
|The elders that sin should be rebuked publicly, as an example for others.
|
|-
|21
|I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.
|I instruct you before God, and Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, to carry out these rules without favoring one of them.
|
|-
|22
|Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure.
|Do not be lay hands suddenly on a man, do not share other men's sins: keep yourself pure.
|
|-
|23
|Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.
|Stop drinking only water, and consume a little wine to treat your stomach and your illnesses.
|
|-
|24
|Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after.
|The sins of some men are apparent to all, preceding them to judgment, while for others they only follow them.
|
|-
|25
|Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid.
|In the same way, the good deeds of some people are obvious immediately, but even the ones that are not can not be hidden.
|
|}

==Chapter 6==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
|All slaves should fully respect their masters, so that the name of God and his teaching is not blasphemed.
|'douloi' means slave
|-
|2
|And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.
|Those who have Christian masters must not be allowed to treat them with less respect on the pretext they are brothers. On the contrary, they should serve them even better, because those who benefit from their work are Christians and dear to them. This you must teach and urge on them.
|
|-
|3
|If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
|If any man is teaching otherwise, and does not agree to the logical instruction and holy teachings of Jesus Christ,
|the words are 'sound', ie logical
|-
|4
|He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
|this man is conceited and ignorant. He has an unhealthy interest in debates and questions that generate calumny, suspicion, and altercations.
|
|-
|5
|Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
|Do not acquaint yourself with these men engaging in perverse disputings, with corrupt minds and deprived of the truth, who expect holiness from financial gain.
|
|-
|6
|But godliness with contentment is great gain.
|That beeing said, godliness with satisfaction is a great gain.
|
|-Th
|7
|For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.
|For we brought nothing into this world, and we will carry noting out,
|
|-
|8
|And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.
|so let's be satisfied with a proper house and decent food.
|'skepasmata' refers to 'protective covering'. Coats were expensive, so the translation has to reflect that.
|-
|9
|But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
|Those who only aspire to become rich are falling to temptation into a trap, experiencing many foolish and destructive desires, that plunge men into ruin and perdition.
|
|-
|10
|For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
|For the love of money above all else is the root of numerous evils, and those who yearn only for money have strayed from the faith and suffered many sorrows.
|
|-
|11
|But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.
|You are a man of God, stay away from these things, and rather pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, and gentleness.
|
|-
|12
|Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.
|Wage the good war of faith. Accept the eternal life that was given to you, when you proclaimed your faith before many witnesses.
|
|-
|13
|I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;
|In the sight of God, who created everything, and in the sight of Jesus Christ who stood tall before Pontius Pilate, I instruct you
|
|-
|14
|That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
|to follow this commandment irreproachably until the coming of Jesus Christ,
|
|-
|15
|Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
|who will be brought about by God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings, and Lord of lords,
|
|-
|16
|Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.
|who only is immortal, living in the light no man can approach, whom no man can see and ever has, to whom be honor and power for all eternity. Amen.
|
|-
|17
|Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;
|
|Instrut the rich people not to be arrogant and believe in wealth only, wich is uncertain, but rather believe in the living God, who provides us richly in everything.
|-
|18
|That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;
|Instruct them to do good deeds and become rich in them, and be generous and to contribute,
|
|-
|19
|Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.
|building up a good fondation for the time to come, that they may gain eternal life.
|
|-
|20
|O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
|Timothy, pay real care to what I entrust you, avoid the vain atheist babblings, and the oppositions of pseudo-science,
|'pseudo-science', a conservative word, is here very suitable
|-
|21
|Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
|that some, proclaiming them, have departed to the faith. May the Grace be with you. Amen.
|
|}

[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

First Epistle to Timothy (Translated)

2009-12-16T16:10:10Z

TSpencer: /* Chapter 5 */

{{ConservativeBible}}
==Chapter 1==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;
|Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ our hope, by the commandment of God our Saviour.
|I am trying to get rid of the repetition here
|-
|2
|Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
|To Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
|
|-
|3
|As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
|I told you to stay in Ephesus and instruct people when I went in Macedonia, and I urge you to continue doing so. They should not teach a different doctrine,
|
|-
|4
|Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
|nor focus on myths and endless genealogies, as these engender pointless speculation rather than the divine growth which is in Faith.
|the 'pointless speculations on myths' have echoes in current issues: global warming, evolution,...
|-
|5
|Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:
|The purpose of the commandment is charity from a pure heart, a good conscience, and true Faith.
|
|-
|6
|From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
|Some have strayed from it and started blabbering meaninglessly.
|
|-
|7
|Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
|They want to be teachers of the Law, but they have no understanding of what they say or the point they try to make.
|
|-
|8
|But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
|We know the Law is good when used lawfully,
|
|-
|9
|Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
|and that it does not concern the righteous man: it is made against the lawless and insubordinate, against the atheists and the sinners, against the evil and profane, against the patricides and the matricides, against killers,
|ungodly translates nicely into 'atheist', but it may be too harsh. Unholy is a mistranslation better expressed by 'evil'
|-
|10
|For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
|against pimps, against those who engage in homosexual relations, against kidnappers and slave-traders, against liars, against perjurers, and against everything that is contrary to the sound doctrine
|'pimp' may be too much but fits within contemporary society
|-
|11
|According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
|described by the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was entrusted to me.
|
|-
|12
|And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;
|I give thanks to Jesus Christ our Lord, who gave me strength by recognizing my faith and appointing me to His service.
|endunamOsanti translates as 'invigorating', literally 'giving strength'
|-
|13
|Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
|I was before a blasphemer, a persecutor, and arrogant, but I was given Mercy because I did it out of ignorance and unbelief,
|'hubris' is arrogance.
|-
|14
|And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
|and the Grace of our Lord overwhelmed me with the faith and love of Jesus Christ.
|'huperepleonasen' is 'overwhelming'
|-
|15
|This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|It is an undeniable truth worthy of universal acceptation that Jesus Christ came into the universe to save sinners- and I am the worst of them.
|'kosmos' refers not only to the Earth, but to the whole universe.
|-
|16
|Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.
|It is for this very reason that I received Mercy, as an example of the infinite patience of Jesus-Christ for those who will come to believe in him.
|'makrothumian' is patience
|-
|17
|Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
|To the King eternal, incorruptible, invisible, wise, the unique God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
|'aphthartO' is incorruptible, which has connotation lacking in 'immortal'. 'the only wise God' does not reflect the Greek construction and wrongfully gives the impression that there may be more than one God.
|-
|18
|This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest wage a good warfare;
|This is your duty, son Timothy, as foretold in the prophecies concerning you, that you have to follow to wage an ideal war.
|the 'war' is conspicuously absent from the NKJV
|-
|19
|Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:
|You have to keep your faith and a good conscience. Some lost faith and that ended in disaster,
|
|-
|20
|Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.
|for example Hymaneaus and Alexander, that I gave up to Satan as a punishment for their blasphemy.
|'paideuthOsin' is 'to be disciplined' and is in essence a punishment.
|}

==Chapter 2==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
|I urge then that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all men.
|
|-
|2
|For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
|This includes kings and everyone in superior positions, so that we may live peacefully in godliness and honesty.
|
|-
|3
|For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
|Our God and Saviour is pleased by this,
|
|-
|4
|Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
|who wants all men to be saved and realize the truth.
|The Greek text does not imply that everybody will be saved, only that God wishes so.
|-
|5
|For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
|For there is only one God, and only one mediator between God and men, Jesus Christ,
|
|-
|6
|Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
|who gave himself as a ransom for all, as the testimony will be given in its proper time.
|
|-
|7
|Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
|For this reason I was appointed a preacher and an apostle, a teacher of the true faith for the Gentiles. I speak the truth in Christ.
|There is no need to add 'I lie not'.
|-
|8
|I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
|I want men to lift holy hands in prayer everywhere, without suffering from censorship.
|The original text shows that the people praying should be free from indignation (whether feigned or sincere) and debate, which are covered both by 'censorship'.
|-
|9
|In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
|I also want women to wear modest clothes, with decency and propriety. They should not dress themselves with braided hair, jewelery or expensive outfits,
|gold and pearls were a substitute for 'jewelery'
|-
|10
|But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
|but with their good works, which become women professing godliness.
|
|-
|11
|Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
|A woman should learn in silence and in full submission.
|
|-
|12
|But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
|I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man: she must be silent.
|
|-
|13
|For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
|This is because Adam was created first, and then Eve.
|
|-
|14
|And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
|Adam was not deceived, but the woman was. She is thus responsible for the transgression.
|
|-
|15
|Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
|A woman may nevertheless be saved through childbearing, provided she keeps her faith, charity, holiness, together with propriety.
|}

==Chapter 3==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
|It is true that if a man desires to be a supervisor, he desires a noble task.
|episkopEs traditionally refers to 'bishop', but really applies to any supervising work. Maybe 'administrator' could be used.
|-
|2
|A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
|As such, a supervisor must be blameless, married, sober, self-controlled, hospitable, patient, and a good teacher,
|
|-
|3
|Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
|and certainly not someone who drinks wine, or loves money, or seeks fights, or covets.
|
|-
|4
|One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
|He has to manage properly his own household, and have respectful and obeying children,
|
|-
|5
|(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
|as a man unable to rule his own house would not know how to take care of the chuch of God.
|
|-
|6
|Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
|
|He should not be a novice, lest he become conceited and be condemned as Satan was.
|-
|7
|Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
|He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, lest he should fall into reproach and Satan's trap.
|
|-
|8
|Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
|Servants must likewise be grave, consistent, not addicted to wine, not pursuing dishonest gain.
|
|-
|9
|Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
|They must keep the deep truths of the faith with a pure conscience.
|
|-
|10
|And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
|They must be tested and found blameless before being authorized to serve.
|
|-
|11
|Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
|In the same way, their wives should be grave, sober, and trustworthy, and not evil.
|the term 'diabolos' is used, usually referring to Satan
|-
|12
|Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
|The servants can marry a woman, and should ideally rule over their children and their house.
|
|-
|13
|For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
|Those who have served well should earn an improvement in standing, and gain much assurance in their faith in Jesus Christ.
|
|-
|14
|These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:
|I hope to come see you soon, but I write to you
|
|-
|15
|But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
|so that, should I be delayed, you know how one ought to behave in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of all truth.
|
|-
|16
|And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
|No-one denies the mystery of godliness is great: God appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, witnessed by messengers, preached to all nations, was believed on in the whole universe, and glorified.
|
|}

==Chapter 4==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
|The Spirit explicitly states that, in times to come, some will lose faith and pay attention to deceiving spirits and the doctrines of demons.
|
|-
|2
|Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
|They will tell lies with hypocrisy, and have closed minds.
|the original text is exactly in the sense of a closed mind.
|-
|3
|Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
|They will forbid to marry and eat certain food, that God created to be received with thanksgivings by believers who know the truth.
|the abstinence from food reminds one of certain muslim beliefs
|-
|4
|For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
|Everything God created is good, and nothing should be refused as long as it is received with thanksgiving,
|
|-
|5
|For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
|for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
|
|-
|6
|If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.
|If you inform the brothers of these things, you will be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up by the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you follow.
|
|-
|7
|But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.
|Steer clear of atheist and superstitious myths and train yourself in godliness.
|Once again 'godlessness', that is nicely translated in 'atheist'
|-
|8
|For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.
|Indeed, physical training has a few beneficial aspects, but godliness benefits all, holding promise for both this life and the one to come.
|
|-
|9
|This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation.
|This is an undeniable truth
|
|-
|10
|For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
|for which we labor and suffer reproach, because we rely on the living God, Saviour of all believing men.
|The 'specially those that believe' feels awkward, and it is explicitly said that only the believers will be saved.
|-
|11
|These things command and teach.
|Command and teach this.
|
|-
|12
|Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.
|Do not let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example to the believers in speech, in behavior, in charity, in spirit, in faith, and in purity.
|
|-
|13
|Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.
|Until I come, devote yourself to the reading of the Scripture, to public preaching and teaching.
|
|-
|14
|Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.
|Do not neglect the grace that was given to you according to the prophecy, when the elders laid their hands on you.
|
|-
|15
|Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.
|Meditate upon these matters and give yourself wholly to them, and everyone will see your progress.
|
|-
|16
|Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.
|Pay attention to your life and the doctrine, continue in them, and you will save both yourself and those who listen to you.
|
|}

==Chapter 5==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;
|Do not rebuke an elder, but treat him as a father, and the younger men as your brothers,
|
|-
|2
|The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.
|the older and younger women, as mothers and sisters respectfully, with all purity.
|
|-
|3
|Honour widows that are widows indeed.
|Take care of real widows,
|
|-
|4
|But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God.
|but if any widow have children or descendants, they should be the ones to show piety in their own home, for this is good and desirable for God.
|
|-
|5
|Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day.
|A real widow, all alone, puts her trust in God and prays day and nights,
|
|-
|6
|But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.
|but one living for pleasure is dead even as she lives.
|
|-
|7
|And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless.
|Instruct people of this, so that they may be blameless.
|
|-
|8
|But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
|Anyone who does not provide for his own family, especially those residing under his roof, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
|
|-
|9
|Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,
|Do not consider a woman a window unless she is over sixty years old, has been married to one man only,
|
|-
|10
|Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.
|has a good reputation, such as raising children, housing strangers, washing the saint's feet, relieving the afflicted, devoting herself to good deeds.
|
|-
|11
|But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;
|Do not care for younger windows, because once their devotion to Christ diminishes, they want to marry,
|
|-
|12
|Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.
|and for this are damned as they recant their first faith.
|
|-
|13
|And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
|Meanwhile, they become idle, and propagate gossip as they wander from house to house.
|
|-
|14
|I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
|Thus, I want younger women to marry, bear children and manage their households, giving no occasion for Satan to spread slander.
|-
|15
|For some are already turned aside after Satan.
|In truth, some are already lost to Satan.
|
|-
|16
|If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.
|If a believer has a window in his family, he should take care of her, so that the church may tend for the widows that most need help.
|
|-
|17
|Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
|The elders that rule well should be doubly honored, especially those who preach and teach.
|
|-
|18
|For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
|For the Scripture says: « Do not muzzle the ox that treads out the corn », and « The worthy worker deserves his wage »
|
|-
|19
|Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.
|Never accuse an elder unless two or more witnesses testify.
|
|-
|20
|Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
|The elders that sin should be rebuked publicly, as an example for others.
|
|-
|21
|I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.
|I instruct you before God, and Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, to carry out these rules without favoring one of them.
|
|-
|22
|Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure.
|Do not be lay hands suddenly on a man, do not share other men's sins: keep yourself pure.
|
|-
|23
|Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.
|Stop drinking only water, and consume a little wine to treat your stomach and your illnesses.
|
|-
|24
|Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after.
|The sins of some men are apparent to all, preceding them to judgment, while for others they only follow them.
|
|-
|25
|Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid.
|In the same way, the good deeds of some people are obvious immediately, but even the ones that are not can not be hidden.
|
|}

==Chapter 6==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
|
|
|-
|2
|And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.
|
|
|-
|3
|If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
|
|
|-
|4
|He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
|
|
|-
|5
|Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
|
|
|-
|6
|But godliness with contentment is great gain.
|
|
|-
|7
|For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.
|
|
|-
|8
|And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.
|
|
|-
|9
|But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
|
|
|-
|10
|For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
|
|
|-
|11
|But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.
|
|
|-
|12
|Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.
|
|
|-
|13
|I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;
|
|
|-
|14
|That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
|
|
|-
|15
|Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
|
|
|-
|16
|Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.
|
|
|-
|17
|Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;
|
|
|-
|18
|That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;
|
|
|-
|19
|Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.
|
|
|-
|20
|O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
|
|
|-
|21
|Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
|
|
|}

[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

First Epistle to Timothy (Translated)

2009-12-16T14:47:10Z

TSpencer: Undo revision 733304 by CharlieT (Talk)

{{ConservativeBible}}
==Chapter 1==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;
|Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ our hope, by the commandment of God our Saviour.
|I am trying to get rid of the repetition here
|-
|2
|Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
|To Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
|
|-
|3
|As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
|I told you to stay in Ephesus and instruct people when I went in Macedonia, and I urge you to continue doing so. They should not teach a different doctrine,
|
|-
|4
|Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
|nor focus on myths and endless genealogies, as these engender pointless speculation rather than the divine growth which is in Faith.
|the 'pointless speculations on myths' have echoes in current issues: global warming, evolution,...
|-
|5
|Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:
|The purpose of the commandment is charity from a pure heart, a good conscience, and true Faith.
|
|-
|6
|From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
|Some have strayed from it and started blabbering meaninglessly.
|
|-
|7
|Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
|They want to be teachers of the Law, but they have no understanding of what they say or the point they try to make.
|
|-
|8
|But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
|We know the Law is good when used lawfully,
|
|-
|9
|Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
|and that it does not concern the righteous man: it is made against the lawless and insubordinate, against the atheists and the sinners, against the evil and profane, against the patricides and the matricides, against killers,
|ungodly translates nicely into 'atheist', but it may be too harsh. Unholy is a mistranslation better expressed by 'evil'
|-
|10
|For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
|against pimps, against those who engage in homosexual relations, against kidnappers and slave-traders, against liars, against perjurers, and against everything that is contrary to the sound doctrine
|'pimp' may be too much but fits within contemporary society
|-
|11
|According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
|described by the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was entrusted to me.
|
|-
|12
|And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;
|I give thanks to Jesus Christ our Lord, who gave me strength by recognizing my faith and appointing me to His service.
|endunamOsanti translates as 'invigorating', literally 'giving strength'
|-
|13
|Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
|I was before a blasphemer, a persecutor, and arrogant, but I was given Mercy because I did it out of ignorance and unbelief,
|'hubris' is arrogance.
|-
|14
|And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
|and the Grace of our Lord overwhelmed me with the faith and love of Jesus Christ.
|'huperepleonasen' is 'overwhelming'
|-
|15
|This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|It is an undeniable truth worthy of universal acceptation that Jesus Christ came into the universe to save sinners- and I am the worst of them.
|'kosmos' refers not only to the Earth, but to the whole universe.
|-
|16
|Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.
|It is for this very reason that I received Mercy, as an example of the infinite patience of Jesus-Christ for those who will come to believe in him.
|'makrothumian' is patience
|-
|17
|Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
|To the King eternal, incorruptible, invisible, wise, the unique God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
|'aphthartO' is incorruptible, which has connotation lacking in 'immortal'. 'the only wise God' does not reflect the Greek construction and wrongfully gives the impression that there may be more than one God.
|-
|18
|This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest wage a good warfare;
|This is your duty, son Timothy, as foretold in the prophecies concerning you, that you have to follow to wage an ideal war.
|the 'war' is conspicuously absent from the NKJV
|-
|19
|Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:
|You have to keep your faith and a good conscience. Some lost faith and that ended in disaster,
|
|-
|20
|Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.
|for example Hymaneaus and Alexander, that I gave up to Satan as a punishment for their blasphemy.
|'paideuthOsin' is 'to be disciplined' and is in essence a punishment.
|}

==Chapter 2==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
|I urge then that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all men.
|
|-
|2
|For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
|This includes kings and everyone in superior positions, so that we may live peacefully in godliness and honesty.
|
|-
|3
|For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
|Our God and Saviour is pleased by this,
|
|-
|4
|Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
|who wants all men to be saved and realize the truth.
|The Greek text does not imply that everybody will be saved, only that God wishes so.
|-
|5
|For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
|For there is only one God, and only one mediator between God and men, Jesus Christ,
|
|-
|6
|Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
|who gave himself as a ransom for all, as the testimony will be given in its proper time.
|
|-
|7
|Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
|For this reason I was appointed a preacher and an apostle, a teacher of the true faith for the Gentiles. I speak the truth in Christ.
|There is no need to add 'I lie not'.
|-
|8
|I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
|I want men to lift holy hands in prayer everywhere, without suffering from censorship.
|The original text shows that the people praying should be free from indignation (whether feigned or sincere) and debate, which are covered both by 'censorship'.
|-
|9
|In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
|I also want women to wear modest clothes, with decency and propriety. They should not dress themselves with braided hair, jewelery or expensive outfits,
|gold and pearls were a substitute for 'jewelery'
|-
|10
|But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
|but with their good works, which become women professing godliness.
|
|-
|11
|Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
|A woman should learn in silence and in full submission.
|
|-
|12
|But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
|I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man: she must be silent.
|
|-
|13
|For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
|This is because Adam was created first, and then Eve.
|
|-
|14
|And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
|Adam was not deceived, but the woman was. She is thus responsible for the transgression.
|
|-
|15
|Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
|A woman may nevertheless be saved through childbearing, provided she keeps her faith, charity, holiness, together with propriety.
|}

==Chapter 3==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
|It is true that if a man desires to be a supervisor, he desires a noble task.
|episkopEs traditionally refers to 'bishop', but really applies to any supervising work. Maybe 'administrator' could be used.
|-
|2
|A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
|As such, a supervisor must be blameless, married, sober, self-controlled, hospitable, patient, and a good teacher,
|
|-
|3
|Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
|and certainly not someone who drinks wine, or loves money, or seeks fights, or covets.
|
|-
|4
|One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
|He has to manage properly his own household, and have respectful and obeying children,
|
|-
|5
|(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
|as a man unable to rule his own house would not know how to take care of the chuch of God.
|
|-
|6
|Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
|
|He should not be a novice, lest he become conceited and be condemned as Satan was.
|-
|7
|Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
|He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, lest he should fall into reproach and Satan's trap.
|
|-
|8
|Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
|Servants must likewise be grave, consistent, not addicted to wine, not pursuing dishonest gain.
|
|-
|9
|Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
|They must keep the deep truths of the faith with a pure conscience.
|
|-
|10
|And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
|They must be tested and found blameless before being authorized to serve.
|
|-
|11
|Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
|In the same way, their wives should be grave, sober, and trustworthy, and not evil.
|the term 'diabolos' is used, usually referring to Satan
|-
|12
|Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
|The servants can marry a woman, and should ideally rule over their children and their house.
|
|-
|13
|For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
|Those who have served well should earn an improvement in standing, and gain much assurance in their faith in Jesus Christ.
|
|-
|14
|These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:
|I hope to come see you soon, but I write to you
|
|-
|15
|But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
|so that, should I be delayed, you know how one ought to behave in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of all truth.
|
|-
|16
|And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
|No-one denies the mystery of godliness is great: God appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, witnessed by messengers, preached to all nations, was believed on in the whole universe, and glorified.
|
|}

==Chapter 4==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
|The Spirit explicitly states that, in times to come, some will lose faith and pay attention to deceiving spirits and the doctrines of demons.
|
|-
|2
|Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
|They will tell lies with hypocrisy, and have closed minds.
|the original text is exactly in the sense of a closed mind.
|-
|3
|Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
|They will forbid to marry and eat certain food, that God created to be received with thanksgivings by believers who know the truth.
|the abstinence from food reminds one of certain muslim beliefs
|-
|4
|For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
|Everything God created is good, and nothing should be refused as long as it is received with thanksgiving,
|
|-
|5
|For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
|for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
|
|-
|6
|If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.
|If you inform the brothers of these things, you will be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up by the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you follow.
|
|-
|7
|But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.
|Steer clear of atheist and superstitious myths and train yourself in godliness.
|Once again 'godlessness', that is nicely translated in 'atheist'
|-
|8
|For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.
|Indeed, physical training has a few beneficial aspects, but godliness benefits all, holding promise for both this life and the one to come.
|
|-
|9
|This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation.
|This is an undeniable truth
|
|-
|10
|For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
|for which we labor and suffer reproach, because we rely on the living God, Saviour of all believing men.
|The 'specially those that believe' feels awkward, and it is explicitly said that only the believers will be saved.
|-
|11
|These things command and teach.
|Command and teach this.
|
|-
|12
|Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.
|Do not let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example to the believers in speech, in behavior, in charity, in spirit, in faith, and in purity.
|
|-
|13
|Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.
|Until I come, devote yourself to the reading of the Scripture, to public preaching and teaching.
|
|-
|14
|Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.
|Do not neglect the grace that was given to you according to the prophecy, when the elders laid their hands on you.
|
|-
|15
|Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.
|Meditate upon these matters and give yourself wholly to them, and everyone will see your progress.
|
|-
|16
|Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.
|Pay attention to your life and the doctrine, continue in them, and you will save both yourself and those who listen to you.
|
|}

==Chapter 5==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;
|
|
|-
|2
|The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.
|
|
|-
|3
|Honour widows that are widows indeed.
|
|
|-
|4
|But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God.
|
|
|-
|5
|Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day.
|
|
|-
|6
|But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.
|
|
|-
|7
|And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless.
|
|
|-
|8
|But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
|
|
|-
|9
|Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,
|
|
|-
|10
|Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.
|
|
|-
|11
|But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;
|
|
|-
|12
|Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.
|
|
|-
|13
|And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
|
|
|-
|14
|I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
|
|
|-
|15
|For some are already turned aside after Satan.
|
|
|-
|16
|If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.
|
|
|-
|17
|Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
|
|
|-
|18
|For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
|
|
|-
|19
|Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.
|
|
|-
|20
|Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
|
|
|-
|21
|I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.
|
|
|-
|22
|Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure.
|
|
|-
|23
|Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.
|
|
|-
|24
|Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after.
|
|
|-
|25
|Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid.
|
|
|}

==Chapter 6==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
|
|
|-
|2
|And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.
|
|
|-
|3
|If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
|
|
|-
|4
|He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
|
|
|-
|5
|Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
|
|
|-
|6
|But godliness with contentment is great gain.
|
|
|-
|7
|For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.
|
|
|-
|8
|And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.
|
|
|-
|9
|But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
|
|
|-
|10
|For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
|
|
|-
|11
|But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.
|
|
|-
|12
|Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.
|
|
|-
|13
|I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;
|
|
|-
|14
|That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
|
|
|-
|15
|Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
|
|
|-
|16
|Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.
|
|
|-
|17
|Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;
|
|
|-
|18
|That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;
|
|
|-
|19
|Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.
|
|
|-
|20
|O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
|
|
|-
|21
|Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
|
|
|}

[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

First Epistle to Timothy (Translated)

2009-12-16T14:46:52Z

TSpencer: Undo revision 733305 by CharlieT (Talk)

{{ConservativeBible}}
==Chapter 1==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;
|Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ our hope, by the commandment of God our Saviour.
|I am trying to get rid of the repetition here
|-
|2
|Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
|To Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
|
|-
|3
|As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
|I told you to stay in Ephesus and instruct people when I went in Macedonia, and I urge you to continue doing so. They should not teach a different doctrine,
|
|-
|4
|Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
|nor focus on myths and endless genealogies, as these engender pointless speculation rather than the divine growth which is in Faith.
|the 'pointless speculations on myths' have echoes in current issues: global warming, evolution,...
|-
|5
|Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:
|The purpose of the commandment is charity from a pure heart, a good conscience, and true Faith.
|
|-
|6
|From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
|Some have strayed from it and started blabbering meaninglessly.
|
|-
|7
|Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
|They want to be teachers of the Law, but they have no understanding of what they say or the point they try to make.
|
|-
|8
|But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
|We know the Law is good when used lawfully,
|
|-
|9
|Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
|and that it does not concern the righteous man: it is made against the lawless and insubordinate, against the atheists and the sinners, against the evil and profane, against the patricides and the matricides, against killers,
|ungodly translates nicely into 'atheist', but it may be too harsh. Unholy is a mistranslation better expressed by 'evil'
|-
|10
|For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
|against pimps, against those who engage in homosexual relations, against kidnappers and slave-traders, against liars, against perjurers, and against everything that is contrary to the sound doctrine
|'pimp' may be too much but fits within contemporary society
|-
|11
|According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
|described by the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was entrusted to me.
|
|-
|12
|And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;
|I give thanks to Jesus Christ our Lord, who gave me strength by recognizing my faith and appointing me to His service.
|endunamOsanti translates as 'invigorating', literally 'giving strength'
|-
|13
|Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
|I was before a blasphemer, a persecutor, and arrogant, but I was given Mercy because I did it out of ignorance and unbelief,
|'hubris' is arrogance.
|-
|14
|And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
|and the Grace of our Lord overwhelmed me with the faith and love of Jesus Christ.
|'huperepleonasen' is 'overwhelming'
|-
|15
|This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|It is an undeniable truth worthy of universal acceptation that Jesus Christ came into the universe to save sinners- and I am the worst of them.
|'kosmos' refers not only to the Earth, but to the whole universe.
|-
|16
|Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.
|It is for this very reason that I received Mercy, as an example of the infinite patience of Jesus-Christ for those who will come to believe in him.
|'makrothumian' is patience
|-
|17
|Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
|To the King eternal, incorruptible, invisible, wise, the unique God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
|'aphthartO' is incorruptible, which has connotation lacking in 'immortal'. 'the only wise God' does not reflect the Greek construction and wrongfully gives the impression that there may be more than one God.
|-
|18
|This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest wage a good warfare;
|This is your duty, son Timothy, as foretold in the prophecies concerning you, that you have to follow to wage an ideal war.
|the 'war' is conspicuously absent from the NKJV
|-
|19
|Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:
|You have to keep your faith and a good conscience. Some lost faith and that ended in disaster,
|
|-
|20
|Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.
|for example Hymaneaus and Alexander, that I gave up to Satan as a punishment for their blasphemy.
|'paideuthOsin' is 'to be disciplined' and is in essence a punishment.
|}

==Chapter 2==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
|I urge then that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all men.
|
|-
|2
|For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
|This includes kings and everyone in superior positions, so that we may live peacefully in godliness and honesty.
|
|-
|3
|For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
|Our God and Saviour is pleased by this,
|
|-
|4
|Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
|who wants all men to be saved and realize the truth.
|The Greek text does not imply that everybody will be saved, only that God wishes so.
|-
|5
|For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
|For there is only one God, and only one mediator between God and men, Jesus Christ,
|
|-
|6
|Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
|who gave himself as a ransom for all, as the testimony will be given in its proper time.
|
|-
|7
|Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
|For this reason I was appointed a preacher and an apostle, a teacher of the true faith for the Gentiles. I speak the truth in Christ.
|There is no need to add 'I lie not'.
|-
|8
|I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
|I want men to lift holy hands in prayer everywhere, without suffering from censorship.
|The original text shows that the people praying should be free from indignation (whether feigned or sincere) and debate, which are covered both by 'censorship'.
|-
|9
|In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
|I also want women to wear modest clothes, with decency and propriety. They should not dress themselves with braided hair, jewelery or expensive outfits,
|gold and pearls were a substitute for 'jewelery'
|-
|10
|But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
|but with their good works, which become women professing godliness.
|
|-
|11
|Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
|A woman should learn in silence and in full submission.
|
|-
|12
|But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
|I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man: she must be silent.
|
|-
|13
|For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
|This is because Adam was created first, and then Eve.
|
|-
|14
|And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
|Adam was not deceived, but the woman was. She is thus responsible for the transgression.
|
|-
|15
|Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
|A woman may nevertheless be saved through childbearing, provided she keeps her faith, charity, holiness, together with propriety.
|}

==Chapter 3==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
|It is true that if a man desires to be a supervisor, he desires a noble task.
|episkopEs traditionaly refers to 'bishop', but really applies to any supervising work. Maybe 'administrator' could be used.
|-
|2
|A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
|As such, a supervisor must be blameless, married, sober, self-controlled, hospitable, patient, and a good teacher,
|
|-
|3
|Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
|and certainly not someone who drinks wine, or loves money, or seeks fights, or covets.
|
|-
|4
|One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
|He has to manage properly his own household, and have respectful and obeying children,
|
|-
|5
|(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
|as a man unable to rule his own house would not know how to take care of the chuch of God.
|
|-
|6
|Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
|
|He should not be a novice, lest he become conceited and be condemned as Satan was.
|-
|7
|Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
|He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, lest he should fall into reproach and Satan's trap.
|
|-
|8
|Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
|Servants must likewise be grave, consistent, not addicted to wine, not pursuing dishonest gain.
|
|-
|9
|Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
|They must keep the deep truths of the faith with a pure conscience.
|
|-
|10
|And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
|They must be tested and found blameless before being authorized to serve.
|
|-
|11
|Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
|In the same way, their wives should be grave, sober, and trustworthy, and not evil.
|the term 'diabolos' is used, usually referring to satan
|-
|12
|Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
|The servants can marry a woman, and should ideally rule over their children and their house.
|
|-
|13
|For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
|Those who have served well should earn an improvement in standing, and gain much assurance in their faith in Jesus Christ.
|
|-
|14
|These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:
|I hope to come see you soon, but I write to you
|
|-
|15
|But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
|so that, should I be delayed, you know how one ought to behave in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of all truth.
|
|-
|16
|And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
|No-one denies the mystery of godliness is great: God appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, witnessed by messengers, preached to all nations, was believed on in the whole universe, and glorified.
|
|}

==Chapter 4==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
|The Spirit explicitly states that, in times to come, some will lose faith and pay attention to deceiving spirits and the doctrines of demons.
|
|-
|2
|Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
|They will tell lies with hypocrisy, and have closed minds.
|the original text is exactly in the sense of a closed mind.
|-
|3
|Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
|They will forbid to marry and eat certain food, that God created to be received with thanksgivings by believers who know the truth.
|the abstinence from food reminds one of certain muslim beliefs
|-
|4
|For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
|Everything God created is good, and nothing should be refused as long as it is received with thanksgiving,
|
|-
|5
|For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
|for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
|
|-
|6
|If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.
|If you inform the brothers of these things, you will be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up by the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you follow.
|
|-
|7
|But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.
|Steer clear of atheist and superstitious myths and train yourself in godliness.
|Once again 'godlessness', that is nicely translated in 'atheist'
|-
|8
|For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.
|Indeed, physical training has a few beneficial aspects, but godliness benefits all, holding promise for both this life and the one to come.
|
|-
|9
|This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation.
|This is an undeniable truth
|
|-
|10
|For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
|for which we labor and suffer reproach, because we rely on the living God, Saviour of all believing men.
|The 'specially those that believe' feels awkward, and it is explicitly said that only the believers will be saved.
|-
|11
|These things command and teach.
|Command and teach this.
|
|-
|12
|Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.
|Do not let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example to the believers in speech, in behavior, in charity, in spirit, in faith, and in purity.
|
|-
|13
|Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.
|Until I come, devote yourself to the reading of the Scripture, to public preaching and teaching.
|
|-
|14
|Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.
|Do not neglect the grace that was given to you according to the prophecy, when the elders laid their hands on you.
|
|-
|15
|Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.
|Meditate upon these matters and give yourself wholly to them, and everyone will see your progress.
|
|-
|16
|Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.
|Pay attention to your life and the doctrine, continue in them, and you will save both yourself and those who listen to you.
|
|}

==Chapter 5==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;
|
|
|-
|2
|The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.
|
|
|-
|3
|Honour widows that are widows indeed.
|
|
|-
|4
|But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God.
|
|
|-
|5
|Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day.
|
|
|-
|6
|But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.
|
|
|-
|7
|And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless.
|
|
|-
|8
|But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
|
|
|-
|9
|Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,
|
|
|-
|10
|Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.
|
|
|-
|11
|But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;
|
|
|-
|12
|Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.
|
|
|-
|13
|And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
|
|
|-
|14
|I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
|
|
|-
|15
|For some are already turned aside after Satan.
|
|
|-
|16
|If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.
|
|
|-
|17
|Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
|
|
|-
|18
|For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
|
|
|-
|19
|Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.
|
|
|-
|20
|Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
|
|
|-
|21
|I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.
|
|
|-
|22
|Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure.
|
|
|-
|23
|Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.
|
|
|-
|24
|Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after.
|
|
|-
|25
|Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid.
|
|
|}

==Chapter 6==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
|
|
|-
|2
|And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.
|
|
|-
|3
|If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
|
|
|-
|4
|He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
|
|
|-
|5
|Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
|
|
|-
|6
|But godliness with contentment is great gain.
|
|
|-
|7
|For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.
|
|
|-
|8
|And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.
|
|
|-
|9
|But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
|
|
|-
|10
|For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
|
|
|-
|11
|But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.
|
|
|-
|12
|Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.
|
|
|-
|13
|I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;
|
|
|-
|14
|That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
|
|
|-
|15
|Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
|
|
|-
|16
|Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.
|
|
|-
|17
|Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;
|
|
|-
|18
|That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;
|
|
|-
|19
|Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.
|
|
|-
|20
|O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
|
|
|-
|21
|Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
|
|
|}

[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

First Epistle to Timothy (Translated)

2009-12-16T14:45:48Z

TSpencer: Undo revision 733306 by CharlieT (Talk)

{{ConservativeBible}}
==Chapter 1==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;
|Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ our hope, by the commandment of God our Saviour.
|I am trying to get rid of the repetition here
|-
|2
|Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
|To Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
|
|-
|3
|As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
|I told you to stay in Ephesus and instruct people when I went in Macedonia, and I urge you to continue doing so. They should not teach a different doctrine,
|
|-
|4
|Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
|nor focus on myths and endless genealogies, as these engender pointless speculation rather than the divine growth which is in Faith.
|the 'pointless speculations on myths' have echoes in current issues: global warming, evolution,...
|-
|5
|Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:
|The purpose of the commandment is charity from a pure heart, a good conscience, and true Faith.
|
|-
|6
|From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
|Some have strayed from it and started blabbering meaninglessly.
|
|-
|7
|Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
|They want to be teachers of the Law, but they have no understanding of what they say or the point they try to make.
|
|-
|8
|But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
|We know the Law is good when used lawfully,
|
|-
|9
|Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
|and that it does not concern the righteous man: it is made against the lawless and insubordinate, against the atheists and the sinners, against the evil and profane, against the patricides and the matricides, against killers,
|ungodly translates nicely into 'atheist', but it may be too harsh. Unholy is a mistranslation better expressed by 'evil'
|-
|10
|For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
|against pimps, against those who engage in homosexual relations, against kidnappers and slave-traders, against liars, against perjurers, and against everything that is contrary to the sound doctrine
|'pimp' may be too much but fits within contemporary society
|-
|11
|According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
|described by the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was entrusted to me.
|
|-
|12
|And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;
|I give thanks to Jesus Christ our Lord, who gave me strength by recognizing my faith and appointing me to His service.
|endunamOsanti translates as 'invigorating', literally 'giving strength'
|-
|13
|Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
|I was before a blasphemer, a persecutor, and arrogant, but I was given Mercy because I did it out of ignorance and unbelief,
|'hubris' is arrogance.
|-
|14
|And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
|and the Grace of our Lord overwhelmed me with the faith and love of Jesus Christ.
|'huperepleonasen' is 'overwhelming'
|-
|15
|This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|It is an undeniable truth worthy of universal acceptation that Jesus Christ came into the universe to save sinners- and I am the worst of them.
|'kosmos' refers not only to the Earth, but to the whole universe.
|-
|16
|Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.
|It is for this very reason that I received Mercy, as an example of the infinite patience of Jesus-Christ for those who will come to believe in him.
|'makrothumian' is patience
|-
|17
|Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
|To the King eternal, incorruptible, invisible, wise, the unique God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
|'aphthartO' is incorruptible, which has connotation lacking in 'immortal'. 'the only wise God' does not reflect the Greek construction and wrongfully gives the impression that there may be more than one God.
|-
|18
|This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest wage a good warfare;
|This is your duty, son Timothy, as foretold in the prophecies concerning you, that you have to follow to wage an ideal war.
|the 'war' is conspicuously absent from the NKJV
|-
|19
|Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:
|You have to keep your faith and a good conscience. Some lost faith and that ended in disaster,
|
|-
|20
|Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.
|for example Hymaneaus and Alexander, that I gave up to Satan as a punishment for their blasphemy.
|'paideuthOsin' is 'to be disciplined' and is in essence a punishment.
|}

==Chapter 2==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
|I urge then that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all men.
|
|-
|2
|For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
|This includes kings and everyone in superior positions, so that we may live peacefully in godliness and honesty.
|
|-
|3
|For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
|Our God and Saviour is pleased by this,
|
|-
|4
|Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
|who wants all men to be saved and realize the truth.
|The Greek text does not imply that everybody will be saved, only that God wishes so.
|-
|5
|For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
|For there is only one God, and only one mediator between God and men, Jesus Christ,
|
|-
|6
|Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
|who gave himself as a ransom for all, as the testimony will be given in its proper time.
|
|-
|7
|Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
|For this reason I was appointed a preacher and an apostle, a teacher of the true faith for the Gentiles. I speak the truth in Christ.
|There is no need to add 'I lie not'.
|-
|8
|I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
|I want men to lift holy hands in prayer everywhere, without suffering from censorship.
|The original text shows that the people praying should be free from indignation (whether feigned or sincere) and debate, which are covered both by 'censorship'.
|-
|9
|In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
|I also want women to wear modest clothes, with decency and propriety. They should not dress themselves with braided hair, jewelery or expensive outfits,
|gold and pearls were a substitute for 'jewelery'
|-
|10
|But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
|but with their good works, which become women professing godliness.
|
|-
|11
|Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
|A woman should learn in silence and in full submission.
|
|-
|12
|But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
|I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man: she must be silent.
|
|-
|13
|For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
|This is because Adam was created first, and then Eve.
|
|-
|14
|And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
|Adam was not deceived, but the woman was. She is thus responsible for the transgression.
|
|-
|15
|Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
|A woman may nevertheless be saved through childbearing, provided she keeps her faith, charity, holiness, together with propriety.
|}

==Chapter 3==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
|It is true that if a man desires to be a supervisor, he desires a noble task.
|episkopEs traditionaly refers to 'bishop', but really applies to any supervising work. Maybe 'administrator' could be used.
|-
|2
|A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
|As such, a supervisor must be blameless, married, sober, self-controlled, hospitable, patient, and a good teacher,
|
|-
|3
|Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
|and certainly not someone who drinks wine, or loves money, or seeks fights, or covets.
|
|-
|4
|One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
|He has to manage properly his own household, and have respectful and obeying children,
|
|-
|5
|(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
|as a man unable to rule his own house would not know how to take care of the chuch of God.
|
|-
|6
|Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
|
|He should not be a novice, lest he become conceited and be condemned as Satan was.
|-
|7
|Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
|He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, lest he should fall into reproach and Satan's trap.
|
|-
|8
|Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
|Servants must likewise be grave, consistent, not addicted to wine, not pursuing dishonest gain.
|
|-
|9
|Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
|They must keep the deep truths of the faith with a pure conscience.
|
|-
|10
|And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
|They must be tested and found blameless before being authorized to serve.
|
|-
|11
|Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
|In the same way, their wives should be grave, sober, and trustworthy, and not evil.
|the term 'diabolos' is used, usually referring to satan
|-
|12
|Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
|The servants can marry a woman, and should ideally rule over their children and their house.
|
|-
|13
|For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
|Those who have served well should earn an improvement in standing, and gain much assurance in their faith in Jesus Christ.
|
|-
|14
|These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:
|I hope to come see you soon, but I write to you
|
|-
|15
|But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
|so that, should I be delayed, you know how one ought to behave in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of all truth.
|
|-
|16
|And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
|No-one denies the mystery of godliness is great: God appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, witnessed by messengers, preached to all nations, was believed on in the whole universe, and glorified.
|
|}

==Chapter 4==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
|The Spirit explicitly states that, in times to come, some will lose faith and pay attention to deceiving spirits and the doctrines of demons.
|
|-
|2
|Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
|They will tell lies with hypocrisy, and have closed minds.
|the original text is exactly in the sense of a closed mind.
|-
|3
|Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
|They will forbid to marry and eat certain food, that God created to be received with thanksgivings by believers who know the truth.
|the abstinence from food reminds one of certain muslim beliefs
|-
|4
|For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
|Everything God created is good, and nothing should be refused as long as it is received with thanksgiving,
|
|-
|5
|For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
|for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
|
|-
|6
|If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.
|If you inform the brothers of these things, you will be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up by the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you follow.
|
|-
|7
|But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.
|Steer clear of atheist and superstitious myths and train yourself in godliness.
|Once again 'godlessness', that is nicely translated in 'atheist'
|-
|8
|For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.
|Indeed, physical training has a few beneficial aspects, but godliness benefits all, holding promise for both this life and the one to come.
|
|-
|9
|This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation.
|This is an undeniable truth
|
|-
|10
|For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
|for which we labor and suffer reproach, because we rely on the living God, Saviour of all believing men.
|The 'specially those that believe' feels akward, and it is explicitly said that only the believers will be saved.
|-
|11
|These things command and teach.
|Command and teach this.
|
|-
|12
|Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.
|Do not let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example to the believers in speech, in behavior, in charity, in spirit, in faith, and in purity.
|
|-
|13
|Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.
|Untill I come, devote yourself to the reading of the Scripture, to public preaching and teaching.
|
|-
|14
|Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.
|Do not neglect the grace that was given to you according to the prophecy, when the elders laid their hands on you.
|
|-
|15
|Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.
|Meditate upon these matters and give yourself wholly to them, and everyone will see your progress.
|
|-
|16
|Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.
|Pay attention to your life and the doctrine, continue in them, and you will save both yourself and those who listen to you.
|
|}

==Chapter 5==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;
|
|
|-
|2
|The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.
|
|
|-
|3
|Honour widows that are widows indeed.
|
|
|-
|4
|But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God.
|
|
|-
|5
|Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day.
|
|
|-
|6
|But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.
|
|
|-
|7
|And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless.
|
|
|-
|8
|But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
|
|
|-
|9
|Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,
|
|
|-
|10
|Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.
|
|
|-
|11
|But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;
|
|
|-
|12
|Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.
|
|
|-
|13
|And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
|
|
|-
|14
|I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
|
|
|-
|15
|For some are already turned aside after Satan.
|
|
|-
|16
|If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.
|
|
|-
|17
|Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
|
|
|-
|18
|For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
|
|
|-
|19
|Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.
|
|
|-
|20
|Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
|
|
|-
|21
|I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.
|
|
|-
|22
|Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure.
|
|
|-
|23
|Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.
|
|
|-
|24
|Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after.
|
|
|-
|25
|Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid.
|
|
|}

==Chapter 6==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
|
|
|-
|2
|And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.
|
|
|-
|3
|If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
|
|
|-
|4
|He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
|
|
|-
|5
|Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
|
|
|-
|6
|But godliness with contentment is great gain.
|
|
|-
|7
|For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.
|
|
|-
|8
|And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.
|
|
|-
|9
|But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
|
|
|-
|10
|For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
|
|
|-
|11
|But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.
|
|
|-
|12
|Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.
|
|
|-
|13
|I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;
|
|
|-
|14
|That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
|
|
|-
|15
|Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
|
|
|-
|16
|Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.
|
|
|-
|17
|Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;
|
|
|-
|18
|That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;
|
|
|-
|19
|Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.
|
|
|-
|20
|O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
|
|
|-
|21
|Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
|
|
|}

[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

First Epistle to Timothy (Translated)

2009-12-16T14:44:38Z

TSpencer: Undo revision 733307 by CharlieT (Talk)

{{ConservativeBible}}
==Chapter 1==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;
|Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ our hope, by the commandment of God our Saviour.
|I am trying to get rid of the repetition here
|-
|2
|Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
|To Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
|
|-
|3
|As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
|I told you to stay in Ephesus and instruct people when I went in Macedonia, and I urge you to continue doing so. They should not teach a different doctrine,
|
|-
|4
|Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
|nor focus on myths and endless genealogies, as these engender pointless speculation rather than the divine growth which is in Faith.
|the 'pointless speculations on myths' have echoes in current issues: global warming, evolution,...
|-
|5
|Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:
|The purpose of the commandment is charity from a pure heart, a good conscience, and true Faith.
|
|-
|6
|From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
|Some have strayed from it and started blabbering meaninglessly.
|
|-
|7
|Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
|They want to be teachers of the Law, but they have no understanding of what they say or the point they try to make.
|
|-
|8
|But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
|We know the Law is good when used lawfully,
|
|-
|9
|Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
|and that it does not concern the righteous man: it is made against the lawless and insubordinate, against the atheists and the sinners, against the evil and profane, against the patricides and the matricides, against killers,
|ungodly translates nicely into 'atheist', but it may be too harsh. Unholy is a mistranslation better expressed by 'evil'
|-
|10
|For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
|against pimps, against those who engage in homosexual relations, against kidnappers and slave-traders, against liars, against perjurers, and against everything that is contrary to the sound doctrine
|'pimp' may be too much but fits within contemporary society
|-
|11
|According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
|described by the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was entrusted to me.
|
|-
|12
|And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;
|I give thanks to Jesus Christ our Lord, who gave me strength by recognizing my faith and appointing me to His service.
|endunamOsanti translates as 'invigorating', literally 'giving strength'
|-
|13
|Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
|I was before a blasphemer, a persecutor, and arrogant, but I was given Mercy because I did it out of ignorance and unbelief,
|'hubris' is arrogance.
|-
|14
|And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
|and the Grace of our Lord overwhelmed me with the faith and love of Jesus Christ.
|'huperepleonasen' is 'overwhelming'
|-
|15
|This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|It is an undeniable truth worthy of universal acceptation that Jesus Christ came into the universe to save sinners- and I am the worst of them.
|'kosmos' refers not only to the Earth, but to the whole universe.
|-
|16
|Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.
|It is for this very reason that I received Mercy, as an example of the infinite patience of Jesus-Christ for those who will come to believe in him.
|'makrothumian' is patience
|-
|17
|Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
|To the King eternal, incorruptible, invisible, wise, the unique God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
|'aphthartO' is incorruptible, which has connotation lacking in 'immortal'. 'the only wise God' does not reflect the Greek construction and wrongfully gives the impression that there may be more than one God.
|-
|18
|This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest wage a good warfare;
|This is your duty, son Timothy, as foretold in the prophecies concerning you, that you have to follow to wage an ideal war.
|the 'war' is conspicuously absent from the NKJV
|-
|19
|Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:
|You have to keep your faith and a good conscience. Some lost faith and that ended in disaster,
|
|-
|20
|Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.
|for example Hymaneaus and Alexander, that I gave up to Satan as a punishment for their blasphemy.
|'paideuthOsin' is 'to be disciplined' and is in essence a punishment.
|}

==Chapter 2==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
|I urge then that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all men.
|
|-
|2
|For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
|This includes kings and everyone in superior positions, so that we may live peacefully in godliness and honesty.
|
|-
|3
|For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
|Our God and Saviour is pleased by this,
|
|-
|4
|Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
|who wants all men to be saved and realize the truth.
|The Greek text does not imply that everybody will be saved, only that God wishes so.
|-
|5
|For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
|For there is only one God, and only one mediator between God and men, Jesus Christ,
|
|-
|6
|Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
|who gave himself as a ransom for all, as the testimony will be given in its proper time.
|
|-
|7
|Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
|For this reason I was appointed a preacher and an apostle, a teacher of the true faith for the Gentiles. I speak the truth in Christ.
|There is no need to add 'I lie not'.
|-
|8
|I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
|I want men to lift holy hands in prayer everywhere, without suffering from censorship.
|The original text shows that the people praying should be free from indignation (whether feigned or sincere) and debate, which are covered both by 'censorship'.
|-
|9
|In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
|I also want women to wear modest clothes, with decency and propriety. They should not dress themselves with braided hair, jewelery or expensive outfits,
|gold and pearls were a substitute for 'jewelery'
|-
|10
|But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
|but with their good works, which become women professing godliness.
|
|-
|11
|Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
|A woman should learn in silence and in full submission.
|
|-
|12
|But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
|I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man: she must be silent.
|
|-
|13
|For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
|This is because Adam was created first, and then Eve.
|
|-
|14
|And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
|Adam was not deceived, but the woman was. She is thus responsible for the transgression.
|
|-
|15
|Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
|A woman may nevertheless be saved through childbearing, provided she keeps her faith, charity, holiness, together with propriety.
|}

==Chapter 3==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
|It is true that if a man desires to be a supervisor, he desires a noble task.
|episkopEs traditionaly refers to 'bishop', but really applies to any supervising work. Maybe 'administrator' could be used.
|-
|2
|A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
|As such, a supervisor must be blameless, married, sober, self-controlled, hospitable, patient, and a good teacher,
|
|-
|3
|Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
|and certainly not someone who drinks wine, or loves money, or seeks fights, or covets.
|
|-
|4
|One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
|He has to manage properly his own household, and have respectful and obeying children,
|
|-
|5
|(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
|as a man unable to rule his own house would not know how to take care of the chuch of God.
|
|-
|6
|Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
|
|He should not be a novice, lest he become conceited and be condemned as Satan was.
|-
|7
|Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
|He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, lest he should fall into reproach and Satan's trap.
|
|-
|8
|Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
|Servants must likewise be grave, consistent, not addicted to wine, not pursuing dishonest gain.
|
|-
|9
|Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
|They must keep the deep truths of the faith with a pure conscience.
|
|-
|10
|And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
|They must be tested and found blameless before being authorized to serve.
|
|-
|11
|Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
|In the same way, their wives should be grave, sober, and trustworthy, and not evil.
|the term 'diabolos' is used, usually referring to satan
|-
|12
|Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
|The servants can marry a woman, and should ideally rule over their children and their house.
|
|-
|13
|For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
|Those who have served well should earn an improvement in standing, and gain much assurance in their faith in Jesus Christ.
|
|-
|14
|These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:
|I hope to come see you soon, but I write to you
|
|-
|15
|But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
|so that, should I be delayed, you know how one ought to behave in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of all truth.
|
|-
|16
|And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
|No-one denies the mystery of godliness is great: God appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, witnessed by messengers, preached to all nations, was believed on in the whole universe, and glorified.
|
|}

==Chapter 4==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
|
|
|-
|2
|Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
|
|
|-
|3
|Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
|
|
|-
|4
|For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
|
|
|-
|5
|For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
|
|
|-
|6
|If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.
|
|
|-
|7
|But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.
|
|
|-
|8
|For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.
|
|
|-
|9
|This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation.
|
|
|-
|10
|For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
|
|
|-
|11
|These things command and teach.
|
|
|-
|12
|Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.
|
|
|-
|13
|Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.
|
|
|-
|14
|Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.
|
|
|-
|15
|Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.
|
|
|-
|16
|Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.
|
|
|}

==Chapter 5==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;
|
|
|-
|2
|The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.
|
|
|-
|3
|Honour widows that are widows indeed.
|
|
|-
|4
|But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God.
|
|
|-
|5
|Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day.
|
|
|-
|6
|But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.
|
|
|-
|7
|And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless.
|
|
|-
|8
|But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
|
|
|-
|9
|Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,
|
|
|-
|10
|Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.
|
|
|-
|11
|But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;
|
|
|-
|12
|Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.
|
|
|-
|13
|And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
|
|
|-
|14
|I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
|
|
|-
|15
|For some are already turned aside after Satan.
|
|
|-
|16
|If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.
|
|
|-
|17
|Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
|
|
|-
|18
|For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
|
|
|-
|19
|Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.
|
|
|-
|20
|Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
|
|
|-
|21
|I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.
|
|
|-
|22
|Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure.
|
|
|-
|23
|Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.
|
|
|-
|24
|Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after.
|
|
|-
|25
|Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid.
|
|
|}

==Chapter 6==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
|
|
|-
|2
|And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.
|
|
|-
|3
|If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
|
|
|-
|4
|He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
|
|
|-
|5
|Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
|
|
|-
|6
|But godliness with contentment is great gain.
|
|
|-
|7
|For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.
|
|
|-
|8
|And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.
|
|
|-
|9
|But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
|
|
|-
|10
|For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
|
|
|-
|11
|But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.
|
|
|-
|12
|Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.
|
|
|-
|13
|I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;
|
|
|-
|14
|That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
|
|
|-
|15
|Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
|
|
|-
|16
|Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.
|
|
|-
|17
|Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;
|
|
|-
|18
|That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;
|
|
|-
|19
|Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.
|
|
|-
|20
|O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
|
|
|-
|21
|Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
|
|
|}

[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

User talk:CharlieT

2009-12-16T14:25:25Z

TSpencer: concerning the reverting of Timothy

{{welcome|sig=[[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 17:34, 10 December 2009 (EST)}}
Ta muchly! [[User:CharlieT|CharlieT]] 17:53, 10 December 2009 (EST)

==Revision of Timothy==
Hello,
I am currently translating the First Epistle to Timothy, and you appear to have reverted my edits. Is there a problem?
Regards,
--[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 09:25, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Second Epistle to the Thessalonians (Translated)

2009-12-16T12:39:51Z

TSpencer: /* Chapter 1 */

{{ConservativeBible}}
__TOC__

==Chapter 1==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:
|From Paul, Silvanus, and Timotheus, to the church of the Thessalonians, united in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:
|
|-
|2
|Grace unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
|Grace and peace of mind to you, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
|
|-
|3
|We are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, as it is meet, because that your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every one of you all toward each other aboundeth;
|It is well for us to thank God for you, always, our brothers, for your faith grows quickly, and the charity that each of you show to each other is great.
|
|-
|4
|So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure:
|
|
|-
|5
|[Which is] a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer:
|A tangible token of the righteous judgement of God, so that you will be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, which you suffer for as we do
|
|-
|6
|Seeing [it is] a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
|God is just, and will bring trouble on those who trouble you,
|
|-
|7
|And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
|and to you who are troubled, rest with us, when the Lord Jesus will be come again from heaven, with his mighty angels,
|
|-
|8
|In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
|Will take vengeance with flaming fire upon those in denial of God, and who ignore the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ
|The 'vengeance with flaming fire' is in the original Greek text, and should be translated.
|-
|9
|Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
|Whose punishment shall be an everlasting and destructive separation from the Lord, and ignorance of His glorious power;
|
|-
|10
|When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.
|when Jesus comes again and his glory is celebrated by the faithful, and loved by all who know his word to be true
|Difficult phrase. not entirely sure if "saints" is appropriate here. Perhaps "faithful" is what was intended. "Admired" is no longer expressive of the devotion we have for Christ - love is more appropriate
|-
|11
|Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of [this] calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of [his] goodness, and the work of faith with power:
|We will always pray for you that God considers you among the blessed and that you will know His goodness, power and salvation
|Remember that this is a letter from Paul to distinct people. An effort should be made to preserve the context of the chapters.
|-
|12
|That the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and ye in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.
|In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, praise be to him, and the Holy Father. May you be blessed always.
|
|}

==Chapter 2==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and [by] our gathering together unto him,
|We ask you, friends, in regards to the return of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being with Him
|
|-
|2
|That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
|Do not be startled or troubled by either a spirit, a comment, or by a letter purportedly written by us, that says Christ has already returned
|
|-
|3
|Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
|
|
|-
|4
|Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
|
|
|-
|5
|Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
|
|
|-
|6
|And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
|
|
|-
|7
|For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth [will let], until he be taken out of the way.
|
|
|-
|8
|And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
|
|
|-
|9
|[Even him], whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
|
|
|-
|10
|And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
|
|
|-
|11
|And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
|
|
|-
|12
|That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
|
|
|-
|13
|But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
|
|
|-
|14
|Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
|
|
|-
|15
|Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
|
|
|-
|16
|Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given [us] everlasting consolation and good hope through grace,
|
|
|-
|17
|Comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work.
|
|
|}

==Chapter 3==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have [free] course, and be glorified, even as [it is] with you:
|
|
|-
|2
|And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all [men] have not faith.
|
|
|-
|3
|But the Lord is faithful, who shall stablish you, and keep [you] from evil.
|
|
|-
|4
|And we have confidence in the Lord touching you, that ye both do and will do the things which we command you.
|
|
|-
|5
|And the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the patient waiting for Christ.
|
|
|-
|6
|Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
|
|
|-
|7
|For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;
|
|
|-
|8
|Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:
|
|
|-
|9
|Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.
|
|
|-
|10
|For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
|
|
|-
|11
|For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
|
|
|-
|12
|Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.
|
|
|-
|13
|But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing.
|
|
|-
|14
|And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.
|
|
|-
|15
|Yet count [him] not as an enemy, but admonish [him] as a brother.
|
|
|-
|16
|Now the Lord of peace himself give you peace always by all means. The Lord [be] with you all.
|
|
|-
|17
|The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write.
|
|
|-
|18
|The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you all. Amen.
|
|
|}

[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

First Epistle to Timothy (Translated)

2009-12-16T12:26:42Z

TSpencer: /* Chapter 4 */

{{ConservativeBible}}
==Chapter 1==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;
|Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ our hope, by the commandment of God our Saviour.
|I am trying to get rid of the repetition here
|-
|2
|Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
|To Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
|
|-
|3
|As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
|I told you to stay in Ephesus and instruct people when I went in Macedonia, and I urge you to continue doing so. They should not teach a different doctrine,
|
|-
|4
|Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
|nor focus on myths and endless genealogies, as these engender pointless speculation rather than the divine growth which is in Faith.
|the 'pointless speculations on myths' have echoes in current issues: global warming, evolution,...
|-
|5
|Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:
|The purpose of the commandment is charity from a pure heart, a good conscience, and true Faith.
|
|-
|6
|From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
|Some have strayed from it and started blabbering meaninglessly.
|
|-
|7
|Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
|They want to be teachers of the Law, but they have no understanding of what they say or the point they try to make.
|
|-
|8
|But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
|We know the Law is good when used lawfully,
|
|-
|9
|Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
|and that it does not concern the righteous man: it is made against the lawless and insubordinate, against the atheists and the sinners, against the evil and profane, against the patricides and the matricides, against killers,
|ungodly translates nicely into 'atheist', but it may be too harsh. Unholy is a mistranslation better expressed by 'evil'
|-
|10
|For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
|against pimps, against those who engage in homosexual relations, against kidnappers and slave-traders, against liars, against perjurers, and against everything that is contrary to the sound doctrine
|'pimp' may be too much but fits within contemporary society
|-
|11
|According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
|described by the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was entrusted to me.
|
|-
|12
|And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;
|I give thanks to Jesus Christ our Lord, who gave me strength by recognizing my faith and appointing me to His service.
|endunamOsanti translates as 'invigorating', literally 'giving strength'
|-
|13
|Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
|I was before a blasphemer, a persecutor, and arrogant, but I was given Mercy because I did it out of ignorance and unbelief,
|'hubris' is arrogance.
|-
|14
|And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
|and the Grace of our Lord overwhelmed me with the faith and love of Jesus Christ.
|'huperepleonasen' is 'overwhelming'
|-
|15
|This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|It is an undeniable truth worthy of universal acceptation that Jesus Christ came into the universe to save sinners- and I am the worst of them.
|'kosmos' refers not only to the Earth, but to the whole universe.
|-
|16
|Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.
|It is for this very reason that I received Mercy, as an example of the infinite patience of Jesus-Christ for those who will come to believe in him.
|'makrothumian' is patience
|-
|17
|Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
|To the King eternal, incorruptible, invisible, wise, the unique God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
|'aphthartO' is incorruptible, which has connotation lacking in 'immortal'. 'the only wise God' does not reflect the Greek construction and wrongfully gives the impression that there may be more than one God.
|-
|18
|This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest wage a good warfare;
|This is your duty, son Timothy, as foretold in the prophecies concerning you, that you have to follow to wage an ideal war.
|the 'war' is conspicuously absent from the NKJV
|-
|19
|Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:
|You have to keep your faith and a good conscience. Some lost faith and that ended in disaster,
|
|-
|20
|Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.
|for example Hymaneaus and Alexander, that I gave up to Satan as a punishment for their blasphemy.
|'paideuthOsin' is 'to be disciplined' and is in essence a punishment.
|}

==Chapter 2==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
|I urge then that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all men.
|
|-
|2
|For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
|This includes kings and everyone in superior positions, so that we may live peacefully in godliness and honesty.
|
|-
|3
|For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
|Our God and Saviour is pleased by this,
|
|-
|4
|Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
|who wants all men to be saved and realize the truth.
|The Greek text does not imply that everybody will be saved, only that God wishes so.
|-
|5
|For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
|For there is only one God, and only one mediator between God and men, Jesus Christ,
|
|-
|6
|Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
|who gave himself as a ransom for all, as the testimony will be given in its proper time.
|
|-
|7
|Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
|For this reason I was appointed a preacher and an apostle, a teacher of the true faith for the Gentiles. I speak the truth in Christ.
|There is no need to add 'I lie not'.
|-
|8
|I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
|I want men to lift holy hands in prayer everywhere, without suffering from censorship.
|The original text shows that the people praying should be free from indignation (whether feigned or sincere) and debate, which are covered both by 'censorship'.
|-
|9
|In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
|I also want women to wear modest clothes, with decency and propriety. They should not dress themselves with braided hair, jewelery or expensive outfits,
|gold and pearls were a substitute for 'jewelery'
|-
|10
|But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
|but with their good works, which become women professing godliness.
|
|-
|11
|Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
|A woman should learn in silence and in full submission.
|
|-
|12
|But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
|I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man: she must be silent.
|
|-
|13
|For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
|This is because Adam was created first, and then Eve.
|
|-
|14
|And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
|Adam was not deceived, but the woman was. She is thus responsible for the transgression.
|
|-
|15
|Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
|A woman may nevertheless be saved through childbearing, provided she keeps her faith, charity, holiness, together with propriety.
|}

==Chapter 3==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
|It is true that if a man desires to be a supervisor, he desires a noble task.
|episkopEs traditionally refers to 'bishop', but really applies to any supervising work. Maybe 'administrator' could be used.
|-
|2
|A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
|As such, a supervisor must be blameless, married, sober, self-controlled, hospitable, patient, and a good teacher,
|
|-
|3
|Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
|and certainly not someone who drinks wine, or loves money, or seeks fights, or covets.
|
|-
|4
|One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
|He has to manage properly his own household, and have respectful and obeying children,
|
|-
|5
|(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
|as a man unable to rule his own house would not know how to take care of the chuch of God.
|
|-
|6
|Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
|
|He should not be a novice, lest he become conceited and be condemned as Satan was.
|-
|7
|Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
|He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, lest he should fall into reproach and Satan's trap.
|
|-
|8
|Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
|Servants must likewise be grave, consistent, not addicted to wine, not pursuing dishonest gain.
|
|-
|9
|Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
|They must keep the deep truths of the faith with a pure conscience.
|
|-
|10
|And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
|They must be tested and found blameless before being authorized to serve.
|
|-
|11
|Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
|In the same way, their wives should be grave, sober, and trustworthy, and not evil.
|the term 'diabolos' is used, usually referring to Satan
|-
|12
|Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
|The servants can marry a woman, and should ideally rule over their children and their house.
|
|-
|13
|For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
|Those who have served well should earn an improvement in standing, and gain much assurance in their faith in Jesus Christ.
|
|-
|14
|These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:
|I hope to come see you soon, but I write to you
|
|-
|15
|But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
|so that, should I be delayed, you know how one ought to behave in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of all truth.
|
|-
|16
|And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
|No-one denies the mystery of godliness is great: God appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, witnessed by messengers, preached to all nations, was believed on in the whole universe, and glorified.
|
|}

==Chapter 4==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
|The Spirit explicitly states that, in times to come, some will lose faith and pay attention to deceiving spirits and the doctrines of demons.
|
|-
|2
|Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
|They will tell lies with hypocrisy, and have closed minds.
|the original text is exactly in the sense of a closed mind.
|-
|3
|Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
|They will forbid to marry and eat certain food, that God created to be received with thanksgivings by believers who know the truth.
|the abstinence from food reminds one of certain muslim beliefs
|-
|4
|For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
|Everything God created is good, and nothing should be refused as long as it is received with thanksgiving,
|
|-
|5
|For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
|for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
|
|-
|6
|If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.
|If you inform the brothers of these things, you will be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up by the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you follow.
|
|-
|7
|But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.
|Steer clear of atheist and superstitious myths and train yourself in godliness.
|Once again 'godlessness', that is nicely translated in 'atheist'
|-
|8
|For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.
|Indeed, physical training has a few beneficial aspects, but godliness benefits all, holding promise for both this life and the one to come.
|
|-
|9
|This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation.
|This is an undeniable truth
|
|-
|10
|For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
|for which we labor and suffer reproach, because we rely on the living God, Saviour of all believing men.
|The 'specially those that believe' feels awkward, and it is explicitly said that only the believers will be saved.
|-
|11
|These things command and teach.
|Command and teach this.
|
|-
|12
|Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.
|Do not let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example to the believers in speech, in behavior, in charity, in spirit, in faith, and in purity.
|
|-
|13
|Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.
|Until I come, devote yourself to the reading of the Scripture, to public preaching and teaching.
|
|-
|14
|Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.
|Do not neglect the grace that was given to you according to the prophecy, when the elders laid their hands on you.
|
|-
|15
|Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.
|Meditate upon these matters and give yourself wholly to them, and everyone will see your progress.
|
|-
|16
|Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.
|Pay attention to your life and the doctrine, continue in them, and you will save both yourself and those who listen to you.
|
|}

==Chapter 5==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;
|
|
|-
|2
|The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.
|
|
|-
|3
|Honour widows that are widows indeed.
|
|
|-
|4
|But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God.
|
|
|-
|5
|Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day.
|
|
|-
|6
|But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.
|
|
|-
|7
|And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless.
|
|
|-
|8
|But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
|
|
|-
|9
|Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,
|
|
|-
|10
|Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.
|
|
|-
|11
|But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;
|
|
|-
|12
|Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.
|
|
|-
|13
|And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
|
|
|-
|14
|I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
|
|
|-
|15
|For some are already turned aside after Satan.
|
|
|-
|16
|If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.
|
|
|-
|17
|Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
|
|
|-
|18
|For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
|
|
|-
|19
|Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.
|
|
|-
|20
|Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
|
|
|-
|21
|I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.
|
|
|-
|22
|Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure.
|
|
|-
|23
|Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.
|
|
|-
|24
|Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after.
|
|
|-
|25
|Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid.
|
|
|}

==Chapter 6==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
|
|
|-
|2
|And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.
|
|
|-
|3
|If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
|
|
|-
|4
|He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
|
|
|-
|5
|Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
|
|
|-
|6
|But godliness with contentment is great gain.
|
|
|-
|7
|For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.
|
|
|-
|8
|And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.
|
|
|-
|9
|But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
|
|
|-
|10
|For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
|
|
|-
|11
|But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.
|
|
|-
|12
|Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.
|
|
|-
|13
|I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;
|
|
|-
|14
|That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
|
|
|-
|15
|Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
|
|
|-
|16
|Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.
|
|
|-
|17
|Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;
|
|
|-
|18
|That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;
|
|
|-
|19
|Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.
|
|
|-
|20
|O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
|
|
|-
|21
|Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
|
|
|}

[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

First Epistle to Timothy (Translated)

2009-12-16T12:26:03Z

TSpencer: /* Chapter 3 */

{{ConservativeBible}}
==Chapter 1==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;
|Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ our hope, by the commandment of God our Saviour.
|I am trying to get rid of the repetition here
|-
|2
|Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
|To Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
|
|-
|3
|As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
|I told you to stay in Ephesus and instruct people when I went in Macedonia, and I urge you to continue doing so. They should not teach a different doctrine,
|
|-
|4
|Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
|nor focus on myths and endless genealogies, as these engender pointless speculation rather than the divine growth which is in Faith.
|the 'pointless speculations on myths' have echoes in current issues: global warming, evolution,...
|-
|5
|Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:
|The purpose of the commandment is charity from a pure heart, a good conscience, and true Faith.
|
|-
|6
|From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
|Some have strayed from it and started blabbering meaninglessly.
|
|-
|7
|Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
|They want to be teachers of the Law, but they have no understanding of what they say or the point they try to make.
|
|-
|8
|But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
|We know the Law is good when used lawfully,
|
|-
|9
|Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
|and that it does not concern the righteous man: it is made against the lawless and insubordinate, against the atheists and the sinners, against the evil and profane, against the patricides and the matricides, against killers,
|ungodly translates nicely into 'atheist', but it may be too harsh. Unholy is a mistranslation better expressed by 'evil'
|-
|10
|For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
|against pimps, against those who engage in homosexual relations, against kidnappers and slave-traders, against liars, against perjurers, and against everything that is contrary to the sound doctrine
|'pimp' may be too much but fits within contemporary society
|-
|11
|According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
|described by the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was entrusted to me.
|
|-
|12
|And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;
|I give thanks to Jesus Christ our Lord, who gave me strength by recognizing my faith and appointing me to His service.
|endunamOsanti translates as 'invigorating', literally 'giving strength'
|-
|13
|Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
|I was before a blasphemer, a persecutor, and arrogant, but I was given Mercy because I did it out of ignorance and unbelief,
|'hubris' is arrogance.
|-
|14
|And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
|and the Grace of our Lord overwhelmed me with the faith and love of Jesus Christ.
|'huperepleonasen' is 'overwhelming'
|-
|15
|This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|It is an undeniable truth worthy of universal acceptation that Jesus Christ came into the universe to save sinners- and I am the worst of them.
|'kosmos' refers not only to the Earth, but to the whole universe.
|-
|16
|Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.
|It is for this very reason that I received Mercy, as an example of the infinite patience of Jesus-Christ for those who will come to believe in him.
|'makrothumian' is patience
|-
|17
|Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
|To the King eternal, incorruptible, invisible, wise, the unique God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
|'aphthartO' is incorruptible, which has connotation lacking in 'immortal'. 'the only wise God' does not reflect the Greek construction and wrongfully gives the impression that there may be more than one God.
|-
|18
|This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest wage a good warfare;
|This is your duty, son Timothy, as foretold in the prophecies concerning you, that you have to follow to wage an ideal war.
|the 'war' is conspicuously absent from the NKJV
|-
|19
|Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:
|You have to keep your faith and a good conscience. Some lost faith and that ended in disaster,
|
|-
|20
|Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.
|for example Hymaneaus and Alexander, that I gave up to Satan as a punishment for their blasphemy.
|'paideuthOsin' is 'to be disciplined' and is in essence a punishment.
|}

==Chapter 2==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
|I urge then that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all men.
|
|-
|2
|For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
|This includes kings and everyone in superior positions, so that we may live peacefully in godliness and honesty.
|
|-
|3
|For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
|Our God and Saviour is pleased by this,
|
|-
|4
|Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
|who wants all men to be saved and realize the truth.
|The Greek text does not imply that everybody will be saved, only that God wishes so.
|-
|5
|For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
|For there is only one God, and only one mediator between God and men, Jesus Christ,
|
|-
|6
|Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
|who gave himself as a ransom for all, as the testimony will be given in its proper time.
|
|-
|7
|Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
|For this reason I was appointed a preacher and an apostle, a teacher of the true faith for the Gentiles. I speak the truth in Christ.
|There is no need to add 'I lie not'.
|-
|8
|I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
|I want men to lift holy hands in prayer everywhere, without suffering from censorship.
|The original text shows that the people praying should be free from indignation (whether feigned or sincere) and debate, which are covered both by 'censorship'.
|-
|9
|In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
|I also want women to wear modest clothes, with decency and propriety. They should not dress themselves with braided hair, jewelery or expensive outfits,
|gold and pearls were a substitute for 'jewelery'
|-
|10
|But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
|but with their good works, which become women professing godliness.
|
|-
|11
|Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
|A woman should learn in silence and in full submission.
|
|-
|12
|But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
|I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man: she must be silent.
|
|-
|13
|For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
|This is because Adam was created first, and then Eve.
|
|-
|14
|And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
|Adam was not deceived, but the woman was. She is thus responsible for the transgression.
|
|-
|15
|Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
|A woman may nevertheless be saved through childbearing, provided she keeps her faith, charity, holiness, together with propriety.
|}

==Chapter 3==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
|It is true that if a man desires to be a supervisor, he desires a noble task.
|episkopEs traditionally refers to 'bishop', but really applies to any supervising work. Maybe 'administrator' could be used.
|-
|2
|A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
|As such, a supervisor must be blameless, married, sober, self-controlled, hospitable, patient, and a good teacher,
|
|-
|3
|Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
|and certainly not someone who drinks wine, or loves money, or seeks fights, or covets.
|
|-
|4
|One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
|He has to manage properly his own household, and have respectful and obeying children,
|
|-
|5
|(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
|as a man unable to rule his own house would not know how to take care of the chuch of God.
|
|-
|6
|Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
|
|He should not be a novice, lest he become conceited and be condemned as Satan was.
|-
|7
|Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
|He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, lest he should fall into reproach and Satan's trap.
|
|-
|8
|Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
|Servants must likewise be grave, consistent, not addicted to wine, not pursuing dishonest gain.
|
|-
|9
|Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
|They must keep the deep truths of the faith with a pure conscience.
|
|-
|10
|And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
|They must be tested and found blameless before being authorized to serve.
|
|-
|11
|Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
|In the same way, their wives should be grave, sober, and trustworthy, and not evil.
|the term 'diabolos' is used, usually referring to Satan
|-
|12
|Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
|The servants can marry a woman, and should ideally rule over their children and their house.
|
|-
|13
|For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
|Those who have served well should earn an improvement in standing, and gain much assurance in their faith in Jesus Christ.
|
|-
|14
|These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:
|I hope to come see you soon, but I write to you
|
|-
|15
|But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
|so that, should I be delayed, you know how one ought to behave in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of all truth.
|
|-
|16
|And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
|No-one denies the mystery of godliness is great: God appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, witnessed by messengers, preached to all nations, was believed on in the whole universe, and glorified.
|
|}

==Chapter 4==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
|The Spirit explicitly states that, in times to come, some will lose faith and pay attention to deceiving spirits and the doctrines of demons.
|
|-
|2
|Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
|They will tell lies with hypocrisy, and have closed minds.
|the original text is exactly in the sense of a closed mind.
|-
|3
|Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
|They will forbid to marry and eat certain food, that God created to be received with thanksgivings by believers who know the truth.
|the abstinence from food reminds one of certain muslim beliefs
|-
|4
|For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
|Everything God created is good, and nothing should be refused as long as it is received with thanksgiving,
|
|-
|5
|For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
|for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
|
|-
|6
|If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.
|If you inform the brothers of these things, you will be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up by the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you follow.
|
|-
|7
|But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.
|Steer clear of atheist and superstitious myths and train yourself in godliness.
|Once again 'godlessness', that is nicely translated in 'atheist'
|-
|8
|For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.
|Indeed, physical training has a few beneficial aspects, but godliness benefits all, holding promise for both this life and the one to come.
|
|-
|9
|This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation.
|This is an undeniable truth
|
|-
|10
|For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
|for which we labor and suffer reproach, because we rely on the living God, Saviour of all believing men.
|The 'specially those that believe' feels akward, and it is explicitly said that only the believers will be saved.
|-
|11
|These things command and teach.
|Command and teach this.
|
|-
|12
|Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.
|Do not let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example to the believers in speech, in behavior, in charity, in spirit, in faith, and in purity.
|
|-
|13
|Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.
|Untill I come, devote yourself to the reading of the Scripture, to public preaching and teaching.
|
|-
|14
|Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.
|Do not neglect the grace that was given to you according to the prophecy, when the elders laid their hands on you.
|
|-
|15
|Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.
|Meditate upon these matters and give yourself wholly to them, and everyone will see your progress.
|
|-
|16
|Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.
|Pay attention to your life and the doctrine, continue in them, and you will save both yourself and those who listen to you.
|
|}

==Chapter 5==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;
|
|
|-
|2
|The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.
|
|
|-
|3
|Honour widows that are widows indeed.
|
|
|-
|4
|But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God.
|
|
|-
|5
|Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day.
|
|
|-
|6
|But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.
|
|
|-
|7
|And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless.
|
|
|-
|8
|But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
|
|
|-
|9
|Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,
|
|
|-
|10
|Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.
|
|
|-
|11
|But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;
|
|
|-
|12
|Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.
|
|
|-
|13
|And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
|
|
|-
|14
|I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
|
|
|-
|15
|For some are already turned aside after Satan.
|
|
|-
|16
|If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.
|
|
|-
|17
|Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
|
|
|-
|18
|For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
|
|
|-
|19
|Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.
|
|
|-
|20
|Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
|
|
|-
|21
|I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.
|
|
|-
|22
|Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure.
|
|
|-
|23
|Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.
|
|
|-
|24
|Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after.
|
|
|-
|25
|Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid.
|
|
|}

==Chapter 6==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
|
|
|-
|2
|And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.
|
|
|-
|3
|If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
|
|
|-
|4
|He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
|
|
|-
|5
|Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
|
|
|-
|6
|But godliness with contentment is great gain.
|
|
|-
|7
|For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.
|
|
|-
|8
|And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.
|
|
|-
|9
|But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
|
|
|-
|10
|For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
|
|
|-
|11
|But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.
|
|
|-
|12
|Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.
|
|
|-
|13
|I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;
|
|
|-
|14
|That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
|
|
|-
|15
|Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
|
|
|-
|16
|Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.
|
|
|-
|17
|Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;
|
|
|-
|18
|That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;
|
|
|-
|19
|Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.
|
|
|-
|20
|O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
|
|
|-
|21
|Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
|
|
|}

[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

First Epistle to Timothy (Translated)

2009-12-16T12:25:09Z

TSpencer: /* Chapter 4 */

{{ConservativeBible}}
==Chapter 1==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;
|Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ our hope, by the commandment of God our Saviour.
|I am trying to get rid of the repetition here
|-
|2
|Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
|To Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
|
|-
|3
|As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
|I told you to stay in Ephesus and instruct people when I went in Macedonia, and I urge you to continue doing so. They should not teach a different doctrine,
|
|-
|4
|Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
|nor focus on myths and endless genealogies, as these engender pointless speculation rather than the divine growth which is in Faith.
|the 'pointless speculations on myths' have echoes in current issues: global warming, evolution,...
|-
|5
|Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:
|The purpose of the commandment is charity from a pure heart, a good conscience, and true Faith.
|
|-
|6
|From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
|Some have strayed from it and started blabbering meaninglessly.
|
|-
|7
|Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
|They want to be teachers of the Law, but they have no understanding of what they say or the point they try to make.
|
|-
|8
|But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
|We know the Law is good when used lawfully,
|
|-
|9
|Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
|and that it does not concern the righteous man: it is made against the lawless and insubordinate, against the atheists and the sinners, against the evil and profane, against the patricides and the matricides, against killers,
|ungodly translates nicely into 'atheist', but it may be too harsh. Unholy is a mistranslation better expressed by 'evil'
|-
|10
|For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
|against pimps, against those who engage in homosexual relations, against kidnappers and slave-traders, against liars, against perjurers, and against everything that is contrary to the sound doctrine
|'pimp' may be too much but fits within contemporary society
|-
|11
|According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
|described by the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was entrusted to me.
|
|-
|12
|And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;
|I give thanks to Jesus Christ our Lord, who gave me strength by recognizing my faith and appointing me to His service.
|endunamOsanti translates as 'invigorating', literally 'giving strength'
|-
|13
|Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
|I was before a blasphemer, a persecutor, and arrogant, but I was given Mercy because I did it out of ignorance and unbelief,
|'hubris' is arrogance.
|-
|14
|And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
|and the Grace of our Lord overwhelmed me with the faith and love of Jesus Christ.
|'huperepleonasen' is 'overwhelming'
|-
|15
|This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|It is an undeniable truth worthy of universal acceptation that Jesus Christ came into the universe to save sinners- and I am the worst of them.
|'kosmos' refers not only to the Earth, but to the whole universe.
|-
|16
|Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.
|It is for this very reason that I received Mercy, as an example of the infinite patience of Jesus-Christ for those who will come to believe in him.
|'makrothumian' is patience
|-
|17
|Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
|To the King eternal, incorruptible, invisible, wise, the unique God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
|'aphthartO' is incorruptible, which has connotation lacking in 'immortal'. 'the only wise God' does not reflect the Greek construction and wrongfully gives the impression that there may be more than one God.
|-
|18
|This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest wage a good warfare;
|This is your duty, son Timothy, as foretold in the prophecies concerning you, that you have to follow to wage an ideal war.
|the 'war' is conspicuously absent from the NKJV
|-
|19
|Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:
|You have to keep your faith and a good conscience. Some lost faith and that ended in disaster,
|
|-
|20
|Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.
|for example Hymaneaus and Alexander, that I gave up to Satan as a punishment for their blasphemy.
|'paideuthOsin' is 'to be disciplined' and is in essence a punishment.
|}

==Chapter 2==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
|I urge then that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all men.
|
|-
|2
|For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
|This includes kings and everyone in superior positions, so that we may live peacefully in godliness and honesty.
|
|-
|3
|For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
|Our God and Saviour is pleased by this,
|
|-
|4
|Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
|who wants all men to be saved and realize the truth.
|The Greek text does not imply that everybody will be saved, only that God wishes so.
|-
|5
|For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
|For there is only one God, and only one mediator between God and men, Jesus Christ,
|
|-
|6
|Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
|who gave himself as a ransom for all, as the testimony will be given in its proper time.
|
|-
|7
|Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
|For this reason I was appointed a preacher and an apostle, a teacher of the true faith for the Gentiles. I speak the truth in Christ.
|There is no need to add 'I lie not'.
|-
|8
|I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
|I want men to lift holy hands in prayer everywhere, without suffering from censorship.
|The original text shows that the people praying should be free from indignation (whether feigned or sincere) and debate, which are covered both by 'censorship'.
|-
|9
|In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
|I also want women to wear modest clothes, with decency and propriety. They should not dress themselves with braided hair, jewelery or expensive outfits,
|gold and pearls were a substitute for 'jewelery'
|-
|10
|But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
|but with their good works, which become women professing godliness.
|
|-
|11
|Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
|A woman should learn in silence and in full submission.
|
|-
|12
|But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
|I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man: she must be silent.
|
|-
|13
|For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
|This is because Adam was created first, and then Eve.
|
|-
|14
|And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
|Adam was not deceived, but the woman was. She is thus responsible for the transgression.
|
|-
|15
|Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
|A woman may nevertheless be saved through childbearing, provided she keeps her faith, charity, holiness, together with propriety.
|}

==Chapter 3==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
|It is true that if a man desires to be a supervisor, he desires a noble task.
|episkopEs traditionaly refers to 'bishop', but really applies to any supervising work. Maybe 'administrator' could be used.
|-
|2
|A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
|As such, a supervisor must be blameless, married, sober, self-controlled, hospitable, patient, and a good teacher,
|
|-
|3
|Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
|and certainly not someone who drinks wine, or loves money, or seeks fights, or covets.
|
|-
|4
|One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
|He has to manage properly his own household, and have respectful and obeying children,
|
|-
|5
|(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
|as a man unable to rule his own house would not know how to take care of the chuch of God.
|
|-
|6
|Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
|
|He should not be a novice, lest he become conceited and be condemned as Satan was.
|-
|7
|Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
|He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, lest he should fall into reproach and Satan's trap.
|
|-
|8
|Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
|Servants must likewise be grave, consistent, not addicted to wine, not pursuing dishonest gain.
|
|-
|9
|Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
|They must keep the deep truths of the faith with a pure conscience.
|
|-
|10
|And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
|They must be tested and found blameless before being authorized to serve.
|
|-
|11
|Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
|In the same way, their wives should be grave, sober, and trustworthy, and not evil.
|the term 'diabolos' is used, usually referring to satan
|-
|12
|Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
|The servants can marry a woman, and should ideally rule over their children and their house.
|
|-
|13
|For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
|Those who have served well should earn an improvement in standing, and gain much assurance in their faith in Jesus Christ.
|
|-
|14
|These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:
|I hope to come see you soon, but I write to you
|
|-
|15
|But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
|so that, should I be delayed, you know how one ought to behave in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of all truth.
|
|-
|16
|And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
|No-one denies the mystery of godliness is great: God appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, witnessed by messengers, preached to all nations, was believed on in the whole universe, and glorified.
|
|}

==Chapter 4==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
|The Spirit explicitly states that, in times to come, some will lose faith and pay attention to deceiving spirits and the doctrines of demons.
|
|-
|2
|Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
|They will tell lies with hypocrisy, and have closed minds.
|the original text is exactly in the sense of a closed mind.
|-
|3
|Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
|They will forbid to marry and eat certain food, that God created to be received with thanksgivings by believers who know the truth.
|the abstinence from food reminds one of certain muslim beliefs
|-
|4
|For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
|Everything God created is good, and nothing should be refused as long as it is received with thanksgiving,
|
|-
|5
|For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
|for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
|
|-
|6
|If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.
|If you inform the brothers of these things, you will be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up by the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you follow.
|
|-
|7
|But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.
|Steer clear of atheist and superstitious myths and train yourself in godliness.
|Once again 'godlessness', that is nicely translated in 'atheist'
|-
|8
|For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.
|Indeed, physical training has a few beneficial aspects, but godliness benefits all, holding promise for both this life and the one to come.
|
|-
|9
|This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation.
|This is an undeniable truth
|
|-
|10
|For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
|for which we labor and suffer reproach, because we rely on the living God, Saviour of all believing men.
|The 'specially those that believe' feels akward, and it is explicitly said that only the believers will be saved.
|-
|11
|These things command and teach.
|Command and teach this.
|
|-
|12
|Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.
|Do not let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example to the believers in speech, in behavior, in charity, in spirit, in faith, and in purity.
|
|-
|13
|Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.
|Untill I come, devote yourself to the reading of the Scripture, to public preaching and teaching.
|
|-
|14
|Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.
|Do not neglect the grace that was given to you according to the prophecy, when the elders laid their hands on you.
|
|-
|15
|Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.
|Meditate upon these matters and give yourself wholly to them, and everyone will see your progress.
|
|-
|16
|Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.
|Pay attention to your life and the doctrine, continue in them, and you will save both yourself and those who listen to you.
|
|}

==Chapter 5==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;
|
|
|-
|2
|The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.
|
|
|-
|3
|Honour widows that are widows indeed.
|
|
|-
|4
|But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God.
|
|
|-
|5
|Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day.
|
|
|-
|6
|But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.
|
|
|-
|7
|And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless.
|
|
|-
|8
|But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
|
|
|-
|9
|Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,
|
|
|-
|10
|Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.
|
|
|-
|11
|But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;
|
|
|-
|12
|Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.
|
|
|-
|13
|And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
|
|
|-
|14
|I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
|
|
|-
|15
|For some are already turned aside after Satan.
|
|
|-
|16
|If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.
|
|
|-
|17
|Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
|
|
|-
|18
|For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
|
|
|-
|19
|Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.
|
|
|-
|20
|Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
|
|
|-
|21
|I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.
|
|
|-
|22
|Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure.
|
|
|-
|23
|Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.
|
|
|-
|24
|Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after.
|
|
|-
|25
|Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid.
|
|
|}

==Chapter 6==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
|
|
|-
|2
|And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.
|
|
|-
|3
|If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
|
|
|-
|4
|He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
|
|
|-
|5
|Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
|
|
|-
|6
|But godliness with contentment is great gain.
|
|
|-
|7
|For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.
|
|
|-
|8
|And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.
|
|
|-
|9
|But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
|
|
|-
|10
|For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
|
|
|-
|11
|But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.
|
|
|-
|12
|Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.
|
|
|-
|13
|I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;
|
|
|-
|14
|That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
|
|
|-
|15
|Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
|
|
|-
|16
|Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.
|
|
|-
|17
|Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;
|
|
|-
|18
|That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;
|
|
|-
|19
|Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.
|
|
|-
|20
|O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
|
|
|-
|21
|Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
|
|
|}

[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

First Epistle to Timothy (Translated)

2009-12-16T12:24:22Z

TSpencer: /* Chapter 3 */

{{ConservativeBible}}
==Chapter 1==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;
|Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ our hope, by the commandment of God our Saviour.
|I am trying to get rid of the repetition here
|-
|2
|Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
|To Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
|
|-
|3
|As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
|I told you to stay in Ephesus and instruct people when I went in Macedonia, and I urge you to continue doing so. They should not teach a different doctrine,
|
|-
|4
|Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
|nor focus on myths and endless genealogies, as these engender pointless speculation rather than the divine growth which is in Faith.
|the 'pointless speculations on myths' have echoes in current issues: global warming, evolution,...
|-
|5
|Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:
|The purpose of the commandment is charity from a pure heart, a good conscience, and true Faith.
|
|-
|6
|From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
|Some have strayed from it and started blabbering meaninglessly.
|
|-
|7
|Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
|They want to be teachers of the Law, but they have no understanding of what they say or the point they try to make.
|
|-
|8
|But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
|We know the Law is good when used lawfully,
|
|-
|9
|Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
|and that it does not concern the righteous man: it is made against the lawless and insubordinate, against the atheists and the sinners, against the evil and profane, against the patricides and the matricides, against killers,
|ungodly translates nicely into 'atheist', but it may be too harsh. Unholy is a mistranslation better expressed by 'evil'
|-
|10
|For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
|against pimps, against those who engage in homosexual relations, against kidnappers and slave-traders, against liars, against perjurers, and against everything that is contrary to the sound doctrine
|'pimp' may be too much but fits within contemporary society
|-
|11
|According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
|described by the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was entrusted to me.
|
|-
|12
|And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;
|I give thanks to Jesus Christ our Lord, who gave me strength by recognizing my faith and appointing me to His service.
|endunamOsanti translates as 'invigorating', literally 'giving strength'
|-
|13
|Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
|I was before a blasphemer, a persecutor, and arrogant, but I was given Mercy because I did it out of ignorance and unbelief,
|'hubris' is arrogance.
|-
|14
|And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
|and the Grace of our Lord overwhelmed me with the faith and love of Jesus Christ.
|'huperepleonasen' is 'overwhelming'
|-
|15
|This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|It is an undeniable truth worthy of universal acceptation that Jesus Christ came into the universe to save sinners- and I am the worst of them.
|'kosmos' refers not only to the Earth, but to the whole universe.
|-
|16
|Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.
|It is for this very reason that I received Mercy, as an example of the infinite patience of Jesus-Christ for those who will come to believe in him.
|'makrothumian' is patience
|-
|17
|Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
|To the King eternal, incorruptible, invisible, wise, the unique God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
|'aphthartO' is incorruptible, which has connotation lacking in 'immortal'. 'the only wise God' does not reflect the Greek construction and wrongfully gives the impression that there may be more than one God.
|-
|18
|This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest wage a good warfare;
|This is your duty, son Timothy, as foretold in the prophecies concerning you, that you have to follow to wage an ideal war.
|the 'war' is conspicuously absent from the NKJV
|-
|19
|Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:
|You have to keep your faith and a good conscience. Some lost faith and that ended in disaster,
|
|-
|20
|Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.
|for example Hymaneaus and Alexander, that I gave up to Satan as a punishment for their blasphemy.
|'paideuthOsin' is 'to be disciplined' and is in essence a punishment.
|}

==Chapter 2==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
|I urge then that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all men.
|
|-
|2
|For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
|This includes kings and everyone in superior positions, so that we may live peacefully in godliness and honesty.
|
|-
|3
|For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
|Our God and Saviour is pleased by this,
|
|-
|4
|Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
|who wants all men to be saved and realize the truth.
|The Greek text does not imply that everybody will be saved, only that God wishes so.
|-
|5
|For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
|For there is only one God, and only one mediator between God and men, Jesus Christ,
|
|-
|6
|Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
|who gave himself as a ransom for all, as the testimony will be given in its proper time.
|
|-
|7
|Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
|For this reason I was appointed a preacher and an apostle, a teacher of the true faith for the Gentiles. I speak the truth in Christ.
|There is no need to add 'I lie not'.
|-
|8
|I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
|I want men to lift holy hands in prayer everywhere, without suffering from censorship.
|The original text shows that the people praying should be free from indignation (whether feigned or sincere) and debate, which are covered both by 'censorship'.
|-
|9
|In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
|I also want women to wear modest clothes, with decency and propriety. They should not dress themselves with braided hair, jewelery or expensive outfits,
|gold and pearls were a substitute for 'jewelery'
|-
|10
|But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
|but with their good works, which become women professing godliness.
|
|-
|11
|Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
|A woman should learn in silence and in full submission.
|
|-
|12
|But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
|I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man: she must be silent.
|
|-
|13
|For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
|This is because Adam was created first, and then Eve.
|
|-
|14
|And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
|Adam was not deceived, but the woman was. She is thus responsible for the transgression.
|
|-
|15
|Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
|A woman may nevertheless be saved through childbearing, provided she keeps her faith, charity, holiness, together with propriety.
|}

==Chapter 3==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
|It is true that if a man desires to be a supervisor, he desires a noble task.
|episkopEs traditionaly refers to 'bishop', but really applies to any supervising work. Maybe 'administrator' could be used.
|-
|2
|A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
|As such, a supervisor must be blameless, married, sober, self-controlled, hospitable, patient, and a good teacher,
|
|-
|3
|Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
|and certainly not someone who drinks wine, or loves money, or seeks fights, or covets.
|
|-
|4
|One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
|He has to manage properly his own household, and have respectful and obeying children,
|
|-
|5
|(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
|as a man unable to rule his own house would not know how to take care of the chuch of God.
|
|-
|6
|Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
|
|He should not be a novice, lest he become conceited and be condemned as Satan was.
|-
|7
|Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
|He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, lest he should fall into reproach and Satan's trap.
|
|-
|8
|Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
|Servants must likewise be grave, consistent, not addicted to wine, not pursuing dishonest gain.
|
|-
|9
|Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
|They must keep the deep truths of the faith with a pure conscience.
|
|-
|10
|And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
|They must be tested and found blameless before being authorized to serve.
|
|-
|11
|Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
|In the same way, their wives should be grave, sober, and trustworthy, and not evil.
|the term 'diabolos' is used, usually referring to satan
|-
|12
|Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
|The servants can marry a woman, and should ideally rule over their children and their house.
|
|-
|13
|For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
|Those who have served well should earn an improvement in standing, and gain much assurance in their faith in Jesus Christ.
|
|-
|14
|These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:
|I hope to come see you soon, but I write to you
|
|-
|15
|But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
|so that, should I be delayed, you know how one ought to behave in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of all truth.
|
|-
|16
|And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
|No-one denies the mystery of godliness is great: God appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, witnessed by messengers, preached to all nations, was believed on in the whole universe, and glorified.
|
|}

==Chapter 4==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
|
|
|-
|2
|Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
|
|
|-
|3
|Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
|
|
|-
|4
|For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
|
|
|-
|5
|For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
|
|
|-
|6
|If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.
|
|
|-
|7
|But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.
|
|
|-
|8
|For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.
|
|
|-
|9
|This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation.
|
|
|-
|10
|For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
|
|
|-
|11
|These things command and teach.
|
|
|-
|12
|Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.
|
|
|-
|13
|Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.
|
|
|-
|14
|Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.
|
|
|-
|15
|Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.
|
|
|-
|16
|Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.
|
|
|}

==Chapter 5==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;
|
|
|-
|2
|The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.
|
|
|-
|3
|Honour widows that are widows indeed.
|
|
|-
|4
|But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God.
|
|
|-
|5
|Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day.
|
|
|-
|6
|But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.
|
|
|-
|7
|And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless.
|
|
|-
|8
|But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
|
|
|-
|9
|Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,
|
|
|-
|10
|Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.
|
|
|-
|11
|But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;
|
|
|-
|12
|Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.
|
|
|-
|13
|And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
|
|
|-
|14
|I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
|
|
|-
|15
|For some are already turned aside after Satan.
|
|
|-
|16
|If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.
|
|
|-
|17
|Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
|
|
|-
|18
|For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
|
|
|-
|19
|Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.
|
|
|-
|20
|Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
|
|
|-
|21
|I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.
|
|
|-
|22
|Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure.
|
|
|-
|23
|Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.
|
|
|-
|24
|Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after.
|
|
|-
|25
|Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid.
|
|
|}

==Chapter 6==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
|
|
|-
|2
|And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.
|
|
|-
|3
|If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
|
|
|-
|4
|He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
|
|
|-
|5
|Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
|
|
|-
|6
|But godliness with contentment is great gain.
|
|
|-
|7
|For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.
|
|
|-
|8
|And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.
|
|
|-
|9
|But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
|
|
|-
|10
|For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
|
|
|-
|11
|But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.
|
|
|-
|12
|Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.
|
|
|-
|13
|I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;
|
|
|-
|14
|That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
|
|
|-
|15
|Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
|
|
|-
|16
|Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.
|
|
|-
|17
|Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;
|
|
|-
|18
|That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;
|
|
|-
|19
|Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.
|
|
|-
|20
|O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
|
|
|-
|21
|Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
|
|
|}

[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

First Epistle to Timothy (Translated)

2009-12-15T21:37:59Z

TSpencer: /* Chapter 2 */

First Epistle to Timothy (Translated)

2009-12-15T21:37:25Z

TSpencer: /* Chapter 2 */

First Epistle to Timothy (Translated)

2009-12-15T19:59:09Z

TSpencer:

First Epistle to Timothy (Translated)

2009-12-15T19:34:10Z

TSpencer: translating

First Epistle to Timothy (Translated)

2009-12-15T19:08:25Z

TSpencer:

First Epistle to Timothy (Translated)

2009-12-15T18:40:34Z

TSpencer: a start on Timothy

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2009-12-13T20:37:36Z

TSpencer: /* The Greatest show on earth */

== Giraffe neck ==
The neck of the giraffe is a great counterexample, BrianCo!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:54, 23 November 2007 (EST)
:How so? I don't get it. In what way does the giraffe's neck say anything one way or the other about evolution? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 04:35, 15 February 2008 (EST)

If anything the giraffes neck is an example supporting evolution, as the animals with longer necks (caused from a genetic mutation) would have survived to reproduction as there is less competition for the food from the high branches. [[User:SSSmith|SSSmith]] 19:10, 12 November 2008 (EST)
: If the giraffes with shorter necks couldn't survive, then how did the young ones survive to become adults and reproduce?
: Also, I've already answered this point lower down the page:
{{QuoteBox|"It's not a simple matter of the length of the neck bones. The neck of a giraffe comes complete with valves to stop massive fluctuations in blood pressure when it lowers its head to drink and raise it up again. Where did those valves come from to get selected? Furthermore there is no fossil evidence of giraffes with short necks.}}
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:21, 13 November 2008 (EST)

==Refutations==

Ummm...this is a dangerous topic to take up, but it's my area of expertise, so what the hey. Most, if not all of the examples in the article can be explained from an evolutionary standpoint.

1) Beautiful autumn foliage is an adaptive response of plants to conserve energy during relatively low-production months. They actually resorb energy during fall, so the cost-benefit analysis works in their favor. This is one reason there is no seasonal loss of foliage in the tropics, which have a near-constant energy pool.

2) Molecular evidence places whales and dolphins in the same clade as cows (Artiodactyla). The presence of vestigal limbs is very strong evidence for this theory, as well.

3) There is a plausible pathway to the development of the eye, including numerous intermediate structures that were much simpler and less effective. Indeed, the vertebrate eye is quite flawed (blind spot, image inversion), as one of the tenets of evolution would predict (the idea that natural selection can function only on existing structures).

4) I would be willing to bet that there is an explanation for the evolution of blood clotting, but I need to do some book work first. Off the top of my head, I can't think of one, so in the interest of vigorous science, I concede that point for now.

5) The swarming of jellyfish is a response to an influx of planktonic life brought on by the full moon...the predators follow the prey.

6) The timing of cicada species has to do with the availability of reliable energy sources and reliable mates. The somewhat arbitrary time periods highlight the underlying randomness of mutations.

7) I'm not sure whether point seven is referring to the ability of birds and butterflies to navigate, or their migrative lifestyle, but there is an explanation for both. Migration is an adaptive trait to allow exploitation of otherwise inhospitable regions, and the navigative abilities evolved as a response. Humans and other mammals actually possess a rudimentary ability to detect the magnetic field...a holdover from our own migratory days.

8) The neck of giraffes is a textbook example of sexual selection.

9) The gaps in the fossil record can be explained by the sheer difficulty of creating fossils. Probability argues against having fossils of everything.

10) Feathers could have evolved from scales, and there is molecular evidence for this.

11) Point eleven simply makes no sense...I have never heard anything like this concept in my years of studying biology. I think it may just be poorly written, but I can't understand the point well enough to refute it.

I have sources (often many) for all of the above, but I have to rush to rehearsal now, so I'll add those later.--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 16:47, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

: I think lists like this are simplistic, but here's some responses.
:# "''Beatiful autumn foliage is an adaptive response of plants to conserve energy during relatively low-production months''" is story-telling. It doesn't explain ''how'' evolution could have come up with the idea. The rest of your point applies equally well to creation: God designed it to have a good cost-benefit ratio.
:# Being in the same clade does not mean that there is an identifiable ancestor. Vestigial organs are due to a ''degradation'', whereas microbes-to-man evolution requires ''innovation''.
:# The "plausible pathway" explanations are not plausible at all, taking great leaps in complexity (e.g. starting off with an extremely complex "light-sensitive spot". The vertebrate eye is not a flawed design at all. What's wrong with image inversion? That's a natural consequence of using a lens. As for the blind spot...{{QuoteBox|Ophthalmologist Peter Gurney gives a detailed response to the question ‘Is the inverted retina really “bad design”?’ He addresses the claim that the blind spot is bad design, by pointing out that the blind spot occupies only 0.25% of the visual field, and is far (15°) from the visual axis so that the visual acuity of the region is only about 15% of the foveola, the most sensitive area of the retina right on the visual axis. So the alleged defect is only theoretical, not practical. The blind spot is not considered handicap enough to stop a one-eyed person from driving a private motor vehicle.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3275/]}}
:# No comment.
:# That makes sense. When you back that up with a source, I'll remove that one.
:# The first part about energy and mates doesn't appear to explain it at all. The second part about mutations is story-telling.
:# As for No. 1.
:# Selection only selects from something that is already there. The question evolution has to answer is, how did it get there in the first place?
:# That's an ''ad hoc'' rationalisation. It doesn't explain why the gaps are so systematic between different basic kinds of creatures.
:# What molecular evidence? Molecularly, they are quite different.
:# I agree that it makes no sense. I'll remove that one.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:51, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
: P.S. you had a typo in your first point. I wouldn't mention it except that I know you are fussy about such things!

Before responding, let me establish one thing that I should have said much earlier. '''My refutation of these points is not intended to prove evolution or disprove any "competing" theory.''' My goal is only to show that evolution can explain how these things came to be, and thus that they cannot be used as examples of failures in evolutionary theory.

Another related disclaimer: my claims are made from a background of evolutionary biology, so the reader should feel free to mentally insert "according to evolutionary theory" when appropriate.

I would first like to take these point by point as concisely as possible.

1) '''All origins theory is story-telling.''' The burden of proof is then upon the story teller to show that their explanation is plausible, and the different camps go about this in different ways. Evolutionary biologists do so by establishing a possible mechanism and doing controlled field studies to see if that mechanism actually works in the way we expect it to. If it does, then it's plausible enough to serve as an explanation, and more importantly, it can be used as a predictive tool. And that's all evolution really cares about...whether or not it happened is really irrelevant to our predictive capability. The fossil record (ie history) comes into play only when something is unexpected, because it shows us that our tool may be flawed and we need to fix it, or maybe get a new one (if you pardon the analogy).

2) Being in the same clade ''does'' imply a common ancestor in the same way that being in the same human family implies a relationship. To continue the analogy, assume for a minute that we have two siblings separated at birth. They think they are related, and a DNA test shows that they are, but they have no proof of a common parent without their actual living parents. However, the chance of common ancestry is high enough that there is no reason to reject the assumption (by the way, the analogy is flawed, but it captures the essence of scientific proof: '''assumptions based on plausible possibilities, based on past research and questioned more intensively when contrary evidence comes to light''' there is no such thing as certainty in science).

3) I will try to find a good copy of the proposed pathway for the development of the eye, but I know that there is no implausible leap in complexity over the hundred or so proposed structures in the lineage. But keep in mind, as I mentioned in 1, just because evolution can explain something a certain way doesn't mean it happened that way...biologists are constantly redoing our own version of history. Rather, I intend merely to show that these points are not evidence against biology. This one will have to wait until Monday, when the library is unlocked.

4) Is outside my area of expertise, and I will not mock those who know what they're talking about by bungling up an explanation here.

5) Sources for 5:a) Hickman et. al., Integrated Principles of Zoology, 13th ed. 2006. McGraw-Hill publishing, Boston, MA
b) Solomon et al., Biology, 6th ed. 2005, Thomson-Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA
c) numerous lectures and individual observation...not a source per se, but they at least serve to tell that I'm not making it up.

The fact that those are all biology texts should give a critical thinker pause, but again remember that I merely want to refute these points as evidence against evolution, not prove evolution itself.

6) I actually recieved another explanation from another CP member that does a better job explaining it, so I'm going to use that one and throw out my own esoteric and very involved explanation. Many predators reproduce in regular intervals. 13 and 17 are prime numbers, and so are not divisible by any other number. This means that the predators are not able to sync their reproductive cycle with that of their prey. It's an adaptive function, but that explanation serves equally well for both evolution and ID. It does, however, show that evolution is able to explain that point.

7) Once again, I assert that all origins theories are story-telling and that that argument doesn't hold weight when applied across the board. The fact is that the explanation I provided is plausible and there is evidence to support that it happened (just to name one: Larkin et. al. "Evidence for widely dispersed birds migrating together at night", Journal of Integrative and Comparative Biology, 48:1)

8) The neck of the giraffe was already there as part of the basic chordate body plan (the origin of that plan is still hotly debated in comparative biology, and there are three or four very good theories that can explain the evidence). All traits exist in a normal distribution; that is, among the ancestral giraffe population, some individuals had longer necks. Male giraffes compete for mates, and those with longer necks are more effective competitors (they win more fights), thus sexual selection selected those individuals with longer necks, resulting in a textbook example of sexual directional selection (Kardong et al. Vertebrates, 4th ed. McGraw Hill publishing, Boston, MA, 2006). Evolution would be in trouble if giraffes didn't have the same number of neck bones as all other chordates...it couldn't explain that.

9) Let me change my tack, then, because my previous argument does seem rather ad hoc. Instead, I will refer to my analogy from 2: lack of an ancestor in the records does not imply that one didn't exist if such existence is highly likely. Moreover, one of the ways to test evolution is the prediction of intermediate forms, and these hypotheses are confirmed with the discovery of said intermediates. I will also say that the gaps in the record are constantly being filled in: a fossil called ''Diplognathus'' was recently discovered which confirmed a somewhat odd explanation for the derivation of ear bones (that's just one example). (Kardong et al. Vertebrates, 4th ed. McGraw Hill publishing, Boston, MA, 2006)

10) The molecular evidence of which I speak refers to the nuclear material found within the cells creating scales and feathers, and within the proteins which make up the scales and feathers themselves. For starters, they are molecularly identical, both being composed primarily of keratin. Furthermore, all versions of a different protein have very slight variations, both in terms of the protein themselves and in the DNA which codes for them. The sheer size of both molecules mean that the chance of a similar variation occuring by chance is negligible, so similarities in variation imply common ancestry (similar to the "twins separated at birth" analogy). The variations in keratin are very similar between birds and reptiles, implying a common descent (Glenn et. al. "Evolutionary relationships among copies of beta keratin genes from several avian and reptilian orders" Journal of Integrative and Comparative Biology, 48:4)

And I think that is more than enough talk on that for now...I need a break. All I will do is close with saying once again that I do not claim these are proofs of evolution or "disproofs" of other theories. I merely claim that the specific points in the article can be explained plausibly by evolutionary theory and thus can't be used as counterexamples. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 12:34, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

: Your comments above range from concepts like "there must be an evolutionary explanation" to "the burden of proof is on someone else."

: The point here is simple: one counterexample disproves the theory of evolution. Accept that logical truth, or go no further and admit that you will adhere to evolution no matter what logic dictates.

: It only takes one counterexample. Number one in the list -- beautiful autumn foliage -- is enough. The foliage existed before man does, and beauty does not help the trees in the slightest. The theory of evolution is confounded by the beauty, and the best it can say is it happened by chance. But such beauty does not happen by chance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:39, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
::: In ''principle'' it only takes one counterexample. In ''practice'', it's not that simple. Suppose that we have a hypothesis that water always boils at 100 degrees Celsius. We run 100 tests to see if that's true. One test shows water boiling at 97 degrees. Does that one counterexample disprove the hypothesis, or do we accept that perhaps that particular test has another explanation (e.g. somebody botched the test, or it was the only one of the hundred tests not performed at sea level)? And that was for a very specific hypothesis. Evolution is not a specific hypothesis, but, at best, a whole series of hypotheses. Finding a counterexample to one hypothesis does not mean that the whole idea of evolution needs to be discarded. At worst, evolution is a conceptual framework, not actually a series of hypotheses at all. Again, a single counterexample is not justification for rejecting that conceptual framework. Of course there are ''plenty'' of counterexamples to evolution, so we don't have to put all our eggs in one basket and say that one is enough. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:17, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::It does take only one counterexample...and my point is that ''none of the proposed points actually follow through'' as counterexamples.

::The idea of beauty being a derived characteristic has no place in evolution, because '''beauty is not a biological characteristic'''; beauty is a human aesthetic...it just so happens that the pigments in plants reflect certain photons which trigger specific neurons in our brains. Such beauty can happen by chance, and nature abounds with examples (the collection of specific coral species into a visually appealing reef, for example, is almost totally random). So no, evolution is not confounded by beauty.

::And also, the idea that the cooperation of two or more entities implies co-evolution is simply not true. First of all, the example of the flagellum as irreducible complexity (and any similar examples) rely on the idea of gross change, and ignore the gradual improvement of existing structures. Additionally, irreducible complexity assumes a goal, which is itself a logical fallacy. What I mean by that is that IC assumes that without missing parts, something will not work ''in that role''. But that assumes that there is a goal in mind! If we remove that assumption (which doesn't agree with evolutionary theory), then evolution can give rise to structures like the eye and flagellum by modifying existing structures that work fine in other roles. And that is why, from the evolutionary perspective, points 11 and 13 are not legitimate counterexamples. Furthermore, the eye, flagellum, and many symbiotic relationships are far from ideal if you do an ecological cost-benefit analysis. But evolution favored and led to them '''because they work well enough'''.

::A specific point of number 13 can be addressed in more detail: the symbiosis of complex plants and nitrogen-fixing bacteria allowed the rapid dispersal of these plants, because it conferred on them a massive evolutionary advantage. Primitive plants, such as mosses, do not have these bacteria, but they are still able to survive. They are simply not as effective at it, which is why they are not the dominant plant form.

::As for the evolution of consciousness, I'm glad that was brought up, because it's a very interesting topic on its own. The current evolutionary standpoint is that consciousness is an evolutionary adaptation allowing an organism to better predict its environment. This is in response to pressures related to the massive and very rapid dispersal of humans across a number of different environments. This is an elegant solution because it explains why humans are the only animal to definitively display consciousness: only humans displayed such a rapid dispersal across varied environments. From the perspective of the gene, this was an evolutionary mistake (and the evolutionary model predicts it can make mistakes), because now their "survival machines" have the capacity to rebel against their own genes (after Dawkins, 1976).

::Again, I completely accept that one counterexample is sufficient for a falsification, we just have not yet presented a point that cannot be explained by evolutionary theory. And on that line of falsification, anyone practicing physics is practicing a debunked field, because there are many things that physics can't explain, such as mass. Hmm...that statement makes me a little uncomfortable...perhaps there's a problem with my logic. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 17:47, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

::: You write that "beauty can happen by chance." That's plainly false. You won't be able to identify anything strikingly beautiful, such as autumn foliage, that is known to happen by chance. Indeed, chance is the antithesis of beauty.

::: When presented with a counterexample, it's unsatisfactory for you to shrug your shoulders and say the equivalent of "it must have just happened by chance." If you're going to do that, then Jesus Himself could appear to you this evening and you could respond the same way and try to brush it off. Rather, you should admit beautiful autumn foliage cannot be explained by evolution, and admit that remarkable beauty is not the product of pure chance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Responding to Thinker...

"''All origins theory is story-telling''": In making that claim, you've just asserted, without foundation, that the biblical account, ''which claims to be the eyewitness account of creation by the Creator'', is just a made-up story.

"''The burden of proof is then upon the story teller to show that their explanation is plausible''": True. Which is where evolution hopelessly fails. It comes up with superficially-plausible-sounding stories, which are often simply not at all plausible when looked at closely.

"''...that's all evolution really cares about...whether or not it happened is really irrelevant to our predictive capability.''": Huh? Evolution is a claim about what ''actually happened''. Atheists use evolution to argue that the Bible is wrong (because ''they'' can see the contradiction). Whether or not it happened ''is'' very relevant.

"''Being in the same clade does imply a common ancestor...''": But the claim was that it doesn't ''identify'' a common ancestor, which would be some sort of test that the implication is true. Further, being in the same clade only implies a common ancestor ''if evolution is true''. If life was created by God, it implies no such thing. So the argument is circular, because it assumes evolution in order to support evolution.

"''Rather, I intend merely to show that these points are not evidence against biology.''": Perhaps this was a mis-type on your part, but I've seen it before, so in case you meant it that way, these are arguments against ''evolution'', not ''biology''. The two are not synonymous.

Regarding No. 5, could you provide quotes from those sources, please?

"''It's an adaptive function, but that explanation serves equally well for both evolution and ID. It does, however, show that evolution is able to explain that point.''": No, it doesn't serve well. Evidence of things working well is evidence of good ''design''. Evolution's job is not to explain why things are the way they are, but how they came to be the way they are. You are providing evidence of why cicadas have reproduction cycles based on prime numbers, not of how evolution would produce that. The same applies to your response to No. 7.

"''All traits exist in a normal distribution; that is, among the ancestral giraffe population, some individuals had longer necks.''": It's not a simple matter of the length of the neck bones. The neck of a giraffe comes complete with valves to stop massive fluctuations in blood pressure when it lowers its head to drink and raise it up again. Where did those valves come from to get selected? Furthermore there is no fossil evidence of giraffes with short necks.

"''Moreover, one of the ways to test evolution is the prediction of intermediate forms, and these hypotheses are confirmed with the discovery of said intermediates.''": Except that these [[intermediate forms]] are almost entirely lacking.

"''scales and feathers ... are molecularly identical, both being composed primarily of keratin.''": Two different types of keratin. And from [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/909 this article]:{{QuoteBox|‘At the morphological level feathers are traditionally considered homologous with reptilian scales. However, in development, morphogenesis, gene structure, protein shape and sequence, and filament formation and structure, feathers are different.’ A.H. Brush, ‘On the origin of feathers’, Journal of Evolutionary Biology 9:131–142, 1996.}}

"''The sheer size of both molecules mean that the chance of a similar variation occuring by chance is negligible, so similarities in variation imply common ancestry''": Or a common designer.

"''The idea of beauty being a derived characteristic has no place in evolution, because '''beauty is not a biological characteristic'''; beauty is a human aesthetic.''": Yes, that's the point. Evolution can't explain beauty, because it's not a biological characteristic. However, I think that autumn leaves are a poor example, as the reason for their colour can be explained as simply being a natural consequence of them dying. A better example is the beauty of a peacock's tail[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5714/].

"''...the example of the flagellum as irreducible complexity (and any similar examples) rely on the idea of gross change...''": No, they don't. They rely on there being no feasible intermediates that can produce the structure.

"''...and ignore the gradual improvement of existing structures.''": No, they don't ''ignore'' such gradual development; they argue against it.

"''IC assumes that without missing parts, something will not work ''in that role.": No, it ''argues'' that without the missing part, it will not work in ''any'' role.

"''If we remove that assumption (which doesn't agree with evolutionary theory), then evolution can give rise to structures like the eye and flagellum by modifying existing structures that work fine in other roles.''": Hand-waving story telling.

"''Furthermore, the eye, flagellum, and many symbiotic relationships are far from ideal if you do an ecological cost-benefit analysis.''": Oh? The eye can detect a single photon. How do you get any better than that?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:17, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::Mr. Rayment again brings up excellent points, and I'm actually going to let many of them stand unanswered (largely because to do so would start a cycle of the same arguments over and over again). I think this talk page could be very useful to someone questioning evolution as it is now, and there's not much more I can add without getting needlessly technical.

::But before I leave it, I want to address three specific points:
::1) Evolution should not be used by anyone to try and "disprove" creation. Something should be proved or disproved only on terms of its own merit, independent of other theories.

::2)I did mean to say "evolution" rather than "biology". However, as evolution is one of the core tenets of modern biology, underminging evolution would be just as damaging to science as undermining Genesis would be to Biblical inerrancy (I am referring here to another debate in which Mr. Rayment and I have been involved). Perhaps this sheds light on why many biologists, myself included, are so staunch in our defense of the theory.

::3) In regard to your final point. a) The chordate eye cannot detect a single photon, and in fact needs many photons to be activated. But that is just nitpicking. b) The cephalopod eye is far better in terms of capability and "logical design". In fact, the cephalopod eye is often considered to be one of the best in nature. Furthermore, many other organisms, such as mantis shrimp (which have many times the visual acuity of vertebrates) have eyes which are arguably superior to ours.

::And unfortunately, I think that is as much as I will be able to add before I must return to work. However, I think I have at least clarified some of the points of evolutionary biology, and hopefully this talk page will be helpful to anyone trying to get more information on the debate.--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 11:36, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::But what if some evidence proved that the bible is in fact, not infallible? Would you disregard that, Mr. Schlafly, as you suggest we do with the theory of evolution? I dont mean to judge, just please don't say that someone is closed-minded because they may not change their views because one part of the theory may appear to be faulty.

::Arguing about this seems to be pointless anyways, since it is possible that one counterexample could prove the theory impossible, and it is possible that this counterexample could be overlooking something that neither side can see. --[[User:Ekeegan|Ekeegan]] 21:27, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Thinker, evolution ''is'' used to disprove creation, whether it should be or not. And in a sense it should be, as (depending on how you define them), there are really only two options: a natural explanation and a supernatural explanation. If one is correct, the other is wrong.
:: I reject that evolution is a core tenet of biology. Biology existed before Darwin published his idea, and the two are different concepts anyway. Biology is the study of living things (e.g. how they work), evolution is the study (if you like, I would say story) of how living things came to be.
:: [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4342 This source] says that the eye ''can'' detect a single photon, and [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3275/ this source] says that the cephalopod eye can't see as well as the human eye. In any case, you are comparing eyes for different environments and that therefore have different purposes.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:50, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

I'd like to throw something out there regarding number 1. It appears to be a "tree falls in the forest"-type statement. It appears to say that beautiful phenomenon are designed (divinely) for human pleasure and thus they could not precede humanity. Ah.... what?
[[User:Inspector]] 11:58, 1 June, 2009 (MST)

== Consciousness ==

Excellent new point!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:27, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

== Bat counterexample ==

Superb again!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:31, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

You appear to be unaware of the greater than 150 species of bats that do not echolocate: the megachiroptera, which represent two subfamilies and 41 genera. Even one counterexample would disprove the theory that bats cannot fly without sonar. --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 21:15, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

The article stated: "A bat can't fly without sonar, and an animal that can't fly doesn't need it therefore the bat must have been created with fully functioning sonar and flight."
1) Bats do not require sonar to fly; the existence of 150 species of non-echolocating bats proves this.
2) Even ignoring the sonar of toothed whales and the echolocation of oilbirds and swiftlets, there are nonflying land animals that use echolocation: two genera (multiple species) of shrews and the tenrecs. Thus the statement that "an animal that can't fly doesn't need it" is also disproven.
3) Since mammalian flight and mammalian echolocation both exist in isolation, the flight-echolocation combination is not irreducibly complex and therefore does not disprove evolution.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 15:24, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
: It was poorly worded, but the point was valid, that a certain group of creatures do need the sonar to fly, even if that was only some bats and not all. I've reinstated and improved the entry. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:14, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::It's clearly a waste of time to remove it again, but the point is most definitely not valid. To approach validity, there would have to be no current non-echolocating bats and no non-bat echolocators. There would also have to be no fossil evidence of non-echolocating bats and no fossil non-bat echolocators. In reality, none of these four conditions are met. Therefore there is no theoretical impediment to an echolocator evolving flight or a flyer evolving echolocation, since the two traits are entirely separable and need not have arisen simultaneously. --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:07, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

"Thinker", please take your own name to heart: there is no such thing as "relative truth," and hence the reversion of your edit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:10, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:My point was merely that the same logical reasoning can and should be applied to all origins theories. To do otherwise would be inconsistent and scientifically unsound.

:And the claim that there is no relative truth is just that, a claim: an initial assumption that serves as a jumping-off point for further debate. It itself must be justified, has not been justified to an extent that satisfies me, and is a debate that belongs elsewhere, so I will again leave it. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 15:29, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

== Some Comments ==

Just a brief comment - Aschlafly, you seem to suggest that autumn foliage is designed to be beautiful. That is totally subjective and personally I dont find autumn foliage particularly striking. One mans beauty is another's ugly. Secondly, in regards to consciousness, many species of chimps use tools and show morality also parrots have self awareness also and can recognise themselves in mirrors. I dont think wearing clothes has anything to do with self awareness either [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:12, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

: No, PatWills, autumn foliage ''is'' beautiful. Maybe you deny that 2+2=4 too. You do have free will. But you're not going to persuade anyone here by insisting that autumn foliage is not beautiful. It is, and it disproves evolution.

: As to animals, they don't dress themselves. They really don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:18, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::Yes fine, you think foliage is beautiful. I dont, so its subjective. Its that simple. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:22, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::: OK, maybe you don't think 2+2=4 either. You're not persuading anyone. In fact, your position simply reinforces that the beauty of autumn foliage is a counterexample to evolution, because you can't reconcile that beauty with the theory of evolution.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:31, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Maths is not a subjective experience. Maths is objective. There is a difference. I am sure there are many people out there who dislike autumn foliage and their position is just as valid as yours. Personally I think bright green summer foliage is far more aesthetically pleasing. Back to the animals again, I am aware that animals do not wear clothes but that does not answer my point about other animals that use tools and are self aware. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:39, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::PatWills, give it up. You're just restating your absurd denial of beauty in nature, in order to salvage your belief in the theory of evolution. I'm with the other 99.99% of the population that honestly admits that autumn foliage is beautiful. And that single counterexample to the theory of evolution disproves it.

:::::Your denial of beauty does illustrate, however, how depressed people can become after they fall for the theory of evolution. Life without admitting beauty is very depressing indeed. Do yourself a favor and look again with an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:48, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::::::Is just told you I thought green summer foliage was beautiful, I dont like autumn foliage because it reminds me of winter. I have a friend who works at a university studying fungi and he thinks fungi is beautiful. Do you find molds and fungi beautiful? As to an open mind, well, you're the one denying that other people may have different ideas of what constitutes beauty. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:55, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Abstract judgements like "beauty" have no place in proving or disproving a scientific theory. They are unmeasurable & unprovable by scientific methods. Besides which, even if we accept that autumn leaves are pretty, how can that possibly disprove the evolution of plants & animals? It says absolutely nothing about the biological origin of that foliage; it only relates to our own perception of it. It has a lot to do with human views of nature, which have changed considerable throughout history, and vary from culture to culture. Meanwhile, we have no evidence that animals find that autumn foliage to be beautiful, or even have an appreciation of beauty at all. The perception of beauty is generally believed to be unique to humans, and whether you believe it to be a human construct or a gift from God, it cannot prove or disprove anything about the nature of the thing that we perceive to be beautiful or how it came to be. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 19:34, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

: Sideways, while you're at it, why stop at beauty? Go on to say that truth, mathematics, morality and everything else is all relative and devoid of anything absolute. In some cultures the counting is "1, 2, 3, infinity". So maybe 2+2 does not equal 4 in those cultures, right?

: Autumn foliage is beautiful, and the theory of evolution depends on denying it. And those who fall for the theory are destined to a life without real beauty. It's a depressing fate. Open your mind and reject its absurdity while you still can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:45, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::Yes things are beautiful, but it is SUBJECTIVE! A person who is colour-blind might not find foliage so beautiful. Have you never heard the phrase "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"? [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 20:40, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Well, since you've barely addressed any of my points, and have instead put words in my mouth on completely different subjects, let me reiterate:
:::1. Truth and beauty are not equivalent. [[Facts]] are generally held to be mind-independent, i.e. they would continue to be the case whether or not anyone believed them, or indeed whether or not there were any minds to believe them in the first place. Can we say the same about beauty? If nobody believes something to be beautiful, then it is not beautiful. What makes it beautiful is a perception. You don't have to look far to find plenty of examples of things that people disagree about whether they are beautiful or ugly.
:::2. Beauty is neither measurable nor testable by scientific methods. Therefore it cannot be accepted as evidence in proving or disproving a scientific theory.
:::3. You say that the theory of evolution depends on denying that autumn foliage is beautiful, when in fact this theme plays no role in the theory of evolution whatsoever. So this whole issue of whether or not we accept autumn leaves to be attractive is irrelevant. It has no bearing on the truth of what causes the trees to change this time of year.
:::[[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 20:51, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: Sideways, your comment is not responsive. I'm not going to waste any more time discussing this with until you do, except to reiterate the following. Evolutionists ''must'' deny the existence of beauty, and you can see examples on this page. Suit yourself, but I'm going to spend my time with the 99.99% of the population that admits that beauty exists, and enjoys it. Depression awaits those who deny the existence of beauty, and you have free will to choose your own path.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

== Consciousness (2) ==

The conciousness point is erroneous. Just because no other animals show these traits (though Philip J. says that others do) it doesn't mean evolution must be flawed. According to evolutionism, the very first thing to evolve would have had traits that nothing else had, right? For example, the first type of fish that walked on land was, at the time, the ''only'' animal that could walk on land. We might ''expect'' that other speciese are "self conscious", but it doesn't ''need to be so''. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:09, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
:: Be careful not to confuse ''consciousness'' with ''self awareness''. They are not the same, and I was talking bout the latter. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:54, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
:::Ah I see, I'll be more careful. However, I still think the point is flawed though. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:07, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
: Evolution, if it is anything at all, is an ''incremental'' process. Something intermediate between man and real animals should reflect that incrementalism with respect to self-awareness and other features.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:47, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::I would think the intelligence of some chimps and also parrots is somewhere inbetween. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 20:40, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

There are six points in this claim, and all are incorrect:
:*Self-awareness: since when is self-awareness defined by clothing? Besides, there is some evidence of that in certain cases, but as HelpJazz said, it's irrelevant anyway.
:*Morality: 1) it is subjective, 2) there are certain animal behaviors that can be interpreted as "moral" and 3) there are plenty of humans that lack morality.
:*Tools: there are many examples of animals using tools, and incidentally it is most often, but not exclusively, in primates, but of course all this depends entirely on your definition of 'tool'.
:*Self-sacrifice: animals ''do'' exhibit self-sacrifice- in fact, such behavior is ''abundant''. It is not the most common behavior, but it's very easy to find nonetheless (for one of the best examples, think colonial insects).
:*"Lower life forms": this claim contains one of the oldest and most common misunderstandings about evolution: ''it is not linear''. Evolution '''does not''' say that man evolved from apes evolved from rats evolved from reptiles evolved from amphibians evolved from fish (...). The animals we see today are not our ancestors. You can say the same for any rodent, bird, fish, etc.
:*"Man is simply not an animal": an animal is biologically ''defined'' as a heterotrophic multicellular eukaryote that lacks cell walls. As I have previously asked elsewhere on this site, which of those four criteria do you believe not to apply to humans- that we don't make our own food, are made of more than one cell, have compartmentalized cells, or don't have cells walls? [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 18:09, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
::Regarding the point on symbiosis. The point relies on both grass and the fungus coming into existence as they are today being the correct view. As such the point relies on evolution not occurring. Since the point assumes that evolution did not occur, it cannot be used in an argument against evolution.
::Regarding the point on the Flagellum, and the transition between uni- and multi-cellular creatures, The theory of Symbiogenesis attempts to cover this. While still in it's infancy as a scientific theory, It has already been able to explain accurately both the chloroplast's and the mitochondria's involvement in multi-cellular creatures. Symbiogenesis regarding cilia and flagellum is currently being researched.
::Regarding animals and self-sacrifice. Other animals do exhibit altruism. A good example of this is the ''U. stansburiana'', or the Side-blotched lizard.
::Regarding intermediate fossils... This argument has been used a lot by people trying to disprove evolution however it is (for lack of a better term) a cop out argument. Scientists have discovered intermediate fossils, The Tiktaalik is often cited as one, Ambulocetus is another. People who do not accept evolution however will not accept these fossils as intermediate fossils. Hence why I call it a cop out argument. There is no fossil evidence that hard core dis-believers of evolution will accept as intermediate so it's rather pointless to continue to ask for them as an argument.
::Other than that Kallium is quite accurate in his statements.--[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 21:10, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Self-awareness and clothing have little if anything to do with each other, I agree there.
::: Whether morality is subjective or not depends on whether or not you believe that it comes from God.
::: I'm not sure that it's true that tool use is "most often" found in primates, but otherwise I agree with this point.
::: I agree that animals do exhibit self-sacrifice. Stories of a hen dying whilst protecting her chicks are legion, for example. Admittedly, though, I don't know if any animals exhibit self-sacrifice for anything other than their own offspring.
::: Sorry, but evolution ''does'' say that "man evolved from apes evolved from rats evolved from reptiles evolved from amphibians evolved from fish". Well, perhaps not "rats" specifically, but it does the rest. True, it doesn't claim that we evolved from the creatures around today, but it does propose a ''line'' from the simplest creature to man (as well as lines to other creatures, altogether forming a tree). And any common ancestor to modern humans and apes would be referred to as an ape.
::: Yes, man is ''defined'' as an animal, in the taxonomic [[classification system]](<-- read that), but you can also ''define'' man as not an animal by using different criteria (such as the existence of an eternal soul). However, whether or not man is an animal is beside the point for this article.
::: The symbiosis argument does not rely on both "coming into existence as they are today", but on the requirement that both species became dependent on each other at the same time. In theory, that could be after both came into existence.
::: Scientists have discovered what ''they claim'' to be intermediate fossils, but (a) they are often not indisputably so, and (b) they are often not actually intermediate! That is, New Scientist in March this year had an article on supposed fossil transitional forms, and I'm reasonably sure that Tiktaalik was one of its examples, but it said that it was on a side branch. If it's on a side branch, it's not intermediate! For Ambulocetus, see [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1776 here].
::: Just because creationists have rejected all proposals so far doesn't mean that it's pointless asking for them or that there's any that they wouldn't, in theory, accept.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:35, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

== Removed "Statistical Approach" ==

It was a joke. These things don't have a 'chance' of being true (they are NOT probabilistic) and the numbers were utterly random. The fact that so many holes exist is clear enough proof that evolution is absurd. Having an argument about odds only confuses the truth. Instead made it into a Logical Conclusion, by adapting some text from the top. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 18:36, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

== "The foliage existed before man does" ==

But only by a few days, right? Incidentally, according to Ussher, the creation occurred pretty much at the peak of foliage season (in my latitude of the northern hemisphere, anyway...). [[User:Human|Human]] 19:49, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

== Beauty ==

The argument about the impossibility of evolution creating beauty is a valid one, contrary to Sideways' comment. If beauty objectively exists for no apparent evolutionary reason, then it's fair to ask why it exists, and it's fair to conclude that this argument is one that favours creation. To put it another way, evolution would not predict the existence of beauty, but creation would, so if beauty exists, the creationary prediction has been fulfilled and the evolutionary prediction is falsified.

So does beauty exist? Certainly we humans consider various things to be beautiful or not. Just as certainly, we differ as to what we consider beautiful, which suggests that the whole idea is subjective, not objective. So no, it is most definitely ''not'' like 2+2=4. The saying that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is quite true.

However, it can be framed in a more objective manner, as I almost do in the first paragraph. That is, are there things that are generally considered beautiful ''for which no apparent evolutionary reason exists''?

Autumn leaves are ''not'' an example of that. Why are autumn leaves the colours they are? Because in dying, they have lost the chlorophyll that makes them green. There is no need to invoke design to explain their colour. (This does not mean that God didn't deliberately design dead tree leaves to be nice colours, but it does mean that we can't invoke God as the only likely cause.)

However, an example is the one I mentioned higher on this page: the peacock's tail. Darwin considered the peacock's tail to be an example of ''sexual selection'', that is, the peahen prefers the more colourful peacock tails, so evolution favours more colourful tails. For a long time this hypothesis has been accepted, but more recently tests have been done to show that peahens ''don't'' favour more colourful tails, so this idea has been put to bed. (See link higher up this page.)

Now it's always possible that some evolutionist will come up with some other evolutionary explanation of the peacock's tail in the future, but at the moment, this evidence favours the creationary view, so is a valid argument. But autumn foilage is not, for reasons I've just explained.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:33, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

: Philip, if you think that beauty is ''completely'' subjective and relative, then do you feel the same way about the term "good" as commonly used? E.g., God created such-and-such, and saw that it was "good".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:43, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Exactly. As God created 'goodness,' so too he created 'beauty' on Earth. Psalm 27:4 states "One thing I ask of the LORD, this is what I seek: that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to gaze upon the beauty of the LORD and to seek him in his temple." Likewise, Psalm 50:2: "From Zion, perfect in beauty, God shines forth." [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 21:58, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Right. Anyone who claims that beauty is completely subjective and relative is likely to say the same about goodness. God saw that his creation was good, but under this view that is in the eyes of the beholder. It wasn't ''really'' good, it just looked that way to God. For there, of course, it's a small step to saying that morality is in the eyes of the beholder. God said something was wrong, but it wasn't ''really'' wrong, it just seemed that way to God.

::: When 100 out of 100 people say something is beautiful (like autumn foliage), it ''really'' is beautiful. And those who deny it for the sake of evolution can look forward to the depression that life without beauty inevitably entails.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:27, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: It is not true that 100 out of 100 people say autumn foliage is beautiful. Does that then open the possibility that it is not ''really'' beautiful? [[User:Crucialwood|Crucialwood]] 00:46, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

:::: So what are we to make of the old saw that ''Beauty is in the eye of the beholder''? [[User:CescF|CescF]] 22:39, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::::: It's meaningless when the beholder is God. What He sees as beauty IS beauty, as he created it. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 22:42, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::: We are talking about what appears beautiful to ''humans''. But to take your point, how do you determine (apart from explicit references in Scripture) what God considers beautiful? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:52, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::: My mother, long passed now, used to hate Autumn - when she saw the leaves turning brown she always used to feel depressed, as to her it signaled the end of summer and the oncoming long dark winter months. I guess not everyone sees the world the same way. [[User:CescF|CescF]] 22:48, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::I experience a similar state - while I enjoy the pretty colors, it also means the end of the gardening season, and the onset of the heating season, hunkering down for winter, and the short, dark days. PS, one word I find interesting in other contexts in this "argument": kaleidoscope. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:00, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
I'm not saying that beauty is ''completely'' subjective, nor relative. I believe that it exists, and that God created it (i.e. that's probably why the peacock's tail is like it is). But it doesn't follow from that that everything that we ''consider'' beautiful is that way because God intended it to be so. Do you find a landscape beautiful? Most do, but most landscapes are the result not of God's design, but of God's judgment on the world in the form of Noah's Flood. So in such cases, beauty is actually (a) subjective (i.e. it wasn't intended that way) or (b) ''despite'' the judgment (i.e. God made the world so beautiful that even in a corrupted form we still find much of it beautiful). I'm quite happy to accept (b), but if (b) is correct, what we have to acknowledge is that it ''isn't the way God designed it''. So are autumn leave beautiful because God designed autumn leaves to be beautiful, or simply because they are part of an overall beautiful creation?

'''But all that's rather beside the point'''. The point of the beauty argument is that evolution (i.e. natural processes) can't explain it. But natural processes ''can'' explain why autumn leaves are the colour they are. Therefore it's not an evolution-refuting argument.

As for God pronouncing the creation "good", first, I don't believe that the Bible necessarily uses the word "as commonly used" (in the present day). Rather I see "good" as referring to a range of things, such as impeccable and excellent design, faultlessness, fit for purpose, and such. And yes, beauty would be one aspect of that.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:49, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

: Aschlafly already explained it to you clearly, Phil. Beauty cannot result from evolution, as it cannot result from chance. As for Bible's use of the word, yes, it necessarily uses the word "as commonly used." Vague definitions is a favorite method of liberal deceit. God's word is inerrant, and thus does not mislead with vagueries. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 22:55, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
:: That name's "Philip", by the way. And I've explained myself at least as well as Andy's explained it to me, and you've not added anything new to his explanation. Why is the Bible's use of the word ''necessarily'' "as commonly used"? Many Bible words have subtly different meanings than how they are commonly used ''in modern times''. And referring to my use as a "vague definition" is incorrect; I gave a definition that was more detailed than Andy's. Inerrancy is different to clarity. I agree that God's word is clear where it needs to be, but it's not always clear (on less-important matters), although always inerrant. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:12, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
The old saw is an atheistic falsehood, which is traced to statements by a young Benjamin Franklin (before he returned to [[faith]]) and by [[David Hume]], an early atheistic philosopher. See [http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/59100.html]. Looks like it has misled many who are unaware of its atheistic roots.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
: That's a rather selective interpretation of the link you provided. It actually says that in the wording we've been using it's attributable to a Margaret Wolfe Hungerford, although the concept appears earlier, including by Hume, and before him Franklin, and before him Shakespeare, and even he was not the first.
: Nevertheless, the existence of a saying does not mean that it's true. It may not be, but it appears to have a fair bit of truth simply by the ''fact'' that some see beauty where others do not.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:12, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

:: No, Philip, Shakespeare did not say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That is obviously an atheistic saying that you repeated, as I pointed out. It's time to concede that point.

:: Earlier you seemed to think that evolution could explain the undeniable beauty in autumn foliage, but it plainly can't. The color arrangement arose before man and has no plausible evolutionary purpose. Survival of the fittest to produce such beauty? It's absurd, and thus remains as a counterexample familiar to all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
:::: No, Shakespeare did not say precisely that, but then neither did Hume nor Franklin. Your point?
:::: No, Andy, I did not simply "seem to think" that evolution could explain the beauty in autumn foliage. I explained why your argument was invalid, and you've done nothing to answer that, instead simply stating without any substantiation that "it plainly can't". What was actually wrong with the argument that I put (and which Samd has repeated below)?
:::: And what does "the color arrangement arose before man" have to do with the debate?
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:46, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
::: I had been under the impression that leaves change color as a result of their chlorophyll dying due to a lack of water. If this is, in fact, true, I do not think that it is impossible to describe how and why the leaves change using a purely naturalistic viewpoint. (To be honest, I haven't really given this much thought before, and your view on it is very interesting. I'll have to dig out my old Wile biology book and see if it covers this. It's so hard to find science books written from a Christian perspective.)
:::With regard to whether there is a set-in-stone definition of beauty, this idea intrigued me, so I searched the King James Version of the Bible for various words and phrases meaning "pretty", "beautiful", and the like, using a software concordance. The Hebrew word used is almost always the same one, "יפה". Here is Strong's definition of it:
:::::H3303
:::::יפה
:::::yâpheh
:::::yaw-feh'
:::::From H3302; beautiful (literally of figuratively): - + beautiful, beauty, comely, fair (-est, one), + goodly, pleasant, well.
:::H3302 is simply a root (and unfortunately, I can't get the Hebrew letters to render correctly. Oh, well...):
:::::H3302
:::::יפה
:::::yâphâh
:::::yaw-faw'
:::::A primitive root; properly to be bright, that is, (by implication) beautiful: - be beautiful, be (make self) fair (-r), deck.
:::Most of the time, the word "beauty" was used in the phrase "the beauty of his [God's] holiness". "Beautiful" and "comely" generally referred to people or things that looked good, or, pretty. "Fair" was often used to describe various women, such as Sarah and Vashti. ("fairest" and "fair one" were only used in the Song of Solomon). "Goodly", "pleasant", and "well" (when it was used in this sense) likewise were used to describe things, but no definition of the ''words'' was offered in the text. In short, I was unable to find any hard-fast definition of what God considers to be beautiful (in a physical sense, at least). Based on this, as well as my own experience, I think that while there are things which practically anyone would agree is beautiful, such as a sunset, beauty is largely subjective. [[User:Samd|Samd]] 23:24, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== Sarfati reference ==

The Safarti reference about the prostate doesn't say anything about how natural selection would have changed the design for the worst. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:11, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
: See the last line of the article. It doesn't say quite what was in this article, but I've improved it now. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:17, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::It smells of [[straw man|straw]] to me. Sarfati (thanks for the spelling btw!) simply claims that evolutionists say that the prostate is a bad design, but doesn't (a) give any evidence that evolutionists actualy make this agument, <s>(b) give any reasons why evolutionists think the prostate is a bad design,</s> (c) give any reasons why evolutionists would ''admit'' that a bad design would be naturally selected or (d) show that it is necessary to the evolutionist argument for the prostate to have been badly designed. Maybe he has it in his book, but it's certainly not supported by the reference. (In fairness, there is also one line at the beginning of the article, but again this is just an assertion). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:26, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I guess he does say why evolutionists allegedly think that it is a bad design, but he then spends the whole article arguing that not only is it ''not'' a bad design, but evolutionists are using fautlty data to come to the conclusion that it is a bad design. Thus, according to Sarfati, if evolutionists knew about these data, they would have to agree that the prostate is a good design, thus counteracting his own argument! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:29, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

==Chromosome example==

The chromosome example, currently #15 on the list, is false. The standard human has 46 chromosomes. A human with Downs Syndrome has has 47. If they were to mate, they would produce viable offspring. However not all instances of having an extra chromosome result is problems such as Downs Syndrome, some have relatively no impact, most are far worse, and some provide benefits. However I cannot recall a situation where it was beneficial in humans, I have read of cases where it has benefited other animals and plants.--[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 23:13, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

: Random mutations are never beneficial. Please make your point after you have the evidence, not by referring to evidence that you don't have.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:26, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

::They can be, in the right circumstances. Take the SNP responsible for sickle cell anemia. A person homozygous for sickle cell will have a debilitating disease, but a heterozygous person is more resistant to malaria than a non-carrier and is not symptomatic for sickle cell. This is why sickle cell anemia is most prominent in ethnicities from malaria-stricken parts of the world. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:33, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

:::If we were to assume that I was incorrect on mutations sometimes providing benefits, I was still correct that mates with different numbers of chromosomes can still mate successfully, provided of course that they would have been able to produce viable offspring in the first place. That part alone is enough to disprove the point. As for mutations providing benefits, I am not saying that all mutations are beneficial, in fact most mutations involving extra chromosomes cause serious problems, especially in larger mammals (humans included). However plants tend to make better use of the kinds these kinds of mutations, take the F. chiloensis or the Beach Strawberry, It has 8x the number of chromosomes compared to wild type strawberries. Because of this, it produces larger fruit with more seeds. More seeds and larger fruit being an obvious advantage regarding reproduction. --[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 23:53, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::::(edit conflict) Corry said "''This is why sickle cell anemia is most prominent in ethnicities from malaria-stricken parts of the world.''" Just because the sickle-cell mutation happened to produce a beneficial ''result'' in one case does not mean it is truly beneficial. Natural selection dictates that anything that is beneficial stays, and anything that does not ''immediately'' benefit an organism is thrown out. If there ever was a beneficial mutation, it would very quickly be passed among ''all'' members of a species. Since all of humanity does not have the sickle-cell trait, the mutation is, hands down, not beneficial when applied across a broad spectrum (which is what would have to occur in order for a species to evolve). [[User:Samd|Samd]] 00:02, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::No- mutations in the genome do not spread like computer viruses. And as above, I said that homozygotes are at a disadvantage, while heterozygotes are at an advantage. If a mutation causes an overall reproductive benefit, in this case by heterozygotes being resistant to malaria and more likely to have children, then that mutation will be spread more than one which does not have a reproductive benefit. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 00:12, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

As Corry said, "random mutations" ''can'' be beneficial, even though that is (usually?) only in specific circumstances/environments. The claim that they can't be is one that leading creationists specifically say is wrong[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996#mutations].

Samd is also correct that it is not beneficial ''overall'', but that doesn't make Andy's claim that it is "never" beneficial correct. And by the way, these rare beneficial mutations do not help the argument for evolution, because these beneficial mutations are still information-''losing'' mutations, whereas evolution requires information-''gaining'' mutations.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:55, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

:Evolution does not require information-gaining mutations. What it requires are information-changing mutations, which are the definition of mutations in the first place. There are massive parts of genetic material in living things that appear to do absolutely nothing. If one of these parts is mutated, there is no loss whatsoever (unless the mutation is worse than what it replaced, as many are). If the mutation makes a creature less likely to reproduce ''in that environment'', that gene will not be passed on to as many offspring, and the gene will become infinitely uncommon. If the mutation does nothing whatsoever, the population of that species is unaffected. If the mutation is beneficial (meaning that it makes that creature more likely to produce more offspring, which is extremely rare, but happens nonetheless), then this gene will be passed onto its offspring, which in turn are more fit to reproduce than competing creatures within that species. Therefore, this beneficial mutation spreads throughout the population as time passes (it does take a while).

:This can happen indefinitely until a species no longer in any way resembles its ancestors. --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 20:53, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:: If a bacteria has no ''information'' for hair, eyes, bones, skin, and so on, but it's evolutionary descendants do have this information, then they must have ''gained'' this information! And if mutations didn't supply it, then where did it come from? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:19, 7 November 2008 (EST)
::: Mutations did supply it. There are examples of information-gaining mutations as well. And genes are not organized according to body parts. Scientists have discovered that genes interact with each other. The system is very complex. --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 10:33, 7 November 2008 (EST)
::::There are? Care to name one, and rock the scientific world? Your last two sentences say nothing that argues for information-increasing mutations. Infact, gene interaction, expression, polyploidy and generally the complexity of the "system" as you call it are all problems for biological evolution by random changes.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 19:05, 9 November 2008 (EST)

:::: So JArneal, how do you explain these two comments of yours:
::::* "''Evolution does not require information-gaining mutations''":
::::* "''Mutations did supply it.''":
:::: You say that evolution does not require information-gaining mutations, I point out that the information had to come from ''somewhere'', so you respond by saying that it came from ''mutations''!
:::: Yes, please give those example'''s''' of information-gaining mutations. Dawkins was asked for examples, and couldn't supply any. Since then, I know of ''one'' disputed one that is always trotted out, but even if that one is correct, it's ''one'' when there should be ''many'', and you've referred to them in the plural anyway.
:::: And LowKey is quite correct that your comment about the complexity doesn't answer the question about where the information came from. That "genes are not organized according to body parts" doesn't mean that the information for the body parts is not there somewhere.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:31, 10 November 2008 (EST)
::::: I'm sorry I contradicted myself, Philip. What I meant is that evolution is a theory about the adaptation of life, which does not necessarily require information-gaining mutations. What you are talking about is an argument about the progression of life, which is a consequence of people trying to contradict evolution based on creationist beliefs. To you, Lowkey, the complexity of the system is not the issue, so again I apologize. The fact that it is possible to generate the changes through random mutations is the issue. It is possible, no matter how complicated anyone tries to make it out to be. It's the same thing with the information-gaining mutations. As long as there is one example of an information-gaining mutation, it does not make sense to use this argument. I see an information-gaining mutation. That tells me that information-gaining mutations are possible. --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 23:26, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:::::: Regardless of whether you label my argument as about the "progression of life", the unavoidable point is that evolution ''requires'' the addition of enormous amounts of new genetic information. I can't see how evolution going from a "simple" cell with no arms, heart, skin, brain, and so on to humans with all those and much more is not a "progression".
:::::: Simply claiming that it's possible to generate the required changes does not make it so. Lowkey specifically asked you for examples, yet you supplied none.
:::::: And no, it's not as simple as claiming that one information-gaining mutation is enough, for several reasons:
::::::* There is no undisputed example.
::::::* Evolution doesn't require ''one'' but very many (probably millions if not billions). Evidence of ''one'' is not evidence that evolution is capable of providing sufficient such mutations.
::::::* What evolution needs is more information-gaining mutations than information-losing ones. If a hamburger seller makes a loss on every sale, but then eventually sells one for a profit, does that mean that his business is viable?
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:40, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::::: If you are looking for an example of an undisputed information-gaining mutation, I cannot help you. I don't know if anyone can, because evolution will always be disputed on this basis. Do you want me to give that commonly known example? Fine. Down syndrome. I did not want to bring it up because I did not want to argue about this. It is beside the point. The length of the genome does not need to increase to create organs such as eyes or a heart. It must change, however. An amoeba has a far larger genome than a human, yet an amoeba does not have eyes or a heart. The actual size of the genome is not relevant, and therefore information-gaining mutations are not necessary, even from your viewpoint. --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 18:46, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::: Down syndrome is caused by a genetic ''defect'', a ''loss'' of information, not an information-''gaining'' mutation.
:::::::: The amount of information is not proportional to the length of the genome. See the section on ''Measuring information'' in [[information#Measuring information|information]]. You are confusing the ''size of the genome'' with the ''amount of information''. That's like comparing chalk and cheese. As I said, the first cell doesn't have the information for things such as hair, skin, and eyes. So this information has to be ''added''. Even if the cell or bacteria loses ''other'' information in the process, the information for those other things has to be generated ''somehow''. That is the problem that microbe-to-man evolution has yet to produce evidence for.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:32, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Philip, I believe I provided an example of a gain of information with HIV developing an ion channel. An ion channel that requires more than just a single mutation to occur. I believe it can be found [[Mutation|here]] with the gain of function examples.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 07:41, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Philip, I said I did not want to argue about Down syndrome. But if you really want to, then here: Down syndrome is also scientifically known as "trisomy 21." This is because there is a third copy of chromosome 21 in the cells of a Down syndrome person (there are usually only two.)

The example in the [[information]] article does not have anything to do with our argument. It is pure coincidence that the english word for "vehicle" is longer than the english word for "car." The longer the genome, the more base pairs there are. The more base pairs there are, the more information is present in the genome.

If a creature exists that has, lets say, 10000 base pairs(very simplified example) and only about 5000 actually code for proteins that carry out functions(there are long strands of genomes in animals that have no purpose), then there are still another 5000 that do nothing. If a part of this section of 5000 base pairs is mutated and "turned on" to code proteins as is possible, and this part codes for proteins that create arms, then according to the gene, you have lost information to gain the exact same amount of information (no information gain or loss.) But according to our observation of what the creature actually looks like, it looks exactly the same except it has arms.

I'm sorry if I'm not making any sense right now, but I'm not sure if I understand your argument, either. --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 18:43, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:3 copies of something instead of 2 is no increase in information. I have 3 copies of a couple of books (I lend a lot), but I have no more information than if I only had 1 copy of them. Switching existing information on or off is not gaining or losing information. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 23:25, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:::Hmm. What is your metric for 'information'? Can you represent it formally (i.e. mathematically)? I ask because every well-defined metric for quantity of 'information' (such as used in signal processing), seems require more to encode three copies of a gene than two or one (at a minimum it requires at least an extra bit or two). It's very important to settle on ''specific'' definitions for quantification of 'information' before proceeding with assessments of relative changes. Shifting between specific definitions and metrics cause many problems. That was precisely the trouble that damaged many of Lee Spenter's claims about there being no increase in information from mutations (from his book _Not By Chance_) [http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199908/0178.html American Scientific Association discussion -- Follow links from this post] (an organization of Christian professional scientists and engineers) and [http://home.mira.net/~reynella/debate/spetner.htm Discussion from Ian Musgrave].--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 12:05, 3 December 2008 (EST)

:: I agree completely. But imagine instead that those books were created the old-fashioned way (copied by hand, this is similar to the way DNA is copied) and there were some errors made in the copying (mutations) in your third copy of the book. What has happened? No information was lost, because you have already stated that the third copy is useless information-wise if it was the exact same as the others. The amount of information did not stay the same, because you now have a book that contains a different bit of information in it, and the information it would have had without copying errors is already in the other 2 books. If information was not lost and information did not stay the same, it must have increased!

:: What I said might be a little confusing, but the above scenario is far more similar to that of DNA. Mutations cause changes in the information, which in this case is an increase in information.--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 18:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:::That is a false analogy, because in the example you gave the mutation '''is''' the 3rd copy. You are now talking about 2 mutations, the over-copying and then the copying error - but you still have not provided an example of the copying error in which the "copy" has a greater information content than the original. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 23:09, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::: JArneal, the word "vehicle" is not longer than the word "car" due to "pure coincidence". Rather, the example was ''intelligently selected'' to make the point that the amount of information is not the same as the number of letters, bits, or base pairs. When you randomly change a letter or bit, you say that information is not lost, it didn't stay the same, so it must have increased. But why do you say it was not lost? The point is that information is data that has ''meaning''. You've not shown that the ''meaning'' was not lost. Rather, you are continuing to falsely equate the number of bit, letters, or base pairs with ''information''.
::: In your example of the creature gaining the information for arms, what information was lost? According to you, nothing! That is, it has gained the information for arms, but the genes previously did nothing, which means that they had no information for anything, so no information was lost! Similarly, if bits or base pairs that already have ''meaning'' are mutated, then that ''meaning'' will be lost.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:49, 15 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Lowkey, you are right about the fact that my analogy did not use just one mutation. It uses two. But the fact that it uses two does not make it a false analogy. Two mutations can easily happen in the same replication. Therefore, the analogy stands because it still represents what can happen in a replication.
::::And to your charge that I "have not provided an example of the copying error in which the 'copy' has a greater information content than the original," you are completely right. But I don't have to provide an example of this, because my analogy still works, and it is an example of how an information-gaining mutation could happen because of a combination of mutations.

::::Philip, that's not what I meant when I said the word "vehicle" was longer than "car" due to coincidence. But I don't know how to say what I did mean. I'll leave it. And your comment that it was ''intelligently selected''...are you implying that because you intelligently selected an example, intelligent selection happens in nature? I don't know ''what'' to say to this.
::::To your comment that I haven't been properly arguing because I have been equating data to information, you may be right. But hopefully this analogy (analogies are going to be the death of me) will work:
:::::''You have three copies of the same book. You want another three of the same, because your copies are getting old, and you want to get rid of them. So you go to a man who will copy the contents of the books for you. For the sake of simplicity, let's say that each book you gave him says only one thing: "The old man walks." Now in the copying, the man you hired makes an error in the third copy, instead making it read: "The old man talks."''
::::What did you know about the old man in your books before the copying? All you knew about him was that he walked. But after the copying, you have 3 new books, two of which say the same, and one that gives you a new piece of information about the old man, that he talks. You now know, after the copying, that the old man walks and that he talks. You have new information about the old man.
::::And about my creature example, the genes that were mutated did not have "meaning" because they did not code for proteins that carry out functions, so according to you, those genes had no information:"The point is that information is data that has ''meaning''." The genes did have data before the mutation, however, so when it gets a mutation that causes it to have "meaning" (code proteins), information is created out of the meaningless data.
::::To your statement that "if bits or base pairs that already have ''meaning'' are mutated, then that ''meaning'' will be lost," you are absolutely right. The meaning will be lost, which brings me back to the very first post I had in this section: If the loss of the previous meaning causes a creature to function improperly, that creature will not reproduce and the mutation will cease to exist. But if it causes the creature to function even better in its environment, its gene will be passed on, and the creature will never miss its previous gene, because it got something even better in exchange. --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 13:04, 15 November 2008 (EST)

== Thank you ==

Now I see the light. ''Beautiful autumn foliage'' is a clear, decisive evidence against Evolution. I am sure that most of my fellow colleagues, scientists, will see the light as well. A few militant atheists will stay on their positions no matter what evidence is presented them, but I'm sure the majority will understand. Now, let's spread the news! Answersingenesis, Creationontheweb, but also scientific papers: here we come! --[[User:JulianAdderley|JulianAdderley]] 09:06, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:Poor sarcasm if a favourite tool of [[liberals]] who have nothing to contribute and no facts to back up their objections. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 21:15, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Right. After a while, the [[liberal]] nonsense is so obvious that we don't even bother commenting on it. Watch that user and I bet you never see an insightful edit by him.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

::: If the nonsense is "so obvious that we don't even bother commenting on it," why are you commenting on it? --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 21:37, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::::Typical liberal deceit. Next time, focus on the facts and follow the logic of the Bible. [[User:Svincent|Svincent]] 22:52, 12 December 2009 (EST)

== 'Chain of being' ==

RodWeathers reinstated the 'consciousness' entry with the edit comment "''Evolution requires a 'chain of being,' including varying consciousness''". I would like to know what this means and how it addresses the concerns with this entry already explained earlier on this page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:27, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

==Recent Revisions==

I'm back, taking a much-needed break from research, and I've started out with some relatively minor edits. As promised, here are some explanations.

1) I removed the example of the giraffe's neck because it is very easily explained by the naturalistic theory of evolution. And that's not just from me and the rest of evolutionary biology, that's from Dr. Behe.

2) I removed the example of the whale because it deals with common descent, which is (again citing Behe) accepted by scientific critics of evolutionary theory.

3) I added some clarification to the opening paragraph so that readers can better understand the premise of the article and the limitations of the counter-example argument. It is relatively technical compared to other entries, but as this is a technical subject, this article must unfortunately reflect that. I am not trying to say that the re-wording makes the arguments less legitimate, only that they focus the reader's attention on what exactly is at stake (the power of random mutation, which is the only thing questioned within the scientific field [and as an aside, that's being generous with "scientific", but I digress...]).

4) Finally, some of the examples needed rewording to actually reflect the argument. If anyone wants the technical explanations, I'll be more than happy to provide them, but suffice it to say for now that these arguments have to be worded very specifically to be true.

I think that covers all of them. If any of them are in question, please post here and I'll explain my actions. Please don't blindly revert them without a reason. That's unscientific. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 13:46, 14 November 2008 (EST)

: I've reinstated the whale and giraffe examples. It is nonsense to claim that common descent is not in dispute. And I've explained at the top of this page why evolution can't explain the giraffe. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:25, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::Common descent is not ''scientifically'' in dispute. The only attacks to common descent come from without the scientific realm. That doesn't invalidate those attacks, per se, but in order for this article to use scientific reasons for the "rejection" of evolution, it has to be subject to scientific reasoning. And the fact of the matter is that no reputable scientist who has looked at the evidence rejects common descent.

::The neck of the giraffe is a result of what we would call "runaway sexual selection". If you observe giraffes in their natural environment, you might notice that the neck is far, far longer than any shrubs or trees which they eat. So, the neck is obviously not adaptive in that way, because natural selection dis-favors anything that expends energy without need. However, the ancestral giraffe (which is conjectured to look somthing like the Okapi) had a much shorter neck. Although we cannot quite be sure what the environment looked like millions of years ago when these selections took place, it is not much of a stretch to assume that giraffes with longer necks (and we're not talking about a significant difference here) had a higher fitness, so natural selection favored longer necks. At the same time, however, males were competing for access to receptive females. It should be obvious that better competitors were able to reproduce more, and that they would pass on whatever heritable trait allowed them to compete better. In the case of giraffes (anc yes! we can test this!), males with longer necks are more effective competitors, so they produce more children with long necks, and the end result is a net shift of the population distribution. Most importantly, the length comes from increasing the length of individual neck bones, rathering than gaining new structures. It's a perfect example of evolutionary homology!

::Now the next part becomes a little more complicated, and I expect a number of people might not be able to follow it (I'm drawing on some relatively high-level biology). The neck ''valves'' of the giraffe do pose a bit more of an obstacle. The explanation requires accepting common descent, but since I'm sticking to science, I'll go ahead and make that jump. If you know your evolutionary history, you know that all terrestrial chordates are derived from an ancestral fish-like organism. This organism had valves in its ventral aorta for just the same reason as giraffes (prevent back-flow). That's information bit number one. Information bit number two is that the vast majority of our genetic code is inert. It must be "turned on" to work. As the last information bit, remember that natural selection acts against anything which expends unneccessary energy. As the circulatory system of chordates evolved, the original requirement for aortic valves diminished, so natural selection favored those organisms which lost the structure. But wait! '''Losing a structure is not the same as losing the genes for that structure!''' Indeed, the genes were there the whole time: they are part of the ''hox'' complex that controls body plans, and this complex is very heavily conserved. Thus when the need arose for pressure control in the aorta again, it was but a small step to reactivate those genes in the giraffe.

::I can see how that becomes a "chicken or the egg" problem, and I think I may change the point to reflect that. Evolution does a great job of explaining how the neck became long, but people might take issue with the potentiation argument for the valves. I guess it's sort of an irreducible complexity argument.

::Reinstating the whale example shouldn't have been done. The question posed by this article is "can these phenomena be explained in the framework of Darwinian evolution?" The resounding answer for the case of the whale is '''YES!''' That's because one of the main tenets of evolution is common descent, and it's also one very, very strongly supported by evidence. So, scientifically, there is no basis for the inclusion of the whale as a counter-example to evolutionary theory. And please note, when we apply the type of scrutiny we're applying, we must first "pretend," if you will, to accept the theory as a whole and see if it does not provide explanations. That's how speculative science works.

::So with that in mind, I will once again remove the whale example. There's simply no scientific reason to include it. To do so would require attacking common descent first, which has been attempted numerous times and has yet to succeed in empirically-based scientific study.

::If we want to throw out the requirement of scientific scrutiny for a scientific article, that's the perogative of the admins. But we should be honest about the worldview lens through which we're viewing reality. That would save everyone a lot of time, because then we could focus on the source of discord itself.--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 11:24, 15 November 2008 (EST)

:::You said above ''"In the case of giraffes (and yes! we can test this!), males with longer necks are more effective competitors, so they produce more children with long necks, and the end result is a net shift of the population distribution"''. Before you remove anything, I want you to prove to all of us the test. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:29, 15 November 2008 (EST)

::::The test is to observe the mating success of giraffes in the wild. Remember that there is still natural variation, even if the entire curve is shifted to one side, which means we can set up a correlation based on intermediate values. Scientists have found that there is a positive correlation between neck length and mating success. (this is called intrasexual selection, and is distinct from selection by female preference). Therefore, the fitness of long-necked males is higher.

::::My other revisions also need explanation. I removed the peacock's tail as an example from the beauty argument because it is even more easily explained than the neck of the giraffe. It doesn't change the argument itself, it's just an example that doesn't fit there. The variety of marine fish is a more consistent example.

::::I also changed the wording of the opening paragraph because the idea that mutations only destory information is a bogus "sound bite." There are reams of examples of informatio-producing mutations: gene duplication, inversions, and insertions all give rise to radically new coding in simpler life. Genetic recombination and meitoic crossing-over account for even more increases in information (Dawkins, ''The Selfish Gene'', to name just one source). The argument of irreducible complexity (which is the idea that this article is largely based on) merely states that even these mutations cannot account for complexity (and as another aside, I obviously don't agree with that point, but the last time I refuted it, it took up 30 pages...not so keen to repeat that;)).--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 11:43, 15 November 2008 (EST)

:::::Did those scientists who made that observation actualy see the giraffe's neck grow? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:46, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::Huh? That question doesn't make sense (well it does, but not in a relevant way), and I think you may have misunderstood how we test for fitness correlations and natural selection in general. I was a little brief in my explanation considering that there are entire books on the subject, so let's try something a little more detailed and beginning at the basics.

:::Ok natural selection works on the idea that traits which increase fitness (the number of surviving offspring) will be passed on to the offspring of those parents (assuming it is heritable...no Lamarckian evolution). As long as the conditions remain steady, those offspring will then be able to have more offspring themselves until they make up a significant part of the population. Assuming (as Darwin and Malthus did) that there are more organisms than can be supported, only those who are best able to create offspring in this environment will be successful. "Survival of the fittest" is a gross oversimplification that spreads more misconceptions than anything else, which is why I hate the phrase.

:::So now we have the idea that natural selection ''favors adaptations which increase fitness''. Therefore, if we want to test whether or not a trait is adaptive, we can observe the number of offspring an organism has (who is in possession of that trait). This works best on traits which exist across a spectrum of phenotypes (say, the neck of a giraffe). The independent variable is the length of the giraffe's neck, and the dependent one is their reproductive success (gauged by number of matings and number of offspring). Such studies have shown a positive correlation between neck length and fitness (remember, "fitness" is just short-hand for "number of viable offspring). Also note that the specific test is one we use to judge the effects of sexual selection (in this case by intrasexual competition, based on qualitative observations of males fighting). To judge the adaptiveness of a trait from a ''natural'' selection standpoint, we simply look at the number of offspring produced (without taking into account mating success). If something is an adaptive trait using these tests, Darwinian evolution can explain it using its framework. If not, then the problem requires further investigation.

:::I hope that explains how we test the adaptive value of a trait. I don't know where the idea of "needing to see it grow" came from, but perhaps my initial explanation was too brief (I am used to teaching science majors at the college level and forget how much I've specialized, at times).--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 12:12, 15 November 2008 (EST)

The question was "did a scientist see a giraffe's neck grow?" What you said was this: ''"The test is to observe the mating success of giraffes in the wild. Remember that there is still natural variation, even if the entire curve is shifted to one side, which means we can set up a correlation based on intermediate values. Scientists have found that there is a positive correlation between neck length and mating success. (this is called intrasexual selection, and is distinct from selection by female preference). Therefore, the fitness of long-necked males is higher."'' There are all sorts of little words in your explanations (and many, many others) which suggest that scientists just don't know, words like "assuming"; "conjectured"; "plausable"; "scientists believe"; and so forth. Scientists are people, and people anywhere can "assume" that the moon is a lump of cheese, but that of course doesn't change the facts.

With all due respect, the implication of your argument relative to ''Cameleopardus sp.'' has very much to do with scientists stating that mating rituals were responsible for the lengthening of the neck vertebrae, and these scientists implied such as if it were absolute fact. To make such an implication, I'm "assuming" they used the [[Scientific Method]]; the first step of that method demands that a scientist observe the phenomena in question; i.e. ''he has to see the neck actually grow'', and then provide a reasonable explanation for such growth in step two. In step three, the scientist has to do an experiment to see if his hypothesis is correct, and you did say above that "we can test this".

Here is my explanation for the giraffe's neck, which is supported by facts:
*At no time did a scientist of any kind observe a giraffe's neck grow, either in a single animal, or passed down to offspring through successive generations, in accordance with step one of the Scientific Method.
*At no time was testing done pertaining to the hypothesis related to mating; if such was done the results were at best inconclusive, or plain wrong. If the observation instruction of step one cannot be accomplished, then steps two and three could not be done as well.
*At no time in the history of paleontology was the remains of an animal found which could have been declared by science to be the links between the "okapi-like" animal and a giraffe.
That means science is left with two other explantions of the giraffe's neck, of which the familiar one is that it grew in relation to the growing height of the trees. That explantion falls apart for the simple reason that if the animal in question needs to eat and cannot reach the leaves, it either grows the neck immediately, looks for another food source, or starves to death within a few weeks. Two of those facts, by the way, can be observed and tested on any animal.

The third explanation is what I believe in, and there's no testing at all which can refute it: giraffes and their necks were created on the sixth day by an act of God. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:34, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:Wow...I'm not sure where to start here. I guess I can start by saying that the above is a very, very twisted version of the scientific method. In fifteen years of intense science, I've never experienced anything like what you described, nor have a I related anything like that to my many students. I would try to explain it for any observers, but I have the feeling that what I say is going to be squelched, anyway.

:First off, science does not require ''direct'' observation. If it did, then we wouldn't have chemistry or phsyics (aside from applied chemistry and Newtonian physics, which are just a small part of those respective branches). It depends on inference based on observed phenomena, followed by predictions based on those inferences. The scientific method would never require direct observation of the neck growing, it would require observation of a long neck and a scientist asking why it's long.

:Second, my "little words" are there for a reason: '''scientists do not know'''. We assume, we test our assumptions, we change them when things don't go as planned. I just finished up a research project in which the results completely refuted the initial hypothesis, and this eventually led to some radical insights into muscle development. Only the most arrogant and mis-informed (or rhetorical) scientists say things like "we know this beyond a doubt." If we knew all the answers there would be no need for science.

:Third, your explanation for the neck of the giraffe is based on incomplete facts. Moreover, its line of logic is based on an incorrect assumption about the scientific method. Science simply does not work the way you described. I don't know who is relaying the sort of information about the scientific method upon which you base your argument, but shame on them. They have either lied or were dead wrong.

:Finally, "belief" in an explanation has absolutely no place in science, because it precludes the possibility of doubt. Without doubt, again, there is no science. I believe nothing in the scientific field...I accept explanations, and I hold mutable opinions...I even make assumptions when doing is so is needed for forward progress. But I never "believe" anything (ever wondered why so many scientists are atheists? There's your answer). That would be a grave threat to scientific thought.

:I simply cannot continue. My arguments and logic rely on an understanding of science and "proof" which is simply not present here. I will return my focus to my students who are willing to learn. Good day. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 11:38, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::Typical evolutionist weaseling. What Karajou has described is fully in line with the scientific method, and naturally you plug your ears and fail to actually answer the objections, since they undermine your entire worldview. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 11:48, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:::Now, now, this is a debate page, and not a page where we can say "typical evolutionist weasaling". The point I made is simple. Science, as stated above in this example, says that the neck of a giraffe got longer as a result of mating choices, and Thinker indicated that testing has in fact been done on that subject. But to contradict what he said, belief is everything in science. In this example, science believes that the neck of a giraffe got longer over time via the mating of certain individuals. They believe it so much that they are willing to test their beliefs (hypothesis) to see if it is a fact. Thinker indicated above that it was tested; I said it never happened. Both statements could be considered beliefs, but the end result states one is a fact and the other is not. In short, show me a successive line of directly-related individuals who had larger and larger neck vertebrae over time exactly as described, and show me that this occurred through mating. It either happened, or it didn't. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:28, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::::I think that the conflict here is in what Thinker and Karajou are trying to explain - Thinker is assuming that the ancestors of the giraffe did not have long necks, and therefore simple oberving that giraffes now do have long necks is enough to satisfy step 1 of the Scientific Method and he can then continue to propose a hypothesis to explain it. Karajou, on the other hand, believes that giraffes were created in their current form, in which case a net change in neck length over time would have to be observed before a hypothesis would be needed. However, for this change to be observed, the timescale needed would be far greater than the length of time since the ToE was proposed.
[[User:PBowler|PBowler]] 14:17, 2 October 2009 (GMT + 1)

:::::I haven't read the lengthy thread above, but resorting to "more time" to explain things actually raises more questions than it answers. One can add the all the time imaginable and heat will still not flow to a hotter place, water will still not flow uphill, and disorder still will not become more orderly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:37, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

==Some Items to Consider==
I believe it is important to point out a few misunderstandings of this article in relation to scientific thought. First off, subjective statements are not scientific. The term beautiful is subjective and can not be quantified. As such number one is not something that pure science can validate, “Beautiful by what standard?” Number two has been shown it be false as well. During the Dover trial M. Behe was shown a stack of research dealing specifically with the evolution of the immune system. I know personally that in most college level evolution classes immunology is not a common topic, however in graduate level immunology classes the evolution of the immune systems of different species is covered quite extensively. Number 6 is also another area that has been studied substantially. Simmons, R. & Scheepers, L. (1996). Winning By A Neck: Sexual Selection In The Evolution Of Giraffe. The American Naturalist, 148, 772-786. is an excellent paper explaining how sexual selection played the most plausible role in the evolution of the giraffe’s neck. Number 7 is one of those on going arguments; many transitional fossils have been shown however there are transitions between transitions. The best explanation for this is that soft tissue is very rare to find in a fossil and changes from evolution occur at the biochemical level. So it is a matter of morphology which leaves gaps. Number 8 was shown to be false, either last year or the year before, with the finding of Dilong paradoxus. This fossil showed feather precursors and featherlike projectiles with a scaled skin. Number 9 needs a citation, I know of no biologists that make a claim that Pterosaurs did not fly. Number 10, most thoughts on this issue is that wings were selected through sexual pressures and gained functionality at a later state. Number 11 has been recently debunked as well, there has been an established cascade leading to the formation of flagellum. Number 12 was shown to be false on this talk page already. Number 13 is misleading due to the limited understanding of symbiosis. Symbiosis is caused through mutual beneficial partnership. The species involved could survive on their own but over time were able to survive better through the partnership and eventually became dependent on each other. Number 13 does not address this. Number 15 runs into the issue of the soft tissue that was listed above. Another point to make is that there are cases where unicellular organisms do work together to survive, but do not have systems. I am not sure if this would qualify since the difference between unicellular and multicellular organisms is based on the development of specialized function of the cells. Number 16 is misleading. The prostate would only be eliminated through natural selection if it did not influence reproduction, considering the purpose of the prostate this is false. Number 17 is also false. There are many cases of animals using tools to achieve an effect, as well as self-sacrifice for the betterment of their young. Case for the tools would be primates and some marine mammals using rocks and other shaped objects to crack and open objects that they would not normally be accessible to them. Self-sacrifice happens in all kinds of environments from birds to mammals protecting their young to the point of sacrificing themselves. I would say that this mindset that is unique in humans is not a single mutation as much as a buildup of mutations and experiences thus allowing for some to be able to self-sacrifice while others do not. I am unsure how to proceed on fixing these issues in the article so a little advice might help. (Unsure being if I must present a well documented research case disproving the claim or show through logic why it is false then be able to do the deletion) Moreover, I am fine with having some items in this but please let those items be scientific examples.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 14:39, 20 November 2008 (EST)
:Oh sorry, I should have read your comments before adding my 2c below. You've added more detail than me, and seem to be more of an expert in the topic, so I'll let you discuss it with the others. [[User:MattS|MattS]] 11:22, 1 December 2008 (EST)

==Discredited Examples==
Although I agree with a lot of the examples here, you should probably consider removing the two examples for irreducable complexity (immune system and bacteria flagellum) as both of these examples have strong counter-arguments, and including them in your list will serve only to discredit the page.
Considering the immune system, the original arguments based on antibodies not working by themselves and the compliment cascade:
1) Antibodies do function by themselves. Opsonisation is only a small part of their function
2) Various mammals have been found which lack portions of the compliment cascade, showing it is possible for the cascade to have 'evolved'.
As far as flagellum is concerned, the actual motor is very close in structure to the bacterial poison pump, which 'squiges' a protein (poison) through itself. This could have 'evolved' into the flagellum by the poison protein becoming affixed, and thereby facilitating movement to a less hostile environment, potentially promoting survival.

As I said, I'm not trying to attack your arguments, I'm just worried that you are flogging a dead horse with these examples which will discredit an otherwise excellent page. There must be tons of other arguments you can use instead. What do you think? [[User:MattS|MattS]] 17:53, 29 November 2008 (EST)

:Typical liberalism. You are attempting to discredit counterexamples under the guise that you are improving the article. Next time, read the Bible and learn what it says about those who do such things.[[User:Svincent|Svincent]] 20:46, 12 December 2009 (EST)

==Pterosaurs==

Where did the writer get the idea that they couldn't fly? I have many books that say they could. [[User:NikD|NikD]] 19:48, 1 December 2008 (EST)

: I've seen pictures of them pulling Santa's sleigh through the air, so you must be right!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:: Mr. Schlafly, with all due respect, could you please not insult other people's conceptions?--'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 20:04, 1 December 2008 (EST)

As the person who originally added the statement, I shall take all questions. [http://www.physorg.com/news142086647.html Here] is a cite, I will put it in the article presently. --[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]] 14:03, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Thanks PhilipV for the site. I would point out that it is only one researcher who makes this claim, and the comment section on the site even explains why it was flawed. To state that biologists do not believe that Pterosaurs could not fly is a mischaracterization of a single article. Now if there were several papers supporting the researcher's claim then that would be different. Perhaps saying "That a researcher made a recent claim" since the article is from this year there has not been much time for others to test the claim. Just to point out, there are physicians who still claim that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, there will always be fringe interpretations of data.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 14:45, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Phillip, next time remember to site your reference. [[User:NikD|NikD]] 03:52, 4 December 2008 (EST)

OK no problemo ----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|''Support our Troops!'']] 22:26, 13 December 2008 (EST)

==Unicellular to Multicellular Organisms==
What would constitute a clear transitional form? A group of unicellular organisms that work together to accomplish a function to sustain their life, like digestion of an energy source through shared enzymes? If this is the case bacteria order myxobacteria is a prime example of this. These bacteria work together often to achieve results that are not just based on physical manipulation but chemical. They often will converge on food and increase the concentration of their digestive enzymes to digest the food. They have to do this in close proximately of each other due to the enzymes being unstable; being close together allows the bacteria to produce a stabilizing chemical environment to stabilize the enzymes. In other words, by working together they share chemicals to aid in their ability to digest their food source. So would this be considered an example or social behavior by unicellular organisms (which can only be chemically driven)? I will wait for a few days for responses before editing the article.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:23, 16 December 2008 (EST)

==Altruism==
Actually Rod, I am afraid you are incorrect. Altruism favors evolution because selfless acts that ensure the survivability of the population allow for the continuation of the genes of the population. Evolution is not based on the individual it is based on the population. For example, a father organism gives his life to protect his offspring, a purely altruistic act, thus allows for the genes of the father to be carried on by the offspring. You have to look at genetic shift on the evidence that once the organism reproduces its evolutionary role is not as important as its offspring therefore allowing for the parent organism to function as a protector of its offspring. If a parent performs the act, it does support evolution because it allows the offspring (or population) a better chance of survival.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:10, 18 December 2008 (EST)
:You really have bought into evolutionism hook, line, and sinker. Altruism is not limited to parents caring for their young. Animals adopt orphaned young of other species. Primates share food with unrelated animals in their group, help the injured, etc. None of these things improve individual survivability, and are thus counter-evolutionary. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 09:20, 18 December 2008 (EST)
::Actually they do provide for evolution. It does not really matter what the act is, just as long as it does not reduce the chance of the population having genetic spread. You have to think about altruism in terms of gene dispersion, what helps it spread and what helps it survive, thus favoring evolution. If organisms share among each other then the genes will survive and spread at an increased rate than organisms that do not. Another piece of evidence that shows that altruistic behavior falls in line with evolution is the evidence that parallel and convergent evolution are functions of altruistic behavior between two populations (part of the environmental selective pressures). I believe the point you are missing is that a single mutation in an organism is not enough to cause an evolutionary shift, that mutation must spread; therefore evolutionary shift is based on population and not the individual thus supporting altruistic behaviors due to their impact on the population's survivability over the individual. Perhaps you can counter this argument with some explanation as to why altruism can not be beneficial to evolutionary theory. I would agree that if the organism sacrifices itself before producing offspring then the behavior would counter evolution, however when one removes learned social constructs, you will see that the time an organism develops altruistic behaviors is often after the organism is able to reproduce. As for the comment about buying in, I am a biochemist, if I did not understand evolutionary theory then most of what I study would make no sense, such as seeing the similar metabolic pathways in different species with only slight, and progressive, modifications to differentiate them.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:40, 18 December 2008 (EST)
:::''All'' unnecessary action reduces the chance of the population having genetic spread, through wasting of energy. And to suggest that evolution is inherently population based undermines your argument. Any genetic change which improves altruism ''reduce'' the altruistic individual's survivability, thus the altruistic changes are lost. Thus altruism should not be seen in nature, as it destroys its own propagation. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 09:43, 18 December 2008 (EST)
::::Rod, all I can say is that you are mistaken. I provided you with several instances where altruistic behavior would allow for genetic dispersion (father giving up life for child), provided you with a hypothetical situation where two populations could benefit from altruistic behavior as compared to populations that do not show similar behaviors and explained in detail why you are mistaken due to your understanding of evolution being based on the individual instead of being based on the population. So to answer your point about wasted energy, populations are not closed systems and evolution is not based on the conservation of energy. So when an organism invests energy in an act where no defined outcome will occur it is not against evolutionary theory, nor is it for due to it being based on the individual once again. However if the energy used did happen to encourage a response from the environment that would improve the gene dispersion and chances of the population's survivability then it truly supports evolution. "All" unnecessary action does not reduce the chance of the population having genetic spread, for example reciprocal altruism: Sharing food is a good example. Suppose an animal captures a food source which is so plentiful that it cannot consume it all alone before it goes off. Sharing it with others may entail getting slightly less food now, for the possibility of more food later (when it might be sorely needed) if the recipients reciprocate the altruistic action. Kin Selection: When adult animals risk their life to distract potential predators away from their offspring they are exhibiting this form of altruism. Such behavior is evolutionarily stable since although it decreases an animal's chances of survival, it increases the chances for its offspring. Multilevel selection theory: Consider, for example, an animal population made up of warring groups. This would entail two levels of selection - between groups and within groups. Within any one group, altruistic behavior would be deselected by the dominance of selfish behavior. However, if altruistic behavior increased the overall fitness of the group, then the groups with the highest proportion of altruists would outperform the more selfish ones. Under appropriate conditions, this alternative selection pressure could dominate the disadvantage of altruism for the individual. Multi-level selection doesn't only occur on these two levels, since animals may be a part of various groups - close family group, extended family, tribe etc. We can consider evolutionary selection to happen on each level simultaneously. This explanation of altruism finds more evidence from anthropological studies which support viewing of groups of humans as adaptive units. According to Sober and Wilson, "the concept of human groups as adaptive units may be supported not only by evolutionary theory but by the bulk of empirical information on human social groups in all cultures around the world." More reading [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/][http://www.emory.edu/LIVING_LINKS/pdf_attachments/de%20Waal%20(2008).pdf] As you can see your example supports evolution more than it counters it.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:17, 18 December 2008 (EST)
:Able806, I don't have time to read through evolutionist propaganda. You have yet to explain intra-species altruism, which is the key point. Parents dying for their children is obvious in its advantage, but an animal nursing one of another species invariably reduces its ability to propagate its own genes. Dolphins assisting injured humans and animals do so at risk to themselves, with no possible genetic propagation or benefit. So long as ''any'' examples cannot be explained by evolution, it must be discarded; this is the nature of ''science.'' Altruism is endowed by God, not Darwin. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 10:28, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Rod, if you would have read my post you would have seen I gave you and example of intra-species altruism, or reciprocal altruism, and the science behind it as well as multi-level theory. As for propaganda, I really do not wish to participate in ad homium attacks against researchers, especially when one refuses to read the information provided. Evidence is evidence, take it as you will, however you claim has been shown to be false and contrary to the purpose of the article. Your trailing statement “Altruism is endowed by God, not Darwin” means nothing in this argument, and is a hook, which I shall not bite. I believe an administrator should settle this issue. Now if you will excuse me, I have articles to write.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:55, 18 December 2008 (EST)

I don't pretend to understand all of this, but I don't think the existence of [[altruism]] either proves or disproves the [[Theory of Evolution]]. Certainly a species whose individuals "do nice things for each other" without getting an immediate reward will survive better than species who are more individualistic. But God might have set it up that way for a reason.

It's fun to speculate on how traits like [[cooperation]] may have "evolved", but until we can read behavior in the [[fossil record]] it's all academic. The only scientific question about evolution is whether it was directed by an [[intelligent designer]] or its was merely due to the "creative" force of [[natural selection]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:41, 18 December 2008 (EST)

:Ed, I agree with your statement. Being that Altruism is a behavior, it is not something that can be detected in fossils of organisms that never used tools. As such, using altruism as a counterexample is grasping when there are other examples that have more "meat" if you will. Hence the reason why it should not be a part of this article due to it subtracting from the areas that hold more testable and provable potential.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:55, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Maybe an example would help. A form of altruism has been observed among certain species of vampire bats, where one bat that found a meal (the "lucky bat") would share part of it with another bat (the "unlucky bat"} that didn't find a meal that night. The lucky bat can afford to give up some of its food, while the unlucky bat has to have something, or it will starve; so the exchange helps the unlucky bat more than it hurts the lucky bat. And the next night, the lucky bat might be the unlucky one, and have to depend on a handout. Since he showed himself to be generous the previous night, the other bats know that he's good for a meal for any of them if they need it, so they help him out this night. I heard of this back in college, so I forget all the details, and it's only anecdotal evidence, but it does seem to show how altruism can be a good evolutionary strategy, under certain circumstances.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 14:54, 18 December 2008 (EST)

==Hair==
Rod, once again another area which you might rethink. Hair is dependent on the rs-3 locus which encodes for the ectodysplasin-A receptor (EDAR), which is required for the initiation of hair development in mammals. This locus is also essential for scale development in fish and reptiles. This locus is the developmental precursor which follows a path similar to the Pax6 in eye development. As for hair being well fossilized, it is in amber but in other types of fossils it fossilizes poorly. Most fossils found in amber are of insects (due to the bugs eating or landing on the plant) not many higher animals are found in amber fossils, was [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E7D61139F935A25757C0A960958260 one] of the rare instances that it occurred. I know you are getting your information from AIG or ICR but follow up with it by searching pubmed. You will see articles that have been researched and reviewed that sometimes conflict with AIG or ICR's claims.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:01, 22 December 2008 (EST)

==Vestigiality==
Now I am begining to wonder about your purpose Rod, you have added yet again another false claim. In humans, the coccyx, the plica semilunaris, the pseudogene L-gulonolactone oxidase among many other muscles that serve no current purpose but had purpose in the past are all considered vestigial structures. To claim there are none in a human is false and further not supported by fact. So back to the orginal purpose of this article, perhaps we could stick to the valid counterexamples to evolution, instead of those that have been shown to be false.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 18:59, 25 December 2008 (EST)

:Every claim of "vestigiality" (an absurdity, I might add) has been proven false about humans, as far as I am aware. The claim about tonsils resulted in the needless death of thousands in improperly subjecting them to anesthesia and removing their tonsils. Are you willing at least to admit that? Please improve your spelling and also spell out your far-fetched claim that something else is vestigial in humans. Godspeed and Merry Christmas.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:08, 25 December 2008 (EST)

:I find it curious that you see it necessary to attack sourced, well-established problems with evolutionary theory, with nothing more than your own propagandist assertions, no doubt ingrained by an evolutionist education. Please, either back up your claims or leave these facts alone and contribute elsewhere in the encyclopedia. If you do some reading with an ''open mind'', you just might find the natural world is far different than you were taught. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 15:03, 26 December 2008 (EST)

Aschlafly, to start, not every claim of vestigiality has been proven false about humans. The three items I listed above are examples that have withstood testing for now. I do not disagree that there is a possibility that they may be reclassified as more information is gathered, just like tonsils, however it is unlikely. Here are some published references for the items I listed: Coccyx <ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8059973</ref><ref> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/677043</ref><ref> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6373560</ref><ref> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3284435</ref>, Plica<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15255295?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum</ref>
L-gul<ref> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10572964</ref><ref> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8175804</ref>. I have no problem admitting the deaths of people placed under anesthesia however to claim that the removal of the tonsils caused the death, well that is something that would have to be looked at on a case by case basis, which considering the millions that have their tonsils removed does not seem to be the cause. I believe the key is the definition of vestige: the remnant of a structure that functioned in a previous stage of species or individual development. Vestigiality can be proven by morphology and sequence testing, pretty clear if you ask me. As for my spelling I apologize, English is not my first or primary language and I wrote the comment while traveling for the holiday, failing to spell check before I posted as I normally do. Rod, as for your comment, I agree with many of the items posted on this article as shown in one of my previous posts, however what you have posted recently is easily shown to be incorrect thus allowing for the question to be raised what are your intentions for this article? You keep trying to label my assertions as propaganda; however you provide no published evidence contrary to my statements. As I have said before I am a Biochemist, a field which relies heavily on the ToE so it is only reasonable for me to have a favorable view of evolution. I am a scientist which also means I question everything, including ToE. Aschlafly’s comment of the fall colors actually intrigues me. I know the biochemical pathways that lead to the chemical reaction in the leaves but I only understand that the difference in color is caused by the concentrations of the chemicals in the leaves. Not being a neurobiologist, I do not know what wavelengths of light stimulate what parts of the brain which would be needed to scientifically understand Aschlafly’s statement. I have supported my claim in the links above, perhaps you should open your mind to the understanding that perhaps not everything is as it first seems. As for being taught, well consider that I actually perform research so my friend I use experience more often than not.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:38, 29 December 2008 (EST)

== Reversion Explained ==

We don't allow ideological [[censorship]] here. Try Wikipedia if you want to insist on censoring criticism of evolution, though I oppose censorship by Wikipedia also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:51, 7 March 2009 (EST)

==Jellyfish fact==

The article appears to lapse into the faulty "god of the gaps" way of thinking here. If the article is willing to state that the phenomenon is only "apparently" unrelated to 'evolution'. I've always felt the integrity of a conservative argument is based on the percentage of unimpeachable truths within (as opposed to the liberal priorities placed on 1. quotes from famous peoples and 2. quotes from liars) so if you don't mind, I would like to trim down the list to only those statements which are ironclad. [[User:MICasey|MICasey]] 09:24, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

: You make valid points, but a complete failure of evolution to explain a basic undeniable fact (such as the jellyfish behavior), and a lack of any imaginable evolutionary explanation, is a valid counterexample to the theory.

: Evolutionists claim that their theory explains all of life. If they want to reduce their sweeping claims, then we could reduce the list accordingly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:02, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

==Several points==

I have been trying to decide whether to list all my comments here or to distribute them throughout the page. Since my goal is, in part, to summarize and comment on several debates, I have decided to list them in one place; I hope this does not cause confusion or offense. The comments below are not intended to be comprehensive--there are more issues I would like to discuss when I have more time to do the proper research. These are merely the ones that I (as a clinician and scientist) can address readily. I hope my discussion is not too technical, and I will do my best to answer any relevant questions that arise.

* Immune system: "the immune system is irreducibly complex, as without one which is thoroughly developed, an organism would not be able to resist any infection." False. Plenty of humans are born with immune systems that are partially defective and thus not thoroughly developed, yet they are able to resist some infections. For example, people with selective immunoglobulin A deficiency have a somewhat greater susceptibility to respiratory and urinary infections, but they can resist other infections normally. Much the same is true of some complement deficiencies. Similarly, invertebrates have only some of the immune defenses that vertebrates have, yet invertebrates manage to resist some infections: specifically [[invertebrates]] and [[vertebrates]] both have [[defensins]], but the [[adaptive immune system]] only seems to exist in vertebrates. Ref. 2 in the original page (which I didn't add) provides other examples. Thus, the immune system can be reduced into component parts, and organisms possessing only some of those component parts can resist infection. Recommendation: This claim should be deleted.

* Fossils: "the enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the fossil record." Not a single reference is provided to support or explain this claim. I am aware that creationists often make this point, so perhaps someone more knowledgeable could post a link to a relevant discussion. Recommendation: This claim should be defended or removed.

* Ploidy: "Variation in chromosome count (ploidy) is impossible in evolution. One member of a species with 2 sets of chromosomes cannot mate with a member with 4." This is simply false. The example of [[Down syndrome]] is sufficient to refute this point, since individuals with trisomy 21 can indeed mate with euploid individuals. So can those with XYY syndrome (note: NOT XXY (Klinefelter's) syndrome, which is a different matter entirely). Polyploidy is reasonably common in plants: for discussion, see the recent paper by Wood et al. (2009) in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Moreover, the second sentence does not follow from the first. Remember that mating is not necessary for reproduction or speciation in some species, and thus is not necessary for evolution; species can reproduce parthenogenically or via vegetative propagation. That said, the above discussion gives me the impression that the statement in the article does not accurately reflect the views of [[Aschlafly]] and others. Recommendation: This claim should be revised or removed.

* Bats and sonar: There are several problems with this argument. I'll confine myself to the two most glaring issues. First: "An animal that can't fly doesn't need [sonar.]" False. Dolphins and whales have sonar and can't fly; as discussed above, the same is true of shrews and Madagascarian tenrecs. Second: "The bats can't fly without sonar." False; even bats that *can* use echolocation don't *have* to use it (see http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/08/22/0804408105.abstract for evidence; those who cannot access scientific papers may want to look at http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/08/080826-bat-sonar.html instead). I fear that I'm missing something critical here, as the first issue was reinstated even though the ample evidence against it was never discussed. Perhaps someone can explain why this happened, but failing that: Recommendation: This claim should be removed.

* Prostate: "Evolutionists consider the structure to be poor design, which should mean that natural selection would have eliminated that design." No. According to evolutionary theory, natural selection will only eliminate a design if it has a negative effect on reproduction. Prostate problems (which are very common, hence the claim about "poor design") tend to occur after a man has passed his prime reproductive years (for just one reference on prevalence rates, see http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/449623-overview). Heck, sometimes these problems don't start until *his children* have passed their peak reproductive years! The impact on reproductive fitness is thus negligible, and evolutionary theory would not require that the prostate (or prostate problems) be eliminated. Recommendation: This claim should be removed.

* Bad design: "While evolutionists argue that there are examples of 'bad design' in the bodies of many organisms, such as 'flaws' in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things!" False, for the same reason as in the prostate example. Evolution only suggests that a design will be eliminated if it has negative effects (relative to some other existing design). The 'flaws' in the human spine presumably refer to the high frequency of lower back pain or injury, which rarely if ever would have an effect on reproduction. I do not know what the putative flaw is in the sinuses, so I cannot evaluate this claim. Recommendation: This claim should be clarified or removed.

* Teeth: "We have the perfect number of teeth to fit in our mouths." False--consider wisdom teeth, which are regularly impacted and require surgery (see http://www.hkmj.org/article_pdfs/hkm0306p158.pdf or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11220165 for a review of prevalence rates of wisdom tooth impaction). Recommendation: This claim should be removed.

[[User:Reaganetics|Reaganetics]] 11:37, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

:Reaganetics, you've nitpicked about a half-dozen minor examples from nearly 40 counterexamples. An open mind is a prerequisite to intelligent discussion; we're not here to reassure your preconceptions. If you can open your mind and admit that evolution may well be false, then let's discuss as long as you like. But if you're an atheist or someone who bought into the theory of evolution as a student and who refuses to accept that you could have been duped, then I'll spend my time on translating the Bible here instead. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

::I am certainly interested in discussing these issues, and, as I repeatedly noted, I'm perfectly open to the possibility that I might be wrong. That is why I repeatedly suggested that I was open to clarifications or corrections, and that is why I suggested that certain counterexamples be *strengthened* by adding references.

::To be frank, that is also why I find your comment to be a disappointment. It presents no evidence to counter any of my arguments. It characterizes my arguments as nitpicking (how is it nitpicking to point out declarative statements that appear to be false?) and characterizes the points I criticized as minor (if the points are too minor to merit criticism, why are they presented at all? If truth is important, shouldn't we be interested in ensuring the accuracy of all of our statements, minor or major?)

::Perhaps someone else can provide a more substantive response. [[User:JasonS|JasonS]] 22:24, 8 October 2009 (EDT) (formerly Reaganetics)

:::JasonS, you say only that ''you'' "might be wrong." You apparently won't concede that the theory of evolution might be wrong. Atheists, for example, insist that the theory of evolution must be true regardless of how many counterexamples are shown to them. They are not open to the possibility that the theory of evolution might be false.

:::If you're not open-minded about the issue, then it's not an intelligent discussion. It's a fool's errand. There are nearly 40 counterexamples listed and your objections above to a mere half-dozen are plainly deficient. If you demonstrate an open mind then I'd be happy to discuss further; otherwise my time is obviously better spent elsewhere. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:42, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Hmm. I thought I had been clearer. I am willing to accept that evolution might be true, false, or true in some regards and false in other regards. (Which of these possibilities are you open to?) I want to know what the best arguments on both sides are. I saw problems with some of the arguments here, so I pointed those problems out.

::::I'm therefore sorry to see that you continue to be unresponsive. You claim that my objections are "plainly deficient," but you don't explain why. It's noteworthy, I think, that I provided evidence to support my claims, but you seem unwilling or unable to support yours. I'm also not sure why it's relevant that I only criticized six out of 40 examples (is there a minimum number I should criticize to qualify for serious debate? As I said in my original comment, I will criticize more when I have time to do the proper research). Finally, I'm a bit puzzled by your approach to this topic. I find it peculiar for someone to show up and post a comment only to declare (repeatedly) that he thinks it's best that he spend his time elsewhere. Why not just spend your time elsewhere?

::::As before, perhaps there is someone else who can discuss these issues on a more substantive level. Just to be clear what I mean by that, let me give the example I give to my students. A substantive discussion involves more than mere rhetoric; it involves the presentation of facts and evidence (supported by reliable sources) and the discussion of the logical consequences of those facts and that evidence. Anything else is not terribly useful, at least in science. [[User:JasonS|JasonS]] 10:47, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

If you are HONESTLY open minded about this, then it won't be a waste of time to answer your questions.

* Immune system: Even though various animals have different immune systems with different methods, the HUMAN immune system is irreducibly complex because it requires both identifying and mounting specific responses. If T cell receptors did not exist, then an adaptive response would be impossible, but an adaptive response is necessary for T cell receptors to have any use at all.

* Fossils: [http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/gaps/gaps.htm][http://www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/fossil_record.htm] or our own [[Evolution]] article.

* Ploidy: The point of the statement is that these multiple chromosomes are detrimental and unlikely, so that one species cannot evolve additional chromosomes.

* Bats and sonar: First, swimming is basically flying in water. The point is that animals which can walk (like the supposed ancestor of the bat) wouldn't use sonar. Second: I looked at your source, and it said that when not using sonar, "In the wild they could rely on spatial memory in familiar surroundings, and they could also use vision in moonlight that would aid them in locating obstacles." Well, there you go. If ever they don't use sonar, it's because they've used it so often in a spot that they remember it well. Even though I can walk around in my apartment at 2 AM without turning on the lights, I would still be right in saying that in general, I need lights to get around.

* Prostate: You would need to dispute this for EVERY prostate-having species to have any validity to this. Additionally, men are capable of having children into very old age.

* Bad design: Actually, evolution is repeatedly claimed to be responsible for tons of things that don't have reproductive value. Evolutionists claim, for example, that people live to such long age to help raise grandchildren.

* Teeth: Really? Because people had teeth for thousands of years before that surgery was developed and they all fit into our mouths.

I hope this can answer your questions and put an end to this silly debate. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 11:51, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

== Kidneys ==

The phrase "The existence of ''two'' kidneys, which is unnecessary in most people..." seems to be a bit of a stretch. Most people can live a normal, healthy life with only one kidney, but have to take many precautions to ensure that the kidney is not damaged or over-worked. High blood pressure, proteinuria, and poor glomerular filtration are all relatively common ailments for those with only one kidney. I really don't view this as an argument for or against evolution (or creationism for that matter). --[[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 13:40, 2 November 2009 (EST)
For the time being, I'm going to remove this claim. I wanted to wait to see what was said about it, but feel free to revert if you'd like to keep it in. --[[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 20:43, 2 November 2009 (EST)

:No, I don't think you're right. "As a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found, living kidney donors live as long or longer and enjoy better quality of life than the general population."[http://www.scienceline.org/2009/03/04/levitan-health-living-kidney-donor-transplant/] Of course, many people have high blood pressure and other problems, and having only one rather two kidneys would not give someone an advantage. But the second kidney is superfluous for most people and has no evolutionary justification.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:58, 2 November 2009 (EST)

::I think the quality of life has a lot to do with the rigorous screening of the patients prior to donation, as cited in the article. They can have no trace of diabetes, high blood pressure, or any sort of renal disease. As I said, one ''can'' live with only one kidney, and many go on to lead a normal, healthy life—as the article says. I think this falls in somewhat of a gray area in evolution/creation debate. Perhaps the function of the other kidney is to "pick up the slack" (?) if the other one fails, as is known to happen—the prevalence of renal disease is steadily increasing. This could be beneficial from both a design standpoint and an evolutionary standpoint. That's the main reason I took it out. I'm not trying to overstep any bounds, though, and just hope to keep the credibility of all arguments on this site sound. --[[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 22:11, 2 November 2009 (EST)

:::I have an open mind about this. But it's obvious from the Scienceline article that people exaggerate their need for a second kidney. All evidence is that the second kidney is superfluous in most people. So why do people exaggerate the need for a second kidney? Because evolution teaches that everything has a utilitarian purpose, and it misleads people into this false perception. The result is made clear by the article: 75,000 people need a donation of that extra kidney that most people don't need, but don't donate it due to being misled by the theory of evolution into thinking they do need it. That's a heavy cost caused by a politically motivated falsehood.

:::Design explains the extra kidney: symmetry, or even to have an extra one to give another person in need. It could even be there as a test for us. That's a challenging thought.

:::Evolution cannot plausibly explain the superfluous kidney, and hence its inclusion in this list. The theory claims that populations evolve, but there is no reason for an entire organ to develop which most of the population does not need. Pre-obesity, when evolution supposedly occurred, at most a tiny percentage of people would have had a need for a second kidney, far too few to just an entire population developing it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 2 November 2009 (EST)

::::Following your logic, why didn't God give humans two hearts as well? I agree with you in your belief of creationism, and I respect your opinion, but I disagree with your belief that just because you say it, it becomes a fact.[[User:Ssmith12|Ssmith12]] 17:21, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Typical liberal response. The reason God didn't make humans with two hearts because humans don't need two hearts. Also, your liberal dissent and vandalism is very obvious. Next time, be more logical and read the Bible, the most logical book in the world.[[User:Biblekid|Biblekid]]17:56, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::::::Andy Schlafly already admitted that the extra kidney is, well, extra, and that a human doesn't need two kidneys. I don't want to appear as a vandal on this site, I just wanted to make sure Mr. Schlafly shows a bit of humility, and perhaps quote a bible verse rather than just go on with his musing.[[User:Ssmith12|Ssmith12]] 18:44, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::There's no logic in your objection. An intelligent designer is not constrained by an idiotic straight-jacket of consistency.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 12 December 2009 (EST)

==The Greatest show on earth==
I am not sure if this should go here, but I had no answer on the Richard Dawkins talk page, and this may develop into a counter-example.
This is a copy of my post:
I have just finished reading Dawkins' latest book. Once you remove the usual authoritative evolutionist arguments, there is surprisingly (or not that surprisingly, actually) little information in there. I am quite impressed by one argument though: the comparative DNA 'evidence' described on page 153. If is my personal feeling that the results have most certainly been fabricated. In this case, a big blow could be dealt to the evolutionists by exposing the fraud. It is also possible that the results are correct, but the interpretation is wrong, or biased. Unfortunately, I am afraid I can not see, by myself, how the argument goes wrong. Could someone explain to me how to refute this particular statement from the evolutionists? Thanks in advance,
--[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 11:20, 13 December 2009 (EST)
:I wouldn't be surprised if they ''had'' been fabricated, since that's the norm for evolutionist "science." Their interpretation is biased in any case, as comparative DNA evidence shows the single hand of the creator. Leave it to evolutionists to twist anything to deny God, though. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 11:25, 13 December 2009 (EST)
:: I don't really understand your point. The evidence could be fabricated, yes. Are you saying that even if it were not, it would actually be in favor of creationism? That would be truly wonderful, and a very good argument in a debate. Do you know where I can find more information on this? --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 12:28, 13 December 2009 (EST)
::: Well, I'm not about to buy Dawkins' book, so I don't know the "details" of the evidence he's presenting, but you might want to look at [[baraminology]], look up the distinctions between micro- and macro- evolution, etc. Various sets of animals have extremely similar DNA because they're descended from the same baramins, or ''types'' that were on the Ark. Corruption of genetic information produces microevolution - speciation within those types, leaving a genetic footprint in the form of similarities which can be found through the study of comparative DNA. Genesis establishes that God spoke all beings into existence, with distinctly ''one'' creation event and ''one'' common language. This prediction is proven as all beings share DNA, protein chirality, etc. And as God's creation is parsimonious, we see great efficiency throughout creation in the reuse of ingenious parts. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:37, 13 December 2009 (EST)
:::: And this genetic similarity, this "reuse", is exactly the opposite of what we'd see if evolution were possible. If life could come from nothing, you wouldn't expect the same thing to keep coming up the same way every time. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 12:44, 13 December 2009 (EST)
::::: Yes, that is one of the great contradictions of evolution. On one hand, evolutionists claim that if you ran evolutionary history again, it would be totally different, and on the other, they claim that the same things (like eyes) will keep popping up, even though this is statistically impossible. Then they fabricate things like the evolutionary history of the eye, which is entirely speculation, as none of them have any actual primitive eyes to look at. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:51, 13 December 2009 (EST)
:::::: The eye is a great example of my point, but you and I both know Dawkins will never acknowledge that. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 12:54, 13 December 2009 (EST)

The gene-based arguments for evolution have been a complete failure. I'm surprised Dawkins makes another run at it. For example, gene sequences appear, disappear, and then reappear in the alleged evolutionary path, which suggests a common designer rather than an evolutionary process. I'll add this to our accompanying list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:06, 13 December 2009 (EST)
::::My in-law lent me his copy (he's an evolutionist) so I did not have to give money to further Dawkins' agenda. Thanks for your suggestions, I have been introduced to these subjects by our wonderful pastor and I find them fascinating. I still have a problem though (if we suppose the evidence hasn't been fabricated, for the sake of the discussion). I will try to expose briefly what Dawkins says in his book, because it is different than what I have seen so far. From what I understand, some scientists took eleven species (from different baramins) and studied five genes that can be found in these species. For each of the genes, they compared the eleven versions (one for each of the species) and they extracted the handful of family trees which would require the least modifications. The argument is that the five gene concur on which trees are the most parsimonious, something which should presumably not happen if God had created the species in their present form. My problem is that I have to admit that the argument makes sense, and I have to resort to arguing that the evidence must have been fabricated. I personally think that the evidence is correct, and that there is a perfectly sensible creationist explanation that eludes me. Would you have any ideas on what that explanation is, or know someone who has? --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 13:09, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::Please elaborate on (and correct?) your statement that "The argument is that the five gene concur on which trees are the most parsimonious, something which should presumably not happen if God had created the species in their present form."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:15, 13 December 2009 (EST)
::::Well, this is the final form of Dawkins' argument. His line of reasoning goes like this: " If God created these eleven species and they have no common ancestor, we should not expect consensus on the most parsimonious trees." According to him, for example, the version of gene A in the pig could be similar to the version of gene A in the rabbit, while the version of gene B would be similar to the one in the kangaroo. Thus, each gene would have its own 'family tree' and there would be no consensus. What he finds is that all five genes vote for a few family trees, and he argues that this proves evolution. What he is saying is that he can think of no other reason why absolutely no gene should be more similar between the kangaroo and the pig than between the rabbit and the pig. As for myself, I can not think of a reason either, so I have to surmise that the results are incorrect. I hope I can find an explanation here, since it seems to be one of the best on-line resource for Creationism. --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 13:37, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::::The logic of this argument seems convoluted because it is based on a faulty premise: what do we think God would have done? That's an absurd question. No line of reasoning can depend on it. It is reasonable to infer design from something that is statistically implausible or impossible (e.g., finding a gold watch on a beach), but trying to reason in the opposite direction is illogical (e.g., drawing conclusions from the lack of a gold watch on a beach).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 13 December 2009 (EST)

::::::If I understand correctly, that means that no argument can be based on our preconceptions on how God should act. I like this, because it has the additional effect of removing the evolutionists' "argument from poor design". Who are we to judge God's acts? Solving several problems at once is the hallmark of elegant explanations. Thank you very much. --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 15:37, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2009-12-13T18:37:41Z

TSpencer: /* The Greatest show on earth */

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2009-12-13T18:09:09Z

TSpencer: /* The Greatest show on earth */

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2009-12-13T17:28:40Z

TSpencer: /* The Greatest show on earth */

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2009-12-13T16:20:20Z

TSpencer: /* Greatest show on earth, a question for helpful people */

Talk:Essay:Noah's Ark Was Real

2009-11-11T16:06:44Z

TSpencer: /* Is this debate necessary? */

I'm not sure what to make of this, is it a parody?

If not then how could the climatic conditions required for Arctic animals be maintained alongside those of desert dwelling species?

How can the geographic distribution of species and fossils be explained by all the animals disembarking from the ark at the location?

How could a vessel be large enough to hold the enormous number of animals it would take to preserve a minimum 2 of every species let alone be large enough to hold fodder for a year especially considering the highly specialized feeding requirements of many animals?

What about animals that have lifespans shorter than a year, but also require very specific conditions to be met in order to be able to reproduce? [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 14:28, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

:Keiko the killer whale (a cold-water species) was maintained for years in a Mexico City (hot environment) aquarium. Polar bears are exhibited in zoos located in temperate and hot locations around the world. Add to that a species of penguin found in the Galapagos Islands at the equator, when it should be near Antarctica.
:In the Bible, God tells Noah that "every sort of animal shall come to him" (Gen 6:20); if God can tell the animals to go to the ark, He can tell the animals where to go when leaving the ark.
:40,000 animals the size of sheep can fit into 167 railroad boxcars, which is roughly 30% of the capacity of the ark. Furthermore, you have to take into account that not every animal is full-grown when it's aboard; after all, how much space does a 30-foot anaconda take up versus a two-foot baby? Then there are birds and reptiles which could have been cared for while they were eggs; there's hibernation. [http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html] [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:02, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Galapagos penguins survive so far from the south pole because of two cold ocean currents that well up at the Galapagos islands making the water temperature much colder than would otherwise be expected for its latitude.
::40,000 sheep may be able to fit jammed into 167 railway boxes, but they cannot live there for a year and all their fodder for a year cannot fit either.
::How would hummingbirds (of which there are hundreds of species) have been supplied with enough food given the extremely specific nature of their dietary requirements, or koalas for that matter who require a huge amount of eucalyptus and only eucalyptus per day?
::How were parasites, viruses and pathogenic bacteria be prevented from totally overwhelming the animals on the ark given that the conditions would be ideal for their propagation?
::How were carnivorous animals kept fed for a whole year given the great number of prey animals it takes in the wild to support even a few large predators?
::It is strange that you feel the need to justify the story of the ark as if it were even remotely possible, but in the end you resort to explanations via magic anyway. If magic had to be used why didn't god just get rid of all the sinners in the blink of an eye? [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 07:39, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== In answer to Mr. MacKenzie ==

Mr. MacKenzie:

Did you take the trouble to read the essay itself, or the [[Noah's Ark]] article? Your comments suggest to me that you have not. You overlook many key passages in which I answer every one of the objections you raised. With one possible exception: animals having life spans less than a year. I answer that those life spans were probably a good deal longer, before the altered state of the earth's atmosphere took their toll. Recall that the average life span of the descendants of Adam was about 900 years. After the [[Great Flood]], man's life span dropped ninety percent, and in a hurry. We must assume that the life spans of animals varied in similar proportion.

Where did [[User:Karajou]] resort to invoking miracles? For that matter, where did I? Did I not explicitly state that one must employ an economy of miracles, to go along with scientific parsimony as prescribed by [[William of Occam]]?

While I'm on the subject, you overlook one other thing. You assume that true randomness exists in a [[God]]-centered universe. It does not. Nothing, of whatever character, happens without God's direct authorization. We can guess how likely a thing might be, but if God wants to act out of the ordinary, such is within His capability and, more to the point, His authority. Hence if God wants to ruin a man for repeatedly testing Him, or testing "the fates" or "Lady Luck" or whatever he wants to call it, that's His prerogative, too. (And I've seen Him do it, too. Ask any [[Las Vegas]] gambler who doesn't know to quit while he's ahead.)

Nevertheless, you overlook still another thing: God gives explicit warnings, and equally explcit instructions, to certain people when and as He pleases. He did this in [[Noah]]'s case, again in [[Abraham]]'s case, and then in [[Moses]]'s case, in which He gave far more detailed instructions for an amazingly intricate building project: the [[Tabernacle]] and all its furnishings. And then there is [[Jesus Christ]] Himself, Whose very ministry was a miracle.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:22, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks for the reply.

:Can you substantiate the claim that humans and other animals lived longer life spans in the past? The bible obviously doesn’t count because its verisimilitude is highly questionable. I ask because the current scientific understanding at least as far as humans are concerned is that life expectancy has steadily increased with time rather than decreased.

:Anything that could not be repeated by humans using the same technology as was available at the time in question is a miracle/magic. All the animals moving to the ark and not killing each other as they assembled are certainly magical or miraculous.

:If true randomness cannot exist then how can free will exist? Also can you substantiate that this universe contains properties that might be associated with a god?

:As for my questions being answered I cannot find that in the essay or the article, particularly the parasite question and the point about specialised food supplies (koala bears). Also I’d like to add another question – If Noah and his family of 8 were the only human survivors then how come such a population bottleneck is not shown in human DNA evidence? [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 14:55, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

If you're going to dismiss the Bible ''a priori'', then we have nothing to discuss. ''You'' question the "verisimilitude" (I think you mean "veracity") of the Bible, but I do not. We address [[Biblical inerrancy]] in another article on this site, and I can also direct you to [http://creationwiki.org/Biblical_inerrancy this article] that discusses the subject in somewhat greater detail.

Let me take just one aspect of the issue: prerdictions of future events. For centuries, skeptics believed that the Book of Daniel, for example, must have been written long after [[Alexander the Great]] conquered the [[Middle East]]. Then in 1947, in the middle of the high drama surrounding the establishment of the Republic of [[Israel]], a small boy threw a rock into a cave near Qumran, and the rock's impact produced the sound of breaking pottery. The little boy checked it out, and then showed up in [[Jerusalem]] hawking what he found. These were the first of the [[Dead Sea Scrolls]]. Those scrolls include manuscripts of Daniel that clearly predate Alexander, and predict his conquest of the Holy Land exactly as it occurred. And Daniel isn't the only one.

There, by the way, is a modern miracle for you. The finding of those scrolls persuaded the [[United States]] to grant diplomatic recognition to the Republic of Israel, and made the difference between Jewish statehood and a Second Holocaust.

As I said, Daniel isn't the only one. Isaiah is another. And Isaiah predicted the most striking event of all: the ministry, death and resurrection of [[Jesus Christ]].

Any text that can get all these things absolutely right, four hundred years or more ahead of time (and against odds of ten thousand quinquagintillion to one, by the way), can certainly be trusted on other events that it recorded. Like the genealogy of Adam, and the tremendous average lifespans, and the genealogy of Shem and the tremendous decline in lifespan. And like the [[Great Flood]] and the plans of [[Noah's Ark]].

I have no trouble accepting the assembly of the animals. The same God Who gave [[Noah]] his instructions for building the [[Noah's Ark|Ark]] was certainly capable of assembling the menagerie that Noah would carry. Nor is that necessarily as difficult as you are attempting to portray. Are you assuming that the continents in Noah's day were distributed as they are today? They weren't. Initially they all fit together, like a gigantic jigsaw puzzle. The Flood got started with a hairline crack that appeared in this landmass and then went all the way through it. That crack persists as the Mid-Oceanic Ridge System. See [[Hydroplate Theory]] for some further details, and a link to an outside source that explains it in far greater detail than I have space to use here.

How can free will exist without randomness? Well, it can't. But that does not mean, by the way, that we need to accept the authority of any [[Barack Hussein Obama|one human being who is trying to pretend that he's God]]. It does mean that God not only knows what is going to happen well before it happens (and can give memoranda of instructions to whomever He chooses, whenever He chooses), but that He has ''decided ahead of time'' what is going to happen. Perhaps He has decided ahead of time to bring you to me, figuratively speaking, so that I may testify to you concerning His Existence, His Pre-eminence, and His Role in human affairs, ancient and modern.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 17:23, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks for the reply, I'll have a proper read of it tomorrow morning and answer you then, as for now, before I sleep I just wanted to say that I did indeed mean to write verisimilitude - a word which means "the appearance of truth or likelihood", so for something to have its verisimilitude lacking or questionable is not to have a lack of truth but to have a lack of a semblance of truth. [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 18:52, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

==My answers to your questions==
''Galapagos penguins survive so far from the south pole because of two cold ocean currents that well up at the Galapagos islands making the water temperature much colder than would otherwise be expected for its latitude.''
:Still the water there is a lot warmer than it would be around Antarctica, and these penguins have no problem with the hot conditions once they're out of the water.
''40,000 sheep may be able to fit jammed into 167 railway boxes, but they cannot live there for a year and all their fodder for a year cannot fit either.''
:I didn't say there were 40,000 sheep jammed in 167 boxcars, did I? What I stated was a matter of ''capacity'', and you seemed to also overlook the fact that I said this number of animals occupied 30% of the Ark's total capacity, leaving enough room for other animals, and fodder for a year.
''How would hummingbirds (of which there are hundreds of species) have been supplied with enough food given the extremely specific nature of their dietary requirements, or koalas for that matter who require a huge amount of eucalyptus and only eucalyptus per day?''
:Again, you missed what I said above, so I'll say it again. Baby birds come packaged in eggs. Baby reptiles come packaged in eggs. Baby mammals feed upon their mother's milk, and if they don't have a mom, someone is going to get milk from elsewhere and do the job. Any zookeeper or farmer knows that, and I find it strange that a self-professed scientist doesn't. Do baby koalas slurp on eucalyptus juice before they get their teeth in, or is it mother's milk?
''How were parasites, viruses and pathogenic bacteria be prevented from totally overwhelming the animals on the ark given that the conditions would be ideal for their propagation?''
:The conditions on earth during that period of time from the creation were just about perfect; viruses were virtually non-existent. As to parasites, even a monkey can pluck them from another monkey, or a tick bird can remove them from a cow; that kind of behavior has been observed and proven, IAW step one of the [[Scientific method]].
''How were carnivorous animals kept fed for a whole year given the great number of prey animals it takes in the wild to support even a few large predators?''
:Again, mother's milk. Didn't you see that displayed in the Noah's Ark segment of the John Houston film ''The Bible''?
''It is strange that you feel the need to justify the story of the ark as if it were even remotely possible, but in the end you resort to explanations via magic anyway. If magic had to be used why didn't god just get rid of all the sinners in the blink of an eye?''
:I never resorted to a ''magic'' explanation; that one is your's. And God doesn't just "get rid of all sinners" when He knows it's much better to give them an opportunity to come to repentance through Jesus Christ. You came here with the standpoint that God doesn't exist, so now I request that you prove beyond doubt on this page that God '''doesn't''' exist...and use the Scientific method when doing so. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:00, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

::Where does all this mother’s milk come from, either there are adults on the ark providing it, thereby mitigating your argument by infancy, or there is a huge stockpile of milk taking up yet more space on an already impossibly full ark leaving alone questions of spoilage! Also owt but milk for a whole year, really?

::The parasites I was specifically thinking of are the internal type that cannot be groomed off, but also must have been on the ark from the start.

::According to Christian doctrine god is omnipotent. He knows who will repent and who won’t depending on what warnings he gives therefore he can simply erase those who he knows will not fit into his criteria for survival.

::You know that I cannot prove beyond doubt that god doesn’t exist. However you should also know that I cannot prove that the Dagda and the Morrigan don’t exist and therefore the impossibility of proving the existence of anything does not prove its existence. You have however inspired me to write an essay on why I think my atheism is scientifically justified, I’ll send you a link when i get around to it.

::By the way, no hard feelings right? Just a bit of stimulating debate! [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 17:15, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:::First, and most important, there are no hard feelings anywhere! As to the mother's milk - and I did indicate this small tidbit from John Houston film - farmers ''milk'' cows and goats on a daily basis. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:57, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== General Reply to Jamesmackenzie ==

Two points dispose of all of Mr. MacKenzie's objections. First, there is no ''logical'' objection to the biblical account. It cannot be disproved. Let's be clear about that. It may not comport easily with someone's everyday experience 5000 years later, but the same could be said about many other facts in history also. There is simply no ''logical'' flaw in the account.

Second, the [[theory of evolution]] has even greater difficulties explaining how species survived massive flooding. No one credibly denies that worldwide flooding occurred; even today the world is over 70% covered with water, nearly all habitation occurs within 100 feet of sea level, and limestone deposits from water are found at all heights. Local, but massive, flooding occurs frequently and widely, with devastating affects. The theory of evolution does not have a more plausible explanation for how species survive this in the long run.

Put another way, if you think the saving of species from massive flooding was difficult with God's assistance, it is even more difficult without such assistance.

Finally, Mr. MacKenzie need not speculate about animal behavior 5000 years ago. Animals fled to high ground in the tsunami that devastated Indonesia merely 5 years ago. Mr. MacKenzie would likely claim (based on materialism) that such behavior is impossible or implausible, yet it undeniably occurred. No need to go back 5000 years; why not simply address behavior of 5 years ago that confound [[materialist]]s?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:21, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:''"Two points dispose of all of Mr. MacKenzie's objections. First, there is no logical objection to the biblical account. It cannot be disproved. Let's be clear about that. It may not comport easily with someone's everyday experience 5000 years later, but the same could be said about many other facts in history also. There is simply no logical flaw in the account.”''

:There are indeed logical flaws in the story, and it can be disproved. The lack of a population bottleneck in humans from any time around when the flooding was supposed to take place is disproof of the story. The population bottleneck as described in the bible is not something that could hide; a population bottleneck of 8 individuals is extreme (the species would be classified moribund). In fact the extremity of the so called bottleneck is another logical flaw in the story, since a species requires a minimum population to remain viable (MVP(1)). The MVP for primates is estimated to be over 5,000 individuals accounting for inbreeding. Even ignoring inbreeding the MVP would still be around 1,000 individuals. That makes the most favourable (and somewhat unrealistic) estimate for minimum number of humans required for the species to survive as 125 times higher than what the bible claims we had.

:There are other logical flaws too, to name but a few: where did all this water come from? Where did all this water go to? If the world was flooded so recently then how come aquatic species are so localised and varied? Why did human lifetimes rapidly drop after the flood?

:''“Second, the theory of evolution has even greater difficulties explaining how species survived massive flooding. No one credibly denies that worldwide flooding occurred; even today the world is over 70% covered with water, nearly all habitation occurs within 100 feet of sea level, and limestone deposits from water are found at all heights. Local, but massive, flooding occurs frequently and widely, with devastating affects[sic]. The theory of evolution does not have a more plausible explanation for how species survive this in the long run.”''

:The world has indeed seen times of much higher sea levels, however it has never been totally submerged. Limestone deposits found at high altitude are more the consequence of isostatic action rather than eustatic action. During the times of high sea level the world would have been more like Indonesia and the Philippines, a global series of island chains and archipelagos, certainly extensive enough for terrestrial life to survive upon with some adaptation (island gigantism/island dwarfism, or terrestrial animals such as whales returning to the oceans).

:Also tsunamis aren’t really the same as long term flooding; the flood of a tsunami lasts days or weeks at most. It is certainly not difficult for animals from nearby lightly affected regions to rapidly colonise the tsunami hit area. However in the case of a tsunami it is also the case that not all animals will be killed even in the worst affected regions. These animals that do manage to survive will sometimes do so out of luck, but most will do so because they were stronger swimmers, or fast climbers etc. Then as the survivors repopulate the region they will pass on the traits that helped them survive the last tsunami to their offspring. In this way the gene pool of the animals that populate this region will have changed from how it was pre tsunami. Hence in this example evolution by natural selection has occurred!

:''"Put another way, if you think the saving of species from massive flooding was difficult with God's assistance, it is even more difficult without such assistance.”''

:I think you are making a chronological error here. Sea level change is gradual, and landmasses do not abruptly disappear into the sea. In fact the shrinking habitat, isolation of high ground from previously connected land and increased competition that will occur as a landmass is gradually overrun (over thousands of generations) by the ocean creates an exquisite set of conditions for evolution to occur in.
:As for humans previously having an extremely long lifetime, I’d like to specifically call that into question, especially given the fact that one of the justifications for the feasibility of the ark is that Noah lived hundreds of years and spent more than a modern lifetime constructing the ark. From a biological point of view the idea of historical humans living to the age of 900 is preposterous. There is a fairly consistent trend observable in archaeological evidence of human lifetimes lengthening over time. I’d be interested to hear about the remains of ancient humans that show signs of extremely (and unfeasibly even by modern standards) advanced age in their bones and teeth.

:(1)Minimum viable population – This is the threshold number of individuals required by a species to remain viable. It is defined as the point when the likelihood of extinction due to insufficient numbers of individuals remaining reaches 95%

:Also as an aside, whilst it is perfectly correct to spell Mackenzie a few different ways, including MacKenzie, I spell my name in the former manner. [[User:jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 21:37, 1 November 2009 (EST)

::Your reply is extremely verbose, but identifies no logical flaw in the biblical account. All of Christianity, and historically all of evolution, are based on one Adam and Eve. Evolutionists have recently changed their story, but not due to any logical difficulty with a beginning of only a few. There is no problem with Noah et al. populating the world post-Flood. Indeed, the population size of today is compatible with a small number about 5000 years ago.

::There is no shortage of flood water. If Earth were merely slightly flatter than today, then 99% of current inhabitants would be under water without the need for one extra drop of water.

::Evolutionists cannot explain the survival of species over time any better than the Bible does. Living creatures settle near water. Water inevitably and surprisingly floods, killing the living species. This wipes out evolution. Adding intervention by God and an Ark is one logical explanation; evolutionists don't offer '''any''' alternative, let alone a logical one.

::Finally, you duck the undeniable point about tsunamis: animals flee to high ground just before it hits the shoreline. Ducking the point doesn't change the fact, which even liberal media like PBS have fully admitted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:08, 1 November 2009 (EST)

:::I’m not sure what to make of your response; it seems to me that you have missed the point of many of the things I wrote. I think you misunderstand the implications of population bottlenecks in humans. Our DNA contains a lot of information about our ancestral history, from which we can clearly see past population bottlenecks. For example the results of the mega eruption of (???) which reduced the human population to around 10,000 individuals are clearly visible in our DNA, it is like a giant red arrow on the human genome. However there is no such bottleneck visible for such a small population as described in the story of Noah’s ark, nor is there any population bottleneck at any time period even close to 5000 years ago. The implications of this are thus: either the story of Noah’s ark is not true or DNA is meaningless, and let me make this abundantly clear - we know DNA is not meaningless, the influence of DNA has been repeatedly displayed in experiments under scientific conditions.

:::I’m not sure what you mean by “''and historically all of evolution, are based on one Adam and Eve. Evolutionists have recently changed their story, but not due to any logical difficulty with a beginning of only a few.''” so I will have to refrain from attempting an answer.

:::I will again assert that there is a problem with 8 closely related individuals repopulating the world, in my last post I explained how this cannot be the case using the science of MVP which you have yet to respond to with anything other than complete dismissal. In any case I shall add to why the world wasn’t repopulated by such a few with DNA haplotypes. I don’t know the exact specifications of Noah’s family, but it really makes little difference. Noah, his wife and his children together could amount a maximum of 1 Y DNA haplotype and 2 Mitochondrial DNA haplotypes (of which only 1 Mitochondrial DNA haplotype could survive the death of Noah). Even adding a few cousins and the like you will only be able to add a few more unique DNA haplotypes (even with the most liberal of predictions) to the list. This poses another insurmountable problem to the idea of the repopulation of the world at such a late date with so few people. There are many DNA haplotypes in the world today which fit on a family tree showing their relationship with each other. There is no way to reconcile the model of DNA haplotype descent that must be the case had the story of Noah’s ark been true with what can actually be observed. Unfortunately for advocates of Noah’s ark being a factual account, as with population bottlenecks, the family tree of DNA haplotypes can and has been verified as fact through the use of repeatable experimentation in scientific conditions. Furthermore the mutation rates of specific DNA haplotypes are predictable and known, and are totally at odds with the current diversity of DNA haplotypes descending from a very small amount as recently as 5000 years ago.

:::With your implication that if the world was flatter it could easily be covered by water, you seem to be ignoring the massive elephant in the room. For the world to become flat firstly there would need to be impossibly fast tectonic action so violent it would destroy everything on earth. Secondly you ignore the fact that should the world suddenly become flat the ensuing wave of water would obliterate everything in its path regardless of it being sheltered in a relatively flimsy ark. Thirdly the cause of the flooding according to the bible is rain, not tectonic action. Given the preceding absurdities I feel I scarcely need to assert the fact that there is no evidence of any such tectonic action occurring in the past and indeed much geological evidence suggesting it didn’t.

:::You say that evolution fails to account for the survival of species when confronted with flooding. Firstly you mistakenly assume that flooding has a 100% death rate for animals affected by it. You also mistakenly assume that flooding always affects 100% of a species range. You also assume that most ‘floods’ are much more rapid then in reality. As for animals retreating to high ground just before a tsunami hits the shoreline, I haven’t read anything about this and can offer little comment. However I expect that the vast majority of animals do not retreat like this but are ignored by the media in favour of the few that do. In any case since when has endorsement by the mass media ever been a measure of truth? [[User:jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 01:07, 5 November 2009 (EST)
::::James, first, it's obvious you didn't read the Biblical description of the Great Flood. What does Genesis 7:11 say? The "fountains of the great deep broken up" is tectonic action employed when a fault exposes an underground water source under pressure. And for the most part animals and people end up dead due to flooding, and how many fossils were ''not'' found in sedimentary (sedimentary means "water-laid") rocks? Second, you're restricting yourself to DNA haplotypes as written on a blackboard, yet refusing to see first-hand that living organisms can and do multiply very rapidly from a very few into thousands or more in a short period of time. Rats, mice, rabbits, salmon, sardines, pigeons, ants, and cockroaches do it. Want an example of a large animal doing it as well? Plains bison herds in the country number about 45,000; a century ago they numbered less than 100. Sounds like a traditional small gene pool to me. And third, evolutionists are always changing their story, and it's always going to be any story ''except'' Adam and Eve. What is it now? Some monkey named "Ardi"? Two years ago it was "Lucy"; before that it was another ''Australopithicus''; before that it was good'ol Piltdown; before that it was Darwin's face mounted to a chimp.
::::Honestly, James, we've been through this many times with many others in the past, and all you're doing is putting the same old spin on the same old story. It's been debunked thoroughly on every point; it fails the [[Scientific method]] because you can't even get past that first step; and from what I've read from the above, you're just accepting evolution and old-earth stories at face value without even trying to investigate at least ''one'' aspect of them to see whether or not it's even true. From where I stand, you have to prove it's true. So please, go ahead and do exactly that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:43, 5 November 2009 (EST)

::::James, your massive essay is unresponsive. If you don't know about animals fleeing to high ground ''before'' a tsunami hits the shoreline, then open your mind and learn about it first. Really, is that too much expect? Instead, you seem to take a position of [[deliberate ignorance]], and then go on trying to disparage it anyway. Even evolutionist sources (like PBS) admit that this phenomenon occurs, but lack any plausible materialistic explanation.

::::As to massive flooding, materialists don't explain the survival of species through historic flooding any better than the Bible does. So if you find the biblical explanation deficient, then by applying your same standard you'd find evolution even more deficient. Instead, you use unproven speculation upon speculation to try to salvage your theory, while giving the biblical theory none of the same benefits of the doubt. That's called a [[double standard]], an unattractive characteristic common to the [[liberal]] ideology.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 5 November 2009 (EST)

== Quick Reply to Karajou ==

You obviously have no idea what a DNA haplotype actually is, otherwise you would not have made such a nonsensical statement as ''"Second, you're restricting yourself to DNA haplotypes as written on a blackboard, yet refusing to see first-hand that living organisms can and do multiply very rapidly from a very few into thousands..."'' DNA haplotypes have nothing really to do with genetic viability of a small population expanding into a larger one.

And what's next? A nonsensical rant about Adam and Eve, Piltdown man (which has some suspicious links to anti evolution advocates) and Darwin's face on a chimp. It is clear that you are deeply confused about evolution, you think that Darwin's face on a chimp was an evolutionist idea? It was a cartoon by creationists intended to lampoon Darwin. You accuse me of accepting old-earth and evolution at face value, this is highly ironic since from your posts I can be reasonably sure that you do not come even close to understanding what evolution actually is. I'm frankly not surprised that you have gone though this many times before, and I’ll wager you will go through it many times again because the problem here is not with everyone else. It is your incomplete understanding that creates this cycle, a cycle that can only be broken if you actually investigated evolution from a pro evolution scientific position. But I imagine that this will never happen because I'd guess you aren't interested in the truth, rather you are probably trapped within an ‘us and them’ mentality that can never allow you to explore the possibly that the position you hold is untenable.

Please prove me wrong, explain to me in simple terms what the theory of evolution entails and if you do a reasonable job of it I will concede the point to you. Also could you tell me when DNA haplotypes have been debunked or when population bottlenecks have been debunked? I suspect what you when you say debunked is actually ignored or dismissed with no justification.

I don't like having to make such a negative reply, whilst I disagree on many levels with Andy and others I have been debating with on this page none of their replies have made me angry, whist yours has me frustrated at the ludicrous way you have responded to my points without even knowing what they are. [[User:jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 16:16, 5 November 2009 (EST)

:Two things, JamesMackenzie: First, I did investigate evolution, I know full-well what evolution consists of; I know it's a claimed "change over time" scenario; and I know full-well that evolutionists such as yourself have no intention of backing those claims up with absolute proof. I and others on this site are fed up with being given a the "hearsay" argument by evolutionists, and ''hearsay'' is all they got. Second, when directed to provide proof of evolution ''as per the Scientific Method'', you back down and turn your reply into the rant that is here. It is you who is ignoring the debunked evidence.
:So, when directed to prove it, you demonstrated an attitude problem. I think you need to edit somewhere else. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:42, 5 November 2009 (EST)
::Just a quick note, you seem to have misunderstood the scientific method. The aim is not to 'prove' the theory of evolution, this, as with all general theories, is logically impossible. Science operates by trying to falsify theories. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 16:45, 5 November 2009 (EST)
:::Oh yes, the process of falsification. And if evolution is falsified, then what's the problem? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:49, 5 November 2009 (EST)
::::Before I get bogged down in explaining the fundamentals of the scientific method all over again, may I suggest you read in more detail what it is and how it works. The article on this site actually has some rather good details on this. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 17:03, 5 November 2009 (EST)
:::::DWiggins, if you look at the history of that article, you'll discover the fact that I wrote it...[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_method&diff=188946&oldid=168951] :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:06, 5 November 2009 (EST)
With all due respect, I would not consider 3 edits out of around 100 to in anyway constitute a claim to having 'wrote it'. I said ''some'' rather good details, insofar as it gives a reasonable overview of the scientific method but is rather clumsy in addressing more specific aspects, omitting several key points. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 18:28, 5 November 2009 (EST)
:[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_method&diff=367588&oldid=168951 That's] a pretty big contribution. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 18:38, 5 November 2009 (EST)

James, your own postings are extremely verbose with little on topic and yet ... you accuse Karajou of a "rant"??? This talk page is your criticism of the biblical explanation of survival by mammals of a massive flood. Do you think evolution has a better explanation of how mammals could survive a massive flood? I'd love to hear it if you have one. I don't think anyone denies that all of the inhabitable earth has been flooded.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 5 November 2009 (EST)

Arguments don't go away when you call them verbose.

1. He wasn't saying that small populations don't become larger over time. That's the story of human history, but a small family with nothing other than stone tools would be fighting an enormous struggle just to survive until tomorrow and maybe raise and sustain enough children to replace those who have died. They would all live together. Disease would strike and spread fast. Up until the Renaissance, one out of every three children died before they were five, and that was within societies that had some degree of agricultural development, trade, and infrastructure. A small clan left to nothing but their own strength cannot possibly create, feed, and keep alive enough offspring to grow the population.

That's what happened when the Spanish deported the people of Rapa Nui as slaves. Passed a certain point, the population does not recover.

2. Evolution is not a theory about the Great Flood. You don't disprove it because it doesn't address the Great Flood. That's like saying the Bible is false because it doesn't talk about atoms, photons, DNA, or redox reactions.

3. There is nothing you could tweak in the atmosphere that would make people live to be 900. Changing or adding anything other than oxygen and maybe some nitrogen would be lethal, and oxygen can only increase so much before it becomes toxic. The basic nature of life in general is that it does not last nine hundred years.

4. About the Running From a Tsunami thing - There is a completely naturalistic way to explain this. The animals hear the infrasound produced by the wave rolling in and run away. The animals that can't hear infrasound get spooked and run too. Regardless, nature is infinitely more complex than the human mind can possibly understand. Just because you can't tell me why the animals run doesn't mean it's magic.

5. About the Milk thing - Infant animals are small and able to sustain themselves on milk, but where does the milk come from? Saying they lived off milk is saying they weren't infants since milk is produced only by adults. So did they pack the milk in the ark? If they did, where did it come from?

6. If the water came from under the earth's crust, wouldn't it have been steam? What have you seen coming out of the mantle that isn't scalding? Is there any evidence that such a split happened, or is it just a semi-plausible explanation for something you already made up your mind to believe?

7. Limestone takes time to form. The flood would've had to last for hundreds of years (or longer) in order to build up the global layer of rock. The more likely explanation is that, at one point in geologic time or another, all land was underwater. The limestone formed there and was transported above sea level by the normal processes of the earth.

[[User:DanPugachev|DanPugachev]] 19:06, 7 November 2009 (EST)

: Dan, logic is concise, while running from logic takes many words. The biblical account is perfectly logical. You can't identify a logical flaw in it.

: You have free will to reject logic. But if you reject it, then lots of new questions are raised about your substitute. Massive flooding undoubtedly occurred. How do you think mammals survived it? Evolution does not have a plausible, detailed explanation.

: Most evolutionists run from [[Counterexamples to evolution|facts that disprove their theory]], just as animals run to high ground before a tsunami hits shore. No, that isn't random running from being "spooked" by some mysterious ultrasound, any more than chickens ''randomly'' return from distant places at the exact same point of nightfall each day, and jump into their chicken coop in the exact same order. I know, you never heard that about chickens either. There's much an evolutionist has "never heard of." I urge to you open your mind and let logic in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 7 November 2009 (EST)
::In answer to his #6, he's implying that water underground is steamy-hot, as well as a figment of my imagination. If he'd pay more attention to geology - specifically the geology of the Great Plains - he'd probably find mention of the Ogalalla Aquifer [http://www.npwd.org/Ogallala.htm], which is a remnant of the "waters of the great deep" bursting forth in Genesis. In answer to his #5, I stated that twice above, but apparently he forgets that ''people get milk from cows''. That's ''cows'', Dan; it means you tie Bessie to the hitching post, grab a small stool, and sit for an hour filling a wooden bucket. It's where milk came from in the days before people went Krogering. Remember, Andy, that these people expect and demand that we accept whatever explanation science has to offer - and that's ''any explanation except the Bible''. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:55, 8 November 2009 (EST)

:::First off, it's not some mysterious ultrasound. It's infrasound, and it's completely different. It is emitted by tsunami waves and is very well documented as causing signs of discomfort and fear in animals and even human beings, though we cannot consciously detect it. So why do the chickens return? It isn't some combination of sense of smell, homing using the sun, and possibly detecting the earth's magnetic field (which many birds do)? Is it the hand of God, who somehow forgot to warn the people about the tsunami? It's just the animals? Stories about animals being impressive do not disprove evolution in any way.

:::Evolution does not explain it because evolution is not a theory about surviving a flood that may or may not have occurred. Outside of the Biblical story, can anyone produce a single piece of physical and indisputable evidence? Karajou, you'd call any massive aquifer a remnant of the great flood, when it is perfectly explainable that the Ogalalla formed from water moving down through the soil and into the water table when the North American glaciers melted. If it resulted from a massive flood, wouldn't you expect to see aquifers like the Ogalalla (which, yes, I have heard of) all over the world? There aren't. And if the flood happened, as it was asserted earlier, when a fault broke Pangaea apart in a process like the seafloor spreading we see today, anything that would be released would come from the mantle as steam or superheated water that would boil on the surface. [[User:DanPugachev|DanPugachev]] 12:36, 8 November 2009 (EST)
::::Indisputable evidence for the Great Flood:
:::::Fossils, of which more than 99.9% of them were found in sedimentary ("water-laid") rock. They are usually intact, and deposited as if they died in agony. ''Step 1 of the Scientific Method in this case:'' observe the burial and fossiliztion of an animal. Cannot be done due to weather conditions and biological influences (scavengers) which tend to destroy the carcass and scatter the remains (note...that fact alone is ''observable, iaw Step 1'').
:::::Footprints, which were deposited ''when the ground was wet and muddy''. Footprints include ''raindrops''[http://www.twoguysfossils.com/dino3.htm]. The traditional explanation from science is that they harden into rock over the course of millenia just by sitting there, as if no one ever heard of the first rainstorm to come along and wash them away. ''Step 1 of the Scientific Method in this case:'' Make a track and fossilize it under the natural conditions described by science and see what happens.
:::::Folded layers of rock, which cannot fold unless they are first wet layers of mud. There is an "S"-curve in the rock in this image[http://www.purchon.com/ecology/images/folds.jpg], which didn't get that way if it was ordinary dry rock. This is indicative of differing types of sediment depositing in layers, then something violent happening to cause these layers to bend before they harden. ''Experiment:'' try setting down several layers of flat slate or similar hard rock, ''then bend the whole without breaking it''. Then do the same with wet layers of clay.
:::::Oral traditions, which are found world-wide in every language and every culture; it is a preservation of a single event. In more than 70% of these traditions, the following are present: global flood; large boat or raft; less than ten survivors; carrying away of a large number of animals; landing on or near a mountain range; sacrificial offering to the gods. ''Science'' in this case, needs to dismiss this as simple ''folk tales'' [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:08, 8 November 2009 (EST)

I'm in New Zealand at the moment and have only somewhat irregular access to internet, which is the cause of my periodic outbursts interspersed by silent periods, I regret posting my last thing in a bit of a foul mood, the point of this talk page isn't evolution is is Noah's ark, and I allowed Karajou to lead my reply off topic. The point remains that there is no pro Noah's ark answer to the questions of DNA haplotypes. And now that Karajou has likely googled "DNA halotype" he will be unable to reconcile the statement that he originally made in response to that point.

"As to the mother's milk - and I did indicate this small tidbit from John Houston film - farmers milk cows and goats on a daily basis"

I intended to answer this glaring example of doublethink a while ago but got caught up in other things. There would have to be hundreds of cows/goats to feed all the animals on the ark, but what would these goats and cows eat? And anyway can't there be more than 8 animals of each type? Furthermore the milk of other species is not very good for animals, this would further reduce resistance to disease and parasites (which is lower in infants too). [[User:Jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 22:41, 8 November 2009 (EST)
:James, you have been told quite clearly several times that 1) there was a lot of stored fodder onboard the ark; 2) that animals onboard occupied a smaller percentage of the total capacity of the ark; 3) that hibernation played a role, saving feeding time; 4) that young animals and unhatched eggs took less room than adults. Apparently, these simple and rational explantions cannot alter your agenda, which was to come to this site and push whatever Bible-hating mantra you have. You've been told; you don't want to listen. Since you want to push the argument ''ad nauseum'', then you need to go elsewhere. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:01, 9 November 2009 (EST)
::You say that you have answered the problems I have posed but this is not the case.
::*Please can you tell me how the story of Noah’s ark can be true given the current distribution and affiliations of the human DNA haploid genotypes?
::*Also can you explain how the story of Noah’s ark can be true when there is no evidence of a global flood event in all of dendrochronology?
::*Finally can you explain away the fact that there is no global break in human activity shown in archaeology for the period in question?
::Please let’s do this in a more structured manner, perhaps if you can directly address these 3 points then maybe you can present 3 counter points in support of Noah’s ark which I will attempt to falsify prior to positing another 3 points of my own and so on. [[User:Jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 15:19, 10 November 2009 (EST)

==Is this debate necessary?==

I talked to my pastor about these issues. According to him, Noah may or may not have been able to care for all these animals, but since the Bible does not specify how it happened, it must be assumed that it is not relevant to the overall account of the Flood. We know that individuals such as Alexandrina Maria Da Costa have found sustenance in the Love of God, so why wouldn't He bestow such a gift on the animals in the Ark? Maybe a materialistic explanation can be found, but it is by no means necessary.--[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 20:19, 9 November 2009 (EST)
:If archaeological and geological evidence shows something to be hypothetically impossible then divine intervention can be given as the solution, however if the evidence shows that something never happened then it never happened. This is the point of this debate, without physical corroboration the bible is about as historically realistic as the lord of the rings. How many serious political and social decisions are made according to what's written in the lord of the rings? conversely how many are made because of what's written in the bible? This is why this debate is necessary. [[User:Jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 15:41, 10 November 2009 (EST)
::This "debate" happens here all the time because there's always one or two individuals who want to force the issue. He listed questions above which were answered previously; in one case three times. His pattern indicates someone who refuses to listen, totally contradicting the "open mindedness" that his side claims to have a market on. And now he's bringing up dendrochronology? Since I already know the answer to that one, I doubt it will be something he'll listen to. So, since he's bringing up the constant ''argumentum ad infinitum'' - with some egotistical pressure, I might add - I'm going to have to declare his presence here at an end. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:02, 10 November 2009 (EST)
:Well we have the Word of God that it happened. The only 'evidence' that could be found in this case would be the remains of Noah's Ark, which could serve as an additional argument. The absence of evidence, on the other hand, would prove nothing, as wood decays. The Ark would also likely be used as a shelter for Noah's family, and maybe as firewood later on, so we can't expect it to have been preserved to this day.
:My point is that this debate seems be on whether specific, materialistic methods could have fed all the animals. The Bible says nothing of the actual method used, and it has left no evidence. And maybe it is simply impossible to feed that many animals with eight people. Why should we shy from accepting that the Lord could provide for them? --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 11:06, 11 November 2009 (EST)

Tell you what, since he's here to demand that we accept his viewpoint, I'm going to make a demand of my own. Jamesmackenzie, since you came to this particular page with the intention of pushing your opinion that Noah's Ark did not exist, I'm going to call you on it. According to the Bible, Genesis 8, the ark rested in ''the mountains of Ararat''. You, Jamesmackenzie, are going to scour the area once known as the Kingdom of Urartu, which now is occupied by eastern Turkey, northern Iraq, and northwestern Iran, and I don't care how you do it. You can use Google-Earth or take a jet to do some hiking, but you are going to go over every square foot of that ground ''before you carry on with your opinion in this website''. That is the only way I will accept from you the proof needed that the ark doesn't exist. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:22, 10 November 2009 (EST)

User:TSpencer

2009-11-10T01:53:27Z

TSpencer: Created page with '==About me== I am a British Tory.'

==About me==

I am a British Tory.

Talk:Essay:Noah's Ark Was Real

2009-11-10T01:19:31Z

TSpencer: /*Is this debate necessary? */

I'm not sure what to make of this, is it a parody?

If not then how could the climatic conditions required for Arctic animals be maintained alongside those of desert dwelling species?

How can the geographic distribution of species and fossils be explained by all the animals disembarking from the ark at the location?

How could a vessel be large enough to hold the enormous number of animals it would take to preserve a minimum 2 of every species let alone be large enough to hold fodder for a year especially considering the highly specialized feeding requirements of many animals?

What about animals that have lifespans shorter than a year, but also require very specific conditions to be met in order to be able to reproduce? [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 14:28, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

:Keiko the killer whale (a cold-water species) was maintained for years in a Mexico City (hot environment) aquarium. Polar bears are exhibited in zoos located in temperate and hot locations around the world. Add to that a species of penguin found in the Galapagos Islands at the equator, when it should be near Antarctica.
:In the Bible, God tells Noah that "every sort of animal shall come to him" (Gen 6:20); if God can tell the animals to go to the ark, He can tell the animals where to go when leaving the ark.
:40,000 animals the size of sheep can fit into 167 railroad boxcars, which is roughly 30% of the capacity of the ark. Furthermore, you have to take into account that not every animal is full-grown when it's aboard; after all, how much space does a 30-foot anaconda take up versus a two-foot baby? Then there are birds and reptiles which could have been cared for while they were eggs; there's hibernation. [http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html] [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:02, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Galapagos penguins survive so far from the south pole because of two cold ocean currents that well up at the Galapagos islands making the water temperature much colder than would otherwise be expected for its latitude.
::40,000 sheep may be able to fit jammed into 167 railway boxes, but they cannot live there for a year and all their fodder for a year cannot fit either.
::How would hummingbirds (of which there are hundreds of species) have been supplied with enough food given the extremely specific nature of their dietary requirements, or koalas for that matter who require a huge amount of eucalyptus and only eucalyptus per day?
::How were parasites, viruses and pathogenic bacteria be prevented from totally overwhelming the animals on the ark given that the conditions would be ideal for their propagation?
::How were carnivorous animals kept fed for a whole year given the great number of prey animals it takes in the wild to support even a few large predators?
::It is strange that you feel the need to justify the story of the ark as if it were even remotely possible, but in the end you resort to explanations via magic anyway. If magic had to be used why didn't god just get rid of all the sinners in the blink of an eye? [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 07:39, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== In answer to Mr. MacKenzie ==

Mr. MacKenzie:

Did you take the trouble to read the essay itself, or the [[Noah's Ark]] article? Your comments suggest to me that you have not. You overlook many key passages in which I answer every one of the objections you raised. With one possible exception: animals having life spans less than a year. I answer that those life spans were probably a good deal longer, before the altered state of the earth's atmosphere took their toll. Recall that the average life span of the descendants of Adam was about 900 years. After the [[Great Flood]], man's life span dropped ninety percent, and in a hurry. We must assume that the life spans of animals varied in similar proportion.

Where did [[User:Karajou]] resort to invoking miracles? For that matter, where did I? Did I not explicitly state that one must employ an economy of miracles, to go along with scientific parsimony as prescribed by [[William of Occam]]?

While I'm on the subject, you overlook one other thing. You assume that true randomness exists in a [[God]]-centered universe. It does not. Nothing, of whatever character, happens without God's direct authorization. We can guess how likely a thing might be, but if God wants to act out of the ordinary, such is within His capability and, more to the point, His authority. Hence if God wants to ruin a man for repeatedly testing Him, or testing "the fates" or "Lady Luck" or whatever he wants to call it, that's His prerogative, too. (And I've seen Him do it, too. Ask any [[Las Vegas]] gambler who doesn't know to quit while he's ahead.)

Nevertheless, you overlook still another thing: God gives explicit warnings, and equally explcit instructions, to certain people when and as He pleases. He did this in [[Noah]]'s case, again in [[Abraham]]'s case, and then in [[Moses]]'s case, in which He gave far more detailed instructions for an amazingly intricate building project: the [[Tabernacle]] and all its furnishings. And then there is [[Jesus Christ]] Himself, Whose very ministry was a miracle.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:22, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks for the reply.

:Can you substantiate the claim that humans and other animals lived longer life spans in the past? The bible obviously doesn’t count because its verisimilitude is highly questionable. I ask because the current scientific understanding at least as far as humans are concerned is that life expectancy has steadily increased with time rather than decreased.

:Anything that could not be repeated by humans using the same technology as was available at the time in question is a miracle/magic. All the animals moving to the ark and not killing each other as they assembled are certainly magical or miraculous.

:If true randomness cannot exist then how can free will exist? Also can you substantiate that this universe contains properties that might be associated with a god?

:As for my questions being answered I cannot find that in the essay or the article, particularly the parasite question and the point about specialised food supplies (koala bears). Also I’d like to add another question – If Noah and his family of 8 were the only human survivors then how come such a population bottleneck is not shown in human DNA evidence? [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 14:55, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

If you're going to dismiss the Bible ''a priori'', then we have nothing to discuss. ''You'' question the "verisimilitude" (I think you mean "veracity") of the Bible, but I do not. We address [[Biblical inerrancy]] in another article on this site, and I can also direct you to [http://creationwiki.org/Biblical_inerrancy this article] that discusses the subject in somewhat greater detail.

Let me take just one aspect of the issue: prerdictions of future events. For centuries, skeptics believed that the Book of Daniel, for example, must have been written long after [[Alexander the Great]] conquered the [[Middle East]]. Then in 1947, in the middle of the high drama surrounding the establishment of the Republic of [[Israel]], a small boy threw a rock into a cave near Qumran, and the rock's impact produced the sound of breaking pottery. The little boy checked it out, and then showed up in [[Jerusalem]] hawking what he found. These were the first of the [[Dead Sea Scrolls]]. Those scrolls include manuscripts of Daniel that clearly predate Alexander, and predict his conquest of the Holy Land exactly as it occurred. And Daniel isn't the only one.

There, by the way, is a modern miracle for you. The finding of those scrolls persuaded the [[United States]] to grant diplomatic recognition to the Republic of Israel, and made the difference between Jewish statehood and a Second Holocaust.

As I said, Daniel isn't the only one. Isaiah is another. And Isaiah predicted the most striking event of all: the ministry, death and resurrection of [[Jesus Christ]].

Any text that can get all these things absolutely right, four hundred years or more ahead of time (and against odds of ten thousand quinquagintillion to one, by the way), can certainly be trusted on other events that it recorded. Like the genealogy of Adam, and the tremendous average lifespans, and the genealogy of Shem and the tremendous decline in lifespan. And like the [[Great Flood]] and the plans of [[Noah's Ark]].

I have no trouble accepting the assembly of the animals. The same God Who gave [[Noah]] his instructions for building the [[Noah's Ark|Ark]] was certainly capable of assembling the menagerie that Noah would carry. Nor is that necessarily as difficult as you are attempting to portray. Are you assuming that the continents in Noah's day were distributed as they are today? They weren't. Initially they all fit together, like a gigantic jigsaw puzzle. The Flood got started with a hairline crack that appeared in this landmass and then went all the way through it. That crack persists as the Mid-Oceanic Ridge System. See [[Hydroplate Theory]] for some further details, and a link to an outside source that explains it in far greater detail than I have space to use here.

How can free will exist without randomness? Well, it can't. But that does not mean, by the way, that we need to accept the authority of any [[Barack Hussein Obama|one human being who is trying to pretend that he's God]]. It does mean that God not only knows what is going to happen well before it happens (and can give memoranda of instructions to whomever He chooses, whenever He chooses), but that He has ''decided ahead of time'' what is going to happen. Perhaps He has decided ahead of time to bring you to me, figuratively speaking, so that I may testify to you concerning His Existence, His Pre-eminence, and His Role in human affairs, ancient and modern.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 17:23, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks for the reply, I'll have a proper read of it tomorrow morning and answer you then, as for now, before I sleep I just wanted to say that I did indeed mean to write verisimilitude - a word which means "the appearance of truth or likelihood", so for something to have its verisimilitude lacking or questionable is not to have a lack of truth but to have a lack of a semblance of truth. [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 18:52, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

==My answers to your questions==
''Galapagos penguins survive so far from the south pole because of two cold ocean currents that well up at the Galapagos islands making the water temperature much colder than would otherwise be expected for its latitude.''
:Still the water there is a lot warmer than it would be around Antarctica, and these penguins have no problem with the hot conditions once they're out of the water.
''40,000 sheep may be able to fit jammed into 167 railway boxes, but they cannot live there for a year and all their fodder for a year cannot fit either.''
:I didn't say there were 40,000 sheep jammed in 167 boxcars, did I? What I stated was a matter of ''capacity'', and you seemed to also overlook the fact that I said this number of animals occupied 30% of the Ark's total capacity, leaving enough room for other animals, and fodder for a year.
''How would hummingbirds (of which there are hundreds of species) have been supplied with enough food given the extremely specific nature of their dietary requirements, or koalas for that matter who require a huge amount of eucalyptus and only eucalyptus per day?''
:Again, you missed what I said above, so I'll say it again. Baby birds come packaged in eggs. Baby reptiles come packaged in eggs. Baby mammals feed upon their mother's milk, and if they don't have a mom, someone is going to get milk from elsewhere and do the job. Any zookeeper or farmer knows that, and I find it strange that a self-professed scientist doesn't. Do baby koalas slurp on eucalyptus juice before they get their teeth in, or is it mother's milk?
''How were parasites, viruses and pathogenic bacteria be prevented from totally overwhelming the animals on the ark given that the conditions would be ideal for their propagation?''
:The conditions on earth during that period of time from the creation were just about perfect; viruses were virtually non-existent. As to parasites, even a monkey can pluck them from another monkey, or a tick bird can remove them from a cow; that kind of behavior has been observed and proven, IAW step one of the [[Scientific method]].
''How were carnivorous animals kept fed for a whole year given the great number of prey animals it takes in the wild to support even a few large predators?''
:Again, mother's milk. Didn't you see that displayed in the Noah's Ark segment of the John Houston film ''The Bible''?
''It is strange that you feel the need to justify the story of the ark as if it were even remotely possible, but in the end you resort to explanations via magic anyway. If magic had to be used why didn't god just get rid of all the sinners in the blink of an eye?''
:I never resorted to a ''magic'' explanation; that one is your's. And God doesn't just "get rid of all sinners" when He knows it's much better to give them an opportunity to come to repentance through Jesus Christ. You came here with the standpoint that God doesn't exist, so now I request that you prove beyond doubt on this page that God '''doesn't''' exist...and use the Scientific method when doing so. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:00, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

::Where does all this mother’s milk come from, either there are adults on the ark providing it, thereby mitigating your argument by infancy, or there is a huge stockpile of milk taking up yet more space on an already impossibly full ark leaving alone questions of spoilage! Also owt but milk for a whole year, really?

::The parasites I was specifically thinking of are the internal type that cannot be groomed off, but also must have been on the ark from the start.

::According to Christian doctrine god is omnipotent. He knows who will repent and who won’t depending on what warnings he gives therefore he can simply erase those who he knows will not fit into his criteria for survival.

::You know that I cannot prove beyond doubt that god doesn’t exist. However you should also know that I cannot prove that the Dagda and the Morrigan don’t exist and therefore the impossibility of proving the existence of anything does not prove its existence. You have however inspired me to write an essay on why I think my atheism is scientifically justified, I’ll send you a link when i get around to it.

::By the way, no hard feelings right? Just a bit of stimulating debate! [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 17:15, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:::First, and most important, there are no hard feelings anywhere! As to the mother's milk - and I did indicate this small tidbit from John Houston film - farmers ''milk'' cows and goats on a daily basis. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:57, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== General Reply to Jamesmackenzie ==

Two points dispose of all of Mr. MacKenzie's objections. First, there is no ''logical'' objection to the biblical account. It cannot be disproved. Let's be clear about that. It may not comport easily with someone's everyday experience 5000 years later, but the same could be said about many other facts in history also. There is simply no ''logical'' flaw in the account.

Second, the [[theory of evolution]] has even greater difficulties explaining how species survived massive flooding. No one credibly denies that worldwide flooding occurred; even today the world is over 70% covered with water, nearly all habitation occurs within 100 feet of sea level, and limestone deposits from water are found at all heights. Local, but massive, flooding occurs frequently and widely, with devastating affects. The theory of evolution does not have a more plausible explanation for how species survive this in the long run.

Put another way, if you think the saving of species from massive flooding was difficult with God's assistance, it is even more difficult without such assistance.

Finally, Mr. MacKenzie need not speculate about animal behavior 5000 years ago. Animals fled to high ground in the tsunami that devastated Indonesia merely 5 years ago. Mr. MacKenzie would likely claim (based on materialism) that such behavior is impossible or implausible, yet it undeniably occurred. No need to go back 5000 years; why not simply address behavior of 5 years ago that confound [[materialist]]s?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:21, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:''"Two points dispose of all of Mr. MacKenzie's objections. First, there is no logical objection to the biblical account. It cannot be disproved. Let's be clear about that. It may not comport easily with someone's everyday experience 5000 years later, but the same could be said about many other facts in history also. There is simply no logical flaw in the account.”''

:There are indeed logical flaws in the story, and it can be disproved. The lack of a population bottleneck in humans from any time around when the flooding was supposed to take place is disproof of the story. The population bottleneck as described in the bible is not something that could hide; a population bottleneck of 8 individuals is extreme (the species would be classified moribund). In fact the extremity of the so called bottleneck is another logical flaw in the story, since a species requires a minimum population to remain viable (MVP(1)). The MVP for primates is estimated to be over 5,000 individuals accounting for inbreeding. Even ignoring inbreeding the MVP would still be around 1,000 individuals. That makes the most favourable (and somewhat unrealistic) estimate for minimum number of humans required for the species to survive as 125 times higher than what the bible claims we had.

:There are other logical flaws too, to name but a few: where did all this water come from? Where did all this water go to? If the world was flooded so recently then how come aquatic species are so localised and varied? Why did human lifetimes rapidly drop after the flood?

:''“Second, the theory of evolution has even greater difficulties explaining how species survived massive flooding. No one credibly denies that worldwide flooding occurred; even today the world is over 70% covered with water, nearly all habitation occurs within 100 feet of sea level, and limestone deposits from water are found at all heights. Local, but massive, flooding occurs frequently and widely, with devastating affects[sic]. The theory of evolution does not have a more plausible explanation for how species survive this in the long run.”''

:The world has indeed seen times of much higher sea levels, however it has never been totally submerged. Limestone deposits found at high altitude are more the consequence of isostatic action rather than eustatic action. During the times of high sea level the world would have been more like Indonesia and the Philippines, a global series of island chains and archipelagos, certainly extensive enough for terrestrial life to survive upon with some adaptation (island gigantism/island dwarfism, or terrestrial animals such as whales returning to the oceans).

:Also tsunamis aren’t really the same as long term flooding; the flood of a tsunami lasts days or weeks at most. It is certainly not difficult for animals from nearby lightly affected regions to rapidly colonise the tsunami hit area. However in the case of a tsunami it is also the case that not all animals will be killed even in the worst affected regions. These animals that do manage to survive will sometimes do so out of luck, but most will do so because they were stronger swimmers, or fast climbers etc. Then as the survivors repopulate the region they will pass on the traits that helped them survive the last tsunami to their offspring. In this way the gene pool of the animals that populate this region will have changed from how it was pre tsunami. Hence in this example evolution by natural selection has occurred!

:''"Put another way, if you think the saving of species from massive flooding was difficult with God's assistance, it is even more difficult without such assistance.”''

:I think you are making a chronological error here. Sea level change is gradual, and landmasses do not abruptly disappear into the sea. In fact the shrinking habitat, isolation of high ground from previously connected land and increased competition that will occur as a landmass is gradually overrun (over thousands of generations) by the ocean creates an exquisite set of conditions for evolution to occur in.
:As for humans previously having an extremely long lifetime, I’d like to specifically call that into question, especially given the fact that one of the justifications for the feasibility of the ark is that Noah lived hundreds of years and spent more than a modern lifetime constructing the ark. From a biological point of view the idea of historical humans living to the age of 900 is preposterous. There is a fairly consistent trend observable in archaeological evidence of human lifetimes lengthening over time. I’d be interested to hear about the remains of ancient humans that show signs of extremely (and unfeasibly even by modern standards) advanced age in their bones and teeth.

:(1)Minimum viable population – This is the threshold number of individuals required by a species to remain viable. It is defined as the point when the likelihood of extinction due to insufficient numbers of individuals remaining reaches 95%

:Also as an aside, whilst it is perfectly correct to spell Mackenzie a few different ways, including MacKenzie, I spell my name in the former manner. [[User:jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 21:37, 1 November 2009 (EST)

::Your reply is extremely verbose, but identifies no logical flaw in the biblical account. All of Christianity, and historically all of evolution, are based on one Adam and Eve. Evolutionists have recently changed their story, but not due to any logical difficulty with a beginning of only a few. There is no problem with Noah et al. populating the world post-Flood. Indeed, the population size of today is compatible with a small number about 5000 years ago.

::There is no shortage of flood water. If Earth were merely slightly flatter than today, then 99% of current inhabitants would be under water without the need for one extra drop of water.

::Evolutionists cannot explain the survival of species over time any better than the Bible does. Living creatures settle near water. Water inevitably and surprisingly floods, killing the living species. This wipes out evolution. Adding intervention by God and an Ark is one logical explanation; evolutionists don't offer '''any''' alternative, let alone a logical one.

::Finally, you duck the undeniable point about tsunamis: animals flee to high ground just before it hits the shoreline. Ducking the point doesn't change the fact, which even liberal media like PBS have fully admitted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:08, 1 November 2009 (EST)

:::I’m not sure what to make of your response; it seems to me that you have missed the point of many of the things I wrote. I think you misunderstand the implications of population bottlenecks in humans. Our DNA contains a lot of information about our ancestral history, from which we can clearly see past population bottlenecks. For example the results of the mega eruption of (???) which reduced the human population to around 10,000 individuals are clearly visible in our DNA, it is like a giant red arrow on the human genome. However there is no such bottleneck visible for such a small population as described in the story of Noah’s ark, nor is there any population bottleneck at any time period even close to 5000 years ago. The implications of this are thus: either the story of Noah’s ark is not true or DNA is meaningless, and let me make this abundantly clear - we know DNA is not meaningless, the influence of DNA has been repeatedly displayed in experiments under scientific conditions.

:::I’m not sure what you mean by “''and historically all of evolution, are based on one Adam and Eve. Evolutionists have recently changed their story, but not due to any logical difficulty with a beginning of only a few.''” so I will have to refrain from attempting an answer.

:::I will again assert that there is a problem with 8 closely related individuals repopulating the world, in my last post I explained how this cannot be the case using the science of MVP which you have yet to respond to with anything other than complete dismissal. In any case I shall add to why the world wasn’t repopulated by such a few with DNA haplotypes. I don’t know the exact specifications of Noah’s family, but it really makes little difference. Noah, his wife and his children together could amount a maximum of 1 Y DNA haplotype and 2 Mitochondrial DNA haplotypes (of which only 1 Mitochondrial DNA haplotype could survive the death of Noah). Even adding a few cousins and the like you will only be able to add a few more unique DNA haplotypes (even with the most liberal of predictions) to the list. This poses another insurmountable problem to the idea of the repopulation of the world at such a late date with so few people. There are many DNA haplotypes in the world today which fit on a family tree showing their relationship with each other. There is no way to reconcile the model of DNA haplotype descent that must be the case had the story of Noah’s ark been true with what can actually be observed. Unfortunately for advocates of Noah’s ark being a factual account, as with population bottlenecks, the family tree of DNA haplotypes can and has been verified as fact through the use of repeatable experimentation in scientific conditions. Furthermore the mutation rates of specific DNA haplotypes are predictable and known, and are totally at odds with the current diversity of DNA haplotypes descending from a very small amount as recently as 5000 years ago.

:::With your implication that if the world was flatter it could easily be covered by water, you seem to be ignoring the massive elephant in the room. For the world to become flat firstly there would need to be impossibly fast tectonic action so violent it would destroy everything on earth. Secondly you ignore the fact that should the world suddenly become flat the ensuing wave of water would obliterate everything in its path regardless of it being sheltered in a relatively flimsy ark. Thirdly the cause of the flooding according to the bible is rain, not tectonic action. Given the preceding absurdities I feel I scarcely need to assert the fact that there is no evidence of any such tectonic action occurring in the past and indeed much geological evidence suggesting it didn’t.

:::You say that evolution fails to account for the survival of species when confronted with flooding. Firstly you mistakenly assume that flooding has a 100% death rate for animals affected by it. You also mistakenly assume that flooding always affects 100% of a species range. You also assume that most ‘floods’ are much more rapid then in reality. As for animals retreating to high ground just before a tsunami hits the shoreline, I haven’t read anything about this and can offer little comment. However I expect that the vast majority of animals do not retreat like this but are ignored by the media in favour of the few that do. In any case since when has endorsement by the mass media ever been a measure of truth? [[User:jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 01:07, 5 November 2009 (EST)
::::James, first, it's obvious you didn't read the Biblical description of the Great Flood. What does Genesis 7:11 say? The "fountains of the great deep broken up" is tectonic action employed when a fault exposes an underground water source under pressure. And for the most part animals and people end up dead due to flooding, and how many fossils were ''not'' found in sedimentary (sedimentary means "water-laid") rocks? Second, you're restricting yourself to DNA haplotypes as written on a blackboard, yet refusing to see first-hand that living organisms can and do multiply very rapidly from a very few into thousands or more in a short period of time. Rats, mice, rabbits, salmon, sardines, pigeons, ants, and cockroaches do it. Want an example of a large animal doing it as well? Plains bison herds in the country number about 45,000; a century ago they numbered less than 100. Sounds like a traditional small gene pool to me. And third, evolutionists are always changing their story, and it's always going to be any story ''except'' Adam and Eve. What is it now? Some monkey named "Ardi"? Two years ago it was "Lucy"; before that it was another ''Australopithicus''; before that it was good'ol Piltdown; before that it was Darwin's face mounted to a chimp.
::::Honestly, James, we've been through this many times with many others in the past, and all you're doing is putting the same old spin on the same old story. It's been debunked thoroughly on every point; it fails the [[Scientific method]] because you can't even get past that first step; and from what I've read from the above, you're just accepting evolution and old-earth stories at face value without even trying to investigate at least ''one'' aspect of them to see whether or not it's even true. From where I stand, you have to prove it's true. So please, go ahead and do exactly that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:43, 5 November 2009 (EST)

::::James, your massive essay is unresponsive. If you don't know about animals fleeing to high ground ''before'' a tsunami hits the shoreline, then open your mind and learn about it first. Really, is that too much expect? Instead, you seem to take a position of [[deliberate ignorance]], and then go on trying to disparage it anyway. Even evolutionist sources (like PBS) admit that this phenomenon occurs, but lack any plausible materialistic explanation.

::::As to massive flooding, materialists don't explain the survival of species through historic flooding any better than the Bible does. So if you find the biblical explanation deficient, then by applying your same standard you'd find evolution even more deficient. Instead, you use unproven speculation upon speculation to try to salvage your theory, while giving the biblical theory none of the same benefits of the doubt. That's called a [[double standard]], an unattractive characteristic common to the [[liberal]] ideology.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 5 November 2009 (EST)

== Quick Reply to Karajou ==

You obviously have no idea what a DNA haplotype actually is, otherwise you would not have made such a nonsensical statement as ''"Second, you're restricting yourself to DNA haplotypes as written on a blackboard, yet refusing to see first-hand that living organisms can and do multiply very rapidly from a very few into thousands..."'' DNA haplotypes have nothing really to do with genetic viability of a small population expanding into a larger one.

And what's next? A nonsensical rant about Adam and Eve, Piltdown man (which has some suspicious links to anti evolution advocates) and Darwin's face on a chimp. It is clear that you are deeply confused about evolution, you think that Darwin's face on a chimp was an evolutionist idea? It was a cartoon by creationists intended to lampoon Darwin. You accuse me of accepting old-earth and evolution at face value, this is highly ironic since from your posts I can be reasonably sure that you do not come even close to understanding what evolution actually is. I'm frankly not surprised that you have gone though this many times before, and I’ll wager you will go through it many times again because the problem here is not with everyone else. It is your incomplete understanding that creates this cycle, a cycle that can only be broken if you actually investigated evolution from a pro evolution scientific position. But I imagine that this will never happen because I'd guess you aren't interested in the truth, rather you are probably trapped within an ‘us and them’ mentality that can never allow you to explore the possibly that the position you hold is untenable.

Please prove me wrong, explain to me in simple terms what the theory of evolution entails and if you do a reasonable job of it I will concede the point to you. Also could you tell me when DNA haplotypes have been debunked or when population bottlenecks have been debunked? I suspect what you when you say debunked is actually ignored or dismissed with no justification.

I don't like having to make such a negative reply, whilst I disagree on many levels with Andy and others I have been debating with on this page none of their replies have made me angry, whist yours has me frustrated at the ludicrous way you have responded to my points without even knowing what they are. [[User:jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 16:16, 5 November 2009 (EST)

:Two things, JamesMackenzie: First, I did investigate evolution, I know full-well what evolution consists of; I know it's a claimed "change over time" scenario; and I know full-well that evolutionists such as yourself have no intention of backing those claims up with absolute proof. I and others on this site are fed up with being given a the "hearsay" argument by evolutionists, and ''hearsay'' is all they got. Second, when directed to provide proof of evolution ''as per the Scientific Method'', you back down and turn your reply into the rant that is here. It is you who is ignoring the debunked evidence.
:So, when directed to prove it, you demonstrated an attitude problem. I think you need to edit somewhere else. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:42, 5 November 2009 (EST)
::Just a quick note, you seem to have misunderstood the scientific method. The aim is not to 'prove' the theory of evolution, this, as with all general theories, is logically impossible. Science operates by trying to falsify theories. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 16:45, 5 November 2009 (EST)
:::Oh yes, the process of falsification. And if evolution is falsified, then what's the problem? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:49, 5 November 2009 (EST)
::::Before I get bogged down in explaining the fundamentals of the scientific method all over again, may I suggest you read in more detail what it is and how it works. The article on this site actually has some rather good details on this. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 17:03, 5 November 2009 (EST)
:::::DWiggins, if you look at the history of that article, you'll discover the fact that I wrote it...[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_method&diff=188946&oldid=168951] :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:06, 5 November 2009 (EST)
With all due respect, I would not consider 3 edits out of around 100 to in anyway constitute a claim to having 'wrote it'. I said ''some'' rather good details, insofar as it gives a reasonable overview of the scientific method but is rather clumsy in addressing more specific aspects, omitting several key points. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 18:28, 5 November 2009 (EST)
:[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_method&diff=367588&oldid=168951 That's] a pretty big contribution. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 18:38, 5 November 2009 (EST)

James, your own postings are extremely verbose with little on topic and yet ... you accuse Karajou of a "rant"??? This talk page is your criticism of the biblical explanation of survival by mammals of a massive flood. Do you think evolution has a better explanation of how mammals could survive a massive flood? I'd love to hear it if you have one. I don't think anyone denies that all of the inhabitable earth has been flooded.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 5 November 2009 (EST)

Arguments don't go away when you call them verbose.

1. He wasn't saying that small populations don't become larger over time. That's the story of human history, but a small family with nothing other than stone tools would be fighting an enormous struggle just to survive until tomorrow and maybe raise and sustain enough children to replace those who have died. They would all live together. Disease would strike and spread fast. Up until the Renaissance, one out of every three children died before they were five, and that was within societies that had some degree of agricultural development, trade, and infrastructure. A small clan left to nothing but their own strength cannot possibly create, feed, and keep alive enough offspring to grow the population.

That's what happened when the Spanish deported the people of Rapa Nui as slaves. Passed a certain point, the population does not recover.

2. Evolution is not a theory about the Great Flood. You don't disprove it because it doesn't address the Great Flood. That's like saying the Bible is false because it doesn't talk about atoms, photons, DNA, or redox reactions.

3. There is nothing you could tweak in the atmosphere that would make people live to be 900. Changing or adding anything other than oxygen and maybe some nitrogen would be lethal, and oxygen can only increase so much before it becomes toxic. The basic nature of life in general is that it does not last nine hundred years.

4. About the Running From a Tsunami thing - There is a completely naturalistic way to explain this. The animals hear the infrasound produced by the wave rolling in and run away. The animals that can't hear infrasound get spooked and run too. Regardless, nature is infinitely more complex than the human mind can possibly understand. Just because you can't tell me why the animals run doesn't mean it's magic.

5. About the Milk thing - Infant animals are small and able to sustain themselves on milk, but where does the milk come from? Saying they lived off milk is saying they weren't infants since milk is produced only by adults. So did they pack the milk in the ark? If they did, where did it come from?

6. If the water came from under the earth's crust, wouldn't it have been steam? What have you seen coming out of the mantle that isn't scalding? Is there any evidence that such a split happened, or is it just a semi-plausible explanation for something you already made up your mind to believe?

7. Limestone takes time to form. The flood would've had to last for hundreds of years (or longer) in order to build up the global layer of rock. The more likely explanation is that, at one point in geologic time or another, all land was underwater. The limestone formed there and was transported above sea level by the normal processes of the earth.

[[User:DanPugachev|DanPugachev]] 19:06, 7 November 2009 (EST)

: Dan, logic is concise, while running from logic takes many words. The biblical account is perfectly logical. You can't identify a logical flaw in it.

: You have free will to reject logic. But if you reject it, then lots of new questions are raised about your substitute. Massive flooding undoubtedly occurred. How do you think mammals survived it? Evolution does not have a plausible, detailed explanation.

: Most evolutionists run from [[Counterexamples to evolution|facts that disprove their theory]], just as animals run to high ground before a tsunami hits shore. No, that isn't random running from being "spooked" by some mysterious ultrasound, any more than chickens ''randomly'' return from distant places at the exact same point of nightfall each day, and jump into their chicken coop in the exact same order. I know, you never heard that about chickens either. There's much an evolutionist has "never heard of." I urge to you open your mind and let logic in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 7 November 2009 (EST)
::In answer to his #6, he's implying that water underground is steamy-hot, as well as a figment of my imagination. If he'd pay more attention to geology - specifically the geology of the Great Plains - he'd probably find mention of the Ogalalla Aquifer [http://www.npwd.org/Ogallala.htm], which is a remnant of the "waters of the great deep" bursting forth in Genesis. In answer to his #5, I stated that twice above, but apparently he forgets that ''people get milk from cows''. That's ''cows'', Dan; it means you tie Bessie to the hitching post, grab a small stool, and sit for an hour filling a wooden bucket. It's where milk came from in the days before people went Krogering. Remember, Andy, that these people expect and demand that we accept whatever explanation science has to offer - and that's ''any explanation except the Bible''. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:55, 8 November 2009 (EST)

:::First off, it's not some mysterious ultrasound. It's infrasound, and it's completely different. It is emitted by tsunami waves and is very well documented as causing signs of discomfort and fear in animals and even human beings, though we cannot consciously detect it. So why do the chickens return? It isn't some combination of sense of smell, homing using the sun, and possibly detecting the earth's magnetic field (which many birds do)? Is it the hand of God, who somehow forgot to warn the people about the tsunami? It's just the animals? Stories about animals being impressive do not disprove evolution in any way.

:::Evolution does not explain it because evolution is not a theory about surviving a flood that may or may not have occurred. Outside of the Biblical story, can anyone produce a single piece of physical and indisputable evidence? Karajou, you'd call any massive aquifer a remnant of the great flood, when it is perfectly explainable that the Ogalalla formed from water moving down through the soil and into the water table when the North American glaciers melted. If it resulted from a massive flood, wouldn't you expect to see aquifers like the Ogalalla (which, yes, I have heard of) all over the world? There aren't. And if the flood happened, as it was asserted earlier, when a fault broke Pangaea apart in a process like the seafloor spreading we see today, anything that would be released would come from the mantle as steam or superheated water that would boil on the surface. [[User:DanPugachev|DanPugachev]] 12:36, 8 November 2009 (EST)
::::Indisputable evidence for the Great Flood:
:::::Fossils, of which more than 99.9% of them were found in sedimentary ("water-laid") rock. They are usually intact, and deposited as if they died in agony. ''Step 1 of the Scientific Method in this case:'' observe the burial and fossiliztion of an animal. Cannot be done due to weather conditions and biological influences (scavengers) which tend to destroy the carcass and scatter the remains (note...that fact alone is ''observable, iaw Step 1'').
:::::Footprints, which were deposited ''when the ground was wet and muddy''. Footprints include ''raindrops''[http://www.twoguysfossils.com/dino3.htm]. The traditional explanation from science is that they harden into rock over the course of millenia just by sitting there, as if no one ever heard of the first rainstorm to come along and wash them away. ''Step 1 of the Scientific Method in this case:'' Make a track and fossilize it under the natural conditions described by science and see what happens.
:::::Folded layers of rock, which cannot fold unless they are first wet layers of mud. There is an "S"-curve in the rock in this image[http://www.purchon.com/ecology/images/folds.jpg], which didn't get that way if it was ordinary dry rock. This is indicative of differing types of sediment depositing in layers, then something violent happening to cause these layers to bend before they harden. ''Experiment:'' try setting down several layers of flat slate or similar hard rock, ''then bend the whole without breaking it''. Then do the same with wet layers of clay.
:::::Oral traditions, which are found world-wide in every language and every culture; it is a preservation of a single event. In more than 70% of these traditions, the following are present: global flood; large boat or raft; less than ten survivors; carrying away of a large number of animals; landing on or near a mountain range; sacrificial offering to the gods. ''Science'' in this case, needs to dismiss this as simple ''folk tales'' [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:08, 8 November 2009 (EST)

I'm in New Zealand at the moment and have only somewhat irregular access to internet, which is the cause of my periodic outbursts interspersed by silent periods, I regret posting my last thing in a bit of a foul mood, the point of this talk page isn't evolution is is Noah's ark, and I allowed Karajou to lead my reply off topic. The point remains that there is no pro Noah's ark answer to the questions of DNA haplotypes. And now that Karajou has likely googled "DNA halotype" he will be unable to reconcile the statement that he originally made in response to that point.

"As to the mother's milk - and I did indicate this small tidbit from John Houston film - farmers milk cows and goats on a daily basis"

I intended to answer this glaring example of doublethink a while ago but got caught up in other things. There would have to be hundreds of cows/goats to feed all the animals on the ark, but what would these goats and cows eat? And anyway can't there be more than 8 animals of each type? Furthermore the milk of other species is not very good for animals, this would further reduce resistance to disease and parasites (which is lower in infants too). [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 22:41, 8 November 2009 (EST)
:James, you have been told quite clearly several times that 1) there was a lot of stored fodder onboard the ark; 2) that animals onboard occupied a smaller percentage of the total capacity of the ark; 3) that hibernation played a role, saving feeding time; 4) that young animals and unhatched eggs took less room than adults. Apparently, these simple and rational explantions cannot alter your agenda, which was to come to this site and push whatever Bible-hating mantra you have. You've been told; you don't want to listen. Since you want to push the argument ''ad nauseum'', then you need to go elsewhere. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:01, 9 November 2009 (EST)

==Is this debate necessary?==

I talked to my pastor about these issues. According to him, Noah may or may not have been able to care for all these animals, but since the Bible does not specify how it happened, it must be assumed that it is not relevant to the overall account of the Flood. We know that individuals such as Alexandrina Maria Da Costa have found sustenance in the Love of God, so why wouldn't He bestow such a gift on the animals in the Ark? Maybe a materialistic explanation can be found, but it is by no means necessary.--[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 20:19, 9 November 2009 (EST)