Bible-Creation-Evolution

[sandwiches]

If you are referring to the italicized words, then give me a example of a italicized word in the KJV, and I will show you how I check it and prove it for authenticity.

I already did. The phrase "the brother of" in 2 Samuel 21:19. How do we know that the addition in the KJV is truly inspired or isn't?

 

[sandwiches]

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

[snip]

Please don't spam the threads. If you have a point to make please do so but don't spam words without any context.

 

[sandwiches]

Shouldn't this be a new thread now, about which Bible translation is best? Just saying, I thought we were talking about creation, not the difference between versions of the Bible.

AV, why do you think it matters to salvation/Christology whether the earth is old or young? Actually anyone who thinks it matters can answer. I don't see it as a salvation issue, so I wonder why people get so het up about it?

I think Jaxy, I this might be a relevant point to this discussion. The point of the OP is to see if there's justification for believing in evolution contained in the Bible. So, it seems that this boils down to interpretations, translations, biases, etc. So, which translation is best is relevant in that it shows us the way some people decide which translation is "best" according to their interpretations.

 

[1611AV]

Aww and I was trying to swing this back to the original discussion for you, but as you ask;

Bible - Depends, a lot of the time a balance between Louis Segond (currently live in France) and the NRSV although I recently bought a Bibel 2000 (Swedish) which I'm trying to use more.

Think you already know the answer to question 2, but just in case, aye I do.

No can do, alas there are as many references to evolution as there are to microbiology, wave-particle duality, speed limits, cats etc. Doesn't stop these things from being so.

Right, but it does speak on Creation. Dont try and make it sound as if the argument is that if the Bible does not speak of it, then it is not.

If the Bible did speak on microbiology, wave-particle duality, speed limits, cats etc. And Spoke on it in a way contrary to mans teaching, then I would still side with the Bible.

The Bible says Let us make Man in our image. Gods image is not a single celled organism. When He made Eve, He made her of Adams rib.

If for evolution, Adam would be mating with Chimps since there was no female Human at the time before Eve.

Come now, let us reason...

 

[sandwiches]

Right, but it does speak on Creation. Dont try and make it sound as if the argument is that if the Bible does not speak of it, then it is not.

If the Bible did speak on microbiology, wave-particle duality, speed limits, cats etc. And Spoke on it in a way contrary to mans teaching, then I would still side with the Bible.

The Bible says Let us make Man in our image. Gods image is not a single celled organism. When He made Eve, He made her of Adams rib.

If for evolution, Adam would be mating with Chimps since there was no female Human at the time before Eve.

Come now, let us reason...

Gods image is not a clump of dirt or a rrib, either, yet he supposedly created us from it.

You may disagree with him but it seems pretty clear he has reasoned and come to different conclusions than yours.

 

[1611AV]

I already did. The phrase "the brother of" in 2 Samuel 21:19. How do we know that the addition in the KJV is truly inspired or isn't?

OK, sorry Sand. You did indeed. Well the fact that all the other translations are following suit should tell us something. And as one other person pointed out in the NIV, it does speak of David as the slayer of Goliath. I was getting there myself. So that version (NIV) is in violation of contradicting itself literally.

I will give a more in depth answer when I get back. Gotta run for a few. Maybe VET will be on and explain italics also while Im out.

 

[1611AV]

Gods image is not a clump of dirt or a rrib, either, yet he supposedly created us from it.

You may disagree with him but it seems pretty clear he has reasoned and come to different conclusions than yours.

Yes he used the dust of the Earth to mold us but the finished result was a Human Man made within one day according to the scriptures. He also breathed into the nostrils of the man for him to become a living soul. So he had not life before this as a Chimp or whatever some say we came from.

I understand where you are coming from but as a Bible believer we must believe the Bible. If Evolution, why no Female Human, yet a fully functional Male Human? Why didn't God just wait for evolution to pop out a Female Human for Adam? Because Humans cant procreate with anything else other than a Human.

Talk to you soon Sandwiches.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, which translation is best is relevant in that it shows us the way some people decide which translation is "best" according to their interpretations.

Right -- and Heaven knows you guys want to know which translation we use, so you'll know where you're coming from when you harp on us about 'our interpretation'.

Put another way, does it really matter what translation we're using, as long as you guys play that but-thats-your-interpretation card?

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe VET will be on and explain italics also while Im out.

The italicized words, we call supplied words.

They were put there by the King Jame's translators for two main reasons:

1. to clarify a point
2. to make an existing word better

The italicized words in the King James Bible are words that were added by the translators to help the reader. This is usually necessary when translating from one language to another because word meanings and idioms change. So, to produce a more readable translation, the King James translators (1604- 1611) added certain words to the Bible text. However, to make sure that everyone understood that these words were not in the available manuscripts they set them in italics.

SOURCE

They fall under God's purification & polishing process:

Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

 

[Belk]

Just fyi, Faith, here's a definition of faith -- written by an atheist:

SOURCE

And everyone knows a random atheist is the definitive authority when it comes to faith.

 

[1611AV]

The italicized words, we call supplied words.

They were put there by the King Jame's translators for two main reasons:

1. to clarify a point
2. to make an existing word better

SOURCE

They fall under God's purification & polishing process:

Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Further illustration:

First, take a Bible (King James, of course) and read Psalm 16:8. I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.

You will notice that the two words "he is" are in italics. Yet when we find the Apostle Peter quoting this verse in the New Testament in Acts 2:25 we find it says:

"For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:"

So here we find the Apostle Peter quoting Psalm 16:8 italicized words and all! You would almost believe that God wanted them in there wouldn't you?

And look here, even the newer translations use the "same" words in the OT/NT. Except they did not italicize or warn the reader. As the KJV translators honestly did.

Psalm 16:8
I keep my eyes always on the LORD. With him at my right hand, I will not be shaken. (New International Version, ©2011)

Acts 2:25 David said about him:“‘I saw the Lord always before me. Because he is at my right hand, I will not be shaken.
(New International Version, ©2011)

Interesting huh...

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Tell us why we should take the Bible at face value in its entirety and maybe we can start talking.

The reply was in answer to USincignito. If you have a problem with the Word of God and with real history, then that is not my problem....
and are you talking about the question I asked you about you believing that the NIV lied, where it says David killed Goliath?

Originally Posted by USincognito

Where are you getting this stuff?
​

Yeshuasavedme said
From the Word of God and world history -the real history, not the hogwash you were fed without learning to feed yourself.
Daniel 2, for starters:

D “This is the dream. Now we will tell the interpretation of it before the king. 37 You, O king, are a king of kings. For the God of heaven has given you a kingdom, power, strength, and glory; 38 and wherever the children of men dwell, or the beasts of the field and the birds of the heaven, He has given them into your hand, and has made you ruler over them all—you are this head of gold.
39 But after you shall arise another kingdom inferior to yours; then another, a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over all the earth. 40 And the fourth kingdom shall be as strong as iron, inasmuch as iron breaks in pieces and shatters everything; and like iron that crushes, that kingdom will break in pieces and crush all the others. 41 Whereas you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; yet the strength of the iron shall be in it, just as you saw the iron mixed with ceramic clay. 42 And as the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly fragile. 43 As you saw iron mixed with ceramic clay, they will mingle with the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay. 44 And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever. 45 Inasmuch as you saw that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold—the great God has made known to the king what will come to pass after this. The dream is certain, and its interpretation is sure.”



Daniel 4

Nebuchadnezzar’s Second Dream

1 Nebuchadnezzar the king,
To all peoples, nations, and languages that dwell in all the earth:

Peace be multiplied to you.

2 I thought it good to declare the signs and wonders that the Most High God has worked for me.
3 How great are His signs,
And how mighty His wonders!
His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,
And His dominion is from generation to generation.

4 I, Nebuchadnezzar, was at rest in my house, and flourishing in my palace. 5 I saw a dream which made me afraid, and the thoughts on my bed and the visions of my head troubled me. 6 Therefore I issued a decree to bring in all the wise men of Babylon before me, that they might make known to me the interpretation of the dream. 7 Then the magicians, the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers came in, and I told them the dream; but they did not make known to me its interpretation. 8 But at last Daniel came before me (his name is Belteshazzar, according to the name of my god; in him is the Spirit of the Holy God), and I told the dream before him, saying: 9 “Belteshazzar, chief of the magicians, because I know that the Spirit of the Holy God is in you, and no secret troubles you, explain to me the visions of my dream that I have seen, and its interpretation.
10 “These were the visions of my head while on my bed:

I was looking, and behold,
A tree in the midst of the earth,
And its height was great.
11 The tree grew and became strong;
Its height reached to the heavens,
And it could be seen to the ends of all the earth.
12 Its leaves were lovely,
Its fruit abundant,
And in it was food for all.
The beasts of the field found shade under it,
The birds of the heavens dwelt in its branches,
And all flesh was fed from it.

13 “I saw in the visions of my head while on my bed, and there was a Watcher, a holy one, coming down from heaven. 14 He cried aloud and said thus:


‘ Chop down the tree and cut off its branches,
Strip off its leaves and scatter its fruit.
Let the beasts get out from under it,
And the birds from its branches.
15 Nevertheless leave the stump and roots in the earth,
Bound with a band of iron and bronze,
In the tender grass of the field.
Let it be wet with the dew of heaven,
And let him graze with the beasts
On the grass of the earth.
16 Let his heart be changed from that of a man,
Let him be given the heart of a beast,
And let seven times pass over him.
17 ‘ This decision is by the decree of the Watchers [holy angels set over earth],
And the sentence by the word of the holy ones,
In order that the living may know
That the Most High rules in the kingdom of men,
Gives it to whomever He will,
And sets over it the lowest of men.’

18 “This dream I, King Nebuchadnezzar, have seen. Now you, Belteshazzar, declare its interpretation, since all the wise men of my kingdom are not able to make known to me the interpretation; but you are able, for the Spirit of the Holy God is in you.”
Daniel Explains the Second Dream


19 Then Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, was astonished for a time, and his thoughts troubled him. So the king spoke, and said, “Belteshazzar, do not let the dream or its interpretation trouble you.”
Belteshazzar answered and said, “My lord, may the dream concern those who hate you, and its interpretation concern your enemies!

20 “The tree that you saw, which grew and became strong, whose height reached to the heavens and which could be seen by all the earth, 21 whose leaves were lovely and its fruit abundant, in which was food for all, under which the beasts of the field dwelt, and in whose branches the birds of the heaven had their home— 22 it is you, O king, who have grown and become strong; for your greatness has grown and reaches to the heavens, and your dominion to the end [extremes]of the earth.
23 “And inasmuch as the king saw a Watcher, a holy one, coming down from heaven and saying, ‘Chop down the tree and destroy it, but leave its stump and roots in the earth, bound with a band of iron and bronze in the tender grass of the field; let it be wet with the dew of heaven, and let him graze with the beasts of the field, till seven times pass over him’; 24 this is the interpretation, O king, and this is the decree of the Most High, which has come upon my lord the king: 25 They shall drive you from men, your dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field, and they shall make you eat grass like oxen. They shall wet you with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over you, till you know that the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomever He chooses.
26 “And inasmuch as they gave the command to leave the stump and roots of the tree, your kingdom shall be assured to you, after you come to know that Heaven rules. 27 Therefore, O king, let my advice be acceptable to you; break off your sins by being righteous, and your iniquities by showing mercy to the poor. Perhaps there may be a lengthening of your prosperity.”
Nebuchadnezzar’s Humiliation


28 All this came upon King Nebuchadnezzar. 29 At the end of the twelve months he was walking about the royal palace of Babylon. 30 The king spoke, saying, “Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for a royal dwelling by my mighty power and for the honor of my majesty?”
31 While the word was still in the king’s mouth, a voice fell from heaven: “King Nebuchadnezzar, to you it is spoken: the kingdom has departed from you! 32 And they shall drive you from men, and your dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field. They shall make you eat grass like oxen; and seven times shall pass over you, until you know that the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomever He chooses.”
33 That very hour the word was fulfilled concerning Nebuchadnezzar; he was driven from men and ate grass like oxen; his body was wet with the dew of heaven till his hair had grown like eagles’ feathers and his nails like birds’ claws.
Nebuchadnezzar Praises God


34 And at the end of the time[b] I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my understanding returned to me; and I blessed the Most High and praised and honored Him who lives forever:

For His dominion is an everlasting dominion,
And His kingdom is from generation to generation.
35 All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing;
He does according to His will in the army of heaven
And among the inhabitants of the earth.
No one can restrain His hand
Or say to Him, “What have You done?”

36 At the same time my reason returned to me, and for the glory of my kingdom, my honor and splendor returned to me. My counselors and nobles resorted to me, I was restored to my kingdom, and excellent majesty was added to me. 37 Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and extol and honor the King of heaven, all of whose works are truth, and His ways justice. And those who walk in pride He is able to put down.
​

 

[sandwiches]

OK, sorry Sand. You did indeed. Well the fact that all the other translations are following suit should tell us something. And as one other person pointed out in the NIV, it does speak of David as the slayer of Goliath. I was getting there myself. So that version (NIV) is in violation of contradicting itself literally.

I will give a more in depth answer when I get back. Gotta run for a few. Maybe VET will be on and explain italics also while Im out.

I agree that NIV is internally inconsistent. Now, granted, I feel the same about the Bible in general but that's another story.

I look forward to your answers.

Yes he used the dust of the Earth to mold us but the finished result was a Human Man made within one day according to the scriptures. He also breathed into the nostrils of the man for him to become a living soul. So he had not life before this as a Chimp or whatever some say we came from.

I understand where you are coming from but as a Bible believer we must believe the Bible. If Evolution, why no Female Human, yet a fully functional Male Human? Why didn't God just wait for evolution to pop out a Female Human for Adam? Because Humans cant procreate with anything else other than a Human.

Talk to you soon Sandwiches.

I see what you're saying but I was merely pointing out that the argument that god isn't a single-celled organism isn't a valid one, is all.

 

[sandwiches]

Right -- and Heaven knows you guys want to know which translation we use, so you'll know where you're coming from when you harp on us about 'our interpretation'.

Put another way, does it really matter what translation we're using, as long as you guys play that but-thats-your-interpretation card?

Nope. Not so long as you don't have an internally consistent, logical way of demonstrating how you arrived at your interpretation that's more than someone's whim with which can verify whether your interpretation is correct or not.

 

[Mr Dave]

It was in the newspapers only about a month ago, the first official school in UK opened which teaches creationism as opposed to evolution. It has 500 - 1000 students.

If schools are starting to open which teach creationism, it hardly means evolution is growing in support - what it actually shows is that more people are becoming skeptical of evolution.

Or it means that there has always been a small number of people believing this, but only now with the recent changes brought about by Gove can they open a school promoting it. It's sad to hear that a country was famed for it's emphasis on the sciences can become a place where people open schools teaching creationism, but it doesn't actually show a growing support. People have always had some reservations about evolution, that doesn't make it wrong. Some people have reservations about all sorts of things.

 

[corvus_corax]

Put another way, does it really matter what translation we're using, as long as you guys play that but-thats-your-interpretation card?

Honestly AV, it doesn't matter what translation you or anyone else is using, because it ALWAYS comes down to personal interpretation.
The Christian faith does not have an internally supporting belief system across the board.
You believe in an Embedded Age earth that has only existed for circa 6000 years. I have talked to YEC's IRL who think you must be "smoking somethin"

Some Christians are OEC, some YEC, and some hold to GAP theory.

You don't appear to accept "macroevolution" yet many Christians do.

Many Christians believe that a lot of people are going to Hell (by whatever INTERPRETATION), while some others hold to Universalism (again, another bible-based interpretation).

Some hold to the doctrine of the rapture while others reject it.
Some hold to premillennialism, some to postmillennialism.

And here's the thing my friend- all of those interpretations can be defended with the Bible.


So yeah, honestly "that's your interpretation" isn't just a card to play.

It's a solid fact.

Im not attacking you (you know I like you, even when I violently disagree with you), I'm just pointing out the reality of it all.

 

[mzungu]

First, take a Bible (King James, of course)

How about referring to the original Greek and Hebrew texts instead of a translated piece of work?

 

[corvus_corax]

How about referring to the original Greek and Hebrew texts instead of a translated piece of work?

To a KJVO believer it doesn't matter
In the (paraphrased) words of AV1611Vet- "If the original Hebrew disagrees with the KJV, the original Hebrew is wrong" (apologies to AV1611Vet for a non-exact quote, be more than welcome to give the exact quote)

 

[Mr Dave]

Right, but it does speak on Creation. Dont try and make it sound as if the argument is that if the Bible does not speak of it, then it is not.

If the Bible did speak on microbiology, wave-particle duality, speed limits, cats etc. And Spoke on it in a way contrary to mans teaching, then I would still side with the Bible.

The Bible says Let us make Man in our image. Gods image is not a single celled organism. When He made Eve, He made her of Adams rib.

If for evolution, Adam would be mating with Chimps since there was no female Human at the time before Eve.

Come now, let us reason...

Ok Just wasn't sure why the version was important there (unless it turned out to be the Good News Bible ).


Good thing I believe God created all things then

Col 1:16 "though him all things in heaven and on earth were created..."
Mal 2:10 "Have we not all one father? Has not one God created us..."

AC "I believe in God the Father Almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth:"

NC "I believe in one God the Father Almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth,
And of all things visible and invisible:"

and so the list goes on.

I'm very glad to read that you're not going tell me I can't have a pet cat because they're not in the Bible.

God's image is not a single-celled organism, neither is it dust of the Earth. So we're left to discuss what in fact 'image' means. To me it seems a good way of doing this would be to let the Bible interpret itself; using other Bible passages to help shed light on exactly what is meant there. For this we need a passage that speaks of God's image.

The one that immediately springs to my mind is part of a passage I've already quoted from Colossians, Col. 1:15 "He is the image of the invisible God."

God is invisible, yet Jesus bears his image? This can only mean that it is speaking of image in the sense of bearing a likeness to, for who and what God is that was shown through Christ, see the following verses for this. It does not say Jesus' face looks like God's face, nor that God is 5'8" (example, I don't know how tall exactly Jesus was) nor that he weighed 10st 6lbs (again an example).

The book of Sirach also shows this view-point in Sir. 17 which says (broken down)

The Lord created man, He granted them authority, he endowed them with strength in his own image, He gave them dominion over other creatures, He gave them knowledge and understanding.

It says that man has God's image and explains that this authority, strength, dominion, knowledge, understanding etc...

John Wesley also shared this view point in talking about being in God's image and this meaning;
natural image, a picture of his own immortality; a spiritual being, endued with understanding, freedom of will, and various affections;
political image, the governor of this lower world, having "dominion over the fishes of the sea, and over all the earth;"
but chiefly in his moral image; which, according to the Apostle, is "righteousness and true holiness." (Eph. 4:24)

The point of all this is that this is talking about human characteristics and abilities being reminiscent of those of God. For centuries, even millenia, all long before Darwin came up with evolution, people have read this as speaking with depth on a non-literal level with no problem, and mostly reading it in that light and not saying "God brought us 'bing' into existence looking just like Him.



I don't follow the logic in your last bit where you talk of Adam mating with Chimps. No-one's suggested that. Where did that idea come from

 

[corvus_corax]

AV, why do you think it matters to salvation/Christology whether the earth is old or young? Actually anyone who thinks it matters can answer. I don't see it as a salvation issue, so I wonder why people get so het up about it?

Simple
If there was no literal Adam, then sin didn't enter the world as described (literally) in the Bible.
If that didn't happen, then Jesus as the second Adam would be pointless.

Essentially, Adam was the progenitor of the entire human race, and had a covenant with God, which Adam broke, thereby separating the human race from God. Jesus took man's place, fulfilling the covenant of works which the first Adam woefully failed at.

Without a literal "first Adam", many Christians feel that a literal "2nd Adam" or (more correctly) "Last Adam" (Corinthians 15:45) is completely pointless.

Therefore the first literal Adam is necessary for the doctrine of salvation from their POV

Edited to add- What some would call "basic doctrine"