Mutation gives mouse poison resistance

[dad]

Good try, but the early text describes Jesus as a man, not the son of man.

Prove it.

You seem to know as much about evolution as Gottservant does

Does he know it is a con job too?

(which is to say less than nothing),

Cut the charade..if there is something about evolution you think someone is missing you could simply post it. We could use a laugh.

and no, it cannot be a scriptural "thing".

It is exclusively a scriptural thing! It can be nothing else!

But again, I am glad to see that you accept the existence of beneficial mutations, something most creationists don't.

If I do...so what? If I recall the reluctance I used to have to accept that evolving happened, it was because if I admitted that, I thought, it would be like admitting there was no creation. That would be a bit like saying that if Dylan smoked a doobie, he would have been born in a grow op.

I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now....

 

[dad]

Ummmmm.........including his MOTHER......!?

You know, the one that was supposedly told by an angel that she was being impregnated with the son of a god.......she somehow just forgot all that and thought that her son was mad when he began his preaching....!?

Before I deal with the issue, cite the verse.

 

[dad]

You need to go and study that book that you say guides your life......

So now you are a bible thumper..OK.

The original manuscripts of Mark (well, the earliest ones that we have...) make no reference to Jesus being anything other than a man.

Oh reallly? Source?

The "son of God" reference was added to Mark 1:1 centuries later....! There is no mention of a virgin birth either......this is also added later by Matthew et al.

The clarification that Jesus was the son of God in that particular gospel may have been a bit like the modern standard English translation versions...something that tried to bring out the real meaning? But all one would have to do, if one was semi sincere and quasi intelligent, would be to look at the rest of the book! Do you really think that Jesus was not shown to be the Messiah!? Get a grip.

The best explanation for the addition is to cover for Jesus' failed prediction that he would reappear to his disciples "before their generation had passed away".....

Nonsense. That is an old wives tale. It is clear that Jesus said many things would happen first. Very clear.


I am like a mouse that has resistance to the poison of evo doubts.

 

[biggles53]

Oh reallly? Source?

"The words of the Bible are the most valuable in the world. This is true even by commercial standards because it is the best-selling book ever. And for Christians its words have more value than diamonds or state secrets because they have eternal and universal significance. Despite this, one of the earliest copies of Mark has a mistake even in the first verse. It reads: ‘The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah’ and the translator either left out or added the words, ‘the Son of God’. These words are included in some early manuscripts and are missing in others. This means that they were either added or omitted to a copy of the original Gospel and, embarrassingly, we don’t know which it was. But once the mistake was made, it was copied over and over again."

Mark 1 | Christianity, Forgery in the Bible

 

[biggles53]

Before I deal with the issue, cite the verse.

Mark 3
20 Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21 When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”



And...

31 Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32 A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.”

 

[EternalDragon]

Mark 3
20 Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21 When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”



And...

31 Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32 A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.”

Please use the King James that says "He is beside himself". That is what some of his friends said.

Jesus' mother and brothers were merely looking for Jesus.

Trying to misquote the scriptures won't work here.

 

[CabVet]

Please use the King James that says "He is beside himself". That is what some of his friends said.

Jesus' mother and brothers were merely looking for Jesus.

Trying to misquote the scriptures won't work here.

Can we at least try to bring the subject back to beneficial mutations?

 

[EternalDragon]

Can we at least try to bring the subject back to beneficial mutations?

Is there anything else to say about it?

 

[CabVet]

Is there anything else to say about it?

If not, stop posting here and start a new thread about something else.

 

[dad]

"The words of the Bible are the most valuable in the world. This is true even by commercial standards because it is the best-selling book ever.

Glad to hear that, keep the good news coming!



And for Christians its words have more value than diamonds or state secrets because they have eternal and universal significance. Despite this, one of the earliest copies of Mark has a mistake even in the first verse. It reads: ‘The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah’ and the translator either left out or added the words, ‘the Son of God’. These words are included in some early manuscripts and are missing in others. This means that they were either added or omitted to a copy of the original Gospel and, embarrassingly, we don’t know which it was. But once the mistake was made, it was copied over and over again."

Mark 1 | Christianity, Forgery in the Bible

From your link

"Bart Ehrman, in Misquoting Jesus, argues that the Church deliberately added ‘the Son of God’. He couldn’t actually find quotes by Jesus to justify the title of his book, but indicates a few problem texts which talk about Jesus. "


Jesus made clear He was the son of God it is used many many many times in the New Testament. It is a title of God. If someone amended some section of Mark I don't doubt God allowed it, and that they probably had good reason.

 

[dad]

Mark 3
20 Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21 When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”

With 'friends like that, who needs enemies!? No wonder He says...IN that very chapter..

33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? 34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

And...

31 Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32 A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.”

??? So!? Mom is outside...and..??? Hey maybe she was worried about His safety with the crush of people. Heck, maybe she knew His friends!!!


Ho hum.

 

[biggles53]

From your link

"Bart Ehrman, in Misquoting Jesus, argues that the Church deliberately added ‘the Son of God’. He couldn’t actually find quotes by Jesus to justify the title of his book, but indicates a few problem texts which talk about Jesus. "


Jesus made clear He was the son of God it is used many many many times in the New Testament. It is a title of God. If someone amended some section of Mark I don't doubt God allowed it, and that they probably had good reason.

They had reason because it wasn't until the 4th Century that a bunch of men got together and decided that Jesus was the son of a god...! Surprise, surprise....we find the scriptures being edited around that time to reflect this decision...!

 

[biggles53]

With 'friends like that, who needs enemies!? No wonder He says...IN that very chapter..

33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? 34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

Yes, wonderful example of family values isn't it..........?

??? So!? Mom is outside...and..??? Hey maybe she was worried about His safety with the crush of people. Heck, maybe she knew His friends!!!


Ho hum.

What....??

She and the other family members had just declared that they thought he was mad...! They had come to "take charge of him" as they thought he was crazy...! And this included his mother, who seems to have completely forgotten that she had given birth to the son of a god...! But then, this is understandable when one realises that Mark says absolutely nothing about a virgin birth does he..? No, we have to wait for future gospels for someone to concoct that story....!

 

[biggles53]

Please use the King James that says "He is beside himself". That is what some of his friends said.

Jesus' mother and brothers were merely looking for Jesus.

Trying to misquote the scriptures won't work here.

Oh, I am sure you would like to rely upon the King James Version...! It's major purpose was to 'paper over' the many inconsistencies in earlier versions....

 

[dad]

They had reason because it wasn't until the 4th Century that a bunch of men got together and decided that Jesus was the son of a god...! Surprise, surprise....we find the scriptures being edited around that time to reflect this decision...!

You think that the record was written 400 years AD? No. If some phrase was improved, in some verse, that doesn't affect the fact that the whole bible is about Jesus! All the epistles, gospels, OT, Revelation, and etc.


You are striking the wind here. Beating the air. You may not attribute sinister motives to the folks in the bible, like Mary. Looking at the big picture, it is clear that Jesus loved His mother, and that she loved Him, and knew who He was. Not everyone sees Gabriel, and also has him chat with her cousin, and hubbie! She had men from far far away follow that sapphire throne of God, or better known as the wheels of Ezeliel..(I assume based on the evidences)..to her home bearing riches for her son, the new king! She also saw Jesus risen from the dead. Paul knew exactly who Jesus was as did every good character of the New Testament.

Jesus was the creator. He is the One that made us and creatures, and the laws in place that allowed evolving, and still allow adapting in mice and men.

 

[bhsmte]

From your link

"Bart Ehrman, in Misquoting Jesus, argues that the Church deliberately added ‘the Son of God’. He couldn’t actually find quotes by Jesus to justify the title of his book, but indicates a few problem texts which talk about Jesus. "


Jesus made clear He was the son of God it is used many many many times in the New Testament. It is a title of God. If someone amended some section of Mark I don't doubt God allowed it, and that they probably had good reason.

Of course they had good reason, they needed to strengthen the story.

 

[EternalDragon]

Yes, wonderful example of family values isn't it..........?


What....??

She and the other family members had just declared that they thought he was mad...! They had come to "take charge of him" as they thought he was crazy...! And this included his mother, who seems to have completely forgotten that she had given birth to the son of a god...! But then, this is understandable when one realises that Mark says absolutely nothing about a virgin birth does he..? No, we have to wait for future gospels for someone to concoct that story....!

You are misquoting the scripture. No where does it say his mother or brother thought Jesus was crazy.

Mark does not address anything about Jesus' childhood. It starts with his ministry at around age 30.

Have you read Mark? Does it maybe occur to you that your heart may be hardened?

 

[biggles53]

You think that the record was written 400 years AD?

Parts of it, yes...........the thing has been edited, re-translated, added to, taken away from, to various degrees, from the 1st Century until the present...!

For Pete's sake, its your bloody book and yet you seem to know very little about it....!

No. If some phrase was improved, in some verse, that doesn't affect the fact that the whole bible is about Jesus! All the epistles, gospels, OT, Revelation, and etc.

Improved...? IMPROVED...?? I thought this thing was supposed to be the "perfect" word of a god............WHY would it need any improvement.....!? Are you suggesting that there were errors, inconsistencies, contradictions, etc, that needed to be explained away....?

Because, if you do, then you have at least one person that would agree wholeheartedly with you...!

 

[biggles53]

You are misquoting the scripture. No where does it say his mother or brother thought Jesus was crazy.

Ahem....

. 21 When His own [j]people heard of this, they went out to take custody of Him; for they were saying, “He has lost His senses.” New American

21 And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, “He is out of his mind.” English Standard

When His family heard this, they set out to restrain Him, because they said, “He’s out of His mind.” Holman Christian Standard

21 But when His own people heard about this, they went out to lay hold of Him, for they said, “He is out of His mind.” New King James

21 And when his kinsmen had heard, they went out to hold him; for they said, That he is turned into madness. Wycliffe

Shall I go on.....?

Of course, here's the one that you prefer.....

21 And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself. King James Version

Isn't it strange that we have to wait until the 16th Century for someone to be able to write that verse "correctly"...........!?

Mark does not address anything about Jesus' childhood. It starts with his ministry at around age 30.

And yet, we are to believe that the divine nature of his birth is one of THE pivotal events around which the whole myth rotates...!

But it's ok.....Matthew comes to the rescue and fills in the rest of the story.....

Have you read Mark?

Thoroughly.....

 

[EternalDragon]

Ahem....

. 21 When His own [j]people heard of this, they went out to take custody of Him; for they were saying, “He has lost His senses.” New American

21 And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, “He is out of his mind.” English Standard

When His family heard this, they set out to restrain Him, because they said, “He’s out of His mind.” Holman Christian Standard

21 But when His own people heard about this, they went out to lay hold of Him, for they said, “He is out of His mind.” New King James

21 And when his kinsmen had heard, they went out to hold him; for they said, That he is turned into madness. Wycliffe

Shall I go on.....?

Of course, here's the one that you prefer.....

21 And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself. King James Version

Isn't it strange that we have to wait until the 16th Century for someone to be able to write that verse "correctly"...........!?



And yet, we are to believe that the divine nature of his birth is one of THE pivotal events around which the whole myth rotates...!

But it's ok.....Matthew comes to the rescue and fills in the rest of the story.....



Thoroughly.....

So the King James is not correct? How so? Have you looked up the Greek word "beside"?

I really don't even know where you are going with this. Is it supposed to be some sort of blot on the Christian faith or something? Them describing how people reacted to Jesus' miracles and preaching? If anything it makes the truth more solid.