Some questions for Christians who accept evolution

[AV1611VET]

Lots of people use the Bible as a foundation to back up their diverse, even diametrically opposed beliefs. I'm just referencing the most common one based on the Hebrews creation explanation, one of many creation stories in Mesopotamia that they used when writing their particular history.

In my theology life was planted in the shallow, briny seas 550,000,000 years ago. Everything evolved from that creation event. The Hebrew authors knew nothing about evolution or science for that matter. But the ancient story of the default of Adam and Eve lead people to conclude that they were the first man and women on earth so the authors attempted to trace their blood lines back to Adam and Eve.

Who cares what the Hebrews thought?

I don't read Hebrew anyway.

What about what the King James Bible says?

 

[Colter]

Science might think it has proven the creation story wrong, but Someone is coming Who is going to prove science wrong.

Satan has set up an infrastructure on the earth (Ephesians 6:12), which consists of the nine muses who dictate how scientists who have sold their souls to science should think.

Those nine are:

1. Calliope = the muse of epic poetry
2. Clio = the muse of history
3. Erato = the muse of love poetry
4. Euterpe = the muse of music
5. Melpomene = the muse of tragedy
6. Polyhymnia = the muse of sacred poetry
7. Terpsichore = the muse of dance
8. Thalia = the muse of comedy
9. Urania = the muse of astronomy

Their job today is to sterilize as much of the Bible as they can before their boss shows up.

Satan is a cigar butt. I do not share your faith in him.

 

[AV1611VET]

Satan is a cigar butt.

Satan is as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.

I do not share your faith in him.

That's because he has set up a firewall between you and him.

The Bible gets through that firewall though, and exposes him for what he is.

It even reveals his true identity: Lucifer.

In retaliation, he calls JEHOVAH, "Yahweh."

 

[Colter]

Who cares what the Hebrews thought?

I don't read Hebrew anyway.

What about what the King James Bible says?

The Hebrews redacted their entire history into a miraculous fiction. The OT is the foundation for the religious, historical world view of Christians. Their stories continue to contaminate the thinking of otherwise sane men and women of today obscuring the original gospel of Jesus.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Hebrews redacted their entire history into a miraculous fiction. The OT is the foundation for the religious, historical world view of Christians. Their stories continue to contaminate the thinking of otherwise sane men and women of today obscuring the original gospel of Jesus.

I don't care if the Hebrews wrote Humpty Dumpty.

What is that to me?

Again -- I don't read Hebrew.

 

[Colter]

Satan is as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.That's because he has set up a firewall between you and him.

The Bible gets through that firewall though, and exposes him for what he is.

It even reveals his true identity: Lucifer.

In retaliation, he calls JEHOVAH, "Yahweh."

"I am the LORD, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God"


Lucifer's first and greatest lie, elusion really, is that he could ever be a God.

Jehovah is a late translation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Jehovah is a late translation.

A late translation of what?

Anything written prior to 1611 can take a hike, and anything written after 1611 can take a hike.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

But again, why should we assume the earth is 6,000 years old when the Bible says nothing of the sort? Instead it tells us that it is from "ancient times". It tells us the earth was thriving with life and that life went extinct. I have found no one, Christian or evolutionist that can explain to me why I should interpret "hayah" as "was"?

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ccept-evolution.7893108/page-27#post-68243045

You might find some useful information on this here:-
http://creation.com/can-evolutions-long-ages-be-squeezed-into-genesis
The age of approximate 6,000 years has I believe, been worked out by examining the quoted Biblical genealogies, which were apparently recorded in the Bible so that all of mankind in general and Jesus in particular, could be traced all the way back to Adam and Eve, although with reference to Jesus as God incarnate, it gets more complicated (I don't profess to fully understand it, so I may be talking gibberish) and is all tied up with the virgin birth (God using the body of Mary to form His temporary earthly body but not actually being physically related to Mary in the normal way that a son or daughter is biologically related to its parents). It's all part of the mystery, like the following passage from John...
John 8:56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."
John 8:57 "You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
John 8:58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

 

[Colter]

A late translation of what?

Anything written prior to 1611 can take a hike, and anything written after 1611 can take a hike.

"Most scholars believe "Jehovah" to be a late (c. 1100 CE) hybrid form derived by combining the Latin letters JHVH with the vowels of Adonai, but there is some evidence that it may already have been in use in Late Antiquity (5th century).[5][6] The consensus among scholars is that the historical vocalization of the Tetragrammaton at the time of the redaction of the Torah (6th century BCE) is most likely Yahweh, however there is disagreement. The historical vocalization was lost because in Second Temple Judaism, during the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE, the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton came to be avoided, being substituted with Adonai ("my Lord").

"Jehovah" was popularized in the English-speaking world by William Tyndale and other pioneer English Protestant translators,[7] but is no longer used in mainstream English translations, with Lord or LORD used instead, generally indicating that the corresponding Hebrew is Yahweh or YHWH

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Their stories continue to contaminate the thinking of otherwise sane men and women of today obscuring the original gospel of Jesus.

I don't think Jesus viewed it that way. He quoted many times from the Old Testament, including Genesis, for example:-
Mat 24:37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.
Mat 24:38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark;
Mat 24:39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.
Not once did Jesus attempt to cast doubt on anything He referenced from what we now call the Old Testament. If we are Christians, we have to trust that God knows more than we do and to follow Him as the source of all truth. There are many who deny this of course, but listen to what Jesus has to say...
John 10:24 The Jews gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly."
John 10:25 Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me,
John 10:26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep.
John 10:27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.
John 10:28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.
Notice how even though Jesus had performed miracles in front of these people, including raising the dead, healing the sick, walking on water, turning water into wine, they still would not believe He was the long-awaited Messiah. On the other hand, notice how the "sheep" follow Him without question. If we want to follow Him, we have to be prepared to do the same, no matter what others may think and in spite of any attacks on the Bible, whether it be scientific, spiritual, alleged contradictions, alleged errors in its quoted history or anything else. It's God's book, so we can trust it to say what it means and mean what it says, period. Oh and since there is only one truth (the truth), that does mean that if Christianity is correct, then all other religions are wrong at their most fundamental levels, including evolutionism, Islam, Buddhism, etc (they have to be according the well-known law of non-contradiction). Of course, if one of the other religions has the truth then that means that Christianity has to be wrong.

 

[Colter]

I don't think Jesus viewed it that way. He quoted many times from the Old Testament, including Genesis, for example:-
Mat 24:37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.
Mat 24:38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark;
Mat 24:39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.
Not once did Jesus attempt to cast doubt on anything He referenced from what we now call the Old Testament. If we are Christians, we have to trust that God knows more than we do and to follow Him as the source of all truth. There are many who deny this of course, but listen to what Jesus has to say...
John 10:24 The Jews gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly."
John 10:25 Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me,
John 10:26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep.
John 10:27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.
John 10:28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.
Notice how even though Jesus had performed miracles in front of these people, including raising the dead, healing the sick, walking on water, turning water into wine, they still would not believe He was the long-awaited Messiah. On the other hand, notice how the "sheep" follow Him without question. If we want to follow Him, we have to be prepared to do the same, no matter what others may think and in spite of any attacks on the Bible, whether it be scientific, spiritual, alleged contradictions, alleged errors in its quoted history or anything else. It's God's book, so we can trust it to say what it means and mean what it says, period. Oh and since there is only one truth (the truth), that does mean that if Christianity is correct, then all other religions are wrong at their most fundamental levels, including evolutionism, Islam, Buddhism, etc (they have to be according the well-known law of non-contradiction). Of course, if one of the other religions has the truth then that means that Christianity has to be wrong.

I understand your position and I understand the desires of the Jewish authors of the gospels who had converted to the Jesus movement.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Most scholars believe "Jehovah" to be a late (c. 1100 CE) hybrid form derived by combining the Latin letters JHVH with the vowels of Adonai, but there is some evidence that it may already have been in use in Late Antiquity (5th century).

QV please:

Myth of No Vowels
First we must deal with the common myth and that is that there are no vowels expressed in the Hebrew text. This is a convenient line of nonsense for those who want to change the text to fit their own views, but it is a dishonest line. Elaborate diacritic marks, called pointing by English-speaking Hebrew scholars, provide extensive information for vowels, doubled letters, stops, and other phonological features. Bible "correctors" are either ignorant of this fact or they pretend that they do not exist. Those who are aware of them and argue that they may be ignored because they were introduced into the text by the Massoretes at a later date are giving themselves free rein to alter virtually every word in the entire Hebrew Old Testament. Not only do these biblical detractors deny God's promise to forever preserve his word, every jot and tittle, but they open the door for Bible manipulation that has no other criteria than personal judgment or fancy. If we are to deny the Masoretic reading we can do no end of mischief to the text by inserting our own vowels, doubled letters, and stops. This allows us to change positives into negatives, passives into actives and vice versa, statement verbs into causative verbs and vice versa, to convert verbs into nouns and vice versa, and to even change the entire meaning of the verb itself. Many words could have several or even a dozen different varied meanings by toying with the pointing. Furthermore, some diacritics indicate different letters entirely. A dot over the right side of a shin indicates an SH, while a dot over the left side of it indicates an S. A dot inside of a vav is pronounce like a long U while a dot over the vav turns it into an O, so the removal or addition of such a dot is fair game to the Yahweh crowd. A dot inside a Pe is pronounced like P, while if it lacks a dot it become an F. Similarly a Bet with a dot is a B and a V without one. A number of other letters have similar features of changing their sounds according to the presence or position of a dot. If we are to ignore the vowel pointings, we are equally justified in changing S to SH and vice versa, or many other consonant changes, since the Massoretes were responsible for the consonant identifying diacritics as well. Suggestions to alter the text is a common method of attacking the Bible that has been employed by Bible-scoffing scholars in academia for over 100 years, it is a common practice that I encountered frequently among fellow students in Hebrew classes. The practice is taught and encouraged by those who consider the Bible to be mythology.

SOURCE

 

[TLK Valentine]

I don't think Jesus viewed it that way. He quoted many times from the Old Testament

I quote everything from Shakespeare to Star Wars -- Wisdom can come from sources you aren't dogmatically required to believe are actual history.

 

[HitchSlap]

It's no more silly than believing that the whole universe sprang into existence on its own.

I agree. I would put god/s into this category as well.

 

[Colter]

QV please:SOURCE

The Jehovah pronunciation is not an issue that I care much about but for stuff like that I ask the Jews.

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8568-Jehovah

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Who cares what the Hebrews thought?

I don't read Hebrew anyway.

What about what the King James Bible says?

You should care since the writer's of the Bible didn't write the Bible in English, but in Hebrew. it is the Hebrew that was inspired by God - not translations by men into English.

What about what the King James says? It's one of the least accurate out there.

http://courses.missouristate.edu/markgiven/rel102/bt.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20040602211507/http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/colwell.htm

 

[AV1611VET]

You should care since the writer's of the Bible didn't write the Bible in English, but in Hebrew.

I don't care if they wrote It in Swahili, the One I use is English, the only Translation God intends for us to use today.

 

[Goonie]

I don't care if they wrote It in Swahili, the One I use is English, the only Translation God intends for us to use today.

Really where does the bible say that?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You might find some useful information on this here:-
http://creation.com/can-evolutions-long-ages-be-squeezed-into-genesis
The age of approximate 6,000 years has I believe, been worked out by examining the quoted Biblical genealogies, which were apparently recorded in the Bible so that all of mankind in general and Jesus in particular, could be traced all the way back to Adam and Eve, although with reference to Jesus as God incarnate, it gets more complicated (I don't profess to fully understand it, so I may be talking gibberish) and is all tied up with the virgin birth (God using the body of Mary to form His temporary earthly body but not actually being physically related to Mary in the normal way that a son or daughter is biologically related to its parents). It's all part of the mystery, like the following passage from John...
John 8:56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."
John 8:57 "You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
John 8:58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

Agreed - the genealogy to Adam is 6,000 years + now. Without doubt mankind is a recent creation - but this has what to do with the age of the earth which is from "ancient times"? Do you consider 6,000 years to be ancient times? Do you think Moses would have considered 2,000 years to be ancient times, when a day is as a 1,000 years to God? Man is not said to exist from ancient times - only Jesus, God, the angels and the earth.

First of all the word "hayetah" only means "was" when it is incorrectly translated. "Became" is the primary meaning of the word, not secondary as is "was."

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/1961.htm

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/1-2.htm

They ignore the mark of a pause in all the old manuscripts between the 1st and 2nd verse. They ignore that the verb in the 1st verse is in the past tense - showing completed works. We were to pause and marvel at His works, before being told of the creation of man. They ignore that the morning became, and the evening became, one day, before supposedly the sun, moon and stars were even created - again - supposedly on the 4th day. Or is that simply when they were appointed to serve as signs and for seasons, for planting and sowing and became visible in the heavens as the darkness cleared? And already existed prior to the 4th day, enabling the evening and morning to be the first day??

I say only dogmatic adherence to incorrect translations and pre-concieved beliefs leads people to interpret the Bible as meaning the earth is only 6,000 years old - when it clearly points only to mankind's creation, the subject of Genesis - not when the earth and entire universe was created in the first verse. Past tense - already finished. Again - not the same word used for creation in the first verse - out of nothing - compared to the word used everywhere else including man - from pre-existing material. Bara is used nowhere but the first verse, to show the universe and earth was created from nothing. All else was created from pre-existing material (dust).


I'll skip the part about Jesus being God for now - although that is a deception passed on by Satan - so that when he comes as the anti-Christ people who believe Jesus is God will be fooled and fall down to worship before him. Another subject altogether if you care to discuss it.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll skip the part about Jesus being God for now - although that is a deception passed on by Satan - so that when he comes as the anti-Christ people who believe Jesus is God will be fooled and fall down to worship before him. Another subject altogether if you care to discuss it.

Off the wall and by the way, did you celebrate America's birthday just recently?