• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Bible-Creation-Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

sandwiches

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
Jun 16, 2009
6,104
124
46
Dallas, Texas
✟29,530.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
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?
 
Upvote 0

sandwiches

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
Jun 16, 2009
6,104
124
46
Dallas, Texas
✟29,530.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
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.
 
Upvote 0

sandwiches

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
Jun 16, 2009
6,104
124
46
Dallas, Texas
✟29,530.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single

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.
 
Upvote 0

1611AV

REPENT YE, AND BELIEVE THE GOSPEL.
May 1, 2010
1,154
47
Florida
✟24,157.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

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...
 
Upvote 0

sandwiches

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
Jun 16, 2009
6,104
124
46
Dallas, Texas
✟29,530.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single

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.
 
Upvote 0

1611AV

REPENT YE, AND BELIEVE THE GOSPEL.
May 1, 2010
1,154
47
Florida
✟24,157.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.
 
Upvote 0

1611AV

REPENT YE, AND BELIEVE THE GOSPEL.
May 1, 2010
1,154
47
Florida
✟24,157.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,391
52,710
Guam
✟5,176,453.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,391
52,710
Guam
✟5,176,453.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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
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.
 
Upvote 0

1611AV

REPENT YE, AND BELIEVE THE GOSPEL.
May 1, 2010
1,154
47
Florida
✟24,157.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

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...
 
Upvote 0

yeshuasavedme

Senior Veteran
May 31, 2004
12,811
779
✟112,705.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

sandwiches

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
Jun 16, 2009
6,104
124
46
Dallas, Texas
✟29,530.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single

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.

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.
 
Upvote 0

sandwiches

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
Jun 16, 2009
6,104
124
46
Dallas, Texas
✟29,530.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single

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.
 
Upvote 0

Mr Dave

God Save The Queen!
Apr 2, 2010
7,223
762
Sheffield
✟33,210.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single

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.
 
Upvote 0

corvus_corax

Naclist Hierophant and Prophet
Jan 19, 2005
5,588
333
Oregon
✟29,911.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
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.
 
Reactions: mzungu
Upvote 0

corvus_corax

Naclist Hierophant and Prophet
Jan 19, 2005
5,588
333
Oregon
✟29,911.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
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)
 
Upvote 0

Mr Dave

God Save The Queen!
Apr 2, 2010
7,223
762
Sheffield
✟33,210.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single

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
 
Upvote 0

corvus_corax

Naclist Hierophant and Prophet
Jan 19, 2005
5,588
333
Oregon
✟29,911.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
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"
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.