Evolution

[Jase]

Perhaps the Bible's more clear support of Geocentrism is a better topic for WW to answer.

WW, do you agree or disagree that the Bible authors believed in Geocentrism?

 

[Assyrian]

It's been a long day so I must close now but did want to reply to you.

Thanks, appreciate that

My understanding of the parentheses is that it denotes a word, phrase, sentence, paragraph or even chapter...that was specially noted in the text and the translators enclosed it parenthetically to keep that very special attention drawn to it. So, a comma wouldn't do the trick.
.

Luke 3:23
CEV When Jesus began to preach, he was about thirty years old. Everyone thought he was the son of Joseph. But his family went back through Heli,
GNB When Jesus began his work, he was about thirty years old. He was the son, so people thought, of Joseph, who was the son of Heli,
LITV And Jesus Himself was beginning to be about thirty years old, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Heli,
NIV Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,
NASB When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli,
NLT Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his public ministry. Jesus was known as the son of Joseph. Joseph was the son of Heli.
YLT And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, son of Joseph,

 

[Assyrian]

Thanks. I only get a rough idea on what you said.

Now, if 2:19 only suggests that God (has) made animals, then why do you suggest the creation is out of sequence right there? It may well be that God creates animal first, then creates man.

It would mean: "God brings Adam animals He made". Is this right?

That would be the perfect, which we see back in verse 8 "the man he had formed". What the waw consecutives in verse 18 & 19 tell us is that the verbs occur consecutively.
God said... then God formed... then God brought.

 

[crawfish]

I need to say again, it wasn't "an ancient Israelite" that inspired Isaiah to write those words. Truly Crawfish....the idea of anyone reading that verse and understanding it as meaning a flat earth is strange to me. But, perhaps that's because I am a simple person....

When we see a red, yellow and green light on a pole, we automatically think "stop, yield, go". Do you think an ancient Israelite would EVER come up with this idea to represent those colors? The reason this stuff seems strange is because there are cultural ideas that are so embedded into our thinking that we can't imagine them any other way. It is not a simple process to try and see someone from a completely different time and culture and understand what assumptions we automatically make would be foreign to them. But, make no mistake, there are plenty.

Certainly, God inspired men to write the bible. However, if you do any study it is plainly obvious that God allowed them to write scripture using their own styles, voice, knowledge and worldviews. If you suggest that they wrote things that would not be properly understood for a thousand years or more as discovery of the natural world progressed, then you're also suggesting that God allowed them to misinterpret those verses up until then. You would also think that if God did not want them to hold to the improper worldviews of the time, He would have have the authors use language that did not have ancient implications - like "firmament", which gave a completely different mental image thousands of years ago than it does today.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

Man evolving from apes...is not a truth.


.

But Adam, a person of one race, evolving into the multitude of different genetically-distinct races that we see in the world today is fine with you? You can accept the "e" word for those changes?

So aren't we just arguing about how much evolution has been responsible for explaining how the multitude of life forms that we see today came to be? That evolution itself is a pretty well established fact of life?

.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

Perhaps the Bible's more clear support of Geocentrism is a better topic for WW to answer.

WW, do you agree or disagree that the Bible authors believed in Geocentrism?

It is always amazing to me that about 1700 years of scholars, including the pillars of the Christian church, resolutely believed that the earth was the centre of the Universe. To the point where some of them were willing to burn at the stake those who suggested otherwise.

My suggestion is that those who utterly reject evolution as being one of God's tools to create the multitude of species that we see today are also being dogmatic.

Hopefully, it won't take 1700 years to establish the truth.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

And if human evolution is a lie, you should have no problem telling us which of these skull fossils are human and which are ape:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

But one could also explain the origin of those skulls by hypothesizing that they represent two distinct created entities, completely unrelated to each other in terms of evolving from one to another.

I mean, if God came upon one good way to make a skull in one of His created beings, then why wouldn't He use the same method to make skulls in another similar uniquely created being?

But to be clear- evolution should not be at issue here- it is how far evolution can be used to explain how the multitude of life forms that we see today came to be that is in dispute.

A biologist who claims that all life evolved from a single, accidentally created cell that had nothing to do with God is, in my opinion, engaging in speculation, not science. But a theologian who rejects that notion that God may have used evolution to create new life forms is, in my opinion, also engaging in speculation, and going beyond what the Bible teaches.

.

 

[Mallon]

But one could also explain the origin of those skulls by hypothesizing that they represent two distinct created entities, completely unrelated to each other in terms of evolving from one to another..

You could say that, yes. The point is that evolution predicts such a pattern. Special creation doesn't. The explanation you're provided is entirely ad hoc.

 

[1whirlwind]

That's how they actually perceived it. That's why flat earth and geocentrism concepts existed. We've found artifacts from mesopotamia with a similar image carved in stone from Babylon.

All cultures in that area in those days viewed the world in much the same way. The picture above is an exact rendering of a word for word reading of Genesis.

Really? The image in no way tells me anyone drawing/carving it considered it to be flat. It is a pictorial depiction of the artist's conception and the only way, unless he sculpted, to show it...no more, no less.

.

 

[1whirlwind]

It's not their fault you don't know the difference between modern ape and common ancestor. And since that information is easily available. It tends to suggest this is a result of willful ignorance.

There is wilful ignorance...no need to say it is suggested. The question is...on which side?


.

 

[MoneyGuy]

I say evolution was not even discovered in the bronze age, and the Bible couldn't possibly be talking about it.

I also say that evolution is the reality of the world, despite what creationists want to think. All evidence we have points towards evolution, and away from creationism. Creationism will eventually go the way of flat earthism and geocentrism. Give it a century or so.

I mostly agree, except that I'm a theistic evolutionist. I believe that evolution is God's tool for creation.

 

[pgp_protector]

There is wilful ignorance...no need to say it is suggested. The question is...on which side?


.

Mods, Can we answer this question without getting in trouble?

 

[Dark_Lite]

I mostly agree, except that I'm a theistic evolutionist. I believe that evolution is God's tool for creation.

Err, then we are in agreement. All evidence points to evolution. It is God's tool for creation.

 

[1whirlwind]

But did you not also, from your earliest years, see in drawings and on film, images of a spherical earth. The idea that the earth is spherical is imprinted on the mind of a child in our times well before they even know the word "sphere" and well before most learn to read. So naturally, when they do come to read a phrase like "circle of the earth" they think "sphere" --if not the word, the image.

From all of this questioning about a flat earth I would assume your concept of evolution somehow hangs in the balance???

What if you had never seen such an image of the earth? What if all you had to go by was your personal physical experience of the earth as far as the horizon?

I see the curve of the earth and as I look across the horizon I see space...not flatness. This idea is truly the silliest thing I've ever heard.


If you want to believe God was STUPID and considered His CREATION as being flat when He created it then....okay.

But Isaiah's readers, not having the image of a spherical earth, would not envisage a tent as being spread around the earth. They would envisage the curtains of heaven being spread out over the earth as a tent is spread out over desert sand as a place to dwell in. One does not ordinarily pitch a tent on top of a ball, but looks for a flat place to set it on. That flat place, in Isaiah's image, is the earth.

The Bible was not just for those of that time any more than it is just for us in this time. It is not that someone is a reader of Isaiah but a reader of God's Words.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

What about Daniel 4:10 and Matt 4:8? Daniel describes standing on top of a very tall tree and seeing the entire world - something only possible on a flat Eath. Matt describes Satan taking Jesus to a very tall mountain and showing him every kingdom of the world - once again, only possible on a flat Earth.

You are mistaken. First no one looking out from a literal high position, and these were NOT literal events, would see...flat earth. Second, Daniel, Belteshazzar, was asked to explain a dream by the king of Babylon (a type for Satan).

Daniel 4:9 O Belteshazzar, master of the magicians, because I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in thee, and no secret troubleth thee, tell me the visions of my dream that I have seen, and the interpretation thereof.

4:10-13 Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great. The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth: The leaves thereof were fair, and the fruit thereof much, and in it was meat for all: the beasts of the field had shadow under it, and the fowls of the heaven dwelt in the boughs thereof, and all flesh was fed of it.
​

He didn't stand on a tree and this was a vision. What tree stands in the midst? What tree feeds people it's poison fruit? What tree leads people from the truth of God's Word?



.

 

[1whirlwind]

Perhaps the Bible's more clear support of Geocentrism is a better topic for WW to answer.

WW, do you agree or disagree that the Bible authors believed in Geocentrism?

I have no clue what "geocentrism" is and unless your spelling is terrible, neither does the dictionary.

By the way...there is only One author.

Perhaps you would like to open a thread on the mystical geocentrism and stick to....evolution, the lie of evolution, which is one of the fruits of a certain tree.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

Thanks, appreciate that


Luke 3:23
CEV When Jesus began to preach, he was about thirty years old. Everyone thought he was the son of Joseph. But his family went back through Heli,
GNB When Jesus began his work, he was about thirty years old. He was the son, so people thought, of Joseph, who was the son of Heli,
LITV And Jesus Himself was beginning to be about thirty years old, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Heli,
NIV Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,
NASB When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli,
NLT Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his public ministry. Jesus was known as the son of Joseph. Joseph was the son of Heli.
YLT And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, son of Joseph,

You have just displayed one of the reasons I only use the KJV.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

When we see a red, yellow and green light on a pole, we automatically think "stop, yield, go". Do you think an ancient Israelite would EVER come up with this idea to represent those colors? The reason this stuff seems strange is because there are cultural ideas that are so embedded into our thinking that we can't imagine them any other way. It is not a simple process to try and see someone from a completely different time and culture and understand what assumptions we automatically make would be foreign to them. But, make no mistake, there are plenty.

Certainly, God inspired men to write the bible. However, if you do any study it is plainly obvious that God allowed them to write scripture using their own styles, voice, knowledge and worldviews. If you suggest that they wrote things that would not be properly understood for a thousand years or more as discovery of the natural world progressed, then you're also suggesting that God allowed them to misinterpret those verses up until then. You would also think that if God did not want them to hold to the improper worldviews of the time, He would have have the authors use language that did not have ancient implications - like "firmament", which gave a completely different mental image thousands of years ago than it does today.

They were not given to understand all they prophesied. Consider too that the events of the past were shadows of the future. History has repeated over and over...all leading to the end of days.

Daniel 12:8-9 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, "O My Lord, what shall be the end of these things?' And he said, 'Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.


.
​

 

[1whirlwind]

But Adam, a person of one race, evolving into the multitude of different genetically-distinct races that we see in the world today is fine with you? You can accept the "e" word for those changes?

So aren't we just arguing about how much evolution has been responsible for explaining how the multitude of life forms that we see today came to be? That evolution itself is a pretty well established fact of life?

.

Adam did not evolve into other races...nor did Noah. All races, mankind, were created on the sixth day. Adam was formed on the eighth.


.

 

[Cabal]

No. I could have chosen one and then I might have heard...cherry picking.

Ironically, you HAVE chosen selectively chosen one out of 17 definitions, one which you could not have determined from the context of a literal reading of the Bible alone, which means you ARE cherry picking in order to circumvent the inherent ambiguity of the verse.

I don't say the Bible trumps science....I say the two need to conform for it to be truth. When science conflicts with Him then...who is wrong?

The alternative. The people who wrote the Bible down.

Look, it might have actually referred to a 2D projection but given the terminology one used, one cannot know for sure if one only relies on a literal reading - in fact it is downright ambiguous.

Nor do I say that the verse is describing a 2D object. It is you saying that.

Nope - you still haven't gotten the point I'm making. I'm saying you cannot exclusively conclude that it is round only from the usage of the world "circle" as it is imprecise (especially when there ARE precise colloquialisms that describe 3D objects rather than 2D.

As for being precise...the Bible is not a test book of science in which geometry is explained.

Nor is it a biology or cosmology text, that doesn't seem to stop you making claims that fly in the face of them.

Instead...see it as written by the One that sits on the earth. He knows.

You'd think he could have inspired the writers to be a bit clearer then.

What is your understanding? Is the earth round?

"Round" is vague. It is an oblate spheroid, and this is not revealed in the Bible via a literal reading, but through science.

It is what it is. The earth is round. The circle of the earth means...it is round for the One that inspired the verse is the Creator and He knows it is round.

And yet if you read that verse before people widely knew the earth was round, they would have concluded that God was confirming the world was flat, using the exact same logic as you have. Why? Because the word is imprecise. The exact same thing did happen with the verses people used to support their belief in geocentrism.

A circular object is a precisely round orb.

NO, it isn't. You've just mangled 2D and 3D together again. A circular object is 2D. An orb is 3D. 2D=/=3D.

Then...that is a problem. Man didn't write the Bible.

Someone had to put pen on paper, and given the amount of cultural artefacts within it, it's pretty obvious that some of their influences crept in.

Man has dilly-dallied in the translations of the Bible but as given by God....the text is His Word and has been handed down as such through the generations. Stay as true as possible to that original (and that is difficult in these days) for the truth. Nature doesn't lie nor does His Word lie but man can lie about both and....they do.

You have done nothing to show that your personal interpretations are "the original", so please kindly stop claiming that they are. You said that we should reject the things of men - and I am. That is why I reject creationism. Taking Genesis as metaphor is not a lie either.

I certainly don't blame you for that. To reject science is to reject His handiwork but science is a learning process of what the Creator created. He has not lied about it...we are just given to understand certain things at certain times.

Ironically, believing in young-earth creationism makes God into a liar, which is why I reject such men-inspired interpretations.

When someone is a "Bible-thumper" about the age of earth, how the races began, the truth about Noah's ark, etc., it simply means things haven't yet been revealed to them.

Yes, it means they haven't understood the science involved regarding the validity of evolution, cosmology etc.

Like I said, we got over this eventually with geocentrism giving way to heliocentrism. The same thing will happen eventually with evolution also.

Man evolving from apes...is not a truth.

And anytime you want to refute the masses of evidence supporting common descent, feel free to start.