Is there any evidence for evolution?

AV1611VET said:

31 OCT = 25 DEC

Click to expand...

If you say so.

JackRT said:

The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text (the Textus Receptus) that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts. The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and yet he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus. We now possess many more ancient manuscripts (about 9000 compared to just 10) of the New Testament, and thanks to another 400 years of biblical scholarship, are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text.
Much as I love the KJV and the majesty of it’s Jacobean English, modern translations are more accurate.

Click to expand...

Until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls the oldest manuscript for the Old Testament was the Masoretic Text. After decades of sorting through the comparisons scholars have decided that the differences between the Masoretic Text from the tenth century and the Dead Sea Scrolls of the 2nd century BC was normal text variation. For some reason you always have them but they are like mutations, they don't accumulate as critics like to suggest. Most of them are misspelled words, grammatical errors and an occasional scribal note. For instance, some versions of the book of Revelations have 'to the churches' and others have, 'to the churches at Asian Minor'. It's pretty obvious what happened, when a copy made it's way outside of Asian Minor the note clarified for the hearer where these cities were for the benefit of those not familiar with Asian Minor. There are times in the holiness code, the Old Testament list of laws in the Pentateuch. There are times where the same opening line is repeated, what scholars think happened is the first line is being used as a title. Nothing doctrinal or historical is effected by these text variations, the Bible in it's 30,000 extant manuscripts remains the best preserved documents from the ancient world there is no close second.

There is one puzzling omission in the oldest manuscripts, the last verse of Mark 16, verses 9-20, are not in the oldest manuscripts. The consensus is that the church simply added it because they didn't like the ending. Good solid evangelicals think it should stop at verse 8.

There are some issues but the Scriptures have been meticulously well preserved despite some examples of text variations that reflect the effects of human handling.

There isn't anything wrong with Textus Receptus, there isn't a dimes worth of difference between the manuscripts, text variation is normal. It wasn't until the late 1800s that Westcott and Hort sought to replace Textus Receptus, not coincidentally during the rise of so called higher criticism. Textus Receptus was based on the Byzantine aka, majority text. The Westcott and Hort was based on Codex Vaticanus, a leather manuscript that has survived longer then the others since others were made of parchment and had to be copied over and over. Thus a relic replaced the cumulative scholarship of the majority text and long distinguished history of Textus Receptus. Most modern translations are based on Westcott and Hort, Christian scholarship isn't improving, it's on the decline and has been for over a hundred years.

Have a nice day
Mark

AV1611VET said:

Those speak of micro evolution, not macro.

Macro evolution requires deep time; something the Bible doesn't account for.

Click to expand...

Fortunately the universe had already been in existence for more than ten billion years when the Bible was written, so deep time is not a problem.

Kenny'sID said:

Apparently you didn't answer the question. Though changing the subject is not uncommon, to use something as paltry as accusing one of not knowing a simple word definition, is just funny.

Click to expand...

Apparently, you don't understand what a loaded question is.

CodyFaith said:

If I remember reading correctly, the whole genetically being similar to each other is bogus, as we're closely related genetically to a banana or something like that.

Click to expand...

That is completely bogus. We are distantly related to bananas and much more closely related to other primates.

Ophiolite said:

Fortunately the universe had already been in existence for more than ten billion years when the Bible was written, so deep time is not a problem.

Click to expand...

There must be a doosey of a gap in genealogies then!

Was the earth created in 4004 BC, or formed in 13700000 BC?

mark kennedy said:

Nothing doctrinal or historical is effected by these text variations, the Bible in it's 30,000 extant manuscripts remains the best preserved documents from the ancient world there is no close second.

There is one puzzling omission in the oldest manuscripts, the last verse of Mark 16, verses 9-20, are not in the oldest manuscripts. The consensus is that the church simply added it because they didn't like the ending. Good solid evangelicals think it should stop at verse 8.

Click to expand...

There are other issues, such as the Johanine Comma, and the story of the woman taken in adultery in John 8.

AV1611VET said:

There must be a doosey of a gap in genealogies then!

Was the earth created in 4004 BC, or formed in 13700000 BC?

Click to expand...

The Earth has been around for about 4.6 billion years.

Loudmouth said:

That is completely bogus. We are distantly related to bananas and much more closely related to other primates.

Click to expand...

lesliedellow said:

There are other issues, such as the Johanine Comma, and the story of the woman taken in adultery in John 8.

Click to expand...

All settled by the KJB and Its Predecessors.

lesliedellow said:

The Earth has been around for about 4.6 billion years.

Click to expand...

My bad!

Thanks for the correction!

If you have been paying attention to more recent translations of the Gospel of John, you will have noticed that John 7:53 - 8:11—the story of the woman caught in adultery of whom Jesus says, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her"—has been getting some interesting treatment by the scholars. The evidence that it was not an original part of this gospel is clear. The verses are absent from a wide array of early and diverse witnesses (papyrus 66, papyrus 75, Aleph [Codex Sinaiticus], B [Codex Vaticanus] and a host of others), and there is evidence that some manuscripts of John place these verses after John 7:36, some after John 7:52, some after John 21:25, and one manuscript even has it in the Gospel of Luke after Luke 21:38.

JackRT said:

The evidence that it was not an original part of this gospel is clear. The verses are absent from a wide array of early and diverse witnesses (papyrus 66, papyrus 75, Aleph [Codex Sinaiticus], B [Codex Vaticanus] and a host of others),

Click to expand...

Why is the fact that they're not in other peoples' writings evidence that it's not in the author's writing?

AV1611VET said:

Why is the fact that they're not in other peoples' writings evidence that it's not in the author's writing?

Click to expand...

At the very least there is a question as to its authenticity. In such a case we cannot make presumptions.

JackRT said:

At the very least there is a question as to its authenticity. In such a case we cannot make presumptions.

Click to expand...

Well, for the record, God settled it in 1611.

lesliedellow said:

There are other issues, such as the Johanine Comma, and the story of the woman taken in adultery in John 8.

Click to expand...

The Johanine Comma is just a couple of verses, questionable but nothing serious. The woman caught in adultery in John 8, as far as I can tell, was simply inserted in the wrong place:

It always seemed a bit odd to me when I first encountered this. Jesus is talking to the Scribes and Pharisees on the last day of Tabernacles, goes to the Mt. of Olives and the adulteress woman incident happens, then the next day goes back to Jerusalem and picks up the conversation where he left off. I think it belongs in the Bible they somehow lost track of where exactly, some say Matthew but who knows.

JackRT said:

If you have been paying attention to more recent translations of the Gospel of John, you will have noticed that John 7:53 - 8:11—the story of the woman caught in adultery of whom Jesus says, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her"—has been getting some interesting treatment by the scholars. The evidence that it was not an original part of this gospel is clear. The verses are absent from a wide array of early and diverse witnesses (papyrus 66, papyrus 75, Aleph [Codex Sinaiticus], B [Codex Vaticanus] and a host of others), and there is evidence that some manuscripts of John place these verses after John 7:36, some after John 7:52, some after John 21:25, and one manuscript even has it in the Gospel of Luke after Luke 21:38.

Click to expand...

It's not clear that it doesn't belong in the Gospels, it's unclear where it goes. Manuscript evidence has it in some and absent in others.

Also from the article above:

They just didn't know where to put it. There is also an 'umlaut' in Vaticanus for the disputed Mark ending so apparently there were problems with a couple of passages.

Grace and peace,
Mark

AV1611VET said:

Well, for the record, God settled it in 1611.

Click to expand...

I really don't think that God had anything to do with that. If you feel the need to blame someone it would be Queen James. He came right after King Elizabeth as the old joke goes.

AV1611VET said:

Well, for the record, God settled it in 1611.

Click to expand...

Actually it was settled in the first century.

JackRT said:

At the very least there is a question as to its authenticity. In such a case we cannot make presumptions.

Click to expand...

No there isn't, that's little more then hyperbole. There is nothing presumptive about the canon of Scripture. The text variation in a lot of ways is a mark of authenticity, if they were all identical and perfect then I would be suspicious.

JackRT said:

I really don't think that God had anything to do with that. If you feel the need to blame someone it would be Queen James. He came right after King Elizabeth as the old joke goes.

Click to expand...

Interesting, in light of most all of the modern translations coming to us care of [homosexuals] Wescott & Hort.

AV1611VET said:

Well, for the record, God settled it in 1611.

Click to expand...

Just as long as it says what you want it to say then it's all good.
Never mind the quality feel the width.