Is there any evidence for evolution?

[lesliedellow]

31 OCT = 25 DEC

If you say so.

 

[mark kennedy]

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.

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.

Furthermore, the vocabulary is not consistent with Mark. It doesn’t even read like Mark. There are eighteen words here that are never used anywhere by Mark. The structure is very different from the familiar structure of Mark’s writing. The title, “Lord Jesus,” is used here in verse 19, never used anywhere else by Mark. There’s no reference to Peter here, although Peter was mentioned in verse 7. (The Fitting End to Mark’s Gospel)
​

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

 

[Ophiolite]

Those speak of micro evolution, not macro.

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

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.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

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

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

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

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

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

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

 

[lesliedellow]

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

 

[lesliedellow]

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

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

The Earth has been around for about 4.6 billion years.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

 

[AV1611VET]

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

All settled by the KJB and Its Predecessors.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Earth has been around for about 4.6 billion years.

My bad!

Thanks for the correction!

 

[JackRT]

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

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),

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

 

[JackRT]

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

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

 

[AV1611VET]

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

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

 

[mark kennedy]

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

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 is plain enough that this passage was unknown anciently to the Greek Churches; and some conjecture that it has been brought from some other place and inserted here. But as it has always been received by the Latin Churches, and is found in many old Greek manuscripts, and contains nothing unworthy of an Apostolic Spirit, there is no reason why we should refuse to apply it to our advantage." (John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel of John)
​

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.

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.

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.

Other manuscripts which exclude the pericope.

Codex Regius (L) from the 8th century, Codex Athous Laurae (Psi, circa 800 A.D.), Codex Petropolitanus Purpureus (N), Codex Macedoniensis (Y), Codex Sangallensis (Delta) and Koridethi (Theta, from the 9th century) and Codex Monacensis (X, from the 10th century); Uncials 0141 and 0211; Minuscules 3, 12, 15, 21, 22, 32, 33, 39, 63, 96, 124, 134, 151, 157, 169, 209, 228, 297, 388, 391, 401, 416, 431 (added by a later corrector), 445, 470 (added by a later corrector), 565, 578, 584, 703, 723, 730, 731, 741, 742, 768, 770, 772, 776, 777, 788, 799, 800, 827, 828, 843, 896, 1100, 1178, 1230, 1241, 1242, 1253, 1333, 1424 (added by a later corrector), 2193 and 2768; a majority of lectionaries

Other manuscripts which include the pericope.

9th century Codices Boreelianus (F), Seidelianus I (G), Seidelianus II (H), Cyprius (K), Campianus (M) and Nanianus (U); Codex Tischendorfianus (Lambda) from the 9th century; Minuscule 28, 318, 700, 892, 1009, 1010, 1071, 1079, 1195, 1216, 1344, 1365, 1424 (as corrected), 1546, 1646, 2148, 2174; the Byzantine majority text; lectionaries 79, 100 (John 8:1-11), 118, 130 (8:1-11), 221, 274, 281, 411, 421, 429 (8:1-11), 442 (8:1-11), 445 (8:1-11), 459; some ancient Syriac manuscripts, most Bohairic Coptic manuscripts, some Armenian manuscripts, and ancient Ethiopian manuscripts. (Not Just Another Book)
​

Also from the article above:

Vaticanus, circa 4th century, which didn't include the passage, marked the end of chapter 7 with an "umlaut" indicating that an alternative reading was known
​

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

 

[JackRT]

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

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.

 

[mark kennedy]

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

Actually it was settled in the first century.

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

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

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

 

[Nicky Blass]

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

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