Ok. Question: in the Bible Jesus speaks in parables; what general statement does Evolution make?

[JIMINZ]

Oh. I thought we were posting excerpts from our favorite works of fiction. What was the point of your post?

No that is what you did.
Another assumption on your part.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

No that is what you did.
Another assumption on your part.

I DON'T CARE what your holy book says.

What the Bible or any other religious text says about anything has no bearing on any scientific theory, Evolution or otherwise. It just doesn't matter what you quote. It's irrelevant to whether evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. And it is. Don't like it? Find evidence and come up with a better, more complete theory that explains it all. Genesis or the Bhagavad Gita or the Enuma Elish are not it.

 

[JIMINZ]

I DON'T CARE what your holy book says.

What the Bible or any other religious text says about anything has no bearing on any scientific theory, Evolution or otherwise. It just doesn't matter what you quote. It's irrelevant to whether evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. And it is. Don't like it? Find evidence and come up with a better, more complete theory that explains it all. Genesis or the Bhagavad Gita or the Enuma Elish are not it.

I'm sorry for your misunderstanding,

Which came first, the Bible account of the Creation of Everything, or the Field of Science which comes from one of the Created beings by God, thousands of yrs. later?

Chicken and egg sort of a thing, when we all know which one did in fact come first.

Therefore, the onus is on Science to refute the Creation, not the Bible refuting the supposed findings of Science.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm sorry for your misunderstanding,

Which came first, the Bible account of the Creation of Everything, or the Field of Science which comes from one of the Created beings by God.

The biblical creation story is obviously pre-scientific. (The second half of your sentence is a jumble. I would suggest a brief touch up on the history of evolution. There were multiple men involved in the early days.)

Chicken and egg sort of a thing, when we all know which one did in fact come first.

Eggs. They existed long before chickens evolved.

Therefore, the onus is on Science to refute the Creation, not the Bible refuting the supposed findings of Science.

I thought evolution did that already, quite well, from the very beginning.

"Creation" is just a short story (which you posted in a single post above). There isn't a whole lot to refute. Very much lacking in detail.

 

[JIMINZ]

I DON'T CARE what your holy book says.

What the Bible or any other religious text says about anything has no bearing on any scientific theory, Evolution or otherwise. It just doesn't matter what you quote. It's irrelevant to whether evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. And it is. Don't like it? Find evidence and come up with a better, more complete theory that explains it all. Genesis or the Bhagavad Gita or the Enuma Elish are not it.

You apparently do care, owing to the fact, you had to post a counter to Genesis, with The Hobbit.
But not realizing, The Hobbit Trilogy is about Jesus.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You apparently do care, owing to the fact, you had to post a counter to Genesis, with The Hobbit.
But not realizing, The Hobbit Trilogy is about Jesus.

Technically not, since in The Lord of the Rings stories, and the Hobbit, Frodo is NOT a Jesus substitute, nor even is Gandalf, the closest to being akin to a messiah in the Tolkien universe. The Hobbit DEFINITELY doesn't have a character like Jesus in it.

The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe (and the other books by C.S. Lewis) has Aslan, who is much closer to being Jesus than anyone in Middle-Earth.

 

[JIMINZ]

Technically not, since in The Lord of the Rings stories, and the Hobbit, Frodo is NOT a Jesus substitute, nor even is Gandalf, the closest to being akin to a messiah in the Tolkien universe. The Hobbit DEFINITELY doesn't have a character like Jesus in it.

The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe (and the other books by C.S. Lewis) has Aslan, who is much closer to being Jesus than anyone in Middle-Earth.

Oh you got that one. Congrats

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Oh you got that one. Congrats

I couldn't get into the books majorly, but I did enjoy the films, and also Aslan is very clearly Jesus, the lion of Judah. I mean, his whole thing is basically God, no two ways about it.

Lewis' Christian views are much more up front than Tolkien's.

 

[Shemjaza]

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Gen 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
Gen 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Gen 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
Gen 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Yes a literal reading of Genesis would contradict the conclusions about Earths history from the Theory of Evolution and other fields of science.

However I have seen no reason to assume that the Bible is both true and a literal reading is justified.

In fact, a non literal reading of the Bible, especially the early chapter is considerably older than the Theory of Evolution.

A literal reading of the entirety Genesis doesn't just run up against biology, physics and geology, but against history, archaeology and linguistics.

I clarified that the Bible was first, by thousands of years, and the Theory of Evolution is the attempt to Refute Creation believed up until that time by Darwin.

Older doesn't mean right.

Also that evolution is in conflict with creation doesn't mean that is its purpose. The Theory of Evolution exists to explain evidence found in the physical world.

 

[Shemjaza]

I clarified that the Bible was first, by thousands of years, and the Theory of Evolution is the attempt to Refute Creation believed up until that time by Darwin.

The Bible is not the oldest piece of religious writing... does that make it merely an attempt to refute the older belief systems?

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I'm sorry for your misunderstanding,

Which came first, the Bible account of the Creation of Everything, or the Field of Science which comes from one of the Created beings by God, thousands of yrs. later?

Chicken and egg sort of a thing, when we all know which one did in fact come first.

Therefore, the onus is on Science to refute the Creation, not the Bible refuting the supposed findings of Science.

The Enuma Elish came first. It's also a myth. Just like Genesis.

 

[JIMINZ]

The Bible is not the oldest piece of religious writing... does that make it merely an attempt to refute the older belief systems?

The Old Testament isn't like any other book, it is literally the History of a People, from Abraham to Jesus or 70Ad.

 

[Shemjaza]

The Old Testament isn't like any other book, it is literally the History of a People, from Abraham to Jesus or 70Ad.

Many ancient texts are histories of people.

Old testament doesn't get you to 70AD, in fact many people who believe in the Old Testament, some even literally, don't believe the New Testament or Jesus.

 

[JIMINZ]

Many ancient texts are histories of people.

Old testament doesn't get you to 70AD,

Your splitting hairs.

The Old testament ended, ceased to be added to.

Actually from Malachi., but no one really knows the date, about 400 yrs before Jesus, I'm just giving them to 70Ad when the Temple was destroyed by the Romans, and we do know when the New Testament started.

 

[Shemjaza]

Your splitting hairs.

The Old testament ended, ceased to be added to.

Actually from Malachi., but no one really knows the date, about 400 yrs before Jesus, I'm just giving them to 70Ad when the Temple was destroyed by the Romans, and we do know when the New Testament started.

I'm really not.

You are the one who used the dates and topic to define its difference from other texts... I just don't think you can demonstrate they are valid.

Neither the age nor style of the Bible are unique. If it were true, those would not be effective ways to demonstrate it.

 

[JIMINZ]

I'm really not.

You are the one who used the dates and topic to define its difference from other texts... I just don't think you can demonstrate they are valid.

Neither the age nor style of the Bible are unique. If it were true, those would not be effective ways to demonstrate it.

It makes it difficult while talking to someone who doesn't know the whys and wherefores of the subject.

1Co_2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[JIMINZ]

in fact many people who believe in the Old Testament, some even literally, don't believe the New Testament or Jesus.

If you are speaking about the Jewish People, then your correct, because they rejected their Prophesied Messiah.

 

[Shemjaza]

If you are speaking about the Jewish People, then your correct, because they rejected their Prophesied Messiah


It makes it difficult while talking to someone who doesn't know the whys and wherefores of the subject.

1Co_2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

The least convincing argument of them all.

Why is that only presented as an excuse after an initial argument is questioned?

A consistent message might be ask people to read the Bible and if they don't believe, then God hasn't chosen for them to believe yet... but, that is not presented. People make claims about evidence... then later back peddle.

 

[JIMINZ]

The least convincing argument of them all.

Why is that only presented as an excuse after an initial argument is questioned?

A consistent message might be ask people to read the Bible and if they don't believe, then God hasn't chosen for them to believe yet... but, that is not presented. People make claims about evidence... then later back peddle.

You just want to argue. I'm not biting.
Argue with yourself.

 

[Shemjaza]

If you are speaking about the Jewish People, then your correct, because they rejected their Prophesied Messiah.

They disagree, their interpretation is older and they sincerely believe in the God of Abraham.

You can still claim that they do not have the correct spiritual connection for true belief, but it certainly removes all your initial claims about age and content of the Old Testament.