Question for evolutionist

[Lion Hearted Man]

14 pages. 140 Posts and nobody thus far has been able to show any Biblical evidence of Evolution in the Bible.

Lots of mocking tho. Of all the people, you would think with a name like Wiccan Child, he would have the most negative things to say about the Bible, But he has shown himself to be true to his science of study without the need to mock what he disagrees with. I respect that greatly in a person.

Since when was this thread about Biblical evidence of evolution in the Bible? The OP says nothing of the sort.

If you want a Biblical reason to accept evolution, you're probably not going to find it if you are sola scriptura, like most evangelicals are. But other traditions (Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, etc.) that believe that the Bible is just one part of God's revelation (and not the entirety of it) accept science as another path of knowledge about God. Hey man, if your God exists, you shouldn't be afraid of well-established scientific theories. If anything, you should praise the work done by evolutionary biologists, for you are able to learn more about your God's creation through their work.

The universe is a mystery, and we would be foolish to think we know it all. That's why I love science...because it never is able to answer all our questions. There are always more, and there is always a mystery to be had and we never claim we understand it all. Religion, unfortunately, has lead many people to believe that they have all the answers, and there is no mystery. I don't think this is right. You are welcome at the table of discussion as long as you retain a sense of humility and accept the fact that you don't know everything. In this thread all I have seen you do is be antagonistic, asking questions about evolution but disregarding the answers. If you come here out of genuine curiosity with a willingness to change, that's great. If not, I'm disappointed. Just my 2 cents.

 

[pgp_protector]

14 pages. 140 Posts and nobody thus far has been able to show any Biblical evidence of Evolution in the Bible.

Lots of mocking tho. Of all the people, you would think with a name like Wiccan Child, he would have the most negative things to say about the Bible, But he has shown himself to be true to his science of study without the need to mock what he disagrees with. I respect that greatly in a person.

Nobody has shown evidence of the internet or computers in the bible either.

 

[Nathan Poe]

14 pages. 140 Posts and nobody thus far has been able to show any Biblical evidence of Evolution in the Bible.

It's right there between quantum mechanics and advanced electrical engineering.

Seriously, is that your only objection to evolutionary theory? "The Bible doesn't say it"?

Lots of mocking tho. Of all the people, you would think with a name like Wiccan Child, he would have the most negative things to say about the Bible, But he has shown himself to be true to his science of study without the need to mock what he disagrees with. I respect that greatly in a person.

And why exactly would you have expected Wiccan Child to have mocked you the most?

And I think you'll find that the mockery is not directed at the Bible per se, but at the way certain people choose to interpret it.

 

[1611AV]

Since when was this thread about Biblical evidence of evolution in the Bible? The OP says nothing of the sort.

If you want a Biblical reason to accept evolution, you're probably not going to find it if you are sola scriptura, like most evangelicals are. But other traditions (Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, etc.) that believe that the Bible is just one part of God's revelation (and not the entirety of it) accept science as another path of knowledge about God. Hey man, if your God exists, you shouldn't be afraid of well-established scientific theories. If anything, you should praise the work done by evolutionary biologists, for you are able to learn more about your God's creation through their work.

The universe is a mystery, and we would be foolish to think we know it all. That's why I love science...because it never is able to answer all our questions. There are always more, and there is always a mystery to be had and we never claim we understand it all. Religion, unfortunately, has lead many people to believe that they have all the answers, and there is no mystery. I don't think this is right. You are welcome at the table of discussion as long as you retain a sense of humility and accept the fact that you don't know everything. In this thread all I have seen you do is be antagonistic, asking questions about evolution but disregarding the answers. If you come here out of genuine curiosity with a willingness to change, that's great. If not, I'm disappointed. Just my 2 cents.

Good post, Im glad to see you realize this

If you want a Biblical reason to accept evolution, you're probably not going to find it if you are sola scriptura, like most evangelicals are. But other traditions (Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, etc.) that believe that the Bible is just one part of God's revelation (and not the entirety of it) accept science as another path of knowledge about God.

BTW, I love science too. Im not trying to change anyones mind and the questions I ask are not a seeking to change mine if the "magic" answer is given.

I actually thought I was in another discussion when I posted that here. I ment to post it here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7536879/
My apologies.

 

[DrkSdBls]

14 pages. 140 Posts and nobody thus far has been able to show any Biblical evidence of Evolution in the Bible.

15 pages and I haven't seen any Scientific Evidence of Creationism.....

You'll find as much evidence for Evolution in the Bible as you'd find evidence for Creation in Science Books.

You'd have better luck finding a Unicorn in your Closet.

 

[createdtoworship]

You'd have better luck finding a Unicorn in your Closet.

Unicorns were actually the rhinoceros, so yes we can and do believe in unicorns. Old dictionaries actually refer to the unicorn as a rhinoceros.

 

[Tiberius]

Now what I want to be shown from a Bible believing Christian is something in the Bible that speaks of evolution in any way shape or form. It does not even have to say the word evolution.

Now, can you do that?

I can.

The Bible says...

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.

It also says:

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.

And

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.

God didn't create the plants, or the animals of the sea, or the animals of the land. He told the sea and the land to bring them forth, which fits in with evolutionary theory.

And don't discount it simply because I'm not a Christian. This guy is a Christian, and he thinks exactly the same way. he even published on Answers in Genesis!

 

[1611AV]

I can.

The Bible says...



It also says:



And



God didn't create the plants, or the animals of the sea, or the animals of the land. He told the sea and the land to bring them forth, which fits in with evolutionary theory.

And don't discount it simply because I'm not a Christian. This guy is a Christian, and he thinks exactly the same way. he even published on Answers in Genesis!

Well you are just the guy I want to speak with. Please meet me in this thread and we can search the scriptures together. http://www.christianforums.com/t7536879/

 

[Tiberius]

Well you are just the guy I want to speak with. Please meet me in this thread and we can search the scriptures together. http://www.christianforums.com/t7536879/

You do realise that I am an atheist, doncha? I did say quite clearly in my last post that I am not a Christian, and I have the little atheist icon going on up next to my name.

however, if you'd still like me to participate in that thread, I shall.

Anyway, do you think that those passages I quoted are valid Biblical support for evolution?

 

[DrkSdBls]

Unicorns were actually the rhinoceros, so yes we can and do believe in unicorns. Old dictionaries actually refer to the unicorn as a rhinoceros.

Forgoing the Debate on whether or not the rhinoceros fits the Paradigm of being the Unicorn, What I said still holds true.

So, You'd have better luck finding a rhinoceros in your Closet. And I never said it was an impossibility.

 

[createdtoworship]

So, You'd have better luck finding a rhinoceros in your Closet. And I never said it was an impossibility.

all kinds of critters there I tell you...lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BNsjsbJLaM&feature=player_embedded

 

[Assyrian]

all kinds of critters there I tell you...lol
YouTube - Why Does the Bible Mention Unicorns?

A much simpler explanation is the AV's translators messed up using the Latin Vulgate to translate the Old Testament. It is not that they should have followed the Latin more closely and translated some of their unicorns 'rinocerotis' but that they should not have followed the Latin at all. The Hebrew re'em means a wild ox.

Psalm 92:10 ESV But you have exalted my horn like that of the wild ox; you have poured over me fresh oil.

 

[AV1611VET]

A much simpler explanation is the AV's translators messed up using the Latin Vulgate to translate the Old Testament.

Did the translators of the Geneva Bible mess up as well?

 

[Assyrian]

Did the translators of the Geneva Bible mess up as well?

And Coverdale, and Matthews, the Great Bible, and the Bishop's Bible and Tyndale. It was a very popular mistranslation back then

 

[AV1611VET]

And Coverdale, and Matthews, the Great Bible, and the Bishop's Bible and Tyndale. It was a very popular mistranslation back then

I see --

 

[createdtoworship]

A much simpler explanation is the AV's translators messed up

the KJV still has a poetic and wonderful sound to it especially in the psalms and proverbs. It is also one of the most literal bibles out.

 

[Assyrian]

the KJV still has a poetic and wonderful sound to it especially in the psalms and proverbs. It is also one of the most literal bibles out.

There is always a balance to be found between word for word literalism in a translation and finding equivalent meaning for a phrase in the other language. The more literal you go for the more you depend on the readers being familiar with the idioms of the first language. But the language of the AV is beautiful, if somewhat archaic at this stage. It raises a question though, that is fine with poetic work like the Psalms and Proverbs, but you have other writings in the bible like Mark IIRC where the language isn't nearly as polished. Is it taking from the original the original rough simplicity if you translation is polished and Shakespearean?

 

[createdtoworship]

Is it taking from the original the original rough simplicity if you translation is polished and Shakespearean?

If I understand your question right, you are asking if the authorship of mark is legitimate. I would say yes, it has language that is more authentic than the other Gospels and it was written first I believe date wise. As for shakespearian language in the gospel of mark. I would say yes there is a presence in all the books of the KJV bible. Maybe not as much like you say in the gospels than in the poetic books. Wasn't shakspearian language a romance language? If so some of the poetic books may read smoother.

 

[badtim]

If I understand your question right, you are asking if the authorship of mark is legitimate. I would say yes, it has language that is more authentic than the other Gospels and it was written first I believe date wise. As for shakespearian language in the gospel of mark. I would say yes there is a presence in all the books of the KJV bible. Maybe not as much like you say in the gospels than in the poetic books. Wasn't shakspearian language a romance language? If so some of the poetic books may read smoother.

No, english (in any of it's forms) has never been a Romance Language -- that refers to languages based on Latin, aka Rome (Italic languages). English is a Germanic language with a ton of stuff from latin, greek, and bunches of other things thrown in.

If we're still going on about the accuracy of the KJV, it's generally not that great when compared to newer translations that had access to thousands more manuscripts, and more advanced translation / textual analysis. I've seen some pretty ridiculous claims about it, even ranging to "the KJV OT is exactly the same as the material in the Qumran Scrolls!" which is an outright falsehood. Strangely enough i've heard this put foward in terms of "the only differences are minor spelling changes" which is laughable.

I'm really not sure why the extreme book-worship is ever necessary.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, english (in any of it's forms) has never been a Romance Language -- that refers to languages based on Latin, aka Rome (Italic languages). English is a Germanic language with a ton of stuff from latin, greek, and bunches of other things thrown in.

If we're still going on about the accuracy of the KJV, it's generally not that great when compared to newer translations that had access to thousands more manuscripts, and more advanced translation / textual analysis. I've seen some pretty ridiculous claims about it, even ranging to "the KJV OT is exactly the same as the material in the Qumran Scrolls!" which is an outright falsehood. Strangely enough i've heard this put foward in terms of "the only differences are minor spelling changes" which is laughable.

I'm really not sure why the extreme book-worship is ever necessary.

well, several of the nicene and antinicene fathers were found quoting byzantine text and even the johannian comma so If it's good for them it's good for us, right?

I'm really not sure why the extreme book-worship is ever necessary.

I don't worship the KJV but I admire it's accuracy and it's literalness. If you look at any greek interlinear you will see it's much more accurate than say the NIV or other thought for thought translation.