Jesus would believe in Evolution?

[Forsakenone]

I'm going to comment on the KJV vs NIV as well as other translations. Please tell me you all consider when each of the versions were written. You must take into consideration the vocabulary and what words meant at different times in history. That being said, if you have a thesaurus, you can easily see a lot of words mean the same thing. I have taken 1 single verse from 5 different versions of the Bible and picked them apart to show that each verse means the same thing. It should all be interpreted to mean the same thing. Even the disaster that is the New Living Translation.

BA

Do it with Leviticus 11:20

 

[DogLady19]

If bats have six legs then the precept would most definitely be referring unto bats also in Leviticus 11:23, but if bats were after the kind called fowls made during what is called Day 5 then I would ask the Holy Ghost what to do since I am primarily posting this for entertainment purposes, anything someone might learn is strictly coincidence and not the responsibility of the poster.

I was entertained by your post... and learned something too! :lol:

But instead of us Christians fussing over this, perhaps we should look at how those who still live under Levitical Law interpret these passages, .ie. Practitioners of Judaism.

Birds of prey and scavengers are forbidden. Rodents, reptiles and amphibians are forbidden. All fruits, legumes and vegetables are kosher, as long as they do not have any insects, insect eggs or larvae in/on them.

Today's Jewish Sages no longer know what kinds of insects are forbidden and acceptable, except those specifically listed by name in Lev 11. Their suggestion is to avoid eating any insects to be safe.

http://www.kosherveyosher.com/insects.html

 

[HammerStone]

I'm going to comment on the KJV vs NIV as well as other translations. Please tell me you all consider when each of the versions were written. You must take into consideration the vocabulary and what words meant at different times in history. That being said, if you have a thesaurus, you can easily see a lot of words mean the same thing. I have taken 1 single verse from 5 different versions of the Bible and picked them apart to show that each verse means the same thing. It should all be interpreted to mean the same thing. Even the disaster that is the New Living Translation.

A technical term for a portion of this is called semantic range. It basically refers to the range of meanings that a word can carry. Each word choice is based upon things like context which may influence or enhance a certain meaning of the word. This is the most common reason that translations differ. As you said, many translations essentially mean the same thing, but the chosen word may have a wider or lesser semantic range. This is why you see so many websites, often KJV only, that seize upon a certain portion of the range to confirm their pet theory.

FWIW, I read both the KJV and NLT. The NLT is not a bad translation if you understand the dynamics behind why oversimplified language is employed. The biggest thing about reading a Bible translation is to understand some of its flaws and be able to consult trusted resources in the form of commentaries/concordances/etc, pastors, and even other translations to learn more about a word or phrase. For instance, the KJV translates one word as unicorn, but it likely meant wild ox. For a thousand years or so, it was read as unicorn, however.

 

[BlackManINC]

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/10/my-take-jesus-would-believe-in-evolution-and-so-should-you/

Found this interesting (and distrubing!) article and thought it might make for some lively discussion.

Here's a snippet of which we should all take notice:
"But when it comes to the truth of evolution, many Christians feel compelled to look the other way. They hold on to a particular interpretation of an ancient story in Genesis that they have fashioned into a modern account of origins..."

Totally untrue! And it's a shame that the world would see Christians as ignorant and obstinate. God created us with intricate well-developed brains that He intends for us to use. I don't know what Christians actually "look the other way" when it comes to science... I do know plenty who follow whatever leader tickles their own mindset without investigating scientific issues themselves.

But then the article says this:
"While Genesis contains wonderful insights into the relationship between God and the creation, it simply does not contain scientific ideas about the origin of the universe, the age of the earth or the development of life."

Now THAT I can agree with! The book of Genesis does not describe the beginning of the universe. It describes the beginning of God's relationship with man. Both Christians and atheists have mistakenly assumed that the first chapter is about the creation of the universe, and therein lies the problem with talking to macro-evolutionists.

Your thoughts???

So the first chapter describes the creation of the very creature, man, that God started a relationship with, yet somehow not the creation of the universe in which that being resides when it says "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"? I guess when God creates a new "heaven and earth" in revelation, its not referring to the creation of a new universe and a new earth. Oxymoron much? Wow, so much double think on this site, and ALL of it stems from not letting the Bible stand on its own two feet and letting man's beliefs stand for the lies that they are. "The truth of evolution"? I'm just wondering, can this guy tell us how angels "evolved"? Did they evolve from pond scum and mud monkeys in heaven and become full fledged spirit beings over an indeterminate amount of time? The Biblical account of creation is an "Ancient story" he says? Well so is evolution, there isn't a single idea taught in evolution today in schools that wasn't taught in some of the oldest religions to ever exist. Age means nothing, for there is nothing new under the sun.

 

[StanJ]

I will leave the answer to the question on whether it was deliberate attempt at lying for the LORD by altering His Word to hide what was perceived as factual error regarding a fowl that goes upon all four, or just a honest error, to the Holy Ghost himself. [Proverbs 30:6][Rev 3:19]
But do you know what flying insect that was formed during the period called Day 6 is actually a flesh eating carnivore?

So I guess you weren't serious in your post #109?

 

[pom2014]

So you're saying you believe historians over Christian scholars and you believe historical accounts over the Bible?

Well you'd have to SHOW that pom, FROM scripture.

So all history not given in scripture is BUNK?

That means none of the history we know after the bit of scripture written doesn't exist.

So there was no crusades, not in scripture.
No black death, not in scripture.
No protestant reformation, not in scripture.
No founding of the new world, not in scripture.
No founding of Canada, not in scripture. You have no nation now, better stop paying those non-existent taxes.
No World War I or II, not in scripture.

Stan, there is one of three things going on here.

1. You are insane.
2. You are being willfully ignorant to stubbornly keep you position.
3. You are a troll and this is all a lark for you.

I'm hoping for number three. If indeed that is it, well played.

 

[StanJ]

So all history not given in scripture is BUNK?

That means none of the history we know after the bit of scripture written doesn't exist.

So there was no crusades, not in scripture.
No black death, not in scripture.
No protestant reformation, not in scripture.
No founding of the new world, not in scripture.
No founding of Canada, not in scripture. You have no nation now, better stop paying those non-existent taxes.
No World War I or II, not in scripture.

Stan, there is one of three things going on here.

1. You are insane.
2. You are being willfully ignorant to stubbornly keep you position.
3. You are a troll and this is all a lark for you.

I'm hoping for number three. If indeed that is it, well played.

NOT the point or issue. We are talking about evolution right? So let's stick to that issue and not deflect to everything else in the world.

You missed #4...God's Word is true, so go ahead and TRY to disprove it and stop making me the subject of the issue.

 

[DogLady19]

...Wow, so much double think on this site, and ALL of it stems from not letting the Bible stand on its own two feet and letting man's beliefs stand for the lies that they are....

Oh so true! The point of my bringing this article to everyone's attention is the twisted logic used by popular beliefs and fad theories... and once repeated enough ends up being an irrefutable fact in the media!

I am certain that people will read that article and not take any time whatsoever to do their own investigation of the claims in it... So many gullible people! It's sad to me...

 

[pom2014]

NOT the point or issue. We are talking about evolution right? So let's stick to that issue and not deflect to everything else in the world.

You missed #4...God's Word is true, so go ahead and TRY to disprove it and stop making me the subject of the issue.

Your assertion is that the event of the flood has to be as the bible states it, even though there are physical records in history that civilisations continued during the exact time period.

You countered that bible scholars trump any historical scholars. This meant that unless the scholars of the bible did not see it recorded within scripture, it has NO bearing.

I countered that events that were not in the bible must not have been real in that method of thought.

I was not written of in the bible and neither were you, using your spurious logic to deny documented evidence in favour of only bibilcal evidence means WE DO NOT EXIST.

Thank you! I do not exist. Hence any choices I make have no bearing on anything as this world does not exist either. I'm free to do as I please with NO consequences as this world I live in, like myself is not even REAL.

I think that means I can rape a few babies, hold up a bottle shop, kill the owner and then fly to the UN and produce a fission weapon from my backside and start WWIII. Because it would have no consequences as nothing is real.

So liberating!

 

[Forsakenone]

For instance, the KJV translates one word as unicorn, but it likely meant wild ox. For a thousand years or so, it was read as unicorn, however.

So are saying then your private interpretation that the original English translation which uses the English word 'unicorn'
which was known then as a imaginary creature" meant to say that they were saved by actual creature of flesh?

Now the Egyptians are men, and not God; and their horses flesh, and not spirit.
When the LORD shall stretch out his hand, both he that helpeth shall fall, and he

that is holpen shall fall down, and they all shall fail together. Isaiah 31:3

23:22 ´Ël אֵל 410 brought them out 3318 z8688 of Mixrayim מִצרַיִם; 4714 x4480 he hath as it were the strength 8443 of an unicorn. 7214
God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn. Num 23:22

"he hath as it were the strength of an imaginary creature"

Now if the by the strength of an wild ox then it would the same as same by the strength of flesh did the God brought them out of Egypt.

Now the Egyptians are men, and not God; and their horses flesh, and not spirit.

Since the physical matter which forms the flesh of a horse is mass, mass is composed from atoms so then what is the physical matter that forms the spirit?

[But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him.John 11:10]

"With them is an arm of flesh; but with us is the LORD our God ..."

 

[Forsakenone]

So I guess you weren't serious in your post #109?

The righteous live by principles not guesses

 

[StanJ]

The righteous live by principles not guesses

Is that a yes or a no?

 

[Forsakenone]

Since the physical matter which forms the flesh of a horse is mass, mass is composed from atoms so then what is the physical matter that forms the spirit?

The physical matter which forms the spirit is light, light is matter without mass and is composed of photon particles. The spirit is that substance which ionizes the atoms, without ionized atoms the animation of the mass would not be possible and thus would be merely a corpse. This is not to say that mass does not have to consume organic matter in order to produce motion, but as written man does not live by bread alone.

 

[StanJ]

Your assertion is that the event of the flood has to be as the bible states it, even though there are physical records in history that civilisations continued during the exact time period.

You countered that bible scholars trump any historical scholars. This meant that unless the scholars of the bible did not see it recorded within scripture, it has NO bearing.

I countered that events that were not in the bible must not have been real in that method of thought.

I was not written of in the bible and neither were you, using your spurious logic to deny documented evidence in favour of only bibilcal evidence means WE DO NOT EXIST.

Thank you! I do not exist. Hence any choices I make have no bearing on anything as this world does not exist either. I'm free to do as I please with NO consequences as this world I live in, like myself is not even REAL.

I think that means I can rape a few babies, hold up a bottle shop, kill the owner and then fly to the UN and produce a fission weapon from my backside and start WWIII. Because it would have no consequences as nothing is real.

So liberating!

Yes.

Yes. No.

Have no idea what you are referring to.

Non sequitur

Non sequitur

Non sequitur

Is this what you seek? Liberation from God's word?

 

[Forsakenone]

Is that a yes or a no?

How am I to know what you are guessing? Are you guessing that I was not serious regarding the whole post or a are you referring to a specific particular part of the post?

If you would please specify what you consider I was not serious about in post 109. However regardless, I am always thoughtful of the principle.

 

[StanJ]

How am I to know what you are guessing? Are you guessing that I was not serious regarding the whole post or a are you referring to a specific particular part of the post?

If you would please specify what you consider I was not serious about in post 109. However regardless, I am always thoughtful of the principle.

I assumed you followed your own posts.

Anyway in your post 109 you stated; "but that would shut me up if you can name one flying insect that has four legs."

so I did...were you serious?

 

[DogLady19]

The Sad Truths of Internet Trolls:

1. Trolls are immune to criticism and logical arguments. True trolls cannot be reasoned with, regardless of how sound your logical argument is.
2. Trolls do not feel remorse. They have sociopathic tendencies, and accordingly, they delight in other people having hurt feelings.
3. Trolls consider themselves separate from the social order.
4. Trolls do not abide by etiquette or the rules of common courtesy.
5. Trolls consider themselves above social responsibility.


How to deal with trolls:

Trolls gain energy by you insulting them or when you get angry.
The only way to deal with a troll is to ignore him, or take away his ability to post online.

DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!

 

[Forsakenone]

I assumed you followed your own posts.

Anyway in your post 109 you stated; "but that would shut me up if you can name one flying insect that has four legs."

so I did...were you serious?

Yes, and you posted a picture of a six legged insect that was missing two legs, [correction: it should read one leg and one foot] however, where did you state the name of the insect? Whaaa-whaaa.

Do birds walk on all fours?

All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you. Leviticus 11:20

Well, when you find the one that does then maybe you will understand why it would be abomination to your heart to even think about eating it.

 

[StanJ]

Yes, and you posted a picture of a six legged insect that was missing two legs, however, where did you state the name of the insect? Whaaa-whaaa.

Well doctoring the picture doesn't mean anything. Here's another, which is called Palomena prasina.

 

[Forsakenone]

Well doctoring the picture doesn't mean anything. Here's another, which is called Palomena prasina.[/url]

Looks like the top of the one you posted the underneath of, but none the less the named flying insect has six legs.