Evolution or Creation?

[Rabid Potatoe]

If I was making an argument, it would be based on the bible. Choke on that for a bit.

More like laugh at it.

 

[Iron Count]

If I was making an argument, it would be based on the bible. Choke on that for a bit.

Which Bible? (i.e. which edition)

 

[Llew2]

Which Bible? (i.e. which edition)

...Any and all of them. As in: I don't believe the KJV is the one and only to-be-trusted-explicitly-beyond-all-others, if that's what you mean. Some express parts better, and in my opinion more correctly, than others.

That's what happens when you get home after a morning without eating and the first thing you do is checking the forums.

Also what happens when you cut your leg with a chainsaw. Tend to be a wee bit preoccupied, although I really shouldn't blame that. 

 

[Archonsod]

For some believers out there, your God is too small.  Evolution and creation are not incompatible, given the right set of assumptions.  Though I attend what might be termed a "fundamentalist" church, that doesn't mean I have to believe exactly the same thing as others there.

Christians come as individuals!

Evolution and creation (small 'c') aren't incompatible, but that's not the real argument. It's Creationism (big C) which argues against evolution, however their version of evolution is a straw man which no evolutionary biologist would recognise. Possibly because their strawman is something of a Frankenstein's monster which also purports to refute well founded aspects of physics, geology, chemistry, astronomy and at the extreme end of it's spectrum, pretty much any scientific advancement since the sixteenth century.

In fact, half the time you can't help but wonder if it's some kind of Amish evangelistic movement

 

[Llew2]

It's Creationism (big C) which argues against evolution, however their version of evolution is a straw man which no evolutionary biologist would recognise.

Huh? You're not talking about me I hope.

 

[Asen]

...Any and all of them. As in: I don't believe the KJV is the one and only to-be-trusted-explicitly-beyond-all-others, if that's what you mean. Some express parts better, and in my opinion more correctly, than others.

That's a dangerous thing for a Biblical literalist to say.  Especially since you were just criticizing those who don't "just read the Bible" and instead form "pseudo-Christian cults."  I mean, this isn't a matter of translating French plays or Persian poetry.  This is, by your belief, God's own word.  And you leave so much to chance, on your opinion of which text feels right?

So what's the oldest version of the Bible you've read?  Greek?

 

[Llew2]

I meant it merely in the context of simple things. Such as, in the KJV, the word 'ye' is used for a plural 'you,' indicating many. That is lost in modern English. When people read 'you', they see a singular when it is really a plural; talking about a community.

 

[Asen]

You still didn't answer my question.  Translations are never exact.  What's the oldest version of God's word that you're willing to read?

 

[Rabid Potatoe]

He's evading because he's only read the KJV.

 

[Asen]

That's what I'm afraid of.    But we'll see.  You'd think a person would want to know God's word in the original, you know?  So much is lost in translation.

 

[Llew2]

He's evading because he's only read the KJV.

And you are sticking your feet in your mouth. You do that; regularly. For your happy info: I read the ESV most because that is what my bible is.

I'm willing to read the Greek, but there is really no point. The people translating are far more knowledgeable than I am, but if I NEED to, I'll read the Greek.

But on the whole I look at it this way: If God is omnipotent, he can and has controlled what is in our bibles. If he can't do a simple thing like that, there really isn't any point in Christianity. So, call it faith that I believe that what is the bible is indeed, on the whole, correct.

Same applies to all the arguments you people throw around about proof of bible's truth. There isn't proof if you don't want to see it, so you can prove till you're blue in the face that the bible is crap, but it won't do anything against my faith.

Faith is what it's all about, after all.

 

[Rabid Potatoe]

That's what I'm afraid of.    But we'll see.  You'd think a person would want to know God's word in the original, you know?  So much is lost in translation.

Looks like I was right...

 

[Asen]

The people translating are far more knowledgeable than I am, but if I NEED to, I'll read the Greek.

But on the whole I look at it this way: If God is omnipotent, he can and has controlled what is in our bibles. If he can't do a simple thing like that, there really isn't any point in Christianity. So, call it faith that I believe that what is the bible is indeed, on the whole, correct.

And right there you have the dogma of the priesthood, the dogma of the book.  "[H]e can and has controlled what is in our [B}ibles"?  It's almost as if there's no room for editing, no translators at all.  Certainly, human hands have never touched these books, because why would God let them tell lies in the name of religion?

Oh wait.

I'm fine with your faith, brother.  It's your blindness in faith that disturbs me.  You feel like you've found God, but you don't even know what you've found, because you haven't assessed it, questioned it.  ****, why do you think God gave you Reason?

 

[Iron Count]

Which Bible? (i.e. which edition)

...Any and all of them. As in: I don't believe the KJV is the one and only to-be-trusted-explicitly-beyond-all-others, if that's what you mean. Some express parts better, and in my opinion more correctly, than others.

You believe even the version of Bible which contradict each other?  Or the ones which rewrite the Bible?  Including but not limited to Constantine's revision of not only Christian documents but indeed the entire basis of Christianity which has persisted today?

Note: While I can't prove it, isn't it handy that the Jews were blamed for the execution of Jesus when the Romans had jurisdiction and ultimate authority over the region?  And isn't it handy how... exonerated the Romans are of the whole thing?

As a further deviation from topic, parallels can be drawn between Jesus and the Buddha who both preached a 'positive' lifestyle, 'benevolence' and 'compassion'.  Neither man actually wrote down what they said in great detail (chronies, followers and hangers on doing that job) and yet Christianity was altered most.  Probably because the very people who killed Jesus ended up embracing his teachings.  Funny old world?

"I'll read the Greek. "

Weren't the Dead Sea Scrolls in Aramaic and/or Hebrew?

 

[Archonsod]

As a further deviation from topic, parallels can be drawn between Jesus and the Buddha who both preached a 'positive' lifestyle, 'benevolence' and 'compassion'. 

Erm, Buddha preached absolute emotional dissasociation from the material world. Not exactly a positive lifestyle from a psychological point of view. It's also split, twisted and changed as much, if not more, than Christianity. Possibly due to the attempts to unify it with Hinduism.

Weren't the Dead Sea Scrolls in Aramaic and/or Hebrew?

Dead Sea Scrolls had nothing to do with the bible, they're applicable to the Talamud.

 

[Llew2]

Heh, you win. I hereby renounce my faith. 

 

[leprechaun]

TaleWorlds Victor!


This is proof that TaleWorlds > God!

 

[Asen]

"I'll read the Greek. "

Weren't the Dead Sea Scrolls in Aramaic and/or Hebrew?

The only reason the Greek was brought up is because it's an earlier version than English translations.  Neither I now Llew meant to suggest that it was the earliest, though it is certainly one of the definitive iterations that this old, patchwork document has had.

And as far as Llew's mock renunciation, I hope he's just trying to be funny.  Sarcasm comes off as so hostile when others are critically appraising and discussing one's face.  I thought Christians sought to have their faith tested. 

 

[Iron Count]

As a further deviation from topic, parallels can be drawn between Jesus and the Buddha who both preached a 'positive' lifestyle, 'benevolence' and 'compassion'. 

Erm, Buddha preached absolute emotional dissasociation from the material world. Not exactly a positive lifestyle from a psychological point of view. It's also split, twisted and changed as much, if not more, than Christianity. Possibly due to the attempts to unify it with Hinduism.

Absolute?  I do recall Buddha practising the Middle Path.  By its very definition, absolute emotional disassociation from the material world is near suicidal recklessness (i.e. the path he took before undertaking the Middle Path).  For further reading, check up some of the symptoms of Clinical Depression.

The message may well have been warped, it'd be naieve to think the original message of any religion would be unaltered throughout time (e.g. Buddhist warrior monks?!).  But I doubt the Buddha's teachings encountered the Roman Empire and its level of warp and distortion

Weren't the Dead Sea Scrolls in Aramaic and/or Hebrew?

Dead Sea Scrolls had nothing to do with the bible, they're applicable to the Talamud.

They're applicable to the Old Testament (give or take a few sections), which I believe is also included in the Bible, although it may have been revised last time I checked.

Indeed, much of the arguments behind Creationism stem from a literal, almost fanatical interpretation of the Old Testament.

Heh, you win. I hereby renounce my faith. 

Is it not the case that Evolution explains the hows and not the whys?  I find it perplexing as to how people can consider Evolutionism and Judo-Christian Theism mutually exclusive

 

[Mr.Fuzzy]

This is a big question:Why the **** in the name of who knows are you discussing your religon on a gaming forum?I mean like what the **** is this turning into?