Creation vs. Evolution

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Status
Not open for further replies.
The same is true of reading the "New Testament" in Greek, simply, and not convoluted by 2000 years of catechisms.

Sorry, but this is not nearly true.

Try reading Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, by Bart D. Ehrman (Harper 2005). There is no such thing as the new testament in original Greek. There are many, many thousands of Greek fragments of new testament documents. Many say different things. Some contradict each other. Attempts to create a Greek new testament were first made in the middle ages, using the only ones at hand to the compiler and obviously missing the thousands that were not on hand.

The author of Misquoting Jesus was a dedicated Christian graduate of the Moody Bible Institute who studied the new testament Greek scriptures in great detail before realizing that there is no authoritative body of writing and eventually losing his faith.

Some of the most famous verses in the New Testament do not appear in any of the original documents written in the first few hundred years after Christ but were instead added later. These include 1 John 5:7, the only reference in the new testament to the trinity (father, son and holy spirit). Other late additions include Jesus's statement that only those who are without sin should cast the first stone, Jesus's sweat falling like blood, the cup of wine being the new covenant in his blood, the signs of casting out demons and speaking in tongues, and the handling of snakes. Even the reference to Jesus rising into heaven after his resurrection is not to be found in the original documents.

Some of the original documents reveal some interesting debates in the early church. For example, was Jesus a man who suffered and then became God, or was he God all along? Depending upon how you see it, the crucifixion can be seen as a bad weekend for someone knowing he was already immortal rather than some sort of great sacrifice. Different factions in the early church had different feelings about this, and when they wrote their versions of the scriptures, they made subtle changes that reflected their beliefs. Thus, anyone holding to any of the various versions of this debate can point to "original" Greek documents to support a position. Only one version eventually made it into the currently accepted Bible.

Another controversy is the role of Jews in the crucifixion. Most scholars believe the full scale blaming of the Jews for the crucifixion, so clearly emphasized in Mel Gibson's movie, is a fabrication based on the early need to portray the religion as not being in conflict with Roman authority. Without going into detail here, the story makes absolutely no sense to anyone with any understanding of the laws and customs of that time period. The Romans would not bow to the pressure of a people they had conquered and impose a Roman punishment on someone whom they had found guiltless at trial. They allowed religious freedom, and if they were under the belief that the Jewish authorities held Jesus guilty of a regious wrong, they would have turned him over for a Jewish punishment--stoning.

Similarly, the Old Testament in Hebrew is a collection of scraps from different time periods in history that were eventually put together into one volume. The problems and inconsistencies have been well documented, but I am running out of time here.

Thus, the old and new testaments provide a comforting simplicity only to those who know nothing about their origins.
 
Well, as we know he likes it plain and simple.
 
Indeed, look at the pay scales for enlisted troops. Below minimum wage in many cases, and barely minimum wage in others.

And something that the recruiters will never tell you is that you might be RIF-ed even after 20 years of faithful service.

All in all, you would be much better off with a union job at the local factory in your own small town.

Both my wife and I are veterans; you sir, have not a clue.
 
Let us not forget that history is written by the victor. to which religion is a version of history.

my 5 cents, gotta keep up with gas and milk...
 
Sorry, but this is not nearly true.

Try reading Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, by Bart D. Ehrman (Harper 2005). There is no such thing as the new testament in original Greek. There are many, many thousands of Greek fragments of new testament documents. Many say different things. Some contradict each other. Attempts to create a Greek new testament were first made in the middle ages, using the only ones at hand to the compiler and obviously missing the thousands that were not on hand.

The author of Misquoting Jesus was a dedicated Christian graduate of the Moody Bible Institute who studied the new testament Greek scriptures in great detail before realizing that there is no authoritative body of writing and eventually losing his faith.

Some of the most famous verses in the New Testament do not appear in any of the original documents written in the first few hundred years after Christ but were instead added later. These include 1 John 5:7, the only reference in the new testament to the trinity (father, son and holy spirit). Other late additions include Jesus's statement that only those who are without sin should cast the first stone, Jesus's sweat falling like blood, the cup of wine being the new covenant in his blood, the signs of casting out demons and speaking in tongues, and the handling of snakes. Even the reference to Jesus rising into heaven after his resurrection is not to be found in the original documents.

Some of the original documents reveal some interesting debates in the early church. For example, was Jesus a man who suffered and then became God, or was he God all along? Depending upon how you see it, the crucifixion can be seen as a bad weekend for someone knowing he was already immortal rather than some sort of great sacrifice. Different factions in the early church had different feelings about this, and when they wrote their versions of the scriptures, they made subtle changes that reflected their beliefs. Thus, anyone holding to any of the various versions of this debate can point to "original" Greek documents to support a position. Only one version eventually made it into the currently accepted Bible.

Another controversy is the role of Jews in the crucifixion. Most scholars believe the full scale blaming of the Jews for the crucifixion, so clearly emphasized in Mel Gibson's movie, is a fabrication based on the early need to portray the religion as not being in conflict with Roman authority. Without going into detail here, the story makes absolutely no sense to anyone with any understanding of the laws and customs of that time period. The Romans would not bow to the pressure of a people they had conquered and impose a Roman punishment on someone whom they had found guiltless at trial. They allowed religious freedom, and if they were under the belief that the Jewish authorities held Jesus guilty of a regious wrong, they would have turned him over for a Jewish punishment--stoning.

Similarly, the Old Testament in Hebrew is a collection of scraps from different time periods in history that were eventually put together into one volume. The problems and inconsistencies have been well documented, but I am running out of time here.

Thus, the old and new testaments provide a comforting simplicity only to those who know nothing about their origins.

The current Hebrew version is that which is popularly used, as edited by ArtScroll.

The current Greek version is the St. Stephens text.

There are many versions and fragments, indeed. Those that I have mentioned give great insight into the pre-translated dogmatized English texts.
 
God created evolution. who am i to argue?:eyebrow:

That indeed could very well be true!

When you read Genesis (Bereshis) carefully, it sounds like evolution to me, as well.

Some people erroneously infer that a "day" must be 24 hours, or even 1000 years, but a day is simply ha yom, and that may be whatever it is, periods of millions or billions of years, possibly.

Moses (Moshe) was speaking to bronze age, largely illiterate pastoral people, around 1400 BCE, and therefore he was not being very "scientific." Indeed, science was not yet even invented yet.
 
Really. For some reason you didn't come off as a Hebrew scholar to me.

If you could actually read the Torah in Hebrew, you would probably understand how little you know about those books. You would become confused as to why an author's style and voice change suddenly in the text. Before he was calling God "Yahweh" and now he's calling God "Elohim". Obvious redactions and additions would stick out at you. You would probably be compelled to learn more about those books in a scholarly way.

I doubt you actually read Hebrew, it sounds cool to say though. Its a good thing you didn't push it more by saying you read in Hebrew plainly as its written starting on page 1.

In the first book of the Bible, called Genesis in Greek and English, and Bereshis in Hebrew, in Chapter 1, we meet ELOHIM, who does all the creating, apparently. Then in the second chapter, we meet JHVH.

They could be totally different personages, or they could be the same.

There are a dozen additional names for this/these gods, as well, in the following books (scrolls) and chapters.

I fail to see the point of your criticism, other than it is fairly plain you either did not read it yourself, or else it confuses you. Many names can be very confusing.
 
The current Hebrew version is that which is popularly used, as edited by ArtScroll.

The current Greek version is the St. Stephens text.

There are many versions and fragments, indeed. Those that I have mentioned give great insight into the pre-translated dogmatized English texts.

I don't see the point here.

I don't care if there is a single popularly used text in Hebrew or Greek. No single text can contain all the contradictions, emendations, and variations of the total wealth of fragments available to scholars. Any single text must be one author's (or authorial team's) decision as to which of the variations is legitimate. That means that some human is deciding which fragment is the infallible word of God and which is not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
https://www.shearwater.com/products/peregrine/

Back
Top Bottom