Evolution

I would hope so. I think that would be preferable than drawing up lines between species centuries ago and refusing to budge from them in spite of evidence that they were arbitrary and worthless.

Your kinds are recent inventions. They don't even predate our earliest examples of language. When you consider the scale on which evolution is believed to occur, they're an irrelevance, labeling the current end result and nothing substantially predating them. So many prehistoric animals are not among your kinds, and the explanation is that man did not know about them. God did not tell him about them. And that's because God is primarily concerned with morality, not taxonomy.

I didn't know the Bible was around 5000 years ago.

Actually no, you haven't. You've found things that you choose to either not question, or question only until the answers become undesirable. This is evidenced by just about everything you have ever said. It is not absolutely proven, but life has allowed it to be proven true.

 

My kinds? Actually they are God’s kinds and they date from when God created each kind. As for prehistoric animals, they too were created by God according to their kinds.

Also, yes, God is more concerned with morality, than taxonomy but that does not mean the Bible is inaccurate when it touches on things that do not strictly deal with morality.

The first part of the Bible is said to have been written down in about 1513 B.C.E., so that would make parts of the Bible about 3500 years old. But then the author of the Bible was an eyewitness to the creation of the universe and the preparation of the Earth for human habitation and so would know the truth of the matter.

What is with all these personal attacks? Rudenoodle asked me a question and I answered it to the best of my ability. And this is what you come up with; “You've found things that you choose to either not question, or question only until the answers become undesirable” ,you have no idea what I’ve chosen to question or not and you have no idea how far I’ve taken my questioning. You don’t even know what I was talking about when I said; “I've found life allows things to be proven true even without absolute proof”.

 

But then the author of the Bible was an eyewitness to the creation of the universe and the preparation of the Earth for human habitation

so it is written

 

It doesn't mean that it's accurate either.

But that may be just folklore. Most modern bible scholars don't believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch, and believe instead that it was written much later--Deuteronomy about 800 years later, in the time of Josiah, probably by or for the High Priest Hikiah. How do you know the Bible was written earlier?

This is somewhat circular, unless we can depose The Author of the Bible to determine when he did these things. Or are we simply to take the Bible's word for it and assume it's God's word because it says so?

 

Once again if you don't want to believe the Bible is God's word don't let me stand in your way. I mean if the only reason you can think of for believing the Bible is the Word of God is that it says so, then maybe you shouldn't believe it's the word of God.

Also why would I want to fly in the face of "most modern bible scholars", surely they must have come up with some new evidence to back up what they say, maybe some eyewitness testimony, oh wait, all the eyewitnesses died thousands of years ago and all of their written testimony agrees with the Bible.

 

what about the fact that there is no evidence out side of christianity for the bible being correct

 

There are some mentions.. pretty small.

But this thread is on evolution. Now is it possible to accept both the Bible and Evolution.
Because a day be a 1000 years but then where do you start drawing the line. As to what's a metaphor or not.

Looks like the yes have it on the evolution poll.

 

Seeing as most that call themselves "Christian" or not, there is not much evidence inside "Christianity" but that being said I guess it depends what you call evidence outside of Christianity. I would say the the existence of the Jews would also be evidence and that Babylon was never rebuilt would be evidence of the Bible being correct.

 

If the only reason I could think of for believing the Bible is the Word of God were that it says so, I wouldn't believe its the word of God. That's what they all say. But (1) I thought that was your only reason for believing in the Bible. If that isn't what you've been telling us, you haven't made yourself clear; if it isn't that , what is it. (2) my belief in the Bible is based on other reasons: reason, scholarship, history, and that "inner light" you seem to scoff at. What's yours based on?

Heaven forefend we should accept the conclusisons of modern bible scholars just because they put forward some convincing evidence and arguments. After all, they're just fallible humans, and you're--what? If all those "eyewitnesses" died so long ago, how do you know they're credible?

 

First of all, I have never said or even implied that there was only one reason to believe the Bible is the Word of God. I have said that because it does say so, that is one reason to believe that it might be the Word of God.

It’s interesting to note that some of that very “scholarship” that you trust to prove that the Bible is God‘s Word, has made you believe that parts of the Bible is not God’s Word.

Also, seeing as why I believe the Bible is the Word of God, really has very little to do with Evolution, perhaps you should take it over to the thread on Bible questions and I’ll answer it for you there.

I think that what makes those "eyewitnesses" credible is because they were, well, "eyewitnesses". It seems that you believe the Bible is the “Word of God” but don’t believe the "eyewitnesses" that wrote it, that I find interesting indeed.

 

You're right. As Borg puts it, "The Bible should be taken seriously, but not literally." It should be read as history and metaphor. If it's taken literally, some of it is foolish or harmful.

Fine. We're on!

I think the Bible is the words of men searching for God, and God guiding the overall effort.

 

No.

That fact in itself doesn't mean that it's inaccurate. The bits of it that are inaccurate mean that it is inaccurate.

No.

No.

 

This may be the most sensible thing you've ever said.

 

Likewise I'm sure.

 

No.

In all seriousness though, it is kind of what everyone's been asking. Why would you believe that the Bible is the Word of God? If it's not just because it says so, then what is the reason?

It's important from the point of view of this discussion, since elsewhere you have told us that we can only understand the Bible if we assume it's true - yet in this thread you appear to be criticising "evolutionists" for doing the same thing with the theory of evolution. Not only is this inaccurate, it seems fairly hypocritical as well.

 

So we disagree, imagine that.

It’s always been interesting how people will point to something in the Bible that may or may not be inaccurate and say because that is inaccurate, the whole Bible is inaccurate but when it’s pointed out that evolution has inaccuracies, that doesn’t mean evolution is inaccurate but that evolution is only a incomplete theory that is still evolving.

Since you don’t believe in God it’s easy to see why you don’t believe he was there at the beginning of the universe or that he's the author of the Bible.

I’m glad to see that you agree that you have no idea what I’ve chosen to question or not and you have no idea how far I’ve taken my questioning.

 

I don't really care about that much, but it does amaze me how little you can say in so many words.

What's always been interesting about that? Makes total sense really, when you've got a theory that changes with new evidence being compared to a text which doesn't.

You've got the cart before the horse there. I don't believe in God because I don't believe he was the author of the Bible. Surely you can understand that someone would have a lot to gain by claiming to know the Word of God. I mean, that's true regardless of whether you believe the Bible is the Word of God; even the book itself warns of false prophets.

No, actually. You talk enough about your beliefs on here for it to be easy enough, after so many posts, for anyone to make an informed judgment of what those beliefs are.

And yet again, you're a hypocrite: you tell people what they believe all the time, because most of the time it's all you've got.

 

Like I said; "because it says so" is only a reason to consider it to be the word of God and if that is the only reason to believe the Bible is the word God then perhaps you shouldn't believe the Bible is the word of God. If God wrote the Bible and wants people to believe that he did, it would only be reasonable for God to provide multiple ways to show the Bible is his word.

As for those reasons, once again this thread is about evolution not the Bible, so if you want to discuss it take it to another thread, I would suggest:
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=363663&f=467
But you can start your own thread on this subject if you wish.

I have never criticized anyone for assuming evolution is true, assuming something to be true can be a useful tool for finding out if something is true or not.

But I have criticized people for stating evolution "is" true and "has" been proven, those are not assumptions but statements of fact about things that are not yet facts.

 

The way that you have argued, and given the nature of the forum, I think it's hardly surprising that the Bible comes up. You've consistently dismissed the evidence of evolution as if it would only be persuasive if you believed in evolution already. I hardly see that The Bible is irrelevant to this. If you could accept that there is evidence to support the theory, and that people's belief in evolution is not comparable to faith in a god or holy text, the Bible might cease to be relevant.

I'm sorry, but the above is a ridiculously rose-tinted view of your conduct.

 

And what amazes me is how often you resort to personal attacks and consider them some how meaningful.

A theory that changes not so much with new evidence but a rearranging of old evidence to disguise a lack of real evidence.

I not sure what you’re getting at here.

There are lots of people who believe in the existence of a God who don’t believe the Bible is the Word of God, so your statement that you “don't believe in God because I don't believe he was the author of the Bible” doesn’t necessarily follow.

Yes, I can understand that someone would have a lot to gain by claiming to know the Word of God and yes, that's true regardless of whether you believe the Bible is the Word of God and yes, the Bible itself warns of false prophets and so?

Surely you must realize there is a difference between what someone believes and how much and how far they have questioned those beliefs and while you may have a pretty good idea what I believe*, as I said; you have no idea what I’ve chosen to question or not and you have no idea how far I’ve taken my questioning, in other words whereas you may know what I believe, you have almost no idea of how I came by those beliefs.

*(although it is possible that I don’t believe any of it and have just been saying these things as a lark)

Once again, you resort to a personal attack and consider it some how meaningful.

Oh, by the way, perhaps you haven't noticed but I try very hard go by what people have actually said they believe and try not to assume what they believe and if someone corrects me on the matter of what they believe I always try to change my comments accordingly and don't try to tell them that is not what they believe.