Does Christianity support the theory of evolution?

[EXman]

The KJV is not a true word for word exact translation really

Again very astute. Just joking man I cannot believe you are still beating a dead horse in here. 🙁

just saw this on the first page and had to stop in and poke fun later. 😛

 

[Netopia]

just saw this on the first page and had to stop in and poke fun later.

If you were going to poke fun later, why'd you do it now?

😉

Joe

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Netopia

just saw this on the first page and had to stop in and poke fun later.

If you were going to poke fun later, why'd you do it now?

😉

Joe

Lack of a life perhaps.

 

[Netopia]

Lack of a life perhaps.

LOL...... hmmmm..... maybe I'd better not point too many fingers! 😉

Joe

 

[EXman]

After seeing that this thread was still going and on the front page of OT I was curious who was the windbag. 😀 You are the one who has posted here day after day bub I was here only a day or two. Do the math on who has a life and then turn your computer off and get back to your collection of 1000 books. 😛 I do see some better stuff in your posts though as far as knowledge of the bible. :Q

peace be with you and I'll leave you to have the last word so you can continue now...😎

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: EXman
After seeing that this thread was still going and on the front page of OT I was curious who was the windbag. 😀 You are the one who has posted here day after day bub I was here only a day or two. Do the math on who has a life and then turn your computer off and get back to your collection of 1000 books. 😛 I do see some better stuff in your posts though as far as knowledge of the bible. :Q

peace be with you and I'll leave you to have the last word so you can continue now...😎

I just post as I work...which IMHO makes for a nice life during the day, I sort of get paid to play on the net. Do my workout's in the morning and my wife at night 🙂

My replies are usually based on the original posts....people sometimes end up flaming me incorrectly from not realizing I was purposely spouting junk.

It's not about having the last word, I am merely replying....getting in a last word is like saying 'hey FU' or whatever.

The peace be with you thing is sort of misdirected as I am not religious by any means....I just know more about religion than many religious people. I am going to be lucky if assuming there is a heaven I make it there.

 

[Jzero]

[It's not about having the last word, I am merely replying....getting in a last word is like saying 'hey FU' or whatever.

hey FU
CHECKMATE!

 

[OrangeJellyDisk]

Im not sure how i commit to the bible, At the least i belive it is a good moral guideline.

But as some said it was irrefutable definitive history book.. i dunno.

I guess thats what faith is , i mean for all we know it was just a well written bedtime story book back in the day that became very popular and then over tie people started spinning off on it.

People belive it is but i nobody actually knows.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: OrangeJellyDisk
Im not sure how i commit to the bible, At the least i belive it is a good moral guideline.

But as some said it was irrefutable definitive history book.. i dunno.

I guess thats what faith is , i mean for all we know it was just a well written bedtime story book back in the day that became very popular and then over tie people started spinning off on it.

People belive it is but i nobody actually knows.

is this english? 🙂

 

[petrek]

Well I guess you know God better than God does. Good show.

I know God personally because of the Bible, and in the Bible it says that God is perfect, and that sin is not. Therefore God can not sin.

Well you, sir, have been taught WRONG. "Day" has multiple meanings. It is unfortunate that you can't grasp that with all of your other presumption. Days are different lengths on different planets and even different parts of one planet. The "HOUR" is a purely human construction as well.

God used "evening and morning" because he wanted to give us an analog that would make sense to us. We would see "days" and get some grasp of the concept. You don't give God very much credit.

If you take note of the verse I used in my response:

KJV Genesis 1:14 God says " And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:"

God uses the word day for two different meanings. Once to refer to the period of light during a day (sunrise to sunset), and once to refer to the time it takes for a day and a night to come to pass.

The definitions for day that you suggest are equally valid as far as time is concerned are to the best of my knowledge all 21st century additions, thus they can't possibly be used in reference to 1611 english words, nor can they be used in reference to Hebrew terms from 1500BC.

In my Noah Webster 1806 dictionary it lists the meaning of a day as either the period of time from sunrise to sunset, or a 24 hour period. So anyone not familiar with the meaning of a day could look it up and find that it means either a 24 hour period or the period of time from sunrise to sunset.

"The "HOUR" is a purely human construction as well." A human coined the word hour, correct.

"God used "evening and morning" because he wanted to give us an analog that would make sense to us. We would see "days" and get some grasp of the concept. You don't give God very much credit"

I believe God used the words morning, evening, and day in their traditional sense (the only meanings they had up until the last century when new definitions were added) so that anyone from the time of their inception until the present could recognize their intended meanings. You believe that God used the words morning, evening, and day in the sense of their new meanings, meanings that anyone up until the last 100 years or so wouldn't have considered as possibilities because they weren't added as definitions until sometime in the last 100 years.

But what if YOU misunderstand the Biblical record? There is no reason the world is 6000 years old any more than 6 million or 6 weeks.

Your entitled to your opinion. I heard people say that the world was 6,000 years old, which of course doesn't make sense with what the current scientific theories are, so I did my own personal Bible study on the issue. After following all the names, and giving the corresponding lifespans to the names, I arrived at about 6,000 years. I'll take God's word over man's any day of the week.

I think you need to do some research. Here's some help.

According to them, the use of a zero-like PLACEHOLDER didn't even come into place until 700BC. So for 3000 years, assuming the universe is only 6000 years old, there was no way to write 1 billion. Hmmm.

And I said that the concept of zero and billions were around long before the english words were coined, which the site you link to doesn't dispute.

Quote

I said "The stars of the heaven and the sand upon the sea shore are both in the billions."


You responded "From an English translation written thousands of years after the fact... Snip the remainder of your argument."

Unless you believe that the stars of the heaven and the sands of the sea shore are not in the billions, your point is mute.

Jesus used allegories and symbols all the time. You are not the authority on which words God meant to take literally and which are meant to be taken figuratively.
I wouldn't have a problem with you if you were willing to admit that you don't know anymore than anyone else.

When it's my eternal soul that is at stake, I'll be the final authority on what is meant to be taken literally and what is meant to be taken figuratively. Whether or not you agree with what I believe is up to you.

Why would I admit that I don't know anymore than anyone else. Some topics I know a lot more about than others. Some topics others know a lot more about than me. I know more than some people and less than others, and making a blanket statement that everyone is equally ignorant would be a lie because everyone is not equally ignorant. Some people have more knowledge and some people have less, that's just the fact of the matter.

I certainly don't want you to believe what I say simply because I say it. Think about it if you want. Compare it to what Scripture says if you want. Whatever you do is up to you as you are ultimately responsible for your own actions and decisions. I thought this was all common sense in any debate.

Dave

 

[Eli]

I'm sorry, but I just have to come in here and LOL a bit...

It is absolutely mind boggling to me that someone can be so blind that they ignore the mountain of evidence that says the Earth is older than a few thousand years. The idea is absolutely preposterous.

As if God cares what you think about how old the Earth is?!? I find it amusing that extreme religious people lose sight of reality, or what matters, so easily.

The bible teaches good things.. values, lessons and morals. There is no doubt about that. But the idea that if you sin you lose your soul and are vanquished to a fiery pit is just plain stupid. The punishment for sin is death? Give me a break. Everybody on the planet would be dead. Further, why would God let something eternal go to waste like that? Nobody is perfect. By default, we are imperfect because we are striving to become perfect. You can turn your life around, and become welcome into the kingdom of heaven again, right? Therefor, I contend that God would never destroy a soul because of a mistake. If you're going to follow this whole line of thought, the reason we are here is to learn from our mistakes.


God does not care if we do not believe in him. Why would he? He cares for us just the same. God does not get angry at the people that turn a blind eye to him. If we are his children and this is our school, it merely means they have not learned yet. They are punished by life; karma.

Anyway, where all this is leading is that.. I believe you create your own Heaven or Hell. Just like the kingdom of heaven is within you, so is Hell. If you are a good person, you are a good person. If you murder and rape, you are going to live in Hell. Whether that is reliving what you've done until you get a second chance, or being stuck on the low level it took to do that in the first place. I think that would be punishment enough.I would imagine that many souls are virtually stuck on that low level. They never learn from their mistakes and basically remain evil for eternity. That is Hell.

It boggles the mind that you can let a single book dictate what you believe. If that isn't being naive, I don't know what is.

But then again, It's not my place to judge. 😀

 

[petrek]

Are you nuts? King James ADMITTED to altering things....there is a reason it's called the King James Version....he just didn't take any old copy laying around in 1500-1600 and slap his Good Housekeeping Seal on it.

You are clearly blindly defending your 'bible'.

Actually, it's called the King James Bible because it was at the behest of King James that the translation was made so that everyone who spoke English could have a Bible of their own.

Here is some info about the original OT too....people seem to think it was always written down....(some here mentioned how it was correctly passed via word of mouth only).

However, no copies of the OT in the original form exist. We don't even know what the original Hebrew was like. All we know is what someone has told us that someone told him that someone told him that the original Hebrew was like. Any Hebrew text we have has been preserved by man, perhaps they did a good job, but anyone who has played the 'telephone/operator' game knows how quickly even simple phrases get changed. What most people believe to be the best copy is the Masoretic Text, but even this begins by altering the text it was copied from by adding vowel sounds. A copy of the Masoretic Text today is may not be word for word identical to the first copy of the Masoretic Text, and then you have the copies of 2nd, 3rd,......nth generation copies floating around that became the possible 'modern' versions. Regardless, practically none of the current bibles are based on the Masoretic text...which is odd since most say it's the oldest 'written' text, as well as the most consistant.

A few points. The King James is based on the Masoretic text. Yes the Hebrew text was copied by hand. Common sense tells me the reason why the older copies do not exist is because they were used until they fell apart, much like anything that people read often today, it eventually has to be replaced.
And, I know you are not serious when you attempt to convince me that a childrens game which proves we don't always hear what we think we hear is in any way the same as an adults ability to copy word for word from one piece of paper to another without error, checking, and rechecking his work to ensure no errors exist.

You also have to realize that the original KJV of the bible is not copyrighted. However, every 'version' in print is. The NSRB bible was a KJV originally, but so much was changed it got it's own name. When you copyright something you have to have something copyrightable. I can't take something that's in the public domain and now lay claim to it.

The original KJV from 1611 is still not copyrighted, as I just looked at my copy on the shelf and there is no mention of copyright protection, and why should there be, it is the Word of God and God wants His word spread throughout all the World. All of todays versions of the KJV are copyrighted due to changing subtitles, and additional commentary, not because the text is changed in any way.

Another interesting thing about King James, which doesn't bother me one bit, but probably would 99% of those using 'his' bible. King James has been reported on several instances to be a homosexual or at least bisexual...this fact is not widely discussed and a common and false claim is if he 'really' were he would have edited out all the anti-gay dialogue... However that would have been too much to get past approval.

Link

Dave

 

[BullsOnParade]

No, most christians that say they accept Evolutionary theory really dont know what its basic
principals are. They easily accept micro-scale evolution, as one poster said that he accepted
evolution within a species, only. Speciation and thus Macro-scale evolution is the much less accepted
half of evolution, that is glossed over by these individuals as being 'purely theoretical' whereby theory is not any
strict or formal categorization. They happily ignore the ideas that micro-scale evolution corroborates
within macro-scale theory.

But as shelly21 mentioned near the begining that people don't
get either, is that 'apes' aren't the modern simians but the 'great apes' or proto-apes, meaning
that subscribers really dont know how involved and how far in strides hominid anthropology has
come in the past half century alone. If you've ever seen the hominid evolutionary tree you'll see
that it branches several times, at times terminating in failed sub species and species as well
as showing progress of successful species not limited to the culmination of homo sapiens sapiens.
This aside cursory evolution adopters have no idea or concept of equality in regards
to evolutionary stages that places us on the same evolutionary stage as chimpanzes.

Aside from the daunting task of completing our own
fossil record which is predicated on an enormous amount of luck, mitochondrial dna analysis holds
a promise of clearly identifiying speciation within the parts of the current fossil record.

So if any simple debate on evolution treats these ideas as technicalities then there's no
point in continuing because you absolutely can't comprehend what evolution implies about
our past and future.

Also to mention the discrepancy between the Einsteinian god of the universe and the christian
god, being the active and passive roles that either ascribes to their creation. Physicists metaphorically
refer to a creator who set the laws they describe into motion whereas christians' god is constantly intervening.
I make this point because christians some times hear scientists, mainly mathematicians or cosmologists, refer to
a god of creation, which to them, the scientists, the creator of the front-loaded universe rather than the god christians
believe in.


dM

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: petrek

Actually, it's called the King James Bible because it was at the behest of King James that the translation was made so that everyone who spoke English could have a Bible of their own.

you answered with something that is not a response to my statement...nor does it invalidate it.

A few points. The King James is based on the Masoretic text. Yes the Hebrew text was copied by hand. Common sense tells me the reason why the older copies do not exist is because they were used until they fell apart, much like anything that people read often today, it eventually has to be replaced.
And, I know you are not serious when you attempt to convince me that a childrens game which proves we don't always hear what we think we here is in any way the same as an adults ability to copy word for word from one piece of paper to another without error, checking, and rechecking his work to ensure no errors exist.

The reason no older copies exist was due to the fact that it was not to be written down. Even now the devout will not write words for "God" down, also Masoretic only applies to the OT.

The KJV translators relied on two chief texts, Greek and Hebrew. Their Greek text was the so-called "textus receptus"("received text") used by the Byzantine church. The "textus
receptus" was developed by the Greek Orthodox Church in a long series of refinements of earlier editions. The first complete Greek New Testament in this edition was written in the 700s, but the refinements continued until a fixed version was defined to support uniform scripture readings in Byzantine churches, roughly 1200 A.D. The "textus receptus" includes passages long-beloved by the faithful, such as the post-resurrection passage at the end of the Gospel of Mark. The Hebrew text of the KJV translators was the Masoretic text, the result of a similar process of editing, consolidating and making uniform among Jewish scholars; the Masoretes were active roughly 800-1000 A.D. The KJV was revolutionary for a Western translation, because it did depend on Greek and Hebrew, and not on the Latin Vulgate. However the Vulgate was translated (from the Greek and Hebrew texts of its own time) in roughly 400 A.D. So if we are to argue simply from the antiquity of the source documents, the Vulgate's text would be a better foundation than the KJV's Greek & Hebrew texts.

In reference to the children's game...it's exactly the same way when played by adults (you do still play sometimes at least something I hope)....there are small mistakes made, the funny part is when the small mistake still makes a true statement. You again are not realizing the old testament was long only spoken, never ever written down. It was sort of secretive and also many of the vowel sounds were omitted as certain words like G-D could not be spoken/written. Even when it was copied, do you realize the scribes often were not literate....sort of like a parrot, he can repeat things but never learn communication from that. This is why someone needs to know about science and human behavior as well as ancient history at least back to 9 or 10 centuries B.C. if they are going to claim they know the bible. Put it this way since you guys seem to thing there is only 6,000 years of history, you have it easy. You do also realize this 6000 number is mainly to remove dinosaurs and prehistoric (hence pre-history) possibilities of evolution.

The original KJV from 1611 is still not copyrighted, as I just looked at my copy on the shelf and there is no mention of copyright protection, and why should there be, it is the Word of God and God wants His word spread throughout all the World. All of todays versions of the KJV are copyrighted due to changing subtitles, and additional commentary, not because the text is changed in any way.

I find it interesting you have an original 1611 edition on your shelf....are you sure it's not a counterfeit? However again, you are making statements to refute what I said, but they merely agree with them....you have not invalidated anything I said. This is very very common though with the religious, I think it may even be taught.....something like this "what came first the chicken or the egg?" my answer="the egg, you need the egg to get the chicken" their answer="no you are WRONG WRONG WRONG....in order for the chicken to be you need to have the egg first. You realize the chicken cometh from the egg, so the egg was first"

this is typical

Link

Notice that guy's Th.D. as well as being a Pro-King James person? That's a biased source, you cannot use that. However, as much people that say he was a homosexual, if not more, will say he is not. In hindsight, there is always a reason for many odd rumors for not dying out....rarely are long lasting ones without some merit.

 

[Jzero]

When it's my eternal soul that is at stake, I'll be the final authority on what is meant to be taken literally and what is meant to be taken figuratively. Whether or not you agree with what I believe is up to you.[/]q]
I don't see how nitpicking over the meanings of words concerns anyone's eternal soul.

Some people have more knowledge and some people have less, that's just the fact of the matter.

But at the end of the day, you have no proof of anything, and neither do I.

 

[petrek]

I don't see how nitpicking over the meanings of words concerns anyone's eternal soul.

You don't see it, that's understandable.

But at the end of the day, you have no proof of anything, and neither do I.

I don't have proof of everything, but I definately have proof of some things.

Dave

 

[petrek]

I'm still trying to figure out exactly how this:

From a research paper by John Calvin Hall in 1994:
In viewing the distortions, deletions, corruptions, dilutions, changes and questionable associations of the critical text and its resultant modernist translations, we will stick to the venerable King James Version of the Bible that our forebearersforebearers so faithfully used. It is an ancient landmark Down through the centuries, it has been the Bible used for every major revival to sweep across portions of the English speaking world. It was the Bible of the Pilgrim forefathers of this nation.

And. it has been God blessed wherever it has been used. It is based upon the ancient text which bas been, until just recently, the universally accepted text of the Scriptures from the time of the apostles.

Modern versions have been marketed extensively as being easier to read than the archaic, old fashioned KJV Bible. However, recent computerized document analysis programs have objectively revealed that the King James Version of the Bible is in far easier to read than the NIV or the NASB. The Fleisch-Kincaid research firm has, through computerized analysis, shown that the KJV vocabulary has fewer syllables per word than the NIV or the NASB. Furthermore, the KJV has less complex sentences than the NIV or NASB. In reality, the KJV is easier to read than its modern counterparts in the manner of vocabulary and syntax. There is undisputed eloquence and beauty in the King James Version. Moreover, the English language was at its zenith in the early 17th century for poetic beauty and eloquence. Interestingly, one of the major criticisms of the King James Version is actually a strength. People unacquainted with proper English complain about the use of "thee" and "thou" etc. in the King James text. However, as anyone who knows linguistics will attest, many languages have at one time had a common level which was spoken on the street and a higher or formal level that was used in reference to royalty and God. The usage of "thee" and "thou" etc. in old English is a form of higher English that no longer is commonly used. It originally was used in formal situations where deference and respect to nobility, royalty and Deity were appropriate.

Unfortunately, our contemporary American English usage of "you" and "yours" etc. makes no allowance for such deference and brings all of our language back to the lower level. The King James Version respectfully and appropriately refers to God and other notables as "thee" or "thou" in accordance with their due respect. Most modern language translations have diluted that deference.

fits into your argument, as it appears to provide no negative information towards the KJV. I believe it's related to this comment "The KJV is not just an English translation, the text has additions towards your Lord/King also", but if you could clarify it for me, I'd appreciate it.

You said "King James admitted to such tampering and also admitted to not being a great writer / knowing much about it."

I responded with "King James did not translate the KJV, nor did he tamper with the translators work."

You responded with"Are you nuts? King James ADMITTED to altering things....there is a reason it's called the King James Version....he just didn't take any old copy laying around in 1500-1600 and slap his Good Housekeeping Seal on it.

You are clearly blindly defending your 'bible'."

I responded with "Actually, it's called the King James Bible because it was at the behest of King James that the translation was made so that everyone who spoke English could have a Bible of their own."

You responded with "you answered with something that is not a response to my statement...nor does it invalidate it."

There are two separate issues here.

1. Did King James translate or tamper with the translation. You said he did, I said he didn't, you capitalized that he did, and I suppose I could capitalize that he didn't, but that wouldn't solve anything. Your source for that allegation would be appreciated.

2. I agree that King James didn't just stamp his approval on an already existing English Translation. As I stated above, it was at his request that the Translation was translated.

The reason no older copies exist was due to the fact that it was not to be written down. Even now the devout will not write words for "God" down, also Masoretic only applies to the OT.The Hebrew text of the KJV translators was the Masoretic text, the result of a similar process of editing, consolidating and making uniform among Jewish scholars; the Masoretes were active roughly 800-1000 A.D. The KJV was revolutionary for a Western translation, because it did depend on Greek and Hebrew, and not on the Latin Vulgate.You again are not realizing the old testament was long only spoken, never ever written down. It was sort of secretive and also many of the vowel sounds were omitted as certain words like G-D could not be spoken/written. Even when it was copied, do you realize the scribes often were not literate....sort of like a parrot, he can repeat things but never learn communication from that.

"The Hebrew Scriptures were written by Moses and the prophets and other inspired men to whom God had given prophetic gifts. But the duty of preserving this written revelation was assigned not to the prophets but to the priests. The priests were the divinely appointed guardians and teachers of the law. And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, that Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee (Deut.31:24-26). Thus the law "was placed in the charge of the priests to be kept by them along side of the most sacred vessel of the sanctuary, and in its innermost and holiest apartment." (W. H. Green, General Introduction To The Old Testament, The Canon, New York: Scribners', 1898, pp.11-18) Also the priests were commanded, as part of their teaching function, to read the law to the people every seven years (Deut. 31:12). Evidently also the priests were given the task of making correct copies of the law for the use of kings and rulers, or at least of supervising the scribes to whom the king would delegate this work (Deut. 17:18)...

Except for periodic revivals under godly rulers, such as Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah, the days of the kings were times of apostasy and spiritual darkness in which the priests neglected almost entirely their God-given task of guarding and teaching God's holy law...The Law was taught again in Jerusalem by Ezra the priest who had prepared his heart to seek the law of the LORD, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgements (Ezra 7:10). By Ezra and his successors , under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, all the Old Testament books were gathered together into one Old Testament canon, and their texts were purged of errors and preserved until the days of our Lord's earthly ministry. By that time the Old Testament text was so firmly established that even the Jews' rejection of Christ could not disturb it. Unbelieving Jewish scribes transmitted this traditional Hebrew Old Testament text, blindly but faithfully, until the dawn of the Protestant Reformation...

According to G. F. Moore (1927), the earliest of these scribes were called Tannaim (Teachers). These scribes not only copied the text of the Old Testament with great accuracy but also committed to writing their oral tradition, called Mishna. These were followed by another group of scribes called Amoraim (Expositors). These were the scholars who in addition to their work as copyists of the Old Testament also produced the Talmud, which is a commentary on the Mishna. (Judaism, by G. F. Moore, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1927, vol. 1, p. 4.)

The Amoraim were followed in the sixth century by the Masoretes (Traditionalists) to whom the Masoretic (Traditional) Old Testament text is due. These Masoretes took extraordinary pains to transmit without error the Old Testament text which they had received from their predecessors. Many complicated safeguards against scribal slips were devised, such as counting the number of times each letter of the alphabet occurs in each book. Also critical material previously perpetuated only by oral instruction was put into writing. It is generally believed that vowel points and other written signs to aid in pronunciation were introduced into the text by the Masoretes. (The Ancestry Of Our English Bible, by Ira Price, 2nd Revised Edition, by W. A. Irwin & A. P. Wikgren, New York: Harper, 1949, pp. 23-27)

It was this Traditional (Masoretic) text which was printed at the end of the medieval period." The King James Version Defended, Edward F Hills, pp. 91-93

Their Greek text was the so-called "textus receptus"("received text") used by the Byzantine church. The "textus receptus" was developed by the Greek Orthodox Church in a long series of refinements of earlier editions. The first complete Greek New Testament in this edition was written in the 700s, but the refinements continued until a fixed version was defined to support uniform scripture readings in Byzantine churches, roughly 1200 A.D. The "textus receptus" includes passages long-beloved by the faithful, such as the post-resurrection passage at the end of the Gospel of Mark.

"It would have been passing strange if God had guided His people in regard to the New Testament canon but had withheld from them His divine assistance in the matter of the New Testament text. This would mean that Bible believing Christians today could have no certainty concerning the New Testament text but would be obliged to rely on the hypotheses of modern, naturalistic critics.

But God in His mercy did not leave His people to grope after the True New Testament Text. Through the leading of the Holy Spirit He guided them to preserve it during the manuscript period. God brought this to pass through the working of His preserving and governing providence. First, many trustworthy copies of the original New Testament manuscripts were produced by faithful scribes. Second, these trustworthy copies were read and recopied by true believers down through the centuries. Third, untrustworthy copies were not so generally read or so frequently recopied. Although they enjoyed some popularity for a time, yet in the long run they were laid aside and consigned to oblivion.Thus as a result of this special providential guidance the True Text won out in the end, and today we may be sure that the text found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts is a trustworthy reproduction of the divinely inspired Original Text. This is the text which was preserved by the God-guided usage of the Greek Church. Critics have called it the Byzantine text, thereby acknowledging that it was the text in use in the Greek Church during the greater part of the Byzantine period (452-1453). It is much better, however, to call this text the Traditional Text. When we call the text found in the majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts the Traditional Text, we signify that this is the text which has been handed down by the God-guided tradition of the Church from the time of the Apostles unto the present day.

A further step in the providential preservation of the New Testament was the printing of it in 1516 and the dissemination of it through the whole of Western Europe during the Protestant Reformation. In the first printing of the Greek New Testament we see God's preserving providence working hiddenly and, to the outward eye, accidentally. The editor, Erasmus, performed his task in great haste in order to meet the deadline set by the printer, Froben of Basle. Hence this first edition contained a number of errors of a minor sort, some of which persisted in later editions. But in all essentials the New Testament text first printed by Erasmus and later by Stephanus (1550) and Elzevir (1663) is in full agreement with the Traditional Text providentially preserved in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts. This printed text is commonly called the Textus Receptus (Received Text). It is the text which was used by the Protestant Reformers during the Reformation and by all Protestants everywhere for three hundred years thereafter. Hence the printing of it was, after all, no accident but the work of God's special providence.

The special providence of God is particularly evident in the fact that the text of the Greek New Testament was first printed and published not in the East but in Western Europe where the influence of the Latin usage and of the Latin Vulgate was very strong. Through the influence of the Latin-speaking Church erasmus and his successors were providentially guided to follow the Latin Vulgate here and there in those few places in which the Latin Church usage rather than the Greek Church usage had preserved the genuine reading. Hence the Textus Receptus was a further step in the providential preservation of the New Testament. In it the few errors of any consequence occurring in the Traditional Greek Text were corrected by the providence of God operating through the usage of the Latin-speaking Church of Western Europe.

Thus God by His special providence has preserved the New Testament text in a three-fold way through the universal priesthood of believers. In the first place, during the fourteen centuries in which the New Testament circulated in manuscript form God worked providentially through the usage of the Greek-speaking Church to preserve the New Testament text in the majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts. In this way the True New Testament Text became the prevailing Traditional Text. In the second place, during the 16th century when the New Testament text was being printed for the first time, God worked providentially through the usage of the Latin-speaking Church to influence Erasmus and the other editors and printers of that period to follow the Latin Vulgate in those few places in which the Latin Church usage rather than the Greek Church usage had preserved the genuine reading. Then in the third place, during the 450 years which have elapsed since the first printing of the New Testament, God has been working providentially through the usage of Bible-believing Protestants to place and keep the stamp of His approval upon this God-guided printed test. It is upon this Textus Receptus that the King James Version and the other classic Protestant translations are based." The King James Version Defended, Edward F. Hills, pp.106-107

In reference to the children's game...it's exactly the same way when played by adults (you do still play sometimes at least something I hope)....there are small mistakes made, the funny part is when the small mistake still makes a true statement.

You are trying to make a comparison between a game (played by adults and children) that proves everyone has trouble hearing at times, and a persons ability to do their job (make accurate copies) successfully. I simply don't see the comparison.

Put it this way since you guys seem to thing there is only 6,000 years of history, you have it easy. You do also realize this 6000 number is mainly to remove dinosaurs and prehistoric (hence pre-history) possibilities of evolution.

a) Why do dinosaurs need to be removed?

b) It's the date of millions to billions of years (based on evolutionary theory) that is attempting to remove the 6,000 year date (based on Biblical Creation), not the other way around. The 6,000 year Biblical date has always existed.

You said "You also have to realize that the original KJV of the bible is not copyrighted. However, every 'version' in print is. The NSRB bible was a KJV originally, but so much was changed it got it's own name. When you copyright something you have to have something copyrightable. I can't take something that's in the public domain and now lay claim to it."

I responded with "The original KJV from 1611 is still not copyrighted, as I just looked at my copy on the shelf and there is no mention of copyright protection, and why should there be, it is the Word of God and God wants His word spread throughout all the World. All of todays versions of the KJV are copyrighted due to changing subtitles, and additional commentary, not because the text is changed in any way."

You replied with "I find it interesting you have an original 1611 edition on your shelf....are you sure it's not a counterfeit? However again, you are making statements to refute what I said, but they merely agree with them....you have not invalidated anything I said. This is very very common though with the religious, I think it may even be taught.....something like this "what came first the chicken or the egg?" my answer="the egg, you need the egg to get the chicken" their answer="no you are WRONG WRONG WRONG....in order for the chicken to be you need to have the egg first. You realize the chicken cometh from the egg, so the egg was first"

this is typical

I wasn't making statements to refute what you said, I clearly agreed with what you said. I have a word for word reprint on my shelf, and it is not copyrighted. I clarified why every version in print is copyrighted.

The 1909 and 1917 NSRB (New Schofield Reference Bible) Bibles which were published while Dr. Schofield was alive, do contain the King James Bible. The 1967 NSRB Bible that was published after Dr. Schofield had been dead for many years does NOT contain the King James Bible, and therefore can not claim to be a King James Bible.

Notice that guy's Th.D. as well as being a Pro-King James person? That's a biased source, you cannot use that. However, as much people that say he was a homosexual, if not more, will say he is not. In hindsight, there is always a reason for many odd rumors for not dying out....rarely are long lasting ones without some merit.

As far as bias goes, your anti King James and say that King James was gay. He is Pro King James and gives the name of the person responsible for that rumor.

For the most part, rumors die out when they are no longer effective, and as you pointed out, you think 99% of the people using the King James Bible would be bothered by the rumor that King James was gay. So the rumor persists.

Dave

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: petrek
I'm still trying to figure out exactly how this:

From a research paper by John Calvin Hall in 1994:

fits into your argument, as it appears to provide no negative information towards the KJV. I believe it's related to this comment "The KJV is not just an English translation, the text has additions towards your Lord/King also", but if you could clarify it for me, I'd appreciate it.

It's the fact that the translation was not word for word....and this is a rather pro-KJV writer.

You said "King James admitted to such tampering and also admitted to not being a great writer / knowing much about it."

I responded with "King James did not translate the KJV, nor did he tamper with the translators work."

You responded with"Are you nuts? King James ADMITTED to altering things....there is a reason it's called the King James Version....he just didn't take any old copy laying around in 1500-1600 and slap his Good Housekeeping Seal on it.

You are clearly blindly defending your 'bible'."

I responded with "Actually, it's called the King James Bible because it was at the behest of King James that the translation was made so that everyone who spoke English could have a Bible of their own."

You responded with "you answered with something that is not a response to my statement...nor does it invalidate it."

There are two separate issues here.

1. Did King James translate or tamper with the translation. You said he did, I said he didn't, you capitalized that he did, and I suppose I could capitalize that he didn't, but that wouldn't solve anything. Your source for that allegation would be appreciated.

2. I agree that King James didn't just stamp his approval on an already existing English Translation. As I stated above, it was at his request that the Translation was translated.[/quote]

So you are saying King James just wanted this carried out and had no input on a book that could greatly influence his right to be King?

I don't have the time to dig up everything I have come across and researched in the past, there is information on comments King James made about the translation and his interjection of somethings he felt applicable...he later regretted it it seems not from the addition, but from not being such a great writer/literate to pick the best words.

"The Hebrew Scriptures were written by Moses and the prophets and other inspired men to whom God had given prophetic gifts. But the duty of preserving this written revelation was assigned not to the prophets but to the priests. The priests were the divinely appointed guardians and teachers of the law. And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, that Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee (Deut.31:24-26). Thus the law "was placed in the charge of the priests to be kept by them along side of the most sacred vessel of the sanctuary, and in its innermost and holiest apartment." (W. H. Green, General Introduction To The Old Testament, The Canon, New York: Scribners', 1898, pp.11-18) Also the priests were commanded, as part of their teaching function, to read the law to the people every seven years (Deut. 31:12). Evidently also the priests were given the task of making correct copies of the law for the use of kings and rulers, or at least of supervising the scribes to whom the king would delegate this work (Deut. 17:18)...

Only problem with that statement is those copies never filtered down and also the ark has yet to be found. Still while you can use the bible to discredit itself, you really can't use it to prove itself as everything is faith based really.

Except for periodic revivals under godly rulers, such as Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah, the days of the kings were times of apostasy and spiritual darkness in which the priests neglected almost entirely their God-given task of guarding and teaching God's holy law...The Law was taught again in Jerusalem by Ezra the priest who had prepared his heart to seek the law of the LORD, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgements (Ezra 7:10). By Ezra and his successors , under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, all the Old Testament books were gathered together into one Old Testament canon, and their texts were purged of errors and preserved until the days of our Lord's earthly ministry. By that time the Old Testament text was so firmly established that even the Jews' rejection of Christ could not disturb it. Unbelieving Jewish scribes transmitted this traditional Hebrew Old Testament text, blindly but faithfully, until the dawn of the Protestant Reformation...

This is where it gets argued if the errors were really errors and that what was thought to be correct was just a common mistake. Again there were no Jewish 'scribes' until later and the Jews had no reason to doubt the OT as it was their's before Christains came forward...you do realize that don't you? The Jewish people had the book first, it has nothing at all to do with Christ's coming....

Jewish people believe in Jesus, they just don't believe it was him on that cross. Regardless Jesus was jewish I believe as well.

I don't know if that is what you are saying, but I have been in church and heard the pastor claiming that the jews and muslim are stealing 'OUR good words'.

According to G. F. Moore (1927), the earliest of these scribes were called Tannaim (Teachers). These scribes not only copied the text of the Old Testament with great accuracy but also committed to writing their oral tradition, called Mishna. These were followed by another group of scribes called Amoraim (Expositors). These were the scholars who in addition to their work as copyists of the Old Testament also produced the Talmud, which is a commentary on the Mishna. (Judaism, by G. F. Moore, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1927, vol. 1, p. 4.)

The Amoraim were followed in the sixth century by the Masoretes (Traditionalists) to whom the Masoretic (Traditional) Old Testament text is due. These Masoretes took extraordinary pains to transmit without error the Old Testament text which they had received from their predecessors. Many complicated safeguards against scribal slips were devised, such as counting the number of times each letter of the alphabet occurs in each book. Also critical material previously perpetuated only by oral instruction was put into writing. It is generally believed that vowel points and other written signs to aid in pronunciation were introduced into the text by the Masoretes. (The Ancestry Of Our English Bible, by Ira Price, 2nd Revised Edition, by W. A. Irwin & A. P. Wikgren, New York: Harper, 1949, pp. 23-27)

It was this Traditional (Masoretic) text which was printed at the end of the medieval period." The King James Version Defended, Edward F Hills, pp. 91-93

letter counting is not a very good safeguard, it's a better than nothing approach though. Also like things today, who's to say on a friday night the copy was off by one and the guy is already 2-3 hours late to come home. Also starting a system on an existing copied work could be just a great way to perpetuating the errors for eternity. That's the problem....there is no way to go to the original and verify if a current copy is accurate. That's also part of the faith portion.

I will also say just because a part is proven wrong it doesn't make the whole bible a farce....that is sort of the same thing this thread is based on 'Evolution'....people tend to think in extremes, yet the world doesn't really work like that....you have a lot of gray in the middle, and only a little black on one end and white on the other.

Second, these trustworthy copies were read and recopied by true believers down through the centuries. Third, untrustworthy copies were not so generally read or so frequently recopied. Although they enjoyed some popularity for a time, yet in the long run they were laid aside and consigned to oblivion.Thus as a result of this special providential guidance the True Text won out in the end, and today

That is another problem....unpopular = untrustworthy. Not necessarily less accurate and could be more accurate. Even today if there was undeniable proof that something in the bible was wrong and this undeniable proof was backed by the most faithful, you would have people in denial and chances are a new religion would form.....one more type of Christianity. 😉

Are all the sources you are using from the King James Defended book only? The title in and of itself shows the possible bias, doubtful a book with such title would show anything else but positives. I will need to check it out.

In reference to the children's game...it's exactly the same way when played by adults (you do still play sometimes at least something I hope)....there are small mistakes made, the funny part is when the small mistake still makes a true statement.

You are trying to make a comparison between a game (played by adults and children) that proves everyone has trouble hearing at times, and a persons ability to do their job (make accurate copies) successfully. I simply don't see the comparison.

Yes if verbal definitely....this can be proven in experiment also....the human brain has a way of inserting things itself. You may get 5 people that remember accurately, 2 people that remember only parts accurately (yet forget others), 2 people that remember parts accurately but other parts in minor error, and a final person (out of 10) that has no accurate recollection.

The dangerous people are the 2 guys that can remember the whole dictation yet only make minor errors in parts. Minor errors can 'mutate' or 'evolve' into majorly glaring errors when compared to the original works, but in the 'telephone' game usually work fine as a valid statement on their own.

You have to keep in mind how many times that verbal copy was passed on....people did not live long and it was 100's of years of verbal only passing. Most theologists admit there are possible errors, but go with the best guess at the most accurate copy.

Put it this way since you guys seem to thing there is only 6,000 years of history, you have it easy. You do also realize this 6000 number is mainly to remove dinosaurs and prehistoric (hence pre-history) possibilities of evolution.

a) Why do dinosaurs need to be removed?

b) It's the date of millions to billions of years (based on evolutionary theory) that is attempting to remove the 6,000 year date (based on Biblical Creation), not the other way around. The 6,000 year Biblical date has always existed.

a) It's a little hard to fit the dinosaurs into that same window of 6,000 years if people are to exist. You can't really wipe the earth clean and have new species pop up the 'next' day.

b) and the bible said the earth was flat too and people believed that for a long time.

As far as bias goes, your anti King James and say that King James was gay. He is Pro King James and gives the name of the person responsible for that rumor.

For the most part, rumors die out when they are no longer effective, and as you pointed out, you think 99% of the people using the King James Bible would be bothered by the rumor that King James was gay. So the rumor persists.

Dave

where did I say 99%? Actually I am sure quite a few that read the KJV of the bible accept the fact that King James may have had an alternate lifestyle because they also have one. If anything it may solidify their faith. The problem with the KJ rumor is it's impossible to prove now or disprove. That is also true about much of the bible.

The fact is if these Christians were truly accepting, they would simply answer as "It matters not that King James could have been homosexual or bisexual, the words he stood behind are valid." However you don't see that do ya 😉

 

[boggsie]

Originally posted by: Vic
<snip> ... Whether Adam lived 930 years or 93 years is entirely unimportant (no, entirely irrelevant) compared to the message of Christ.
AND... I don't believe that I have to believe the tiniest irrelevancy in the Bible in order to embrace Christ's message of peace and hope.

Originally posted by: Copperman
I respect all your beliefs but i put my faith in Jesus ... and i lean on Christ

Originally posted by: Netopia

You do get into a gray area though about the timeline from his arrest to execution.

I think that there are actually a lot of "grey areas" in the Bible, at least grey by today's standards but probably perfectly acceptable during the time in which they were written. <snip> ...

So, things like whether the Last Supper was on a Wednesday or Thursday... or whether there were 7 literal days or something else... these things I try not to get too caught up in arguing over because that takes focus off of the things in the Bible which I do believe are literal.

Things like we're all sinners and need a Saviour. Things like the Diety of Christ. The weightier matters.

WORD


What he said!

 

[petrek]

It's the fact that the translation was not word for word....and this is a rather pro-KJV writer.

The King James Bible was translated using Formal Equivalency (word for word). The translators were in fact so concerned about adding to or taking away from the Greek and Hebrew text that they used italics to indicate words they added which they felt were necessary to give the proper meaning in English.

So you are saying King James just wanted this carried out and had no input on a book that could greatly influence his right to be King?

I don't know where your coming from with this statement, you'll have to explain how an English translation affected his right to be King.

I don't have the time to dig up everything I have come across and researched in the past, there is information on comments King James made about the translation and his interjection of somethings he felt applicable...he later regretted it it seems not from the addition, but from not being such a great writer/literate to pick the best words.

I can't possibly give any weight to such serious accusations without some formal documentation.

Only problem with that statement is those copies never filtered down and also the ark has yet to be found.

Considering the fact that copies of the scripture contained in the Ark were made, it is reasonable to believe that copies of those copies did filter down, and are the basis of the English version I now possess.

Still while you can use the bible to discredit itself, you really can't use it to prove itself as everything is faith based really.

The Bible never discredits itself, it is man's lack of knowledge that leads to that false presumption.

Faith is a fact of everyday life. Whether you're walking to the store, driving to work, or cooking a meal, your beliefs are involved. The Bible contains a historical account of the past to the present, History books contain various conflicting accounts of the past to the present, whichever account you choose to believe is a matter of faith.

True faith however, doesn't involve a leap or vain hope. For instance, I've never been to China but I believe (have faith) that China exists because of the abundance of evidence for China's existence. Equally so, I've never been to heaven, but I believe (have faith) that heaven exists because of the abundance of evidence for heaven's existence.

.Again there were no Jewish 'scribes' until later and the Jews had no reason to doubt the OT as it was their's before Christains came forward...you do realize that don't you? The Jewish people had the book first, it has nothing at all to do with Christ's coming....

Considering the Old Testament is God's(Christ's) word, and He foretells of His coming in it, I don't see the logic in stating that the Old Testament has "nothing at all to do with Christ's coming"
Prior to Christ Creating anything that now exists, he knew that the Old and New Testaments would make up the Bible, He knew that the majority of Jews would reject Him as their King, and He knew that He would have to die on the Cross in order to Save those that recognize they are a sinner in need of a Saviour.

Jewish people believe in Jesus, they just don't believe it was him on that cross. Regardless Jesus was jewish I believe as well.

YES of course Jesus was Jewish.

If I'm not mistaken, all twelve apostles were Jewish and quite probably most (initial) disciples were Jewish as well. In Romans 1:16 it says that the Gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, is to be preached to "...the Jew first, and also to the Greek."

People, Jewish or not, that reject that Jesus Christ died on the Cross, do not believe in Jesus Christ, because He did die on the cross.

Jesus Christ is a specific person with specific characteristics which are outlined in Scripture. If you reject the characteristics and actions associated with the Jesus Christ of Scripture, you reject Him. There is no middle ground. Either a person believes what the Bible says about Jesus Christ and accepts it as the Truth, or they reject it, and in so doing, they reject the only Jesus Christ that can Save them from their sins, the Jesus Christ of Scripture.

I don't know if that is what you are saying, but I have been in church and heard the pastor claiming that the jews and muslim are stealing 'OUR good words'.

I believe you are referring to a common and ever more popular heresy in which it is believed that prophetic references to Israel are actually referring to the church.

letter counting is not a very good safeguard, it's a better than nothing approach though.

It is certainly unreasonable to suggest that letter counting "is not a very good safeguard", because unless someone was specifically manipulating the text, the chance that the letter count would be the same after one or more mistakes in copying is negligible.

Also like things today, who's to say on a friday night the copy was off by one and the guy is already 2-3 hours late to come home.

Perhaps this, perhaps that, maybe this, maybe that, is not proof. Nonetheless, I was under the impression that we had already established the fact that some of the manuscripts contain copyist errors, so pointing out possible reasons for those errors is unnecessary.

Also starting a system on an existing copied work could be just a great way to perpetuating the errors for eternity.

Or could be a great way to ensure that any future mistakes are negligible.

That's the problem....there is no way to go to the original and verify if a current copy is accurate. That's also part of the faith portion.

If God can use imperfect vessels to give His word to mankind in the first place, He can use imperfect vessels to ensure that His word remains true to form.

I will also say just because a part is proven wrong it doesn't make the whole bible a farce

I would agree if the Bible claimed to be written by men, but considering that the Bible claims to be authored by an All powerful, All knowing, All seeing God...then YES it ALL has to be true. NO EXCEPTIONS!!!

people tend to think in extremes, yet the world doesn't really work like that..you have a lot of gray in the middle, and only a little black on one end and white on the other.

I would tend to agree.

God is all knowing and therefore there is no grey area for Him.

Men however are not all knowing, and therefore there is a grey area based on our ignorance.

That is another problem....unpopular = untrustworthy. Not necessarily less accurate and could be more accurate.

Unpopular does not necessarily mean untrustworthy, sometimes popular means untrustworthy, and therefore sometimes what is unpopular is accurate and sometimes what is popular is accurate. Truth is not dictated by popularity.

Even today if there was undeniable proof that something in the bible was wrong and this undeniable proof was backed by the most faithful, you would have people in denial and chances are a new religion would form.....one more type of Christianity.

Your statement "one more type of Christianity" is very telling, because if you take a look around...the situation you describe above already exists, and has existed from the beginning. One person believes one thing, another person believes something else.
My beliefs are based on a personal review of the evidence, as it would be foolish to base my beliefs on someone elses conclusions considering that it is my soul and my soul alone that will be judged according to the beliefs I hold.

Are all the sources you are using from the King James Defended book only? The title in and of itself shows the possible bias, doubtful a book with such title would show anything else but positives. I will need to check it out.

All I did was give a different view to the comments you made (which listed no source), and that book was sufficient for that purpose, so I used it. By all means check it out. Check out the sources in it. Check out what people say in refutation of it, and its sources. Most importantly, use your ability to reason, to think, to follow thoughts through to their end...and then make your decision on the validity of the statements contained therein.

Yes if verbal definitely....this can be proven in experiment also....the human brain has a way of inserting things itself. You may get 5 people that remember accurately, 2 people that remember only parts accurately (yet forget others), 2 people that remember parts accurately but other parts in minor error, and a final person (out of 10) that has no accurate recollection.

The dangerous people are the 2 guys that can remember the whole dictation yet only make minor errors in parts. Minor errors can 'mutate' or 'evolve' into majorly glaring errors when compared to the original works, but in the 'telephone' game usually work fine as a valid statement on their own.

You have to keep in mind how many times that verbal copy was passed on....people did not live long and it was 100's of years of verbal only passing.

I'm really not sure where to start with this quote...

In your analogy you point out that 5 people pass on accurate copies, and two pass on copies with minor errors which become major errors. As soon as those minor errors become major errors, they will be easily spotted when compared to an accurate copy, and either the manuscript will be corrected or it will be put aside in favor of the accurate copy.

Keep in mind it was and still is the responsibility of God to ensure that an accurate copy exists, otherwise there would have been no point to have provided man with His Words in the first place.

Most theologists admit there are possible errors, but go with the best guess at the most accurate copy.

How many theologists? Who are these theologists? By whom were these theologists trained? What are their beliefs? Are they even Christians?

You said "You do also realize this 6000 number is mainly to remove dinosaurs and prehistoric (hence pre-history) possibilities of evolution."

I responded "It's the date of millions to billions of years (based on evolutionary theory) that is attempting to remove the 6,000 year date (based on Biblical Creation), not the other way around. The 6,000 year Biblical date has always existed."

You replied "and the bible said the earth was flat too and people believed that for a long time."

Your first statement ( as I read it) implies that Christians came up with the idea that the world is 6,000 years old to counter the evolutionary philosophy that the world is millions to billions of years old, so I pointed out that Christians have always believed the world was 6,000 years old. Long before evolutionary theory suggested the world is millions to billions of years old, Christians believed (as stated in the Bible) that the world is 6,000 years old

Your response (and the bible said the earth was flat) is not only false, it is irrelevant to the Historical reality of the subject we were discussing.

It's a little hard to fit the dinosaurs into that same window of 6,000 years if people are to exist. You can't really wipe the earth clean and have new species pop up the 'next' day.

Whose wiping the earth clean???

The term dinosaur was coined in 1842 by Richard Owen and means "terrible lizard", and terrible lizards are very much alive today, not in the size and variety in which they were in the past (due to loss of habitat), but they certainly still exist (Komodo dragons, alligators).

For the record, dinosaurs are not mythical creatures, the are simply extinct animals (reptiles) and living animals (reptiles), no more dangerous or life threatening than many other wild animal. We co-exist with them today, and we co-existed with them 5,000 years ago.

And I simply don't understand why some people have such a hard time understanding this fact. In the last 100 years we managed to put a large number of wild animals that are a possible threat, or a possible payday on the endangered list, in danger of becoming extinct, never to be seen again. One of the most feared "pre-historic" animals of the Ocean, the Great White shark is currently on the endangered list...and people have trouble fitting the extinction of a bunch of reptiles into the last 6,000 years. I just don't get it. Who knows, maybe I read to many National Geographics, and watched to many nature shows growing up.

where did I say 99%? Actually I am sure quite a few that read the KJV of the bible accept the fact that King James may have had an alternate lifestyle because they also have one. If anything it may solidify their faith. The problem with the KJ rumor is it's impossible to prove now or disprove.

You said 99% at the top of page 6.

I wouldn't doubt it.

Correct, it is impossible for me to prove or disprove to you with 100% certainty whether King James was as it is rumored a homosexual, however, the evidence clearly supports the fact that he wasn't.

That is also true about much of the bible.

And history in general, but lack of evidence isn't proof.

The fact is if these Christians were truly accepting, they would simply answer as "It matters not that King James could have been homosexual or bisexual, the words he stood behind are valid." However you don't see that do ya

The fact of the matter is that the Bible condemns homosexuality, so it certainly does matter if King James, a professing Christian and the one responsible for the Bible I hold in my hands, was of such morally corrupt and sexually deviant behavior.

Dave

 

[Eli]

Again... I'm sorry, but if you believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old, you are quite simply blind, stupid, and as far as I'm concerned.. mute.

To believe the Earth is 6,000 years old requires a gross lack of understanding of even the most basic of things.. like Geology.

You think fossils can form in only 6,000 years? You think the crude oil and natural gas we extract from the ground so you can drive your car forms in 6,000 years? You think it took less than 6,000 years for the Grand Canyon to form? You think the 11,234' mountain 50 miles east of me formed in 6,000 years growing an inch a year? You think Hawaii formed in less than 6,000 years?

My God man, there are trees still alive today that are 4500 years old. There are also fossilized trees that are thousands of years old. How long does it take for mother nature to replace every cell in a piece of wood with minerals and create petrified wood? Let me guess... less than 6,000 years? How can you be so blind? 6,000 years is nothing in Time. Do you think 6,000 years is a long time or something? You seriously believe there were dinosaurs around 6,000 years ago, and that people were around at the same time?? :Q Why aren't there fossilized people, then?

I believe in God, but that is just ignorance and/or stupidity.

 

[petrek]

Again... I'm sorry, but if you believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old, you are quite simply blind, stupid, and as far as I'm concerned.. mute.

No need to apologize. Your entitled to your opinion.

To believe the Earth is 6,000 years old requires a gross lack of understanding of even the most basic of things.. like Geology.

Your statement should read: To believe the Earth has to be more than 6,000 years old requires a gross lack of understanding of even the most basic of things?like Geology.

You think fossils can form in only 6,000 years?

There is evidence that fossils have formed in less than a hundred years.

You think the crude oil and natural gas we extract from the ground so you can drive your car forms in 6,000 years?

You do realize that cows produce methane gas during the course of a day.

You think it took less than 6,000 years for the Grand Canyon to form?

Read up on the Mount St. Helens Eruption.

You think the 11,234' mountain 50 miles east of me formed in 6,000 years growing an inch a year?

Assuming a constant growth rate of an inch per year, the 11,234 foot mountain which is 50 miles east of you would have taken 134,808 years to form.
As you should know, the forces behind mountain building, plate tectonics and volcanism, have a tendency to be sudden and catastrophic in nature.

You think Hawaii formed in less than 6,000 years?

Yes.

there are trees still alive today that are 4500 years old.

Check your facts regarding dendrochronology.

There are also fossilized trees that are thousands of years old.

Still within the time frame.

How long does it take for mother nature to replace every cell in a piece of wood with minerals and create petrified wood? Let me guess... less than 6,000 years? How can you be so blind? 6,000 years is nothing in Time.

According to a piece of petrified wood which was chopped with an axe, not as long as you believe it does.

Do you think 6,000 years is a long time or something?

Simply considering the advances in science that have occurred in the last century, yes, I?d say 6,000 years is a long time.

You seriously believe there were dinosaurs around 6,000 years ago, and that people were around at the same time??

Well, duh

Why aren't there fossilized people, then?

There are.

I believe in God, but that is just ignorance and/or stupidity.

I believe in the God of the Bible, and the Bible gives a timeline of 6,000 years, which is consistent with the known facts.


Dave

 

[Lovepig]

I am not a supporter of a young earth, but I see enough evidence for it to not discount it yet!

The ScienceAgainstEvolution site gives many examples of why evolution is bad science. As a by-product there is also some evidence for a young earth. Browse the monthly newsletters, to see if anything catches your eye...

 

[alkemyst]

Petrik....

I am not going to go line by line on these two past posts you used to resurrect a thread from it's grave. A lot of it you are twisting things quite a bit to discredit something that was explained later (Jew's OT not mentioning the coming of Jesus was explained within that post to mean his coming when he did, I had mentioned they are still expecting his return).

However, the reason technology never advanced prior to modern civilization of the 20th century and around it, is because Kings/Rulers did not want educated people...they systematically wiped out all knowledge as well as all educated people (sort of still goes on today also....sniper rifle and a single bullet or random act of violence). Also prior to modern civilization (where you can simply buy your eggs in any store), many families had to work hard to survive...you didn't need to read and write.

Dark Ages anyone? how many written books did we lose during that time that we will never see again?

The main thing I like to bring up in the Bible as far as it giving the life you should or should not live, how come Kings could have concubines and multiple wives, but the simple man not?

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Lovepig
I am not a supporter of a young earth, but I see enough evidence for it to not discount it yet!

The ScienceAgainstEvolution site gives many examples of why evolution is bad science. As a by-product there is also some evidence for a young earth. Browse the monthly newsletters, to see if anything catches your eye...

Let them explain cloning, then perhaps I can agree with it.