Does Christianity support the theory of evolution?

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: ausm

Originally posted by: glen
Most Christians believe in Evolution, only a few extremely fundamentalist branches reject it.

Pass that Joint over here will ya...

Yeah, I don't agree with that either. I'm one of the few Christians I know who believe in evolution, and I only believe in evolution within each species.

 

[alkemyst]

IN REGARDS: The Last Supper

This is one of the most misquoted / understood things, same with the following Easter (which was coincidentally already a pagan holiday)

"Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto Him, "Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover." Matthew 26:17

The first day of the feast of unleavened bread was Nisan 15th. (April 4, AD 33 for the layman)

"And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the Lord: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread." Leviticus 23:6

Confirmation of that day...

Note also that Jesus was arrested on the 16th (day after the supper). (April 5, AD 33)

"Jesus said unto him, "Verily I say unto thee, that this night before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice." Matthew 26:34

It is now nighttime, or the morning AFTER the feast. A day in scripture is from dusk to dusk, but the Last Supper took place the evening of the previous day.

"Now when the even was come, He sat down with the twelve." Matthew 26:20

Thus we know from Jesus's words to Peter that it was the day after the feast of unleavened bread when the following took place:

"And Jesus said unto him, "Friend, wherefore art thou come?" Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took Him." Matthew 26:50

Nisan 15 = Last Supper (April 4, AD 33)
Nisan 16 = Arrest (before dawn) (April 5, AD 33)

Also, the Jews were not going to arrest Jesus on the day of the feast of unleavened bread (they later rushed his execution)

"And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill Him, but they said, "Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people." Matthew 26:4-5

We know that Jesus spent 3 days and 3 nights in the earth, rose on a Sunday, thus He must have died on a Wednesday. Biblical days are dusk to dusk, thus, darkness preceded light in a 24-hour day, thus:

Wednesday darkness
Wednesday light - Crucifixion and burial (Nisan 20, April 9, AD 33)

Thursday darkness - 1st night
Thursday light - 1st day (Nisan 21, April 10, AD 33)

Friday darkness - 2nd night
Friday light - 2nd day (Nisan 22, April 11, AD 33)

Saturday darkness - 3rd night
Saturday light - 3rd day (Nisan 23, April 12, AD 33)

Sunday darkness - Jesus rose
(Nisan 24, April 13, AD 33)

This requires that Thursday be a sabbath day, and since Jesus was not killed on Nisan 14 or 15, the only other day it could be is Nisan 21.

"But ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord seven days: in the seventh day is an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein." Leviticus 23:8

This refers to the seventh day of the seven days of unleavened bread, which begins on the 15th (Lev 23:6).

Jesus had to have been crucified on Nisan 20th, and rose on the 24th, and the last day of Passover had to have been the 21st.

Then you have Easter:
Easter, contrary to modern popular belief, is a lunar holiday named after the lunar holiday of Ostara (and other spelling permutations)(NOT the vernal equinox, sorry people, the eq is a marker for Ostara).
Ostara occurs on the first full moon after the vernal equinox. Easter was a take on the holiday, but to distance it from the pagan reckoning they place it on the first Sunday following the first Silver Canteloupe
after Spring A Leak, and if Sunday fell on the full moon, it was held the following Sunday so the holiday would not be associated with the pagan celebration. The eggs, the bunnies, even the three-day netherworld holiday (a lunar concept, as solar holidays are only one day) is all pagan in origin. In fact, just about all Christian holidays were first pagan. Don't worry, there are only so many astrologically
significant days of the year, lots of cultures celebrate holidays at the same time.


This is a lot of cut and paste but I have it in my books here too....if something is wrong above (which I doubt anything is very wrong) it's minor.

 

[petrek]

Because you don't just suggest that they read the KJV, you suggest they read it exclusively and give the translation devine authority, which I feel is a false teaching. You don't like the other translations because you feel that they teach false doctrine and it is that exact same feeling that I get about people teaching that KJV is somehow, in some way holier than other English translations. You don't want false things taught and neither do I... we just disagree on what's false.

Considering that the new translations are based on knowingly corrupted manuscripts using the thinking and theories of Westcott and Hort, who make it very clear their intent was to deceive, it's only reasonable to believe that the new versions which are based on the thinking and theories of Westcott and Hort and which use corrupt manuscripts are corrupt. If something is corrupt in one language, translating it to another language won't uncorrupt it.

Also (and I may have this wrong, you tell me) don't you believe that even some of the stuff in the best Greek and Hebrew writings is wrong and that if the KJV translates it differently than the original text that is was God correcting some copying error that was made previously in the original language? I may not have worded that correctly, but I seem to recall that you trust the KJV even above the original language texts that it was translated from. My memory may not be 100% accurate in this, but don't you believe something a kin to what I described?

Nope, you have it backwards. I definately do not believe that, but I did read or hear somewhere that Westcott and Hort did that on more than one occasioin when the words in the original where not able to convey the belief they wanted to get across.


Dave

PS Perhaps the problem lies partially in the fact that I believe we have the infallible Word of God in the Original Hebrew and Greek, and thus believe we have the infallible Word of God in English as well.

 

[alkemyst]

The KJV is not just an english translation, the text has additions towards your Lord/King also. King James admitted to such tampering and also admitted to not being a great writer / knowing much about it.

 

Where was jesus when my mom died?

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: Netopia

We have no idea what day the last supper took place.

Dude, do you read the Bible?

Jesus was taken off the cross and buried before sundown because the next day was Sabbath

ref Mark 15:42 It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body.

If it was the day before the Sabbath, then it was what we would call* "Late Friday Afternoon". That meant that He was apprehended in the Garden very early that morning, which would have been the early hours of Friday morning (who knows... 1am, 2am, 3am?). That means that the "supper" they would have had the previous evening would have been on what we call Thursday Evening.

Also, by the chronology of the Jews, any portion of a day is considered a day for recording purposes, so Jesus being buried on Friday before sunset would have counted as Him being in the grave on Friday, then He stayed there Saturday and then after sunrise on Sunday (which would be the third day he had spent any time in the grave) He arose. This fulfilled His prophesy about Himself saying that just as Jonah spent three days in the belly of a fish, so would the Son of Man spend three days in the heart of the Earth.

How is it that you think we have no idea what day the Last Supper was on?

Joe


*Jewish calendar has the deliniater of days as sun rise and sundown. Therefore, what we would refer to as Friday evening, ancient Jews would refer to as Saturday eveing with the order of time changed from our [Morning -> Noon -> Night] for a day to their [Night -> Morning -> Noon] being how a day is devided.

Again, it's the bible account vs. what actually may have happened. A recent show on the Discovery channel said historians have uncovered evidence that "the last supper" may not have been a formal event, and may have happened up to two weeks before Jesus was seized. It's hard to tell what to believe.

It also had some mind blowing evidence that Jesus was more of a militant than a prophet, and he may have actually survived the crucifixion and fled to present day France, married, and had children there. There's a church built where this may have happened.

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: Netopia

You guys to realize the the biblical references to "years" are what we now call "months", right? One of their years was a complete cycle of the moon.

Sorry... but I've got to reply with another WHAT?!?!?!!?

Where do you get this stuff? Are you just repeating something someone else told you or do you have something to corroborate this silliness?

The Jewish calendar had ten months of roughly 36 days.

Joe

This was before the Jewish calander. Historians beleive they may have used a Mesopotamian calendar that measured time in cycles of the moon. Again, more Discovery channel tidbits. It makes sense though...if you divide 800 years by 12, you get about 66, which is a pretty old age for someone back then, considering the average human lifespan 4000 years ago was around 35. I don't have links to anything...I'm just spitting out things I've seen on documentaries in the last year that seem to be sensical answers for old arguments. Don't care if you agree with it or not, just presenting what's out there.

 

[Netopia]

Where was jesus when my mom died?

Sammy, I'm sorry to hear of your loss. My hopefull answer to you question would be:

Standing on the other side, waiting for her with open arms and a promise of no more pain or misery.

Joe

 

[Netopia]

Don't care if you agree with it or not, just presenting what's out there.

Well, I don't agree... but I do have to point out that your responses were Uber-civilized and that can sometimes be a rare thing on these threads. An admirable trait. No sarcasm... just giving credit where it's due.

Joe

 

[petrek]

The KJV is not just an english translation, the text has additions towards your Lord/King also. King James admitted to such tampering and also admitted to not being a great writer / knowing much about it.

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

Dave

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Netopia

You guys to realize the the biblical references to "years" are what we now call "months", right? One of their years was a complete cycle of the moon.

Sorry... but I've got to reply with another WHAT?!?!?!!?

Where do you get this stuff? Are you just repeating something someone else told you or do you have something to corroborate this silliness?

The Jewish calendar had ten months of roughly 36 days.

Joe

So does that mean you're for the argument that people lived to be hundreds of years old?

Time is arbitrary. Do you really think they used 365 day cycles back then? No, of course not.

Instead of rehashing this out all over again, why don't you respond logically to my previous posts that were directed at MJ99?

 

[MJ99]

Jesus was taken off the cross and buried before sundown because the next day was Sabbath

Correct but it was not Friday. The next day was the passover, the holy days are also considered a Sabbath.

Wednesday: Murdered and buried before Sundown
Thursday: (Day 1) Passover, aka a Sabbath
Friday: (Day2)
Saturday: Weekly Sabbath (Day 3) Raised shortly before sundown.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: petrek

The KJV is not just an english translation, the text has additions towards your Lord/King also. King James admitted to such tampering and also admitted to not being a great writer / knowing much about it.

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

Dave

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'.

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.

Back to the KJV:
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 forebearers 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.
---

Now this is just based on the translation....no mention of things that may have been 'injected' during the translation.

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 cannot find the stuff online I need...but I had a paper (in one of my stacks of papers here) where I did research and found a quote from the 1600's or so (about the time the KJV was created).

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.

Å

 

[Netopia]

So does that mean you're for the argument that people lived to be hundreds of years old?

Time is arbitrary. Do you really think they used 365 day cycles back then? No, of course not.

Yes, I believe that people lived for several centuries at that time.

No, I don't think they used 365 days... they used 360 and had no leap year or 128 year corrections (Jewish Calendar)

Joe

 

[Netopia]

Correct but it was not Friday. The next day was the passover, the holy days are also considered a Sabbath.

Wednesday: Murdered and buried before Sundown
Thursday: (Day 1) Passover, aka a Sabbath
Friday: (Day2)
Saturday: Weekly Sabbath (Day 3) Raised shortly before sundown.

Many believe that and because there isn't ABSOLUTE conclusive evidense to prove which is true, I can say that I don't personally agree with that stance but that I also can't say it's incorrect.

Joe

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Netopia

Correct but it was not Friday. The next day was the passover, the holy days are also considered a Sabbath.

Wednesday: Murdered and buried before Sundown
Thursday: (Day 1) Passover, aka a Sabbath
Friday: (Day2)
Saturday: Weekly Sabbath (Day 3) Raised shortly before sundown.

Many believe that and because there isn't ABSOLUTE conclusive evidense to prove which is true, I can say that I don't personally agree with that stance but that I also can't say it's incorrect.

Joe

Read up above and I made a timeline that it sort of had to be, based on quotes from the bible also. You do get into a gray area though about the timeline from his arrest to execution.

 

[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. For instance, it says in 1 Kings 7:

23 He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.

Now, by modern scientific/mathematical analysis, someone might argue that the Bible is teaching that pi = 3 and not 22/7. But I REALLY don't think that the intent of the author was to give measurements that were absolute in precision as much as to relate to the reader a picture of what was going on. It's our modern Western thought that makes us want everything to be perfect.

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.

Don't get me wrong, I still LOVE to discuss the lesser things... I just don't get that emotionally involved anymore.

Joe

 

[petrek]

I can see we're going to go in circles on this one. Let's just say that if God wanted to lie to humans, even if for their own good, he could do so. He is the final judge on what is sin. He killed thousands of people in a flood, but it was not a sin. He can do as he pleases, regardless of if you like it or think he is imperfect for it.

God is perfect. God says that lying is a sin. Therefore, if God lied he would be a sinner and not God. God did not sin when those people died in the flood. The penalty for sin is death, and those people that died in the flood were sinners.

You seem to have trouble separating the human construction of 1 day = 24 hours from the natural construction of one day = evening and morning. Yes, the people at antarctica live their days, but in artifically constructed 24 hour periods. That's something that HUMANS created based on what we observe TODAY.

Antartica PROVES that one day (morning and evening as defined in Genesis 1) is NOT necessarily 24 hours. It could be 4320 hours, it could be 8640 hours, it could be 8640E1000 hours. You simply do not know, and neither do I. You may think you know, but you have no proof.

In 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 makes clear His knowledge of the meaning of a day, as opposed to a season, or a year.

A personal review of the lineage from Christ until Adam leaves me with approximately 6,000 years. Thus the last two days can't possibly refer to any great amount of time.

I've always been taught and have always used the words day, morning, and evening to refer to specific periods of time, not inordinate amounts of time dependent on current scientific theories.

Finally, I'm not sure what you think we observe today that Adam, Eve, and all the humans before us didn't observe. There was morning, there was evening. They woke up, they went to bed. The sun doesn't rise and fall (except at the poles because of the tilt of the earth in relation to the sun) over a twenty four hour period because we invented clocks, nor do we get up and go to bed over a 24 hour period because clocks were invented, we get up and go to bed over a twenty four hour period because that is how we were Created, and the sun rises and falls (except at the poles because of the tilt of the earth in relation to the sun) over a 24 hour period because that is how God created it. (Perhaps I should point out that the sun doesn't actually rise and set, it is the earth that makes approximately one rotation every 24 hours)

And we are trying to understand what we need to fit into the timeframe of 6000 years that we couldn't have fit into last week. It's all arbitrary. Your arbitrary is no better than mine. You're just saying "I'm right, you're wrong."

What needs to fit into the timeframe of 6,000 years that can't fit into last week, aside from the fact that I wasn't born last week (although some of you probably think I was 🙂), is the Historical Biblical record from the time of Adam to the present. I did a Bible study and traced back the lineages included in the Bible and gave the corresponding years to those peoples lives, and wound up with about 6,000 years. That is why I believe the world is 6,000 years old.

Just like he used the words "Four corners of the Earth" because he meant "The Earth is round."
Give it up. The concept of ZERO was not even realized until less than 2000 years ago.
Humans did NOT always understand the concept of "billions." You are applying 20th century logic to text that was targetted towards 10th century minds.

KJV Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..." Long before he uses the term "four corners of the Earth" to describe the four directions of wind, He states the Earth is round.

The concepts associated with the english words zero and billions were around long before the english words were coined.

In Genesis 22:17 God says to Abraham "That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will mutiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore..." The stars of the heaven and the sand upon the sea shore are both in the billions.

Just because the english word zero hadn't been coined doesn't mean that people living prior to its coining didn't understand the concept of nothing/zero. It's not like people at the market who changed their mind and decided that they wanted zero of an item instead of 1 were left scratching their heads, nor did zero get skipped over and leave the person buying the item owing the vendor 1 of those items he decided not to get. Zero is nothing and the concept of nothing was established well before the word zero was coined.

But once again, humans believed the Earth WAS flat until just a few hundred years ago. We consider this common knowledge today, but at the time the Bible was first canonized, MOST OF HUMANITY believed the Earth WAS flat and could have 4 corners!

Again, you are applying 20th century knowledge to far older text without considering the knowledge of the people at the time.

KJV Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..." was written around 700 BC, about 750 years before "the four corners of the earth" was written to describe the four directions of wind. As well, the Greek philosophers began teaching a round earth about 550 BC. So people that believed the earth was flat did so out of willful ignorance or simply because they didn't care whether it was round or flat.

Dave

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: petrek
God is perfect. God says that lying is a sin. Therefore, if God lied he would be a sinner and not God. God did not sin when those people died in the flood. The penalty for sin is death, and those people that died in the flood were sinners.

God made the rules for US though, not himself. Also people are not given the power of Judgement, only God....so that's that....Also do you really think every other person in the flood was a sinner?

Antartica PROVES that one day (morning and evening as defined in Genesis 1) is NOT necessarily 24 hours. It could be 4320 hours, it could be 8640 hours, it could be 8640E1000 hours. You simply do not know, and neither do I. You may think you know, but you have no proof.

And that quote by whomever shows that some people should have been aborted at birth....I doubt there was any basis for 'Genesis' days than figurative speech...as Genesis while it defines a day as Sunrise to sunset....we know a day is merely the revolution of the planet...I doubt God would have wanted the chaos of humans to measure days based on solar light.

KJV Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..." Long before he uses the term "four corners of the Earth" to describe the four directions of wind, He states the Earth is round.

Many bible's do not use the word CIRCLE in that verse and the KJV was created around 1600, about 100 years after Magellian 'proved' the earth was round, during his voyage.

KJV Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..." was written around 700 BC, about 750 years before "the four corners of the earth" was written to describe the four directions of wind. As well, the Greek philosophers began teaching a round earth about 550 BC. So people that believed the earth was flat did so out of willful ignorance or simply because they didn't care whether it was round or flat.

Dave

Isaiah was written in the 2nd half of the 8th century B.C., however the KJV version came almost 1000 years after. I believe all versions of the bible prior to 1500 A.D. did not use circle and many after probably didn't either. The KJV is not a true word for word exact translation really. It was a translation made to make for a better understanding, more elegant reading.

 

[Jzero]

God is perfect. God says that lying is a sin. Therefore, if God lied he would be a sinner and not God. God did not sin when those people died in the flood. The penalty for sin is death, and those people that died in the flood were sinners.

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

I've always been taught and have always used the words day, morning, and evening to refer to specific periods of time, not inordinate amounts of time dependent on current scientific theories.

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.

That is why I believe the world is 6,000 years old.

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.

The concepts associated with the english words zero and billions were around long before the english words were coined.

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....

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

From an English translation written thousands of years after the fact...

Snip the remainder of your argument.

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.

 

[Netopia]

God says that lying is a sin.

Exodus Chapter 1: (from your preferred vesion)

"15": And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah:

"16": And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.

"17": But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.

"18": And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive?

"19": And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them.

"20": Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty.

"21": And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses.

The midwives lied. That is the bare fact. They had reasons for lying... i.e. it was better to lie than to do something evil go against God. But what is God's responce to what they did? God rewarded them! Now if all lying is sin, why would God reward it?

How about this one from Luke 24:

27: And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
28: And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further.
29: But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.

Jesus KNEW He wasn't going further, but he "made as if" He were. This was deception... the acting out of a lie by our common usage. But by doing so did Jesus sin? NO! The problem is that simply not telling the truth isn't a sin as far as I can tell. It is a sin when someone is not telling the truth with the intent of that lie forwarding evil. In both of the cases which I've layed out, the person who didn't act "truthfully" (as we would define truth) did so to further the Kingdom or to stop an act of evil. I think that because of the way we view the word "lie" in English... and the fact that the KJV and other English translations fail in their ability to translate the nuances of the original meaning... we end up oversimplifying the subject.

I've always been taught and have always used the words day, morning, and evening to refer to specific periods of time, not inordinate amounts of time dependent on current scientific theories.

The fact that any of us (including you) have been taught something does NOT mean that what we were taught was right.

God made the rules for US though, not himself. Also people are not given the power of Judgement, only God....so that's that....Also do you really think every other person in the flood was a sinner?

Yeah... and I think that Noah and his family were too since there were only ever 3 people who didn't start with a sin nature. I just think that God, knowing the heart of man saved the one who was the least sinfilled and his family.

Many bible's do not use the word CIRCLE in that verse and the KJV was created around 1600, about 100 years after Magellian 'proved' the earth was round, during his voyage.

NIV: ISA 40:22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers.
NASB: ISA 40:22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like (40) grasshoppers,
NAB: ISA 40:22 He sits enthroned above the vault of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers;

I don't readily have huge numbers of vesions of the Bible available at hand. From the 4 that I looked up, 3 of the 4 do indeed have "circle". I'll ask some friends who read Greek and Hebrew to look up what the original word was. Actually I'm calling one now... hold on!

He says that the original (well... the texts we have anyway) says:


[...that the word is "chuug" which is a verb and means to "draw a circle". It's used here as a noun and so it is seen as proper to translate it "circle". A related word with the same 3 letter , trilateral root, is compass (the type used to carve circles in those days or to draw circles in modern day Geometry), so again the root verb"chuug" is pointing to the creating of a circle...]


I trust this guy... he's the Pastor of a local church, but he's also teaches at Washington Bible College and Capitol Seminary... ie he's not some unedumaketed guy like me! 😉

He also pointed out something interesting that I didn't notice. The next part of the verse says:

" He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in."

Notice it doesn' say "He stretchED out or He spread them out, but the continual form of the verb, He stretches out and He spreads. (I realize that in Hebrew they don't add an "es" or an "s", I'm only doing that to emphasize the English). The point is, that the original language here is that He is taking something very small (a folded up tent or canopy) and CONTINUALLY spreads it out or streches it farther and farther. Interestingly enough, that fits perfectly with our current idea of an ever expanding universe. AFAIK, the Hebrews were the only ancient people to believe that the universe was created and that before that there was no "place". Also interestingly, Paul talks about the universe decaying and running down... something else that science has now verified.

Take Care all,

Joe

 

[alkemyst]

you sure you just didn't hit google for 'original chugg isaiah' and for the first hit get 🙂

http://www.triumphpro.com/bible____science.pdf

The thing is Is 40:22 is a sort of famous verse. However chuug is debatable to mean circle (correctly) or sphere (incorrectly), the shapes are not equal and a circle would still mean a flat earth. The next debate is people claim that chuug was used for spheres also...I don't know hebrew so I have know idea if there was a word for sphere....most languages that had geometry understanding have distinctions.

If you look at the full verse: "It is he who sit above the circle[vault] of the earth and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers who stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them like a tent to dwell in."

so like a tent, specifically a round tent (dome tent)....

The common debate is to prove only the first part of the verse by the religious and say "we knew the earth was round 2000 years ago before science [magellan]"....

The expanding universe analogy I haven't heard yet, but I could see it also debatable.

 

[Netopia]

...you sure you just didn't hit google for 'original chugg isaiah' and for the first hit get...

I'd have to ask the guy if he'd talk to you... but if you really don't believe me I might be able to put you into direct connection (or maybe at least email... don't know how interested he is with "online debating". The other thing is that to do the Google you specified I would have had to already known this word "chugg" (or "chuug" as I wrote it)... which I admit I didn't even know an hour ago!

The thing is Is 40:22 is a sort of famous verse. However chuug is debatable to mean circle or sphere, the shapes are not equal and a circle would still mean a flat earth.

I agree. But isn't flat earth sort of a dark ages thing? Weren't there ancient Greeks that said the Earth was a sphere? I'm not going to pretend that I've got the goods to prove that right now, but maybe you know and could verify it or not. Again though, I wasn't arguing that the Bible said "sphere", but just that "circle" was a good translation.

The expanding universe analogy I haven't heard yet, but I could see it also debatable.

Which is a good thing... since that gives ever more meat for discussion here! 🙂

Again, I'm not "married" to any of these ideas in particular, but if one steps back and is at least willing to look at them without being emotionally involved they are interesting coincidents at the very least.

Joe

 

[alkemyst]

I was just joking about the google thing.... that's what I did to find it quick. Actually searching original Isaiah would probably turn up alot of interesting things, maybe even the expanding universe connection.

The thing is the whole flat earth, geocentric deal was the 'Christian' belief for ages after it was proved otherwise (hell the pardon for galileo wasn't until the end of the 20th century).

These two things alone is enough for me to shoot down most of what faith-only Christian's spout off. (again I am not saying that to you....like the google thing 🙂).

People tend to forget what was lost over the ages too, esp during the dark ages....tons of information was lost and forgotten.

 

[Netopia]

I was just joking about the google thing.... that's what I did to find it quick.

Cool... just figured that since you don't know me you'd have no reason to trust me. That's one thing I hate about written communication, none of the subtleties of face-to-face spoken word. Too easy to misread what someone intends to say.

The thing is the whole flat earth, geocentric deal was the 'Christian' belief for ages after it was proved otherwise (hell the pardon for galileo wasn't until the end of the 20th century).

I would (in general) argue that the dogmatic belief in "flat earth" was more a teaching of Catholic Church than it was a teaching of the Bible. I think that the only thing we can be sure of is that it is a Biblical teaching that the Earth is round in the sense of circular but not necessarily spherical. Here's another interesting quote:

Job 26:7 He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.


Interesting. Since mose of the ancient religions I know about believe that something or someone (Atlas, Elephant(s) etc...) were upholding the Earth, I wonder if there are any other than that of the Hebrews that taught that the Earth is hanging in the middle of emptiness. Again though... it's things like this that, apart from faith, make me feel that there is validity to the Judea/Christian Scriptures.

Joe