Do you believe in Evolution?

I was watching a show on it tonight, and I wondered what most people thought about it.
I tend to believe that god made us, just maybe not "instantly" like we think, there's just too much evidence that we have been here for a lot longer than the 7000 years that most christians (i'm christian->being biased->ignorant) religions believe we have been here.

Part of me is suspicious and paranoid and wonders if god might do all this to make it possible for us to believe in evolution,so that, IF we believe in him it requires FAITH (because we all know how god loves us to have faith in him, DESPITE CONTRARY EVIDENCE). lol.

I Do Believe That God loves Faith, so Evolution is part of that.

I also believe That Evolution Does not exclude the Belief in god.


tell me what you think.

 

Thats the most logical statement I've heard in the argument yet. Personally, I don't believe in God (as such), which apparently makes me an evolutionist. Not nececarily so. I simply choose to believe that we don't KNOW how it happened, but it did, whatever it was.

All the evidence against evolution (or rather, for creation) says (in essence) that you can't "create" life out of thin air without intervention, and that its too improbable that a collection of atoms just so happened to be in the right place for life to occur. Improbable, maybe, but not impossible. In maths we see this sort of thing happening quite often. Take, for example, the game "life", played using counters. Apply just a couple of simple rules and you can see simple systems emerging, which act somewhat like the real thing. Systems can occour in nature!


But anyway, lets keep this dicussion civilised because I can just SEE this turning into a flame war if you're not very careful with words. On the other hand we could have a very interesting discussion about the topic, its all in the hands of the members who choose to reply...

 

I was raised a Catholic...but grew away from the church for reasons too numerous to mention here. I`ve become a bit of an agnostic...I`d like to believe there is a higher power of some sort...but I can`t right now. As far as the evolution thing...I think it can be argued a lot of different ways...but there does seem...to me...a layman obviously...to be a chain of evidence indicating that evolution is the way we came to be here on this planet. As I said...I`m a layman...no archeologist or paleoontologist...and all I know is what I`ve read or seen, but I do believe that maybe we didn`t climb down from the trees, but did in fact evolve...from primitives such as neanderthals and cro-magnons to become what we are today.

 

thanks for your insightful replys.

 

You can't really believe in evolution as it's a theory; which of course is a scientifically accepted general principle or body of principles offered to explain natural phenomena that is consistent with evidence, data, and experimental results. Theories can be disproved, but it is scientifically impossible to prove a theory correct.


As opposed to creationism which is based on Faith.

There we have it, two contradictory explanations for the same set of circumstances.

I personally have little faith in belief so would tend to keep examining evidence, (in the sense that Hempel described evidence), postulated by a theory.

It's a matter of preference I suppose, but in matters of fact, (as opposed to truth), I think the application of Reason coupled with a hefty dose of Occam's Razor usually yields more useful results.

Just sayin'

 

I'm with Goldy. We simply don't know what happened. The Bible, and other works of religion for that matter, were written by men.

Humans, as we all know, like to exxagerate (sp), embellish, and just plain make up crap. There is also no questioning that written language was invented MANY years after life formed on this planet. Heck, human beings aren't reliable to remember appointments, much less what happened aeons ago.

In addtion, throughout (written)history, man has resorted to the supernatural, or divine to explain things they don't understand. As scientific thought matures, this way of thought is disapating (sp), even though its still prevalent today.


Just my 2 cents.

 

I, personally, believe that the aspects evoutionary theory are irrefutable. And, while I respect anyone's faith, I think that it is willful ignorance to completely discount the notion of evolution because some of the data runs counter to one's faith. I believe in God, I was brought up Catholic, but as a scientist, I can't ignore what is right in front of me. I don't see how it could possibly be true that the earth is ~7000 years old or that evolution hasn't had a hand in shaping the creatures that inhabit this planet.

Whenever this topic comes up in conversation, it is always asked how I reconcile my faith with science. Well, I guess I can't entirely. But I do know that my belief in God does not preclude my embracing science (or vice versa).

 

You know Publius, I heard Darwin confessed on his deathbed

Edit: I've heard arguments that its both true and untrue. Just wanted to spice up the conversation a bit

 

For me

Evolution: 1
God: 0

 

Interesting debate and I just wanted to add the following to what I have already read.....

1. Time back in the days of Abraham and prior to his existence was maybe not as we experience time today e.g 24/7 etc. After all some of these guys like Noah lived for over 600 years....a concept I sure struggle with getting my head around, so it is conceivable that the world was created in 6 days...just not six days as we know it today.

2. The Bible was written by men, correct. But these men were filled with the Spirit of God and the words laid down in scripture were given to them. It is interesting to see that Old Testament prophets wrote down the events that occurred later in the New Testament.

3. As g1 said, evolution is a theory. It isn't proven beyond all doubt. So.....we have a choice.....faith in an unproven theory, or faith in a God who loves us so much He gave us the world and then a 'get out free' clause too *grins*

Joshua 24:15 But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD

 

Nowhere in the Bible does it say how old the Earth is. That determination was made by men, and is immaterial to the message of the Bible.
Does Genesis tell us how old the world is? According to some people, the Bible says the earth is about 6,000 years old. Yet science clearly contradicts this.
http://www.ptm.org/BibleAnswer4.htm

 

Personally, I don't see how anybody can ignore all evidence and say that the world is only 6000 years old. It's been scientifically proven that ancient egyptians were around ~10000 years ago (ain't carbon dating great?). Then you've got neanderthal man, the dinosaurs etc..

As to evolution vs. faith, gotta go with darwin on this one. Gave up being a christian long time ago; more of a science man myself and imho, both can't live side by side.

 

actually science and faith can. most pure scientists i know (physicists, biochemists etc) are people of deep faith. its the philosophers (linguistics, sociologists, economists etc) that are often atheist or agnostic. as far as evolution vs 'intelligent design' goes, evolution seems like a fairly intelligent design to me.

when i was younger i learned i had extremely rare blood. being the good little girl i am, i donated blood twice a year every year. then i studied anatomy and physiology and discovered the amazing fact that the most common blood type can be donated to any of the blood groups and the rarest is able to receive blood from any of the four groups. my donated blood was by and large useless, but how neat is that. how can anybody question intelligent design. i see miracles in all things. aloha

 

I offer this for your delectation.

http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/science/prat-boh.htm

http://www.bizcharts.com/stoa_del_sol/plenum/plenum_3.html

 

Guess I'm a philosopher then, eh? BTW, I am an atheist.

'Intelligent design', do you mean that it was created by some higher power? i.e. designed by intelligence??

 

I truly apologise for quoting myself, however emphasis can be vital, I meant to BOLD BELIEVE in my observation here (sic) "You can't really believe in evolution as it's a theory"

It may be unfashionable to refer to Immanuel Kant these days but Category mistakes are a little egregious;

Theory and Faith = 2 different animals, only Dr Doolittle could speak to both, there's a thought eh, if you could speak to animals you wouldn't do much, bit of a contrast from Dr 'I'll have to carve me a bit of that'

 

yes. it's the new politically correct way of referring to gods creation. i swear i kid you not. lol

 

Tsk tsk, how ludicrous................


Males angst, Females drive.

Not yet another explanaition, ooooeeeerrrr

 

The intelligent design term is seen by most as a loop-hole of sorts to allow creationism to be taught in schools. By disassociating creationism with Christianity, intelligent design illudes that anyone's personal god could have created the world. This would make intelligent design public school friendly because it wouldn't favor a specific religion. That's just clearification.

As far as I know, the jury deciding the accuracy of carbon dating is still out. For the carbon dating process to be accurate, a few MAJOR assumptions must be made. First, that the ratio of carbon 12 to carbon 14 has remained constant since the world was created. Second, that the decay of carbon 14 remains constant in all conditions. Both of these 'assumptions' have been proven to vary which lends significant doubt to the validity of carbon dating. Not to mention that the half life of carbon 14 is almost 6 thousand years-- which means that our measurements would have to be extremely precise to come out with anything resembling an accurate result.

I'm not saying that the world isn't older than the 6 to 7 thousand years which Bilbical evidence illudes to. In Genesis the first seven days do not necessarily reflect 24 hour periods. It says "there was evening and there was morning-- the Xth day." It is possible that the earth rotated much slower during those first seven days. This would cause one day of creation to equate thousands of years in relation to our 24 hour period. I undoubtedly believe that God could and very well may have done these thing in the blink of an eye. It's well within the realm of His power, but the Bible doesn't specify.

Where does all this leave us on the evolution front? No where. Okay, whether God created the earth or not, evolution could exist. God could have created creatures and left survival of the fittest as a control for keeping his creatures from becoming extinct due to a weak gene pool. OR if you prefer, it could all be a huge mathematically improbable, yet possible coincidence...

By the way, I believe God created the earth. No doubts there.

WHAT SAY YOU?

 

It CAN'T and NEVER has been proven.

 

What he said. It hasn't been proven, thats why its still called a "theory."

 

No one came into this world knowing and believing there is a God...it is something learned through faith....so if you intially didn't believe and now do, you have seen both viewpoints. What's so one-sided about that?

 

Someone described the Bible as "The greatest novel ever written".

I can't really remember where I read that, in college I think......this is a controversial topic for sure.

Steve

 

Yes it is

I've always thought the same as you do, here. We must think alike

Ah, yes. THere have been serial killers who have said the same thing...

Just something to chew on.

*Turns the temperature up to a slow boil*

 

..and the Bible is full of stories....in his time on earth in the physical Jesus was a storyteller......he was also a teacher and taught using parables, so I guess technically you can class the Bible as a novel, amongst other things

 

I just wanted to add this before someone stabs me in the face with a pitchfork...I'm playing Devil's advocate here.


I won't go so far to say the bible is false. No way. I feel that would be blasphemous.

However, i do feel that Christianity and all its offshoots, Catholicism, etc, etc, are not the only ways to salvation. I also feel that the Bible very easily could have historical inaccuracies. Inspired or not, Humans are not perfect, and when you also factor in the stuff lost in translation to various languages...you have something that is quite different than what it started out as.

 

This is to all who have done little to no personal research on the subject of evolution, creation, science, and religion. I think it would do us some good to remember that "Those scientists don't know as much as you think they know". Stop blindly believing everything that they say. Give yourself some credit, and do a little logical thinking, research it yourself, and I think you'll be surprised at how many holes there still are that have to be filled in, how many links are missing, and how few proofs there are. of Evolution OR Creation! Neither is proved, neither is infallible, neither is without problems.

Now, a quick little read I found by Googling.

Missing Links

Gregory Koukl​

The search for missing links assumesthe truth of evolution. One big assumption is that similarities in the bodies imply a biogenetic relationship and ancestry. http://www.str.org/images/logos/maroon.gif

​

When I pick up a newspaper and see that scholars have proof of things that seem to conflict with my faith, it sends a little shiver of concern up my spine. I am like everybody else in that regard There is an article I really enjoyed reading in the L.A. Times from August 17. The headline reads, " Bones of New Human Ancestor Found in Africa ." A lot of you probably shuddered just like me when you read that. How can I reply to this? How do I respond to this? How do I explain this? It seems that once again the Christian view of the world is being undermined by new scientific evidence.

I thoroughly enjoyed the article, in part because I am not in the least hostile to this kind of research. I like fossils. I enjoy that kind of thing. In fact, I've got a bunch of them around my house. I have a case with my Civil War bullets in it, pieces of mosaic that I got from the shores of the Mediterranean at Cesarea Philippi earlier this year when I was in the Holy Land. I've got the first edition of the memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant, signed by Grant himself just a couple of months before he died. I've got all kinds of fun things in there, but I've also got trilobites, a mammoth tooth, a chunk of fossilized dromedary tooth, fish and ferns, and all of that stuff.

I'm not the least intimidated by the idea that there were things that used to exist that don't exist now, which left their imprint in stone because the fossilization process took place, and now we have these things. Some of them are bones of creatures that are rather large and bizarre, and in earlier times were a frustration for Christians because they didn't want to admit that such a thing existed. They thought that most of them were frauds. Many Christians who want to cling to a creationist view of the world still want to dismiss these things as frauds, especially when it comes to the question of missing links in the evolutionary trail between a non-human ancestor and human beings as they are today.

For the most part there is a lot of confusion and speculation regarding these ancient ancestors or alleged missing links that need to be clarified so that you are not taken by surprise by these kinds of articles. The real question is not, what are the fossils? what have we found?, what do they look like? where are the bones in the fossil record? how old are they? The real question is, what do they mean with regards to man's supposed evolutionary development?

Apparently, they have found a new fossil, one that is an alleged ancestor to human beings. The article states that researchers in Kenya and the United States unveiled the jaws, teeth and bones of several individuals belonging to the new pre-human species. Apparently, it was a species that combined ape-like facial features, such as primitive jaws and ears (although I don't know how they can get the ears out of it because ears are soft features that fossil skulls don't have). But in any event, they had large canine teeth (those are the ones just to the side of your incisors) that have characteristics of apes. But they have other characteristics that are more like human beings, like an upright posture.

The new discovery allegedly pushes back the earliest date when human ancestors are known to have walked upright on two legs by a half a million years. This new fossil is called Australopithecus anamensis . There is an older one called ramidus that is supposedly 4.4 million years old. But Australopithecus anamensis falls between ramidus , which is the oldest, and Australopithecines afarensis , which you know as Lucy. Lucy is the skeleton which was discovered a couple of years back and hailed as a significant find in human paleontology.

What are we to make of this and what evidence does this give us for human evolution? I'll give you a quick sketch that will help you to understand what is the essential fossil evidence for evolution. Where do the missing links fall, and what is the specific question that we have to address in assessing this information?

It is easy to get very confused about all of this because we hear these names like Nebraska man, Piltdown man, Swanscombe Cro-Magnon , neanderthal, Pithecanthropus, Homo erectus , Lucy, and Australopithecines . What a jumble of words and names. How do we make sense of this?

First I need to clear up a common misconception among creationists. This misconception causes them to say things that are foolish, frankly. The misconception is this: Man evolved from apes. Evolution does not teach that man evolved from apes, it teaches that man and apes have a common ancestor. Apes are pongids; men are hominids, in other words, two-legged primates that walk upright. The search for the missing link is the search for this man-like or hominoid ancestor that is a precursor to both modern apes and modern human beings. In other words, where is the transitional form, the fork so to speak, where apes and man went off in different directions and that links man to an earlier precursor. This is the missing link that is spoken of.

There have been many missing links that have been suggested, and there is a tree of ancestry that has been drawn for human evolution. Not only has it been drawn, it has been redrawn a number of times, which is a concern and I will talk about that in a moment.

Keep in mind that what is at stake here is not the idea that humans evolved from apes, but that humans and apes evolved from a hominoid ancestor, a man-like/ape-like ancestor. Our quest, then, is for the missing link.

There is a problem looking for this missing link because you must already be committed to the idea that a missing link exists. This is an important observation because all analysis of early hominids are based on certain assumptions. The search assumes the truth of evolution, and it assumes, because of evolution, that if there are morphological similarities (similarities in the bodies) that these similarities imply a biogenetic relationship and ancestry.

That is why the article says that there are some similarities here in facial features, jaws, ears, canine teeth with apes; but there are characteristics that look like men--they walked upright, for example. Therefore this is seen to be a link in the evolutionary chain between the two particular kinds of creatures that this fossil seems to be similar to. There is the conclusion that this must be a link between the two because of the presumption of evolution when the similarities to apes and humans to a certain degree are observed.

Virtually all of these kinds of assessments start with the belief that evolution is true. I had an interesting conversation last weekend with Steve from Hollywood who is a paleontologist and an evolutionist. He made the valuable and fair point that you have to start somewhere. You've got to suggest a paradigm or picture of how it might have happened, and then you've got to see whether the parts fit into that picture.

My problem with this point is that the picture is not just suggested--the picture in this case being evolution--it is asserted as being the only possibility. Then the evidence is made to fit, much of the time, into the picture in order to affirm evolution. I think fossil men is an example of those cases.

Fossil men can be broken down into three different categories: mistakes, frauds, or possibly bona fide missing links.

Some of you might remember Nebraska man discovered in 1922 by Harold Cook. It was considered to be an authentic link. It inspired the illustration of a hairy, stooped caveman in the London News . It was estimated to be a million years old. Now, this whole reconstruction was based on one tooth that turned out to be the tooth of an extinct pig. Nebraska man was a mistake. Throw him out.

Then was Piltdown Man in 1912. He had an ape-like jaw and a human-like skull. He was estimated at half a million years old. The consensus of the world's greatest authorities at the time was that Piltdown Man was indeed an authentic link in the evolution of man.

It wasn't until almost 40 years later in 1950 that fluoride tests revealed the skull was only a few thousand years old, not 500,000. The jaw itself was only 40 years old. It turns out that Piltdown Man was not a mistake, he was a fraud. The skull was a human skull, a combination of a human and ape jaw, eight teeth were filled, and the bone was treated with iron salts to give the appearance of age. What's incredible about that is that not only was this exposed as a fraud at the time and all of the scientific community acknowledged it as such, they were somewhat embarrassed, but today incredibly it is included in the California Science Framework, which cites Piltdown man as evidence for human evolution. Talk about being behind the times! They're about 50 years behind the scientific community on this one.

In any event, there are two examples of either mistakes or frauds that are not in the running as missing links. So you can eliminate those.

I need to be careful to say that just because there were mistakes and frauds, that doesn't discredit what might be true links. That doesn't mean that everything is a mistake.

You also have Cro-Magnon Man, Neanderthal Man and Swanscombe Man. These are now considered to be Homo sapiens--modern men. Their brain capacity was actually larger than modern man. Their skeletal features are virtually indistinguishable from modern man. If you took any of these race of men, gave them a shave, dressed them up in a suit of clothes and walked them down Rodeo Drive, no one would take notice. In other words, they are modern men so you can't really consider Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal, and Swanscombe as missing links because they are just like us, just different races that apparently died out some 100,000 years ago.

When you eliminate the frauds and mistakes on the one hand, and those things that are clearly modern men on the other hand, you are still left with a handful of genuine, bona fide candidates for links that take us back in our evolutionary history. This is where all the big names and fancy terminology come in, and this is where most of the confusion is.

One of the earliest of those transitional types was known as Pithecanthropus , or Homo erectus, apparently about 1.5 million years old. Homo erectus walked erect, that's why they called it erect man, yet his brain size was between a man and an ape. He used crude tools. Several of Homo erectus were discovered at a number of different places and were given local names like Java Man, Heidelberg Man or Peking Man.

Following that, in 1932, there was another fossil found in India that was different. This was named ramapithecus , 9 to 14 million years old. It consisted of several teeth and jaw fragments, and because the incisors and canine teeth of this creature, although ape-like, are smaller than those of modern apes. Some evolutionists consider this to be a form of hominid or along man's evolutionary line, although there were problems with this. Some consider them just simply apes and ancient apes, but it still is a contender for man's ancestry.

Australopithecines africanus was another that walked upright, also known as Eoanthropus or Homo habilus . The majority of these were found in East Africa by Richard Leakey. You might recall that name because of the Leakey family who has been significant in human paleontology over the last 60 years or so. Leaky believed that Africanus walked upright. So this was more evidence of an ancient human ancestor.

Finally, in 1974, Donald Johanson discovered a 40% skeleton, which is rather remarkable because most of these skeletons were not skeletons at all but just little bits and pieces of bones. He named this discovery Australopithaecus afarensis , or more popularly known as Lucy. She was unique because of her great age and also because of her completeness. Lucy was the earliest known hominid, and possibly the candidate for the first ancestral human.

Then there is this new finding, Australopithaecus anamensis . And the question is, where does anamensis go? It seems that anamensis is even older than Lucy.

What does all this mean? How do we stack these up in terms of human evolution? Does all of this bona fide, ancient fossil evidence of hominid creatures really support the fact that human beings evolved?

Well, answering the question is not so easy because there are a couple of problems. One of them is the problem of fossil evidence, which is acknowledged here in the article. "Fossils of such ancient ancestors are so rare, and the hints they offer of humanities gone so tantalizing, that many scientists spend their careers jousting over the proper interpretation of ancient teeth, bone chips and dust."

I think it was Hugh Ross who said that the hominid bones in all the world wouldn't fill one large coffin, and the very best skeletons are only 40% complete. So we're really working with a paucity of evidence, which makes the job much more difficult. That's the first problem.

The second problem is the problem of dating, which is critical because dates that are given are valuable because they offer what might be independent evidence that a new fossil form is temporally intermediate to two other forms. If we have a form that is more advanced than an older form and less advanced than a younger one, then it seems to fit time-wise in the evolutionary timeline.

Now, if we have a separate date that dates it as younger than the more primitive form and older than the more advanced form , that's all the better. But there is a problem there too. Even among evolutionists there is a debate about the dating of these fossils. The article says, "But several researchers suggested this week that those two fossils actually may belong to a later species such as afarensis (Lucy). It is a challenge to date such ancient fossils precisely even under the best circumstances."

Here's the point: There are lots of possible missing links. Some of them can be disregarded because they are phonies or mistakes. Others you can disregard because they aren't links to modern men, they are modern men. But there still is a group of fossil men left that possibly qualify as transitions. The problem is that nobody knows how these things fit together. All of the possible scenarios about how they fit together are based on a commitment to evolution, to begin with, which makes the findings suspect.

Secondly, these possible scenarios are constantly being shifted and changed, a it turns out that many that were considered missing links in the past actually lived at the same time with each other, therefore they weren't ancestral to each other. That's the problem with the interpretation of the this evidence.

I see no good reason why all of these primates could not be considered to be contemporaneous-- some apes, some forms of true men, some which died out with time as some forms/races of men have, and some of which have endured, as many races of men have. In other words, there is another explanation for the evidence that fits perfectly what a person would expect if God created. Yet that alternative is never considered. Why not? Because evolution happened. It must have happened.

The history of hominid paleontology is a history of shifting charts, shifting theories, and many uncertainties. Simply put, it doesn't fall neatly together into a nice evolutionary package, and it never has. The evidence supports human evolution only because it must, because evolution is assumed at the outset.

There is a wonderful quote in this article which I think is disarmingly honest. "Could the new species be the ancestors not of modern human beings, but of the great apes of contemporary Africa? Could the fossil fragments exhumed from several sites be the mixed bones of more than one species? Do the three early hominid species now identified lie in the same lineage? Or are they just distant relatives? Peter Andrews, an expert on early apes and human origins at the Natural History Museum in London sums it up this way, 'It seems to me that this fossil raises more questions than it answers.'"


http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/evolution/misslink.htm

 

Just to lighten things up a bit.......

What's the first thing god does when he comes into the life of a TV evangelist ?



Thier hair. Oh, I kill myself sometimes.

Steve

 

Nice post, eclayton.

 

you missed the the point. not only do i consider evolution to be a valid theory, i personally believe in BOTH.

 

Hey there, Adrynalyne! A quick read for you, if you are interested. If not, no problem.
Eric
Are the Biblical Documents Reliable?

Jimmy Williams

Introduction

How do we know that the Bible we have today is even close to the original? Haven't copiers down through the centuries inserted and deleted and embellished the documents so that the original message of the Bible has been obscured? These questions are frequently asked to discredit the sources of information from which the Christian faith has come to us.

Three Errors To Avoid

1. Do not assume inspiration or infallibility of the documents, with the intent of attempting to prove the inspiration or infallibility of the documents. Do not say the bible is inspired or infallible simply because it claims to be. This is circular reasoning.
2. When considering the original documents, forget about the present form of your Bible and regard them as the collection of ancient source documents that they are.
3. Do not start with modern "authorities" and then move to the documents to see if the authorities were right. Begin with the documents themselves.

Procedure for Testing a Document's Validity

In his book, Introduction in Research in English Literary History, C. Sanders sets forth three tests of reliability employed in general historiography and literary criticism.{1} These tests are:

1. Bibliographical (i.e., the textual tradition from the original document to the copies and manuscripts of that document we possess today)
2. Internal evidence (what the document claims for itself)
3. External evidence (how the document squares or aligns itself with facts, dates, persons from its own contemporary world).

It might be noteworthy to mention that Sanders is a professor of military history, not a theologian. He uses these three tests of reliability in his own study of historical military events.

We will look now at the bibliographical, or textual evidence for the Bible's reliability.



The Old Testament

For both Old and New Testaments, the crucial question is: "Not having any original copies or scraps of the Bible, can we reconstruct them well enough from the oldest manuscript evidence we do have so they give us a true, undistorted view of actual people, places and events?"

The Scribe

The scribe was considered a professional person in antiquity. No printing presses existed, so people were trained to copy documents. The task was usually undertaken by a devout Jew. The Scribes believed they were dealing with the very Word of God and were therefore extremely careful in copying. They did not just hastily write things down. The earliest complete copy of the Hebrew Old Testament dates from c. 900 A.D.

The Massoretic Text

During the early part of the tenth century (916 A.D.), there was a group of Jews called the Massoretes. These Jews were meticulous in their copying. The texts they had were all in capital letters, and there was no punctuation or paragraphs. The Massoretes would copy Isaiah, for example, and when they were through, they would total up the number of letters. Then they would find the middle letter of the book. If it was not the same, they made a new copy. All of the present copies of the Hebrew text which come from this period are in remarkable agreement. Comparisons of the Massoretic text with earlier Latin and Greek versions have also revealed careful copying and little deviation during the thousand years from 100 B.C. to 900 A.D. But until this century, there was scant material written in Hebrew from antiquity which could be compared to the Masoretic texts of the tenth century A.D.

The Dead Sea Scrolls

In 1947, a young Bedouin goat herdsman found some strange clay jars in caves near the valley of the Dead Sea. Inside the jars were some leather scrolls. The discovery of these "Dead Sea Scrolls" at Qumran has been hailed as the outstanding archeological discovery of the twentieth century. The scrolls have revealed that a commune of monastic farmers flourished in the valley from 150 B.C. to 70 A.D. It is believed that when they saw the Romans invade the land they put their cherished leather scrolls in the jars and hid them in the caves on the cliffs northwest of the Dead Sea. The Dead Sea Scrolls include a complete copy of the Book of Isaiah, a fragmented copy of Isaiah, containing much of Isaiah 38-6, and fragments of almost every book in the Old Testament. The majority of the fragments are from Isaiah and the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). The books of Samuel, in a tattered copy, were also found and also two complete chapters of the book of Habakkuk. In addition, there were a number of nonbiblical scrolls related to the commune found.

These materials are dated around 100 B.C. The significance of the find, and particularly the copy of Isaiah, was recognized by Merrill F. Unger when he said, "This complete document of Isaiah quite understandably created a sensation since it was the first major Biblical manuscript of great antiquity ever to be recovered. Interest in it was especially keen since it antedates by more than a thousand years the oldest Hebrew texts preserved in the Massoretic tradition."{2}

The supreme value of these Qumran documents lies in the ability of biblical scholars to compare them with the Massoretic Hebrew texts of the tenth century A.D. If, upon examination, there were little or no textual changes in those Massoretic texts where comparisons were possible, an assumption could then be made that the Massoretic Scribes had probably been just as faithful in their copying of the other biblical texts which could not be compared with the Qumran material.

What was learned? A comparison of the Qumran manuscript of Isaiah with the Massoretic text revealed them to be extremely close in accuracy to each other: "A comparison of Isaiah 53 shows that only 17 letters differ from the Massoretic text. Ten of these are mere differences in spelling (like our "honor" and the English "honour") and produce no change in the meaning at all. Four more are very minor differences, such as the presence of a conjunction (and) which are stylistic rather than substantive. The other three letters are the Hebrew word for "light." This word was added to the text by someone after "they shall see" in verse 11. Out of 166 words in this chapter, only this one word is really in question, and it does not at all change the meaning of the passage. We are told by biblical scholars that this is typical of the whole manuscript of Isaiah."{3}



The Septuagint

The Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, also confirms the accuracy of the copyists who ultimately gave us the Massoretic text. The Septuagint is often referred to as the LXX because it was reputedly done by seventy Jewish scholars in Alexandria around 200 B.C. The LXX appears to be a rather literal translation from the Hebrew, and the manuscripts we have are pretty good copies of the original translation.

Conclusion

In his book, Can I Trust My Bible, R. Laird Harris concluded, "We can now be sure that copyists worked with great care and accuracy on the Old Testament, even back to 225 B.C. . . . indeed, it would be rash skepticism that would now deny that we have our Old Testament in a form very close to that used by Ezra when he taught the word of the Lord to those who had returned from the Babylonian captivity."{4}

The New Testament

The Greek Manuscript Evidence

There are more than 4,000 different ancient Greek manuscripts containing all or portions of the New Testament that have survived to our time. These are written on different materials. Papyrus and Parchment

During the early Christian era, the writing material most commonly used was papyrus. This highly durable reed from the Nile Valley was glued together much like plywood and then allowed to dry in the sun. In the twentieth century many remains of documents (both biblical and non-biblical) on papyrus have been discovered, especially in the dry, arid lands of North Africa and the Middle East.

Another material used was parchment. This was made from the skin of sheep or goats, and was in wide use until the late Middle Ages when paper began to replace it. It was scarce and more expensive; hence, it was used almost exclusively for important documents.

Examples

1. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Siniaticus

These are two excellent parchment copies of the entire New Testament which date from the 4th century (325-450 A.D.).{5}

2. Older Papyrii



Earlier still, fragments and papyrus copies of portions of the New Testament date from 100 to 200 years (180-225 A.D.) before Vaticanus and Sinaticus. The outstanding ones are the Chester Beatty Papyrus (P45, P46, P47) and the Bodmer Papyrus II, XIV, XV (P46, P75).

From these five manuscripts alone, we can construct all of Luke, John, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews, and portions of Matthew, Mark, Acts, and Revelation. Only the Pastoral Epistles (Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy) and the General Epistles (James, 1 and 2 Peter, and 1, 2, and 3 John) and Philemon are excluded.{6}

3. Oldest Fragment

Perhaps the earliest piece of Scripture surviving is a fragment of a papyrus codex containing John 18:31-33 and 37. It is called the Rylands Papyrus (P52) and dates from 130 A.D., having been found in Egypt. The Rylands Papyrus has forced the critics to place the fourth gospel back into the first century, abandoning their earlier assertion that it could not have been written then by the Apostle John.{7}

4. This manuscript evidence creates a bridge of extant papyrus and parchment fragments and copies of the New Testament stretching back to almost the end of the first century.



Versions (Translations)

In addition to the actual Greek manuscripts, there are more than 1,000 copies and fragments of the New Testament in Syria, Coptic, Armenian, Gothic, and Ethiopic, as well as 8,000 copies of the Latin Vulgate, some of which date back almost to Jerome's original translation in 384 400 A.D.

Church Fathers

A further witness to the New Testament text is sourced in the thousands of quotations found throughout the writings of the Church Fathers (the early Christian clergy [100-450 A.D.] who followed the Apostles and gave leadership to the fledgling church, beginning with Clement of Rome (96 A.D.). It has been observed that if all of the New Testament manuscripts and Versions mentioned above were to disappear overnight, it would still be possible to reconstruct the entire New Testament with quotes from the Church Fathers, with the exception of fifteen to twenty verses!



A Comparison

The evidence for the early existence of the New Testament writings is clear. The wealth of materials for the New Testament becomes even more significant when we compare it with other ancient documents which have been accepted without question.

[size=-1] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]Author and Work[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]Author's Lifespan[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]Date of Events[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]Date of Writing*[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]Earliest Extant MS**[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]Lapse: Event to Writing[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]Lapse: Event to MS[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]Matthew,
Gospel[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]ca. 0-70?[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]4 BC - AD 30[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]50 - 65/75[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]ca. 200[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]<50 years[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]<200 years[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]Mark,
Gospel[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]ca. 15-90?[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]27 - 30[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]65/70[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]ca. 225[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]<50 years[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]<200 years[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]Luke,
Gospel[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]ca. 10-80?[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]5 BC - AD 30[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]60/75[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]ca. 200[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]<50 years[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]<200 years[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]John,
Gospel[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]ca. 10-100[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]27-30[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]90-110[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]ca. 130[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]<80 years[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]<100 years[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]Paul,
Letters[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]ca. 0-65[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]30[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]50-65[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]ca. 200[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]20-30 years[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]<200 years[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]Josephus,
War[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]ca. 37-100[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]200 BC - AD 70[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]ca. 80[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]ca. 950[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]10-300 years[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]900-1200 years[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]Josephus,
Antiquities[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]ca. 37-100[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]200 BC - AD 65[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]ca. 95[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]ca. 1050[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]30-300 years[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]1000-1300 years[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]Tacitus,
Annals[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]ca. 56-120[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]AD 14-68[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]100-120[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]ca. 850[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]30-100 years[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]800-850 years[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]Seutonius,
Lives[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]ca. 69-130[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]50 BC - AD 95[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]ca. 120[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]ca. 850[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]25-170 years[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]750-900 years[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]Pliny,
Letters[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]ca. 60-115[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]97-112[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]110-112[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]ca. 850[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]0-3 years[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]725-750 years[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]Plutarch,
Lives[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]ca. 50-120[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]500 BC - AD 70[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]ca. 100[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]ca. 950[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]30-600 years[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]850-1500 years[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]Herodotus,
History[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]ca. 485-425 BC[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]546-478 BC[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]430-425 BC[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]ca. 900[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]50-125 years[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]1400-1450 years[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]Thucydides,
History[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]ca. 460-400 BC[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]431-411 BC[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]410-400 BC[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]ca. 900[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]0-30 years[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]1300-1350 years[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]Xenophon,
Anabasis[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]ca. 430-355 BC[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]401-399 BC[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]385-375 BC[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]ca. 1350[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]15-25 years[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]1750 years[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]Polybius,
History[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]ca. 200-120 BC[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]220-168 BC[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]ca. 150 BC[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]ca. 950[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]20-70 years[/size][/font] [font=arial,helvetica][size=-1]1100-1150 years[/size][/font] [/size] [size=-1]*Where a slash occurs, the first date is conservative, and the second is liberal.
**New Testament manuscripts are fragmentary. Earliest complete manuscript is from ca. 350; lapse of event to complete manuscript is about 325 years. [/size]

(EDIT by Eric: THe above chart didn't post so well. Sorry)

Conclusion

In his book, The Bible and Archaeology, Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, former director and principal librarian of the British Museum, stated about the New Testament, "The interval, then, between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established."{8} To be skeptical of the 27 documents in the New Testament, and to say they are unreliable is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as these in the New Testament.

B. F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, the creators of The New Testament in Original Greek, also commented: "If comparative trivialities such as changes of order, the insertion or omission of the article with proper names, and the like are set aside, the works in our opinion still subject to doubt can hardly mount to more than a thousandth part of the whole New Testament."{9} In other words, the small changes and variations in manuscripts change no major doctrine: they do not affect Christianity in the least. The message is the same with or without the variations. We have the Word of God.

 

That is so true! What's with the hair, anyway!

 

yes but thats not what this discussion is about.

 

Yes, you are right. Still, the debate about evolution ALWAYS brings up Christianity, the basis of Creation, the only other alternative to Evolution, so it's really hard to keep it out of the discussion.

Eric

 

That was a good read, thanks.

 

NO NO NO! I had to type all that in one word at a time, there's no way you are gonna get away with a six word reply......

































Okay, you're right, I copy/pasted.

 

bwahahahaha

 

That's it, I'm going over to the "Let's make a Cult" thread and start my own religion!

I'm out, gotta go to bed, it's been a long time since I've hung out, say hi to everyone for me!

Eric

 

which is presumably the reason for the shift to 'intellegent design'.

 

Yep!

 

Personally I think the notion of religion and the belief in God to be a wrapper. i.e. some way to encapsulate the vastness of the complexities of the universe and the enormous amount of time that has transpired in which all these spectacular events happened. This just makes it easier for the human mind to comprehend with some level of closure.

We could barely comprehend that the world was round in what would be considered a nano-blip in the overall picture. What makes anyone think that ancient people could possibly comprehend anything on the scale of evolution or travel to the moon for that fact.

It all bores me to death.

 

The Bible is the most misunderstood book ever written. The very first sentence says "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth". Okay. What does that mean? Now, this is before the actual six days of what I will call "re-creation". The next sentence says "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." The Hebrew word "hayah" translated as "was" is translated in many other places as "became". If this cannot be properly understood, then much of the rest is also lost to us. The earth was very old before the first day of "re-creation". Why was the earth made "bohuw" and "tohuw"? This is what Isaiah 45:18 says "For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else." The word translated as "vain" is the same as the one in Genesis translated as "was". That word is "bohuw". So, there you have it. The earth was originally created it to be inhabited. Later, for unknown reasons, the earth was made "bohuw" and "tohuw". Could that have been when the dinosaurs perished? Of course. So how old does the Bible say the earth is? It doesn't. It does imply with the help of science that it is very old.
Just because a bunch of Bible "scholars" tell us that it says something, doesn't mean it is gospel truth. You have to read it yourself to understand.
Adam wasn't the first person on the planet either. He was the first in the line to Christ. Men and women were created on the sixth day. ( Oh, that reminds me, the six days were exactly that. ) Adam was created after God rested on the seventh day. How else could it be that Cain would be afraid that whoever found him would kill him? There were people already. That's how.

There is so much more that the churches are missing, but I don't want to drown you in it.

 

yes.

 

I beleive in the evolution of spurts and jumps,not in the slow continious one.

 

You're a smart man, Jim, there's no way this should bore you. How could the belief in some faraway Being, invisible to us, that requires something from us, be easier? Easier than what? Easier than believing it's all an accident and purposeless? Maybe. But it sure doesn't make anything easier, it makes it extremely difficult. Because of this "God" that I believe in, I have to be responsible. I have to "do the right thing". I have to deny my own desires sometimes, because giving in to them would wreak havoc on myself and others. I have to stand up for what I believe, even if it causes me personal pain or loss, even loss of my life. I have to face up to the fact that at some point I have no proof of this "God", and have to simply believe that he "is, was, and always has been" around. How do you find that easy?

Contrast that against believing in nothing, and that out of nothing some gases came about, exploded, cooled, formed some planets, stars, and moons, brought about a single "simple cell" (nevermind that cells are not simple) that one day decided to split itself in two, and it enjoyed itself so much, it did it again, and again, until a fish was formed, then a lizard, and then all of us humans, monkeys, and turkeys. And, even though all this was formed without any intelligent help at all, we, with all of our brain power can't even begin to create life at all.

Maybe you're right, I do have it easier. You have more faith than I do, and I salute you for it. But I think I've faced up to what I'm up against. Have you?



Eric

 

Exactly. Same goes for the "scientists".

 

I dont beleive in the 'bigbang' and inflation as well.
(The expansion of the universe is not connected with bigbang,some new theory will explain that)

 

I dunno, I believe in inflation. Every year, my empty wallet reminds me.

 

Nice Eric.

Also, why hasn't our intelligence improved? Since recorded history, man hasn't gotten any smarter. Yeah, we've stumbled (or were we guided) onto lots of scientific breakthroughs and realized that things aren't always what they seem. But as a whole, have we really gotten any smarter? Has the brain evolved? Nope. We still have to learn to walk and talk and it takes the same amount of time as it did in the past. We still go to school and learn to read and write. Still takes just as long. And from what I've seen, we aren't making them smarter.