What if it was created by God to evolve?

[Subduction Zone]

They based it on an oral tradition.

Yes, and those are not very reliable. One can see that they probably believed this. But being wrong does not make it a lie. What I do not like at all is how his apologist source appears to be willing to distort the quotes of those early church fathers as supporting them when it clearly does not. It does not hurt them, at least they have that going for them. But when one compares what they said to the verses their sources are supposedly quoting we can find that is not at all clear. They really should not even use terms such "quotes" since actual quoting was something that does not appear to occur in those days. There was no punctuation. There were no chapters and verses. Those are later additions. Chapters first appeared in the 400's and it was not until the 1500's that the first numbered verses were used. At best one could claim that it looked as if Clement I was inspired by Matthew. He definitely did not quote from him, though again in those days one would not be expected to.

 

[metis]

Yes, and those are not very reliable. One can see that they probably believed this. But being wrong does not make it a lie. What I do not like at all is how his apologist source appears to be willing to distort the quotes of those early church fathers as supporting them when it clearly does not. It does not hurt them, at least they have that going for them. But when one compares what they said to the verses their sources are supposedly quoting we can find that is not at all clear. They really should not even use terms such "quotes" since actual quoting was something that does not appear to occur in those days. There was no punctuation. There were no chapters and verses. Those are later additions. Chapters first appeared in the 400's and it was not until the 1500's that the first numbered verses were used. At best one could claim that it looked as if Clement I was inspired by Matthew. He definitely did not quote from him, though again in those days one would not be expected to.

The irony in my case at least is that I've never been into scriptural inerrancy even though I was brought up to believe as such through the fundamentalist Protestant church of my youth.

 

[Brian2]

They based it on an oral tradition.

So they say. I wonder if they had names attached to the various scrolls also.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So they say. I wonder if they had names attached to the various scrolls also.

The evidence supports that. But why the fixation on the Bible being accurate? That weakens one faith in my opinion. If there is truth to the teachings of Jesus. If there is truth about a heave. Then that should transcend mere facts and figures. The important part of the Bible should not rely on the various myths of the Bible.

 

[Brian2]

I had to check out your source. And like most apologist tracts it is filled with grasping at straws. For example it says that Clement I quoted from Matthew in 95 AD. Though at best that would only set a pre 95 CE dating for Matthew even that claim is weak. For example it says that Clement quoted from Matthew in 1 Clement 13:2. But at best it is a paraphrase of a short verse of Matthew 7 2 and may have been just a well known phrase at that time. To show a quote one needs more than a similarity to something that my be just an adage of the days.

When I see such weak sauce I tend to ignore the rest. That was one of the first arguments it put forth. It should have been one of the strongest.

The site starts off with evidence that gives early dating but not that early then progresses to evidence for even earlier dating and then the best till last, evidence for even earlier dating.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The site starts off with evidence that gives early dating but not that early then progresses to evidence for even earlier dating and then the best till last, evidence for even earlier dating.

What sort of fool does that? I am pretty sure their weakest claims are their last ones. I have seen these arguments. They all fail. Quote their best argument.

 

[Brian2]

What sort of fool does that? I am pretty sure their weakest claims are their last ones. I have seen these arguments. They all fail. Quote their best argument.

That would be a matter of opinion I guess.
Have you got any arguments for late writing apart from any prophecies of Jesus or knowledge by Jesus of what would happen?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That would be a matter of opinion I guess.
Have you got any arguments for late writing apart from any prophecies of Jesus or knowledge by Jesus of what would happen?

Don't give me that "matter of opinion" bs. If you want to ask questions you have to be honest.

 

[metis]

So they say. I wonder if they had names attached to the various scrolls also.

Which scrolls are you referring to?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which scrolls are you referring to?

I think he means the original, long since gone, scrolls that the Gospels were written on.

 

[metis]

I think he means the original, long since gone, scrolls that the Gospels were written on.

Thanks. I think the oldest N.T. fragment is around early 2nd century c.e., whereas the oldest Tanakh book is of the DSS around the 2nd century b.c.e.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No it is the fault of science which told us that a world wide flood is untenable. So a different interpretation was needed or saying that it was just a moral parable. But the alternative legitimate translation just enabled us to say that the translators had made a mistake when there was no reason to think that the mistake was wrong.

You have yet to explain how your personal interpretation of the flood story is a "legitimate translation."

 

[Brian2]

Which scrolls are you referring to?

NT scrolls of the various gospels that were copied and passed down.

 

[Brian2]

You have yet to explain how your personal interpretation of the flood story is a "legitimate translation."

All this time and you don't understand that the Hebrew can legitimately be translated to show a local flood.
The word that translated as "mountain" can also mean "hill". The word that translates "earth" and that we read in our head to mean "globe", can also be translated "land". And there are other things also in the interpretation which do not have to indicate for example "every single person on the whole spherical globe".
"All" does not necessarily mean "every single person bar none" in other places in the OT and could also be used the same way here.
Read it with these alterations and let me know of other questions and I will try to answer.

 

[YoursTrue]

I had to check out your source. And like most apologist tracts it is filled with grasping at straws. For example it says that Clement I quoted from Matthew in 95 AD. Though at best that would only set a pre 95 CE dating for Matthew even that claim is weak. For example it says that Clement quoted from Matthew in 1 Clement 13:2. But at best it is a paraphrase of a short verse of Matthew 7 2 and may have been just a well known phrase at that time. To show a quote one needs more than a similarity to something that my be just an adage of the days.

When I see such weak sauce I tend to ignore the rest. That was one of the first arguments it put forth. It should have been one of the strongest.

It's kind of amazing to me that you, similar to some iconic scientists, might say you know the truth, is that right? Either you do or you don't. Now because I believe we're facing more than usual perilous times in mankind's history, more prophecies to be fulfilled, Matthew 24:14 will also come true.

 

[YoursTrue]

All this time and you don't understand that the Hebrew can legitimately be translated to show a local flood.
The word that translated as "mountain" can also mean "hill". The word that translates "earth" and that we read in our head to mean "globe", can also be translated "land". And there are other things also in the interpretation which do not have to indicate for example "every single person on the whole spherical globe".
"All" does not necessarily mean "every single person bar none" in other places in the OT and could also be used the same way here.
Read it with these alterations and let me know of other questions and I will try to answer.

Maybe I am not as smart as SubductionZone and others but nothing made sense until I had an experience similar to Saul who became the apostle Paul. He was blinded by the appearance of Jesus. And Paul realized what was really happening. I attended religious services, as I said, was a professional church singer even though I did not share their beliefs. Most choir masters did not care. The music is gorgeous. I no longer participate but it was only my eventual appeal to God that caused me to miraculously change my mind about...God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's kind of amazing to me that you, similar to some iconic scientists, might say you know the truth, is that right? Either you do or you don't. Now because I believe we're facing more than usual perilous times in mankind's history, more prophecies to be fulfilled, Matthew 24:14 will also come true.

You should read your Bible. The end times were supposed to start a long long time ago. When talking about the second coming he told his disciples that not all of them would die before he returned. In other words, there has to be at least on of the original 12 left according to the Bible.

Earlier you said that the Earth was made up out of water, as in some of the Bible verses. That is simply not true. That was a Flat Earth Bible believe where they believed that there was water above the Earth and below it. We know that is not the case today. The problem with reading the Bible too literally is that one dooms oneself to be wrong.

 

[Brian2]

Maybe I am not as smart as SubductionZone and others but nothing made sense until I had an experience similar to Saul who became the apostle Paul. He was blinded by the appearance of Jesus. And Paul realized what was really happening. I attended religious services, as I said, was a professional church singer even though I did not share their beliefs. Most choir masters did not care. The music is gorgeous. I no longer participate but it was only my eventual appeal to God that caused me to miraculously change my mind about...God.

I suppose there are professional church singers somewhere. I never thought that way about church singers. Which church was that?
How did you think about God and how did you change your mind?

 

[YoursTrue]

I suppose there are professional church singers somewhere. I never thought that way about church singers. Which church was that?
How did you think about God and how did you change your mind?

I don't like to talk too much about my background in detail here. It was a big famous church. Not all churches have professional paid singers but we had to read music and I must say the music was gorgeous.
As for my perception of Jesus, I saw statues of him in church hanging on a cross and did not know why they killed him. I thought he was a nice person but had no idea why he was killed except they did not like him. But kind of like Pilate, I couldn't figure what he could have done wrong to get him killed by decree.
Ok enough right now. Except that I was lost and confused despite singing about him. More later...
P.S. I learned more from the Bible later.

 

[YoursTrue]

Don't give me that "matter of opinion" bs. If you want to ask questions you have to be honest.

So do you when asked questions. Scholars may have opinions but... doesn't mean they're right.