Originally posted by @wolfe63Do you agree that an organism only undergoes a lasting change in its biological structure if that change confers an evolutionary advantage?
Depends on what kind of cell?
A prokaryote or a eukaryote?
Their evolutionary pathways and corresponding domains are well established facts.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerHebrews doesn't say that reasoning upon evidence is or gives evidence of things not seen, it says faith is the evidence of things not seen. And I'm not saying that this gives excuse for debauchery, which the passage mainly concerns.
Yes but it is not a blind faith, it is based upon reason.
Romans 1:20
New International Version
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
It calls for an unreasoned commitment to believe the unseen x while only seeing y, which to is to be taken on faith to be the visible expression of x.
Originally posted by @js357I have to say, the KJV translation of Heb 11:1 is bothersome, defining faith as "evidence." I am certain the intent was to say, it is the belief in evidence not seen.
Hebrews doesn't say that reasoning upon evidence is or gives evidence of things not seen, it says faith is the evidence of things not seen. And I'm not saying that this gives excuse for debauchery, which the passage mainly concerns.
It calls for an unreasoned commitment to believe the unseen x while only seeing y, which to is to be taken on faith to be the visible expression of x.
I prefer the ESV: Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things unseen.
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyThat is better from a present-day language POV. It does, however, call for a conclusion that the word of God is a malleable truth.
I have to say, the KJV translation of Heb 11:1 is bothersome, defining faith as "evidence." I am certain the intent was to say, it is the belief in evidence not seen.
I prefer the ESV: Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things unseen.
Originally posted by @js357How so?
That is better from a present-day language POV. It does, however, call for a conclusion that the word of God is a malleable truth.
Originally posted by @romans1009There’s an open mind lol.
There’s an open mind lol.
Someone with an open mind would have asked what the evidence was and then reviewed it and come to a conclusion. You’ve come to a conclusion from a position of ignorance.
Someone with an open mind would have asked me what evidence I'd seen then asked how I came to my conclusion.
You’ve come to your conclusion about me from a position of ignorance.
Easy game to play ... but rather mundane.
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyIn Heb 16:1 you prefer the word”conviction” to the word “evidence” because the latter is “bothersome.” That’s what I mean by “malleable.” I happen to agree with you, but my opinion is even less authoritative than yours.
How so?
2 edits
Originally posted by @js357No, the KJV translation isn't so explicit as to not cause the casual reader some concern or confusion. There are countless words used in Scripture that either have no direct translation to English or have multiple translations. The Word of God isn't what's malleable. What's malleable are languages over time, and the minds of the scholars doing the translating.
In Heb 16:1 you prefer the word”conviction” to the word “evidence” because the latter is “bothersome.” That’s what I mean by “malleable.” I happen to agree with you, but my opinion is even less authoritative than yours.
Originally posted by @wolfgang59You said there is no evidence. That’s simply false.
There’s an open mind lol.
Someone with an open mind would have asked me what evidence I'd seen then asked how I came to my conclusion.
You’ve come to your conclusion about me from a position of ignorance.
Easy game to play ... but rather mundane.
You may not be convinced by the evidence, but that’s not the same as saying evidence does not exist.
3 edits
Originally posted by @moonbusI don't agree with that. Atheists merely lack belief, and then you can break things into all the categories you want.
The term "atheist" covers at least two distinct cases...
AND babies are not atheist. They haven't made a decision yet. How can we say they lack belief when they haven't met the issue yet?
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyI agree with you on that. But of course it would be personal and not available for study. Or, like yeti and leprechaun, they just don't actually show up.
Evidence--even if it's just an eye witness account--is still evidence. It can be rejected, yes. But that doesn't change what it is.
Originally posted by @apathistJesus Christ performed miracles and raised people from the dead and still some people who witnessed these events refused to believe.
I agree with you on that. But of course it would be personal and not available for study. Or, like yeti and leprechaun, they just don't actually show up.
Some people’s minds are closed and hearts are hardened to such an extent, literally nothing will convince them - assuming of course they’re willing to consider evidence, and they hardly ever are.
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyI'm OK with your keeping the source material unchanging, seeing as we do only the end results of.changes in language and minds of scholars.
No, the KJV translation isn't so explicit as to not cause the casual reader some concern or confusion. There are countless words used in Scripture that either have no direct translation to English or have multiple translations. The Word of God isn't what's malleable. What's malleable are languages over time, and the minds of the scholars doing the translating.
Originally posted by @romans1009That is a cowardly lie, buddy. You bring nothing to the table, and none of your crowd ever has.
...
Some people’s minds are closed and hearts are hardened to such an extent, literally nothing will convince them - assuming of course they’re willing to consider evidence, and they hardly ever are.
Zeus makes more sense than your demi-god. Should I have said hercules?