Christian evolutionists here

Originally posted by KingOnPoint
SwissGambit,
Will you go read up about the facts against evolution?

You first.

KoP:

"Why do you not believe that the Lord Jesus was crucified around 30 AD?"

I said 32. Is this approximate date incorrect?

"Apparently, the original writings should exist or did exist long enough for the bible to be written. ... My understanding is that the writings used for the bible were not all the very first print. And that what is missing for the bible does not include doctrinal matters."

'Apparently' indeed.

I suggest you read:

a) The Dead Sea Scrolls
b) The Nag Hammadi Library

before you claim that nothing of doctrinal significance was left out of the Bible we know today.

The above-mentioned scrolls belonged to early Christian communities in and around Galilee and antedate the consolidation of the power of the Roman See. During the first three centuries of the Christian era, there was no such thing as "The Bible"--there were thousands of scrolls scattered across the whole Mediterranean world, in the possession of hundreds of Christian communities. These communities were led by bishops who did not all agree with each other on doctrinal matters.

It was the Roman See which, in the 3 c. AD, decided which of those scrolls were to be canonized. The Roman See decided to canonize the scrolls which tended to support the centralization of a primary See in Rome ("Upon this rock I will build my church" ). The Roman See then proceeded to seek out and destroy all scrolls which did not support this centralization of power in Rome. It was only by chance and good fortune that the Dead Sea scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Library survived. Once you read those, you understand why the Roman See tried to eliminate them from the record.

Now, to all those Protestants who reject the primacy of the Roman See I say this: if you reject the primacy of the Roman See, you cannot fall back on the primacy of the Bible. The Bible was THEIR doing, it was Roman bishops who decided (in their own interest) which scrolls to canonize. The Roman bishops did not want people to know what was in those other scrolls, because they presented a rather different version of Jesus's mission, one which was not Romano-[i.e., gentile-]centric.

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] [b]The evolution textbooks have been proven wrong many times in the last 100 years and evilutionists must continually explain away error and fraud by claiming advances in science and redefining what is evolution. The scriptures have stood the test of 2000 years of people trying to prove it wrong. The naysayers have been proven wrong over and over. ...[text shortened]... nicated. The style of writing has to be considered. "How is God speaking to us in this passage?"

Yes, the scriptures have been often misunderstood so surely we must try to understand the biblical literature by what type and for what purpose it is written. For example a psalm is a sacred song or poem used in worship; especially: one of the biblical hymns collected in the Book of Psalms.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/psalm

So the references you listed were not actual history, like Genesis, but song, poetry, and prayer of praise and thanksgiving.

Let's take a quick look at parts of the the psalms and the prayer you referenced:

The Lord reigns, He is clothed with majesty;
The Lord is clothed,
He has girded Himself with strength.
Surely the world is established, so that it cannot be moved.

(Psalm 93:1 NKJV)

Bless the Lord, O my soul!

O Lord my God, You are very great:
You are clothed with honor and majesty,
Who cover Yourself with light as with a garment,
Who stretch out the heavens like a curtain.

He lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters,
Who makes the clouds His chariot,
Who walks on the wings of the wind,
Who makes His angels spirits,
His ministers a flame of fire.

You who laid the foundations of the earth,
So that it should not be moved forever,
You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
The waters stood above the mountains.

(Psalm 104:1-6 NKJV)

The following is a song of thanksgiving composed by David:

On that day David first delivered this psalm into the hand of Asaph and his brethren, to thank the Lord:
...

Tremble before Him, all the earth.
The world also is firmly established,
It shall not be moved.

Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad;
And let them say among the nations, “The Lord reigns.”


(1 Chronicles 16:7, 30-31)


Your last referenced scripture is a part of Hannah’s prayer of praise and says nothing about this present earth not rotating or moving in any way.

He raises the poor from the dust
And lifts the beggar from the ash heap,
To set them among princes
And make them inherit the throne of glory.

“For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s,
And He has set the world upon them.

(1 Samuel 2:8 NKJV)

We must also consider the pillars of the earth in the light of what Job says below:

He stretches out the north over empty space;
He hangs the earth on nothing.

(Job 26:7 NKJV)

Job tells his accusers that God hangs the earth on nothing. Therefore the foundations and pillars must have an allegorical meaning and not that the earth is actually setting on something.

Also the Hebrew word translated "moved" is Strongs 4131 from the prime root "to waver" so Strong's Concordance gives meanings, such as, "slip, shake, fall, be out of course, be (re-) moved.

Therefore, some translations have used "shaken" instead of "moved."

I put all these ideas together and believe it is saying that the earth can not be removed or moved off course or shaken from the foundational orbit God has established for it.

PS to KoP: ignore pagan literature at your peril. Origen well knew his debt to Plato.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
My own tree of life? What are you babbling on about?

the 'tree' of common decent, with its branches

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the 'tree' of common decent, with its branches

Sorry, still no idea.

Originally posted by menace71
I just don't buy that a non-living whatever chemical compound got struck by lighting in a puddle somewhere and then that sparked life ( I know that might be simplistic) but it does not fit the model or reality that we see.

How much do you actually know about this model? How much biochemistry have you studied? Do you really have enough knowledge to be making conclusions on the subject?

The fact that a code (DNA) under pins every living thing to me is proof of some intelligence.
Actually all it demonstrates is that we have defined life that way. We have chosen not to call 'life' anything that isn't based on DNA. So virus' are not 'life' for example despite being far more varied and numerous than DNA based life.
I must also point out that we actually know very little about what goes on at the micro level and there could well be many entities out there that replicate similarly to life but without the use of DNA. We just don't know.

I always ask where are the transitional species ?
Every species is a transitional species.

If frogs became birds we should see some evidence in the fossil record.
We do. This includes all the dinosaurs.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Sorry, still no idea.

yes we have already established that never the less, the tree of life which purports to illustrate the branches of common decent.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes we have already established that never the less, the tree of life which purports to illustrate the branches of common decent.

What about it? You said I have 'my own tree of life', what is 'my own tree of life'? You're not making any sense.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
What about it? You said I have 'my own tree of life', what is 'my own tree of life'? You're not making any sense.

I just told you what it was and on the contrary I am making perfect sense. One wonders what other biblical ideals you will seek to usurp!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I just told you what it was and on the contrary I am making perfect sense. One wonders what other biblical ideals you will seek to usurp!

Okaaaaaaaaay............🙄

Originally posted by Proper Knob
What about it? You said I have 'my own tree of life', what is 'my own tree of life'? You're not making any sense.

I think I can help. He is referring to Darwin's tree of life about evolution, which you claim to believe, as shown at the following website:

http://tolweb.org/tree/

I think you consider your family tree as deriving from that bigger tree in which your family branched from some type of extinct ape.

Originally posted by menace71
I just don't buy that a non-living whatever chemical compound got struck by lighting in a puddle somewhere and then that sparked life ( I know that might be simplistic) but it does not fit the model or reality that we see.

Does this mean you are stating categorically that you do not think your God figure would have been capable of creating life in this way?

Moonbus
You typed:
----------------
PS to KoP: ignore pagan literature at your peril. Origen well knew his debt to Plato.
----------------

A debt to a human sinner is irrelevant, right? Are you saying that I need to believe in "pagan" belief which is not reality?

Originally posted by KingOnPoint
Moonbus
You typed:
----------------
PS to KoP: ignore pagan literature at your peril. Origen well knew his debt to Plato.
----------------

A debt to a human sinner is irrelevant, right? Are you saying that I need to believe in "pagan" belief which is not reality?

No. I'm saying that half of Christian doctrine is borrowed from pagan philosophy.