Evolution in action in humans

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Below is what is required for salvation. Same verse. Three different translations including the King James Version. What’s the difference? Really? Could a person read this in the NASB version and get the same benefit as from the KJV? I think so. Whether the KJV is a more accurate translation or not.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
John 3:16 (KJV)

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
John 3:16 (NIV)

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”
John 3:16 (NASB)

OK. That's interesting. As I nearly never read in my bible (I own one, since hundred years but, never touch it!), i'd love to leave your question to Bill, whom I ask herewith to answer on that.

@ Bill, how would you explain those conformities?
It's only one example which I did not check. Surely, there are much more. What does that mean?

Christel

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[billvon 3,107]

>Thomas saw Jesus beaten, crucified, buried, and standing in front of him days later.

There is almost no doubt that Jesus existed, or that he taught what is now the basis of christianity. The contoversy now surrounds exactly what faith it was that he taught, as is evinced by the dozens of sects of christianity, all of whom are certain _they_ are correct. While they may all have kernels of truth in them, they cannot all be correct per their own dogma.

And when people argue over what is the 'true' christian faith, they do not turn to cloud chambers or SEM's. They turn to their faith, that which they feel in their heart is correct. And that's the difference between science and faith.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Hi there,
Just a thought, but, does this mean that everyone one who has never heard of Jesus (i.e everyone B.C, for example) is now in hell?

Best Wishes,

No. Salvation came from the grace of God before Jesus. It was a different covenant (e.g. What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Romans 4:3)

[christelsabine 1]

Thomas saw Jesus beaten, crucified, buried, and standing in front of him days later. He saw him along with hundreds of other people. He not only saw him but put his finger in the holes left by the nails and spear. That's not a reproducible effect as in a scientific experiment but proof positive nonetheless.

[shropshire 0]

Quote

....but proof positive nonetheless

Sorry, to the faithful it may be proof, but excuse me from saying, it's really simply hearsay (please I do NOT mean to belittle your faith, really)
..

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[shropshire 0]

Thanks, O.K what about the rest of the unknown world? .... say the Americas, at that period of history?

.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

....but proof positive nonetheless

Sorry, to the faithful it may be proof, but excuse me from saying, it's really simply hearsay (please I do NOT mean to belittle your faith, really)
..

I don't feel belittled. Yet...
How do you prove the accuracy of any written document. Do you believe Shakespear wrote all that is attributed to him? Why?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Thanks, O.K what about the rest of the unknown world? .... say the Americas, at that period of history?

.

Tough question. One that has bothered me a lot (especially when I used to be an Agnostic). All I know for sure is that you and I have knowledge (conscience; con = with; science = knowledge) of the truth whether you choose to believe it or not and, therefore, you are accountable for your decision or indecision. Other than his word, God's existence has also been made known through his creation (world, universe, everything around us). Everyone, including that guy in the middle of the rainforest who's never seen a white man, has the presense of God written on his/her heart. I'm not sure what God's plan for them is. Although, I'm quite sure they are included in the plan.

[shropshire 0]

Quote

How do you prove the accuracy of any written document

That's sort of the point I was heading towards. The ancient documents that were compiled into the Bible have (by some) to be taken in faith.
But we 'know' that they were written, sometimes long after the events described, so why should we take them as (careful choice of word here) the truth, when we know in the current time, we cannot trust anything written about very near history (look at how many detractors there are on any number of subjects, say WWII history, you can read many versions of the truth)
This may me taking the analogy waayyy too far but if,say, a copy of Harry Potter (clearly a work of fiction, to us) was found at an archilogical dig, would we be so quick to jump to the conclusion that it was a simple story?

...

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[shropshire 0]

Again thanks. I personally just cannt see it that way but if you're comfortable then it's my problem not yours.

.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[pajarito 0]

Quote

That's sort of the point I was heading towards. The ancient documents that were compiled into the Bible have (by some) to be taken in faith.

You must have faith in that things will eventually turn out the way they should and according to God’s plan. We weren’t given all the answers on purpose. In that, we must have faith. I don’t believe faith has as much to do with the historical accuracy or reliability of the Bible, though. There’s a lot of evidence in support of that.

Quote

But we 'know' that they were written, sometimes long after the events described, so why should we take them as (careful choice of word here) the truth, when we know in the current time, we cannot trust anything written about very near history (look at how many detractors there are on any number of subjects, say WWII history, you can read many versions of the truth)
This may me taking the analogy waayyy too far but if,say, a copy of Harry Potter (clearly a work of fiction, to us) was found at an archilogical dig, would we be so quick to jump to the conclusion that it was a simple story?

Let’s not make silly comparisons as with the fictional Harry Potter. We’re dealing with “real” people, places, and events here. I’ve found the following information interesting on the subject. I have much more detailed info in a .pdf file but it would take me some time to locate and post.

Can we trust the New Testament as a historical document?

Wasn't the New Testament written hundreds of years after Christ?


Hasn't the Bible been rewritten so many times that we can't trust it anymore?

Since the New Testament writers were biased, can we trust their testimony?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Again thanks. I personally just cannt see it that way but if you're comfortable then it's my problem not yours.

.

No sweat bro. Just some things to think about.

Added: I'll be back later.

[shropshire 0]

Yeah sorry about the Harry Potter thing, it was by way of an illustration... I'll read through the links that you gave.... it may take some time (it's getting late here) so I'll say good night for now.


P.S Sorry Kallend for hijaking your thread.

Regards,

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

That's sort of the point I was heading towards. The ancient documents that were compiled into the Bible have (by some) to be taken in faith.

You must have faith in that things will eventually turn out the way they should and according to God’s plan. We weren’t given all the answers on purpose. In that, we must have faith. I don’t believe faith has as much to do with the historical accuracy or reliability of the Bible, though. There’s a lot of evidence in support of that.

Quote

But we 'know' that they were written, sometimes long after the events described, so why should we take them as (careful choice of word here) the truth, when we know in the current time, we cannot trust anything written about very near history (look at how many detractors there are on any number of subjects, say WWII history, you can read many versions of the truth)
This may me taking the analogy waayyy too far but if,say, a copy of Harry Potter (clearly a work of fiction, to us) was found at an archilogical dig, would we be so quick to jump to the conclusion that it was a simple story?

Let’s not make silly comparisons as with the fictional Harry Potter. We’re dealing with “real” people, places, and events here. I’ve found the following information interesting on the subject. I have much more detailed info in a .pdf file but it would take me some time to locate and post.

Can we trust the New Testament as a historical document?

Wasn't the New Testament written hundreds of years after Christ?


Hasn't the Bible been rewritten so many times that we can't trust it anymore?

Since the New Testament writers were biased, can we trust their testimony?

One problem with your sources. They are from ONE site and it is Christian. I do not want to have this argument again so I am not going to voice my opinion on the content itself. But please, if you are going to show proof, find proof from somewhere that does not have a vested interest in the Bible being correct. For your own arguments sake.

Just some advice.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[Everon 0]

But didn't you know that anything that conforms to their beliefs is the "gospel?" Research be damned!!.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Sorry, to the faithful it may be proof, but excuse me from saying, it's really simply hearsay (please I do NOT mean to belittle your faith, really)
..

I don't feel belittled. Yet...
How do you prove the accuracy of any written document. Do you believe Shakespear wrote all that is attributed to him? Why?

And there are in fact people who question that he was the author of that substantial collection of writings.

We've talked about this before - how do you ever 'prove' the validity of an historical accounting from 2000 years ago? You can't prove much of anything about a crucification and then return to the living. No living witnesses, and record keeping was poor. And the Church owned Europe, esp wtr the written world for most of the next 15 centuries.

It's all faith, no proof. And there's nothing wrong with that if it works for you.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Yeah sorry about the Harry Potter thing, it was by way of an illustration... I'll read through the links that you gave.... it may take some time (it's getting late here) so I'll say good night for now.


P.S Sorry Kallend for hijaking your thread.

Regards,

Starting a thread does not confer ownership.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[AMax 0]

Quote

That's the basic difference between faith and science.

That's a theory ... In reality the basic science is based to a great extent on predictions, dogmas and faith (for example, scientists believe or do not believe things that agree or do not agree with their personal scientific views).
And by the way, you would not be able to show me the tracks left by electrons if we had this discussion hundred years ago.

[billvon 3,107]

>In reality the basic science is based to a great extent on predictions,
> dogmas and faith . . .

Nope. Scientific theories are discarded when they are proven wrong by experiments. Religions are not affected by revelations that there are flaws in their underpinnings. (Has christianity collapsed now that we know the earth is round, or that Noah's story was just the Black Sea flooding?)

>(for example, scientists believe or do not believe things that
>agree or do not agree with their personal scientific views).

A scientist who places more emphasis on what he feels to be true than what is revealed by experimentation is a scientist in name only.

>And by the way, you would not be able to show me the tracks left
>by electrons if we had this discussion hundred years ago.

Right, and in another hundred years, we will have a much more complete fossil record that shows the path we took from single cell organism to human. That won't destroy god either, because faith is not affected by proving some part of one's religion to be scientifically inaccurate.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

That's the basic difference between faith and science.

Science - observation and correlation.

Observations must be reproducible.
What are you measuring?
How are you doing it?
Can other people do the same thing?

Correlations - now that's math, basically.
Using reproducible observations.

Our species' science is pretty good. For a long time, observations drove the correlations. That's how we got the first law of thermo. Then, Einstein came along, and his corrleations are still driving observations to this day.

Our system of science allows for stable change. Faith based religions aren't as good, in my personal experience.

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
John 3:16 (KJV)

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
John 3:16 (NIV)

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”
John 3:16 (NASB)

Who's him? God or the Son?

We are all engines of karma

[GTAVercetti 0]

The Daily Show is doing an "Evolution Schmevolution" series this week.

Last night (I watch today), they went to Dayton, TN, site of Scopes Monkey Trial. The whole set up was how the town was just like Williamsburg and its reenactments. So they are talking to a lady who said evolution destroys faith and creates economics which are contrary to american life.

I had to give some background to get to the punchline when Ed helms is talking about the town:

"But don't worry, cause its all fake. If it weren't, it'd be fucking TERRIFYING"

Anyway, check it out this week.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
John 3:16 (KJV)


Who's him? God or the Son?

Interesting point. They are one and of the same.

Quote

2. The “Only Begotten Son” Language. The second piece of evidence we must examine is the expression “only-begotten.” It is the Greek word “monogeneis.” This is not simply “begotten,” for that expression can be applied to all believers, those who have been begotten or born again by the Spirit. This is a unique expression for a unique person, the only-begotten Son of God. The expression appears in John 1:14, 4:18, 3:16, and 3:18. It would literally mean the “only generated one.” This is the key expression for the doctrine of “the eternal generation of the Son,” meaning, he always was the only begotten Son. The expression does not refer to the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, because he is the Son from eternity past.

Perhaps the language can be better understood if contrasted with synonyms. Take the verbs “make,” “create,” and “beget.” The verb “make” is general; one can make dinner, clothes, a house, or any other product. The “create” can have the same objects, but usually elevates the act to an art: one creates a masterpiece, or a work of art, or a symphony. While these creations bear the imprint of the creator, they do not share his nature. But “beget” is different. You can only beget a child that has the same nature as you have--a son or a daughter. There is nothing else you can beget (unless you were speaking very figuratively). Your son or your daughter will inherit his or her nature from you--genes, personality--all of it. You can use “make” or “create” for producing a child; but when you use “beget” it only means you produce a child that has your nature.

Now follow this carefully. If Jesus is said to be the begotten Son of God (using the figure from human language to make the point), then Jesus has the same nature as the Father. If Jesus has the same nature as God the Father, then Jesus is divine and eternal as well. If he is eternally God, then there was never a time he was literally begotten--which is why we know the language is figurative to describe his nature, and not his beginning. To call Jesus “the only begotten Son” means that he is fully divine and eternal. He is God the Son.

This is why the creed says that Jesus was “begotten, not made.” Why? Because he is of one substance with the Father.

One more point. The word “begotten” has “only” (mono-) prefixed to it. There is only one. This means that Jesus has a unique relationship with the Father--they two along with the Holy Spirit make up the Godhead. You and I, if we are believers, have been born into the family of God--we are said to be begotten of God. But we are not “only-begotten.” That refers to Jesus’ divine nature. We were adopted by grace and given the divine nature by the Spirit so that we may be called the children of God. But Jesus--he is very God of very God. He is the only-begotten Son of God (that is the part of the creed that reads “of very God”), which means that he is God (that is the part that reads “very God”).

The “Only Begotten Son” Language

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

Quote

>I have seen neither angels nor electrons . . . .

Ah, but I can see the trails electrons leave, and I can make them do my bidding. You're using electrons right now to send your words throughout the world. I could show you how to remove the excess electrons from your computer's power supply, and you would then have direct evidence that electrons actually _do_ something. That's the basic difference between faith and science.

Thomas saw Jesus beaten, crucified, buried, and standing in front of him days later. He saw him along with hundreds of other people. He not only saw him but put his finger in the holes left by the nails and spear. That's not a reproducible effect as in a scientific experiment but proof positive nonetheless.

What we observe of electrons is reproducible time and time and time again, consistently, by whomever the observer is. Individuals' perceptions often are incompatible....and then to choose what we think is correct or incorrect, sometimes we go with our gut, which probably is equivalent to "what we WANT to believe."

That sums up my thoughts on it anyway.

Peace~
linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[AMax 0]

Quote

.... Has christianity collapsed now that we know the earth is round, or that Noah's story was just the Black Sea flooding?

Please note that I am not trying to advocate classical Christian dogmas. The point is that we cannot rule out the possibility of existence of God simply because we are unable to detect him. In addition, the fact that some dogmas of Christianity (created by humans) are obviously wrong also does not argue against existence of God.

Quote

Right, and in another hundred years, we will have a much more complete fossil record that shows the path we took from single cell organism to human. That won't destroy god either, because faith is not affected by proving some part of one's religion to be scientifically inaccurate.

How do you know what will hapen in hundred years?