by Panda 49 Replies latest jw friends
I considered believing in both the bible and evolution when I was still a dub, but I can't figure out how to mesh the core message of the bible with the fact that evolution happened. At the core of the bible is the first human pair / original sin / need for Jesus concept. There would not have been a clear "first human pair" with evolution.
Now there isn't a reason why evolution and "god" have to be mutually exclusive, but it wouldn't be the god of the bible IMO.
Gumby said:Josephus early writing did not include these sayings about Jesus. These two refrences are interpolations which are agreed to be such by most bible scholars. Early church fathers who wrote in defense of a literal jesus never mentioned these writings of Josephus...which they would have used had they existed. They were added to his writings later.
Regarding the James passage, The following comes from from the research of Mike Licona:
http://www.risenjesus.com/articles/index.asp?pagea=acharya-s
Feldman writes, "The passage about James [Antiquities Book 20, Sections 197-200] has generally been accepted as authentic."(81) Elsewhere he mentions this text and "the authenticity of which has been almost universally acknowledged."(82) Another Jewish scholar, Zvi Baras, states that this passage "is considered authentic by most scholars."(83) Yamauchi comments, "Few scholars have questioned the genuineness of this passage."(84) Van Voorst writes, "The overwhelming majority of scholars holds that the words 'the brother of Jesus called Christ' are authentic, as is the entire passage in which it is found."(85)
Russell was just watch the foto drama of creation!
Wow... this was an old thread. I forgot I already replied.
I think fall into this category. Creationary evolution...God started it and has directed it...nothing happened by chance...it was all his plan.
I don't think espousing Christianity and Evolution at the same time is impossible. If you accept the whole "God is all knowing, all powerful, mysterious and great" schtick, then the process of evolution becomes miraculous and amazing. What's cooler than all this something from what was essentially a whole lot of nothing?
To stop the 'intellectual' struggle between evolution v. creation you need only realize this: The bible is a book about faith. It is not a book about science or history, and it shouldn't be read as such. As with anything, you can't shape the evidence to fit your assumption, you have to form your assumptions based on the evidence. Let go of the irrational belief grounded in a fable written thousands of years ago to explain what couldn't be understood then, and you realize you don't have to choose between the two to retain your faith.
I'm just saying.
Wow I just happened to look at this old thread and I missed some good comments!
Sara Annie: I agree that the Bible is a book of faith and therefore have nothing to do with the science of evolution... unfortunately, many religious folk are not so inclined to separate the two.
Wow I just happened to look at this old thread and I missed some good comments!
Sara Annie: I agree that the Bible is a book of faith and therefore have nothing to do with the science of evolution... unfortunately, many religious folk are not so inclined to separate the two.
I believe that we were created.
When Henry Ford created his first car, he didn't start with a 390 hp turbocharged SVT Cobra. This car has evolved from very primative beginnings, the creators experimenting with new ideas and technologies and learning from past mistakes.
I believe that our evolution would have proceeded in a similar fashion, so I guess you could call me a christian evolutionist if you want to put me in a box and label me.
BlackSheep, I just read your comment from last month. And while as an evolutionist and a secularist I'd like to steer you to punctuated equilibria. It is very similar to your idea only on an evolutionary scale. As you know, creating or evolving is anything but simple. And while inventions like the model-T and the assembly line are laudable, thats not exactly the same. Yet I also agree that one invention or theory builds on it's predecessor. For example, we needed Newton to get Einsteins theories. Now we build on Einstein to get a variable in his equation. Fascinating. And thank you for your input.
