Bible vs Darwin

[santhoshkumarseeta]

How fool you are!
please realise even now that there is no similar explanation about human evolution from ancesters. many researches have been proved that evolution by darwin's theory. there is no evolution spontaniously as your paster told.

[volcob]

do not forget that the bible only contains four gospels out of the more than thirty written. Who is to say that the orthodox church was right? Well, mainly the orthodox church. Why believe in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and not in the Gospel of Thomas, that of Philip or in the gospel of Mary Magdalene? I hope that this will not be misinterpreted but i try to take the bible as-is and exclusively. What they did at Nicaea was basically to say "This is the true word of God! Not those other words you might hear."

the other gospels are not written by those people, are they?

[volcob]

How fool you are!
please realise even now that there is no similar explanation about human evolution from ancesters. many researches have been proved that evolution by darwin's theory. there is no evolution spontaniously as your paster told.

i was not a fool because i was a skeptic

even as you say that the bible and Darwin's are no similar

but isnt it an intermediate and a ultimate thing?

darwin's is an intermediate and the Bible is an ultimate?

[yongjj]

I think a lot of the things in the Bible are taken as not being literal. I have not studied the Bible heavily, so I can't give a better answer.

It has always confused me how people can believe some things in the Bible as literal, and some as not.

One of my favorite things to talk about is my intro to Bio class at college, when talking about evolution and religion explaining that religion doesn't belong in science, but just because something isn't science doesn't mean it isn't true.

DNA test on Y-chromosome of all men around the world showed that the most recent common male ancestor reflect humanity’s origin and spread around the world are within biblical range of about 10,000 to 60,000 years ago.

Find out more via http://dnamazing.com/dna-testing-%e2%80 ... hromosome/

[alextemplet]

the other gospels are not written by those people, are they?

You are correct; those other gospels are actually quite disgusting forgeries. All of them were written around two or three centuries after the Biblical gospels and contain many historical innaccuracies. I have yet to find a single historian who takes the non-canonical gospels seriously.

[MichaelXY]

canonical

Wow Alex, good word usage. You better get your multisyllabic self back to school. It would be a waste of your verbiage otherwise.

[volcob]

I think a lot of the things in the Bible are taken as not being literal. I have not studied the Bible heavily, so I can't give a better answer.

It has always confused me how people can believe some things in the Bible as literal, and some as not.

One of my favorite things to talk about is my intro to Bio class at college, when talking about evolution and religion explaining that religion doesn't belong in science, but just because something isn't science doesn't mean it isn't true.

I certainly agree with that it is said that facts have long been existing but science only discoverd it

[alextemplet]

canonical

Wow Alex, good word usage. You better get your multisyllabic self back to school. It would be a waste of your verbiage otherwise.

Thank you, thank you. *bows*

[mcar]

Well, speaking of the gospels other than those of the bible; those with less faith I guess would subject them into confusion, isn't it? and if they contain certain inaccuracies (though I really do not have much of the idea about them), would it be salient to say that the writers of these other gospels have a stong opposition against the doctrines of the bible or the catholic church in general? I suddenly remembered the da Vinci's code by Brown.

[MrMistery]

Well I haven't read Dan Brown's DaVinci code nor the Nag Hammadi library, but I've heard some historians speak in various documentaries(not the ones that are just commercials to Dan Brown's novels) about them(the gospels, not Dan Brown's books) and none said that they had historical inaccuracies. I'm not saying they don't, i'm saying I have never heard that opinion before.
And the fact that they are from 300 AD doesn't mean they were written then. Heck, they could have been written 290 years before. If we all get wiped out right now and in 10000 years aliens come here and radiocarbon date the bible in my room they will conclude that the Bible was written in 1995. Take the Gospel of Judas(as it is so popular now): it was radiocarbon dated to around 300 AD(i hope i remember correctly). The catch is: it was found in Egipt and it was written in Coptic. Maybe it took 200 years for it to reach Egipt and get translated.
Just a thought...

[mcar]

alextemplet wrote:You are correct; those other gospels are actually quite disgusting forgeries. All of them were written around two or three centuries after the Biblical gospels and contain many historical innaccuracies. I have yet to find a single historian who takes the non-canonical gospels seriously.

Well, the Gospel of Judas, others say that its quite mystifying.

[Roan]

religeon exists to explain what science cannot. the bible was written, what, 10000 years ago? back then there was no science, so people expalianed things to the best of thier ability. so it followes logically that the only place for religion now is what happens to us post death, since nearly all other arias of the bible are covered by science. but wait! the bible was written by people to whome god was speaking to! that mayby true, but how do you explain how all of everything works to someone who thinks that by swallowing chocolate covered spiders will cure them. the answere? translate it into terms they will understand. so logically the bible cannot be interpreted word for word.

call me satin but if you get angry at this post your just proving that I'm right