Can you believe in evolution and the bible at the same time?

[Farbin Kaiber]

I think we may have solved this argument!!!

or maybe not...

I knew it would take me and a foreigner to resolve this.

[Aptyp]

Being as the first 5 books of the bible are the Jewish Torah, and have not been changed, (If the scribes of the day made a mistake, there was no white out, they were required to use a new parchment or scroll and start all over from the begining) and are exact as they were at the time of their writing. ( A Jewish Law, in fact) So, I'd be hard pressed to see a layering of authors of those books, but go on and believe what you will.

Here's where you're wrong. Original Torah was written in ancient Hebrew, and there's not a single full Torah available for studies.

On top of that, Hebrew written language, especially used in Torah scrolls, leaves a lot to interpretation. There are no vowels... So a lot of word can be interpreted whichever way you choose to read. Of coarse it was all fixed by adding dots to represent sound consonant would make in modern hebrew and torah text books.

For example (and I'm using English examples) words that would appear to look identical in hebrew:
Son - sun - sin - sane - soon, etc

so see, even there you can argue the original text of the Torah.

[Farbin Kaiber]

So the fact that it was a rule in the Jewish faith to not change a single word in the original, and because there are no full originals now you can't accept what is there?

No.

Also, we have not even delved into the fact that there were no chapters or verses, and changes there made paragraphical modifications that changed the context of the original text.

This points were not what I was arguing in the first place.

[E30Kaiser]

The point I am getting is why take something literally that is not the original and may even be quite different from the original?

[Farbin Kaiber]

Can you prove it is not the original? Can I prove it is? Nope on both counts, and that's where my faith comes in, and your disbelieving goes out.

And, when for the record have I ever said I take the literal meaning in the entire context of the bible? Or a literal portion for that matter?

[E30Kaiser]

Can you prove it is not the original? Can I prove it is? Nope on both counts, and that's where my faith comes in, and your disbelieving goes out.

And, when for the record have I ever said I take the literal meaning in the entire context of the bible? Or a literal portion for that matter?

Can you read ancient Hebrew? If not, yes I can prove that the bible you read is not the original version. I am not trying to say you shouldn't have faith, as I am a very faithful person myself. I am saying the Bible should not be taken as the end all, be all of Christian faith, and sure as hell shouldn't be taken literally. Do you agree the Bible should not be taken literally?

[Farbin Kaiber]

Can you read ancient Hebrew? If not, yes I can prove that the bible you read is not the original version. I am not trying to say you shouldn't have faith, as I am a very faithful person myself. I am saying the Bible should not be taken as the end all, be all of Christian faith, and sure as hell shouldn't be taken literally. Do you agree the Bible should not be taken literally?

Well if this counts as an answer, I like to pick passages and research the Hebrew definitions of the words used. My previous church spent 30+ years working form the factual Hebrew, and amassing one of the largest collections of bibles in the world. I am able to understand about as much Hebrew via that resource as I did gain from living in SoCal and being surrounded by the Mexican/Hispanic languages that ultimately root from the Latin.

And, if you read my past posts in this thread, I never said the bible should be taken literally. I have spoken of the text being written in parables, so that should lead you to believe that I don't assume it's literal.

And, nowhere did I say it was the end all, be all. I said I'd rather use the ancient texts if at all possible to understand at least the meaning meant by the persons whom wrote it down, regardless of when or whom it was.

[E30Kaiser]

Okay, seems we agree than.

[Farbin Kaiber]

Nice. Next?

[Ray Smoodiver]

God hid the dinosaur bones to test our faith.

[Farbin Kaiber]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/sc...il.html?src=me

[Aptyp]

"No" vote should be split into radical bible thumpers and fanatical evolutionists.

[Farbin Kaiber]

"No" vote should be split into radical bible thumpers and fanatical evolutionists.

I like that. Tis' true.

[dirtysix]

Sweet. Then we can yell and scream at each other like sleeve and jefferies.

'cept I'm busy trimming nose hair.

[LBJefferies]

I'll throw myself as cannon fodder. In all honesty, this is one of the few places anyone should take any fact about Christianity or Evolution from. I would suggest many, many a Mark Driscoll online sermon (www.marshillchurch.org) if they were into maybe understanding a bit more. Also, C.S. Lewis, John Piper, Timothy Keller and the like.

Here we go...

... it's often said by people that accuse God of what people have done that the Bible is only full of rape, incest, blah blah. The fact is the Bible is not about those people. No one in the Bible is a good guy except one. And yeah, I know, it sounds strange but it really is only all about ONE guy. One dude. Jesus Christ. You can write this off, but I'm totally accepting any "criticizm" and mass hostility about the "Bible" (i.e. the men, women, etc in the "fables" of the Bible) as totally true. They were all incredibly fucked up. Not a single one did it right. The Pharisee's (religious types you see a lot on Sunday T.V. asking for your donations), the "Good" guys (Noah, etc...) who couldn't even do the basic things God told them too due to a lack of having a sack and/or any of the rest of the Bible "fables" people point to as a "discredit" of what the Bible has to say. This understanding of the Bible is incredibly limited, narrow minded and awesomely ironically religious in how it's often executed.

I don't have much time right now, a baby to put to sleep and some food to grab. That's all I've got at the moment.

As per the OP, I'd say who is to say how God chose to create things. I don't see how believing he used evolution or any other method is illogical as no one can really prove it empiracally either way. Both take a bit of faith and to claim having faith is only used by "idiots" or "stupid people" or "crazy" types is a bit arrogant all on it's own. Evolution doesn't disprove God, it simply gives rhyme to how things possibly happend. Not sure why there's so much ridiculous hostility in regards to Christians or God. You can't be truly angry with him if you don't believe in him. What's it too you?

The part that I bolded here is a really good point and something that I really didn't think of much until now.

I attended a protestant church on a semi-regular basis when I was a kid. I was lucky enough to attend a church full of really great people who were very giving. They never had anything bad to say about any other person or any life experience. They were always very positive. They also never preached too much about morality and such. It was always just "love thy neighbor" basically. All anybody ever talked about was Jesus.

So, I think Jesus is really the only thing that matters. Everything else can be questioned and dismissed as crap. Most of the Bible is just that, crap. It is fundamentally flawed because it was written by men and passed down through generations and translated countless times. It CANNOT be perfect.
As far as personal beliefs, you can be a deist if you want and believe that Jesus was just a man. You don't even have to believe that he actually existed. It doesn't really matter. The important thing is that you try your best to follow that archetype that Jesus represents.

As corny as it sounds, imagine if everybody in the world loved everybody else. Things would be better wouldn't they?