Question and some explanations.
The real problem is that the public, and creationists, do not understand what evolution is all about. This person's definition of evolution was very different from the common scientific definition and as a consequence he was unable to understand what evolutionary biology really meant. This is the same person who claimed that one could not "believe" in evolution and still be religious! But once we realize that evolution is simply "a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations" it seems a little silly to pretend that this excludes religion!
Hi James
I actually would like you to explain the process by which you understand the evolutionary process to occur. Please use as much as possible terms that non-scientists can understand. I am genuinely interested.
I also would like to offer an explanation of the passage you wrote that I have quoted. I am sure John Mcdonald would be hurt that you don't think he is a scientist or maybe it was Ken Ham, who's area is Palaeontology.
Those Christians who believe that the Bible is the word of God(Yahweh) and is therefore without error. Have an understanding that because Jesus(the Son of God, who is also without error or fault-Perfect) quoted from Genesis as if from a point of view of actual History. This understanding includes the fact that Jesus created the universe and the Earth.If he did so as claimed within the literal 6 Days 1 for rest, then to believe that Evolution is the way it happened then that would make Jesus a liar. If Jesus is a liar, then he cannot be perfect and spotless and become the Sin offering for the whole world present (HIS) and Future (from then on. The past is dealt with under a different criteria). The Lamb that the High priest sacrificed for the sins of the people (Jews of ancient Israel), was a perfect animal( by their understanding, it was not but God allowed for this, which is why this process was yearly and not once off). Only Jesus the second Perfect Adam/Lamb of God could die (sacrifice himself) to offer a once and for all Sin offering. If Jesus was a liar, this could not happen, because telling lies is a Sin and a sinful/non -Perfect being could not be the sacrifice that would fulfill the redemptive plan.
Sorry about the long explanation but it seemed to me that perhaps you did not have an understanding of this.
The acceptance of Evolution negates the whole Redemptive plan. It succeeds or fails on this fact Jesus was without any Sin, The Son of God, and born of a virgin or he told lies( not just that he created the world etc but all his other claims as to who he is and promises) and was sinful like the rest of us. If this is correct then all Christianity dies too.
The
acceptance of Evolution precludes New Testament Christianity( as represented in the New Testament and not anything that man has added or taken away from it over the last 1979 years ). You cannot be a New Testament Christian and
accept Evolution as an explanation for creation. Possibly other faiths/religions, can.
I'm not biblical scholar by any stretch, what with being an atheist and all, but even things one would expect, like any Roman reference to his life or execution, are conspicuous by their absence. There are apparently records of those crucified at that time period plus the Romans were a pretty bureaucratic people. There is clearly evidence of the birth of a Christian religious movement from 150-200 years or so afterwards, but I've personally seen nothing that stands up to scrutiny about Jesus' life. That 150-200 year timeframe gives plenty of time for a folk law / myth to develop given short life-spans, poor education, low literacy etc, i.e. few folk had the ability to document anything accurately, it was just told word of mouth generation to generation.
I'm not looking to prove / disprove anything here as I don't buy religion in any shape or form, but it would be interesting to see what you considered as hard archaeological evidence for his existence, as I have to admit I've seen nothing yet, only evidence of a later religion.
I should also like to add that a few pages back TONY talked about New Testament scripture being written a long time after Jesus died, in fact passed on orally. This is not true. The very earliest full and partial Greek texts(codex) date very closely to the few years that followed the life of Jesus. It is true that full texts date later and only partial texts date closer. However this does not mean they were not written early on, just because examples have yet to be found. The differences mentioned (or errors, by some understanding) in the New Testament only show the differences you get when several authors are focusing on different events or are focusing on different aspects of Jesus life and death. There are IMHO and many orthodox bible scholars no contradictions in the accounts. The slightly different views only give a complete picture. You can get a complete gospel which takes the elements and puts them together, the degree of parity to each account is startling, with only a small number of events mentioned in one Gospel and not another. Despite any small textural differences that have crept in over thousands of years there are no significant(in regard to Salvation issues and main theology) problems. Lets face it they did not have photo copiers or the benefit of the printing press and unfortunately with the death of the church in Jerusalem and the destruction of Israel by the Romans, the rigid and methodical way the Jewish scribes copy text was lost to Christianity. Monks were good but not quite as good as the Jewish scribes. No differences exist in the Old Testament books at all. The oldest portion of Old Testament writings was found in a excavation under the temple ruins, it was the Aaronic Blessing it was word for word the same as latter copies of the blessing. The same is true for the Old Testament Texts found among the Dead Sea scrolls. Jewish scribes don't destroy any mistakes in the text. They don't correct, they bin the whole thing. Very time consuming and expensive, even today.What was it like back then, in terms of cost ? However despite that loss and the anti-semitic attitudes that crept into the Christian Church the Bible( old and New)has the most proof of its history ( of any ancient book), as well as the largest quantity of early copies. Despite the best efforts of many to destroy it, it has survived intact.
Again I offer all this to clarify, not to provoke.
Regards D Louth 77
