Evolution in the bible, says Vatican

@RED DEVIL cv,

RED DEVIL;46585 wrote:

I think what he his referring to is the "fact" that there is no different word in the ancient "HEBREW" language to distinguish the "circle" from the "globe" the Hebrew word used for circle is "chung" as there is no word "specific" for globe, round, circle...etc. Some have made the claim that if they would have meant for the word "circle" to mean "ball" or "globe" the word "DUR" would have been used due to the fact that it is used to describe "ball" in Isaiah 22:18, "....toss you like a ball.....". Yes the word "Dur" is used in that instance, but the same word "Dur" is also used in Isaiah 29:3, " And I will camp thee "round"/DUR about, and lay siege against thee.....". As it has been said these soldiers would have had a hard time making an encampment in the shape of a globe or a ball, without being inside the others ground. The point that he was making, with validity was the fact there is no world specific for Circle, Ball, Globe...etc in the Hebrew tongue at that historical time. But as I said, it is all moot, as most of these "semantical" accusations are just that, "semantical" due to the fact that God does not teach man as such as is being implied. Does the Bible say the Earth is Flat?

assuming what you have said is true what does that mean for the rest of the sciptures? If there is no way to accurately descibe something as simple as a ball, what makes you think that the complicated stuff in the scriptures is accurately described? :dunno:

2 Replies

@Fatal Freedoms,

Fatal_Freedoms;46587 wrote:

assuming what you have said is true what does that mean for the rest of the sciptures? If there is no way to accurately descibe something as simple as a ball, what makes you think that the complicated stuff in the scriptures is accurately described? :dunno:

No one said that it could not be "accurately" described, the description comes form the use in relationship to the context, as previously said. One can not "cherry pick" verses and expect to have a complete knowledge of the message that was intended to be revealed. Much as in our modern American English, when the word "Ho", was implied to mean sometime entirely different, yet when taken into the "context" in which it was applied, the meaning was very well understood. The point was that it(the Hebrew words for circle, globe, or ball..i.e. "chung" or "dur") could mean "globe" in the context in which it was used in describing the earth, just as it could not possibly mean ball or globe when using it in describing soldiers surrounding an encampment. Thus one needs to rightly divide the word of truth (2Tim2:15). That's another "assumption" on your part, the only one trying to make it imply something complicated, is "YOU", not the scriptures, as they are actually "silent" on the subject, just as I said before. If you want to take a survey on the complicated issues concerning that day and time perhaps a study with some of the Greek scholars. Historians generally credit the Greeks with being the first to suggest a spherical earth. In the 6th century BC "Pythagoras" or perhaps Eratosthenes of Alexandria (276-194 BC) calculated the circumference of the earth with 50 miles of the present estimate. They drew meridians and parallels and such. That should be a "completed" enough description for you. If you really want to acquire knowledge of "Science" during that time period in relation to the shape of the earth, instead of trying to discredit someones faith by the semantical implications of language issues. Eratoshenes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

0 Replies

@Fatal Freedoms,

Fatal_Freedoms;46577 wrote:

what are you talking about? i have a hard time believing there is no word for round or ball....the football term "Huddle" is latin for round, and i believe either bol or bola in latin means ball...

Well thats great if latin has a word for ball, yet the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, not latin.

1 Reply

@Fatal Freedoms,

Fatal_Freedoms;46587 wrote:

assuming what you have said is true what does that mean for the rest of the sciptures? If there is no way to accurately descibe something as simple as a ball, what makes you think that the complicated stuff in the scriptures is accurately described? :dunno:

The Bible states that the natural man would not understand the things of the Spirit, yet believers would be aided by the Holy Spirit, and He would open up our understanding to the deeper things of Gods Word. I have found this to be true, especially in the areas of the prophecies.

1 Reply

@Campbell34,

Campbell34;46594 wrote:

The Bible states that the natural man would not understand the things of the Spirit, yet believers would be aided by the Holy Spirit, and He would open up our understanding to the deeper things of Gods Word. I have found this to be true, especially in the areas of the prophecies.

perhaps the way god is described in the bible is similar to the way the earth (a much simpler concept) was described, in that calling the earth a circle is in inaccurate or completely false description of the earth, perhaps god is inaccurately or completely falsely described...

1 Reply

@Campbell34,

Campbell34;46593 wrote:

Well thats great if latin has a word for ball, yet the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, not latin.

what, replacing circle with ball is too difficault?

0 Replies

@Fatal Freedoms,

Fatal_Freedoms;46625 wrote:

perhaps the way god is described in the bible is similar to the way the earth (a much simpler concept) was described, in that calling the earth a circle is in inaccurate or completely false description of the earth, perhaps god is inaccurately or completely falsely described...

It is the "perhaps" of the semantical linguist that discredits the validity of the topic. The imagination of man can fill in a river with the amount of volume that perhaps holds. When man speaks, where the scriptures are silent is where the "contradictions" come into play. RD

1 Reply

@RED DEVIL cv,

RED DEVIL;46683 wrote:

It is the "perhaps" of the semantical linguist that discredits the validity of the topic. The imagination of man can fill in a river with the amount of volume that perhaps holds. When man speaks, where the scriptures are silent is where the "contradictions" come into play. RD

The way god is described in the bible is similar to the way the earth (a much simpler concept) was described, in that calling the earth a circle is in inaccurate or completely false description of the earth, perhaps god is inaccurately or completely falsely described...

There is that better?

1 Reply

@Fatal Freedoms,

Fatal_Freedoms;46684 wrote:

The way god is described in the bible is similar to the way the earth (a much simpler concept) was described, in that calling the earth a circle is in inaccurate or completely false description of the earth, perhaps god is inaccurately or completely falsely described...

There is that better?

If one were to draw a description of the earth, what shape do you suggest would be used? You miss the point of the scriptures. The Holy Scripts are formated as a "spiritual" guide for mankind, in hopes of enlightening man on the subject of God's will in relationship with man. They are not intended for scientific study, the many descriptions presented in the scriptures concerning the earth and its place in the universe are generally the ideology of man in that quest of seeking out spiritual knowledge, not revelations from God, as previously said, when God speaks concerning scientific matters, He is correct. RD

1 Reply

@RED DEVIL cv,

RED DEVIL;46692 wrote:

>If one were to draw a description of the earth, what shape do you suggest would be used?

a sphere.

>You miss the point of the scriptures.

i am not debating the point of the scriptures

>They are not intended for scientific study,

becuase they wouldn't withstand the rigors of science

>when God speaks concerning scientific matters, He is correct.

which ones? Talking snakes? Global flood? Man surviving in a whale? Walking on water? I am curious as to what in the bible that science has proven right...

:lightbulb:

3 Replies

@Fatal Freedoms,

Fatal_Freedoms;46737 wrote:

:lightbulb:

About 1400 years before science discovered Asteroids, the Bible spoke of one that would strike the earth near the end of time. John in the Book of Revelation said he saw somthing that look like a great burning mountain strike the sea with such force, that it destroyed one third of the marine life in the sea, and it also destroyed one third of the ships in that sea. Only in our generation do we now have observers around the world looking for such killer Asteroids. Yet, John spoke of one long before science even knew they existed.

1 Reply

@Campbell34,

Campbell34;46779 wrote:

About 1400 years before science discovered Asteroids, the Bible spoke of one that would strike the earth near the end of time. John in the Book of Revelation said he saw somthing that look like a great burning mountain strike the sea with such force, that it destroyed one third of the marine life in the sea, and it also destroyed one third of the ships in that sea. Only in our generation do we now have observers around the world looking for such killer Asteroids. Yet, John spoke of one long before science even knew they existed.

I think you will find that every 76 years a Halies (spell) comet passes the earth, as do numerous others on less frequent timelines. I summise that these comets look like 'A great burning mountain' .

You see it is rather easy to write about something in such a way that makes it sound magnificent. I is easy to imagine what would happen if such an object hit the world.

There is no need for it to be some prophecy that somehow proves the existence of a God. If anything it certainly takes more of a stretch to believe such a fairy story is a prophecy.

1 Reply

@Numpty,

Numpty;46790 wrote:

I think you will find that every 76 years a Halies (spell) comet passes the earth, as do numerous others on less frequent timelines. I summise that these comets look like 'A great burning mountain' .

You see it is rather easy to write about something in such a way that makes it sound magnificent. I is easy to imagine what would happen if such an object hit the world.

There is no need for it to be some prophecy that somehow proves the existence of a God. If anything it certainly takes more of a stretch to believe such a fairy story is a prophecy.

Perhaps it might look like a burning mountain if the Apostle John was in a space ship about a mile from it, but from ground level it appears very small.
It is also doubtful John was even thinking about something the size of a mountain burning up and striking the sea, unless he really did have a vision of such an event. This is the only notation in any ancient account that I
have ever read, that describes such a future event. And it is clear in the Scriptures, that this wil be an end time event, so yes, it is a future prophecy. Also, I doubt John would of understood the power and the effect of such an event. Halleys comet appeared in 12 B.C. so this would mean that the Apostle John was not even born yet, so I think you can rule out any observation by him. If you read the text it is pretty obvious what he is talking about here. Only someone who really does not want to believe in the Bible, could blind themselves to this fact.

1 Reply

@Campbell34,

Campbell34;46791 wrote:

Perhaps it might look like a burning mountain if the Apostle John was in a space ship about a mile from it, but from ground level it appears very small.
It is also doubtful John was even thinking about something the size of a mountain burning up and striking the sea, unless he really did have a vision of such an event. This is the only notation in any ancient account that I
have ever read, that describes such a future event. And it is clear in the Scriptures, that this wil be an end time event, so yes, it is a future prophecy. Also, I doubt John would of understood the power and the effect of such an event. Halleys comet appeared in 12 B.C. so this would mean that the Apostle John was not even born yet, so I think you can rule out any observation by him. If you read the text it is pretty obvious what he is talking about here. Only someone who really does not want to believe in the Bible, could blind themselves to this fact.

Only some one who really does want to believe in the bible could blind themselves to this fact. Also in your post doubt john was doing this, doubt he was thinking that. What you have done is fit the story into the image you want to portray.

If you actually watched the 3 documentaries in the 'Jesus was a Metaphor for a Sun God' post, you would understand that ancient man had a superior grasp of astrology.

1 Reply

@Adam Bing,

Numpty, you hit the nail on the head. People believe the Bible because they are scared to death not to, and also because they do not want confict with their families. I have just talked about this today on another post. Learning,Speech,&Attention Defects | Man with learning disabilities, communication disorders, ADHD, becomes author

0 Replies

@Fatal Freedoms,

Fatal_Freedoms;46737 wrote:

:lightbulb:

They are not intended to withstand anything but their mission is to "declare" God's Will, nothing more. You "assume" that science is superior in its "test tube" speculations that are called theories, that cannot be proven beyond question, that is not Science. As the definition of Science, according to Mr. Webster, is the fact of having true knowledge. So what we are dealing with in fact is a from of sudeo-science, that which presents speculation as fact. Even presenting such in the face of actual science and proven scientific Law, such as Biogenesis, mass/matter conservation, thermodynamics, etc. in their quest to prove the theory or should I say the hypothesis of evolution. For it can not stand up to even the very first law of scientific methodology to be considered a valid theory, that of repeating the scientific method with the same results or repeatability for conformation. As even their methods are grounded only in "theory", that of radiometric dating is anything but "proven" ABSOLUTE in its methodology of repeatability. So, "you" offer up only "opinion" to prove your claims of supremacy, and I am of the OPINI0N, that one opinion is as good as another. In fact the Bibles writings of how life suddenly appeared is in fact consistent with true science, as true science indeed verifies that "fully developed" bio-life forms suddenly appeared in the history of the earth and that happened in the so called "cambrian explosion". Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And with only "theory" based dating methodology, this false science does not even have the "absolute" science method to actually date the age of the earth, might less offer any "authority" to its claims of supremacy. The reason that radiometric dating is not a valid and absolute fact is due to the fact that it has no way of actually calibrating the method without a true constant to gauge it accuracy. Calibration of any constant standard can in fact only be validated to the length of mankind's recorded history for proof actual. Not a scientific method at all, just speculation, speculation that has been proven wrong many times before. Like the dates given for volcanic rock samples of the eleven year old Mt. St. Helen. Five samples were taken from five different locations were sent to 5 different labs to be "dated", they all came back with ages ranging from 1/2 million years to over 3 million years when in fact the samples were taken from 11 year old lava flows. Radio-dating in Rubble

So as proven, the method is not ABSOLUTE, despite its claims, there are to many variables to consider, water saturation, as all parent/sister elements can be leached by water and skew the results. So there is the "possibility" that none of the ages that we have been given for the true age of the earth are correct. And that my friend is not
"true science".....to have "true" knowledge, but "speculative opinion" based upon theory, and I as I said, ONE OPINION IS AS GOOD AS ANOTHER. RD

0 Replies

@Fatal Freedoms,

Fatal_Freedoms;46737 wrote:

:lightbulb:

It is not up to science to establish anything, as of yet it(science) has yet been able to disprove any of these things, only offer opinion based upon speculation that they are untrue. And as I said, shout your opinion from the roof tops, that does not make it correct, nor does it offer proof, or in this case does it disprove anything. For the Bible does in fact say that all you mentioned acts outside that of natural law(signs and wonders/miracles)......now prove it wrong, if you can, by more than WORDS. You ask us to accept only your words as truth, yet you refuse to even consider taking the words of scripture as truth. Kind'a hypocritical, don't you think? RD

2 Replies

@Adam Bing,

Mr. Campbell, as I stated on another post today. Science is not absolute,because new things are being found out everyday. Religion is absolute. Learning,Speech,&Attention Defects | Man with learning disabilities, communication disorders, ADHD, becomes author

1 Reply

@RED DEVIL cv,

RED DEVIL;46807 wrote:

It is not up to science to establish anything, as of yet it(science) has yet been able to disprove any of these things, only offer opinion based upon speculation that they are untrue. And as I said, shout your opinion from the roof tops, that does not make it correct, nor does it offer proof, or in this case does it disprove anything. For the Bible does in fact say that all you mentioned acts outside that of natural law(signs and wonders/miracles)......now prove it wrong, if you can, by more than WORDS. You ask us to accept only your words as truth, yet you refuse to even consider taking the words of scripture as truth. Kind'a hypocritical, don't you think? RD

It is not up to Religion to establish anything, as of yet it(Religion) has yet been able to prove any of these things, only offer opinion based upon speculation that they are true. And as I said, shout your opinion from the roof tops, that does not make it correct, nor does it offer proof, or in this case does it prove anything. For the Science does in fact say that all you mentioned acts inside that of natural law(Investigation, testing, retesting, experimentation, casting aside anything that does not fit)......now prove it wrong, if you can, by more than WORDS. You ask us to accept only your words as truth, yet you refuse to even consider taking the words of science as truth. Kind'a hypocritical, don't you think?

0 Replies

@RED DEVIL cv,

RED DEVIL;46807 wrote:

It is not up to science to establish anything, as of yet it(science) has yet been able to disprove any of these things,

the burden of proof is on you, it's is not the job of science to disprove every silly little claim made by religion!

only offer opinion based upon speculation that they are untrue. And as I said, shout your opinion from the roof tops, that does not make it correct, nor does it offer proof, or in this case does it disprove anything.

"If you converse with a fool be certain you are not similarily engaged", i'll leave you to figure out what this means!

For the Bible does in fact say that all you mentioned acts outside that of natural law(signs and wonders/miracles)......now prove it wrong,

I say invisible flyinng lepprechauns exist, now you prove it wrong! The point of this statement is to show you the logical fallacy you and so many other theists use, that being: in the world of academics it is not the job of anyone to disprove any number of religious or historical claims, but rather the burden of proof lies on that who makes the claim. If we assumed every claim to be true that cannot be disproven we would surely believe in some very silly things!

if you can, by more than WORDS. You ask us to accept only your words as truth, yet you refuse to even consider taking the words of scripture as truth. Kind'a hypocritical, don't you think?

Why is rejecting one source and accepting another source hypocritical? Not every source has the same credibility, I can back my statements with evidence whether you believe my evidence or not! Does the bible do that? The Bible doesn't provide any evidence or back up it's many claims, it simply relies on you to have faith!

:lightbulb:

1 Reply

Evolution in the bible, says Vatican

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know