What do you think of the theory of evolution by natural selection, do you think it's correct? (78)

I might have misunderstood that.

I don't consider myself a Christian. Christianity has deviated from the original teachings after the Bar Kochba revolt was crushed. It absorbed Pagan ideas and philosophy.

The above means the punishment must be comparable to the harm done. You cannot chop the hand of someone who steals like in Islam.



The above two shows the two sides of the same coin. The first is about the consequences of your actions. The second is what your attitude should be towards others. There is no contradiction.

Agree. Original Christianity wasn't a creed religion, but about righteous living. The Greek Christian made it into a creed religion. Now what you believe is of paramount importance compared to how you live.

Have you actually checked it?

vs 9-10: waters and dry land
vs 11-13 vegetation

Light is there right from the beginning.

Here is my model.

Until vegetation appears there is a lot of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - greenhouse effect -> thick clouds, so you cannot see the sun, moon and stars.

Once CO2 is consumed and absorbed by the waters the sky clears. The ancient man is not a rocket scientist to understand that these only became visible, the story is simply recorded in their language in their terms and understandings.

You don't have the animal world before these.

It is not intended as a science book, therefore it gives you an account of how the ancient man would have understood.

The bible says what we read into it. It is often difficult to interpret, particularly that we read translations not the original language. The first verse is simply a summary of the whole story. It is about fashioning a home for mankind. Here are two videos I like:

Did I say the original NT text was written in Hebrew? The guy does, but I don't think there is enough evidence. I rather think they were written to the leaders of the early churches that were initially Jews for obvious reason, who might have spoken a mixed kind of language like we do :)

Migrants in Australia often use their own idioms and translate it into English.

But whatever language it was written in, we don't have ANY of the original stuff, only copies of copies of copies, only fragments before the fourth century, with the first more complete manuscripts and translations appearing later.

But I think this is becoming way off-topic...

I think he makes a good argument, but I doubt we will ever know the truth.

I like these threads as you can always sort out the men from the boys so to speak.
As for my opinion oh dear 'cannot answer I am agnostic and saying that it comes down to its a bloody cruel world out there'and how can we start as there is no beginning and I would guess no end its just there' which our minds cannot fathom as nature did not give us the ability to infinity.

Jews have been multi-lingual for the last 3 millenium at least. They often had different "masters." Much as England had for many centuries when there were so many different conquerers. Fresians, Angles, Saxons, Romans, Danes, Normans.

The original Hebrew text was translated into Latin, not Greek. When the Christian religion and all its in-fighting was taking place, the Greeks were a non-entity in the power games. So Latin was the only place where the "recorded history" was taking place as they made a decision to destroy any records of cults or opposing religions when they found them.

And much of the New Testament was set in its final form some 400 years after Christ. Relying on collective (often vague) hand-me-down stories, it is the "recalled" truth from those stories that did survive. And also what the "Church" wanted to put out to the common and uncommon (lords) man for its own benefit.

It was in 1450 that Gutenberg's press (an adaption of earlier invented technologies) that we had mass produced Bibles saying the exact same thing every time it was printed. It wasn't until Martin Luther (a very good copy-writer) actually read what he was copying that things began to change. "Hang on, I am copying something that Father Long-time-ago wrote and it says in Samuel 13.4 'you' not 'me' and it doesn't agree with the new printed version." They cost a lot to print in those days and priests were paid nothing to do the work. And they could colour in bits as well.

So the Bible is not the end-all of recorded history, just one version that has survived. There a documented facts to support the events recorded in the Bible. But all the knockers have to realise that it is an "abridged version" of history.

Nope, it is generally believed that the NT was written in Greek.

You’re an idiot!
I refuse to lower myself to argue with an idiot as you will just bring me down to your level and beat me with experience!

At being an idiot!

Ummm, that has been around in many parts of the world for a long time. 50 years ago they were called "Hippies" and didn't the 'organised' world hate all this love and peace they were preaching. In the 50s, they were called Bomenians or Beatniks.

The USA was started by those who went for all this peaceful stuff and religious freedom (as long as you were a Quaker).