(May 12, 2012 at 2:12 pm)Aiza Wrote: The Catholic Church ... hasn't "chucked out" any bit of the Bible. Some Protestant denominations have ...

Using the expression "chucked out" assumes the very thing to be proved (which is illegitimate); in other words, to assert that a book was chucked out of the canon is to assert that it was originally part of the canon, and it will not do to simply assume the very thing to be proved.

(May 12, 2012 at 3:32 am)padraic Wrote:

Quote:What's the third option? I'm asking a serious question.

Perhaps an agnostic skeptic. IE a person who does not claim to know if evolution is true,but concedes it might be or probably is true. (?)


NOR do anything approaching the majority of Christians world wide reject evolution. Mainstream Christendom has no problem with evolution. It is only the crackpot fringe of literalist, young earth creationists loons who have a problem.

You're wrong most Christians do not believe in evolution, also I asked for a third option, you gave me a maybe at best.

(May 11, 2012 at 11:23 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(May 8, 2012 at 5:30 pm)Shell B Wrote: Just to be clear, not all "unbelievers" are "evolutionists," DeeTee. They are not synonymous.

What's the third option? I'm asking a serious question.

Thomas Jefferson is an obvious example. He is a man who said:

Quote:The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.

which I would submit clearly places him into the "unbeliever" category but who had the misfortune to live prior to Charles Darwin which left him with the still juvenile idea of a divine "creator."

Quote:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights;

(May 12, 2012 at 3:04 pm)Ryft Wrote: Using the expression "chucked out" assumes the very thing to be proved (which is illegitimate); in other words, to assert that a book was chucked out of the canon is to assert that it was originally part of the canon, and it will not do to simply assume the very thing to be proved.

I didn't realize it was under dispute. It was part of the Septuagint, which was in use by the earliest Christians, and was later translated in Latin and used by the Church.

Martin Luther took those books out and labelled them as "Apocrypha", suitable for pious readings but non-canonical. Eventually Protestants ended up going back to the Hebrew Bible in order to form their OTs, instead of using the Septuagint.

Also I was discussing things like Jesus stopping the stoning of a woman, a passage which some Protestant Bibles have removed as it isn't part of the "oldest manuscripts". It is, however, part of the oldest canons and is still considered canonical by the Church, as it always will be.

I don't think the Protestant approach is wrong, per se, and their work into translating directly from the Hebrew Bible and looking into finding the oldest surviving Gospel manuscripts has improved Scripture quality for Catholics as well. I just wonder where they might draw the line.

Quote:You're wrong most Christians do not believe in evolution,

WHAT? Since when? You surely can't be THAT bloodymindedly ignorant?

The Catholic and mainstream Protestant churches have no problem with evolution. It is indeed only the young earth creationist loons who have a problem,and they are the minority of Christians.

I believe Noah's Flood to be a localized event and actually happened because it is a common theme throughout human civilizations emanating from the Black Sea (there are cultures that do not have this sorry so I would assume they ahd migrated out of the area before the event); to those cultures that survived the Flood, it was world-wide.

On Adam and Eve, I did read somewhere that they think they may have been either ancestors or proto-ancestors for the Caucasian race though that study was probably one of those out-there ones.

Quote:I believe Noah's Flood to be a localized event and actually happened because it is a common theme throughout human civilizations emanating from the Black Sea

Yes,floods are common events in mythology.However, the Noah myth seems to have been lifted from the Sumerian 'Epic of Gilgamesh'. It may or may not refer to a real event. More often than not,myths do not refer to real people or events. For that reason 'myth as history' has long been abandoned by reputable scholars.

As far as I'm aware,the fertile crescent civilisations grew inland on the Tigris and Euphrates, not the Black Sea.

Quote:the Flood, it was world-wide.

I have seen no credible evidence to support the argument of a world wide flood at any time.

Nor will you ever find any as it not only never happened, it is probably a mis-translation of the word for "land" into "world."

Such stupidity is common among jesus freak "scholars."

(May 18, 2012 at 7:51 pm)padraic Wrote:

Quote:I believe Noah's Flood to be a localized event and actually happened because it is a common theme throughout human civilizations emanating from the Black Sea

Yes,floods are common events in mythology.However, the Noah myth seems to have been lifted from the Sumerian 'Epic of Gilgamesh'. It may or may not refer to a real event. More often than not,myths do not refer to real people or events. For that reason 'myth as history' has long been abandoned by reputable scholars.

As far as I'm aware,the fertile crescent civilisations grew inland on the Tigris and Euphrates, not the Black Sea.

Quote:the Flood, it was world-wide.

I have seen no credible evidence to support the argument of a world wide flood at any time.

"to those cultures that survived the Flood, it was world-wide"

Kind of like the belief that the Earth was flat, they were ignorant of the true size of the world.

Don't go trotting out those answersingenesis shits as an authority.

Consider that a friendly warning.