SC...do you even know what that means?



good cuz thinking is a good thing. Because no monk had anything to do with the original scriptures. For one thing...there were no monks yet.

oh and SP forgot to ask.....but.....

what is a "semi-Christian?"

Sorry Zoo,

this link is Evolutionist baloney. We've already discussed that all those fossils found by of so-called ape-men are either proven to be 100% apes or 100% humans...no in-between forms. To date, there is no fossil evidence whatsoever that fits macro-evolution theory.

What insect, what bird, what animal, what fish, what reptile is in transitional form to becoming a new and different species? Where are the half bats..only in the imagination of evolutionist scientists and people they have goaded into believing the lie.

I note they showed the famous supposed evolution of a horse icon.

By showing chart drawings of horse fossils they attempt to show that modern day one-toed horses have evolved from a very small four toed ancestor. These illustrations found their way into museums and science textbooks as evidence of horse evolution, but it isn't. At first, they showed horse evolution proceeding in a straight line to the modern horse and then they changed that into more of a tree type evolution.

Evolutionists say the modern horse called Equus started out as a small animal about knee high called Eohippus or Hyracotherium. They are supposedly changed into their present form over milllions of years and visually it looks very convincing.

Well, here are the problems with horse evolution.

A complete series of horse evolution fossils has not been found anywhere in the world. What they have found on the same continent are the three toed and one toed are found in the same geological stratum....yet according to ET, it required millions of years for one species to make the change into another.

There are no transitional forms found anywhere in the world between each of these "horses".

the "horse" creatures fossils do not come from the proper lower to upper rock strata as would be expected for the horse evolution to be true.

The sequence from small, many toed forms to a large one toed horse is completely absent in the fossil record. In the horse series exhibits in museums and in drawings in textbooks are actually different animals in each series starting with small ones and becomes our larger one-toed horse.

Eohippus, the supposed first horse, is actually a type of rodent and very much like our modern rock badger and is identical to the rabbit like hyrax now living in Africa.

Turns out that the horse evolution series is a carefully fabricated fake.

You are dreaming Zoo.

Where has any one rebutted KingCasper211 points? I'd love to read that.

preach it sistah!   

I prefer Answers in Genesis myself.

Silent poet posts:

Well, actually, we know that our Bibles are true to the originals from archaeological finds like those of the Dead Sea Scrolls in which ancient copies of bible books and manuscripts and other literature have been found in desert caves southeast of Jerusalem. With these, almost every aspect of Biblical life has been clarified in one way or another.

In any event, progress in archeology, linguistics, and history itself has helped scholars reach agreement about the substance of the original texts vs. the modern ones. For the most part the drastic differences formally found in earlier translations have been eliminated. For example, the non-biblical addition to the Lord's Prayer, "for thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory", has been removed from modern Protestant editions.

Silentpoet posts:

Actually, most, not all, standard translations from the original languages are quite accurate. It's the interpretation of the translations where the trouble begins.

Zoo, take your sentence and apply it to modern science or biology textbooks describing horse evolution....sure are a lot of intricies, layered meanings, allusions found there.   

SILENTPOET POSTS #46

KFC POSTS:

I don't want to put words in SP mouth, but I think I know to what he is referring to when he says the monks could have mistranslated the bible when transcribing the manuscripts.

We know the Holy Bible is a collection of OT and NT books that came from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek languages. We don't possess any of the original manuscripts were written on papyrus and have perished. But we know approximately in 150AD, a version of the entire bible was assembled call the Old Italia and that was in general use until St.Jerome translated the Bible into Latin in 390-405 AD. This version superceded the old Italia and is now considered a sacred translation in its own right, having received the approbation not only of 16 centuries of continuous use, but also formally declared free of error by the Council of Trent in 1545-1563.

It was becasue of the monks, friars and nuns in monasteries of the Middle Ages that these versions came to be preserved and multiplied and diffused throughout the centuries previous to the printing press. the monestaries were the centers of learning in those times and an indespensable part of every monestary was its vast library so much so that emperors and other great people borrowed from them.

the monks of those days were the most learned and by profession scholars who renounced earthly pleasures and dedicated themselves to a retired life of prayer and study, and the one principal part of their work was the painstaking copying and transcribing of the Sacred Scriptures. Some princes including Charlemagne gave the monks permission to hunt for deer in the royal forests so as to get skins to make into parchment for copying work.

Again, I will contend that any document written by man or, in the case of the bible, many men, will be subjective. Given most of the stories of the bible were originally taken as word of mouth accounts, by their very nature subjective at best, there is no way you will convince me otherwise.

Of course, by your statement that I:



you obviously already think I don't see any worth in the bible, which would be completely wrong. But when it is constantly used and referred to in just about every post you and a few others put up, particularly when held up against the clarity of science, it gets very tiring very quickly.

Wisdom doesn't come from a single source. As Andre Gide said "Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."

oh I agree with you completly here Maso. It's not up to me to convince you. Only the Holy Spirit can do that.



Well that's good to hear. But I haven't gotten that impression from you up until now.



Com'on on...look at the subject matter here. I don't post biblical stuff in a non-biblical context usually. In fact, I quote very little scripture unless there's a valid point to do so. The bible NEVER contradicts Science and I would again challange you to show me where.



always seeking knowledge but never coming to the truth? "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Knowledge;" Prov 1:7a

Well there's worldly wisom and there's Godly Wisdom. I don't seek wisdom from men usually but of God. I measure what men say against what God says in scripture. I seek Godly counsel not worldly counsel. I don't believe the bible was written by men but only in that they were instruments used by God guided by the Holy Spirit.

SilentPoet posts:

Sorry, SP, even though quoting Scripture is tiring to you...if the shoe (I mean Scripture) fits?

This makes me think of 1Cor.3:19....."The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God."


KFC POSTS:

Ya, can you imagine how frustrating this must be?

Cheers to your good points on wisdom.   


I'll add that the gift of Wisdom through the Holy Spirit enables us to find habitual spiritual joy in people and things and in conditions and happenings according to their value for the attainment of their highest purpose in the designs of our Infinitely Loving Father in Heaven. In other words, Wisdom is that knowledge and love of God Himself and of His attributes that from it develops faith, hope and charity.


Apply this to the topic and dwell on the charming mystery of Creation, especially our own, in view of the benefits accrued to us through the Inacarnation and Redemption and we can better appreciate the gift of Wisdom.

The Holy Spirit's own eulogy on wisdom: "For she is a vapor of the power of God, and a certain pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty....for she is the brightness of eternal light, and the unspotted mirror of God's majesty, and the image of His goodness...She reneweth all things,and conveyeth herself into holy souls; she maketh the friends of God" Wisdom 7:25-27.

I had a lengthy reply rebuttal to this, having written pieces of it every day since I last comment on this, but...I realized somethings. Thanks can be given to the woman I love.

I used to think that finding answers to life is what mattered. Life had to explained and analyzed and what not. Faith, Science, they're birds of the same feathers, but of different means. They're both about finding answers; They both have their faults and praises, both have their holes and negative aspects. They both seem to have a burning passion (in some cases obsession)in answering everything.

Why? That's what I ask both you KFC, and you Zoo. Why look for the answers? Why do you have to have answers to everything?

Me, I'm going to live life. My physical health is precarious, what happened with my one lung can happen with my other remaining lung. I'm going to enjoy second time I have on earth and not bother with the chaos that is religion, nor the chaos that is science. I've come to realize that one can be just as blind as the other.

You can quote your scripture all you want. You can pray for my soul, that's fine. You can even approach me at a buss stop and hand me reading material (JW's do that here), but I'm going to just shrug my shoulders and say, "No thanks, but I know you mean well." My faith, my belief that there is something greater lies not in scripture, or in science, but in other things.

My something greater, cant be explained, because honestly, it just is. I have faith in hope, love, kindness acts of compassion that normal everyday people do, etc...

My way of sharing that, is being a good man, being kind,honest, integrity driven, hard working, caring, etc.. I'm not going to go and start preaching my way, nor condemn others, because they have their way, their beliefs.

I'm happy with my 'faith.' Call it whatever you wish. Andre Gid had it right in a sense, "Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."


Some what of a tangent on a tangent; For that point, It doesn't matter how our nation is. Conservative or Liberal? Democrat versus Republican? Give me a break. Life is to be lived, to enjoy and to make the most of what precious little time we have, not argue over a silly and futile point.

***

Sometimes you cannot change even an inch of a person, nor persons. They're so dipped in one thing or another that they're that way, permanently. It's like the saying, you can't change a zebras stripes. Some just won't change their views, or selves. I've finally accepted that.




I recant that statement. I realize I'm not, as I though, a christian. You are right, I'm not. I'm not really any particular faith. I believe that the supreme being is everything, the plants, the water, the air, the animals, and yes...he is Allah, Yahweh, Buddah, etc..

It is everything and everything is it. That makes sense the most. It's my peace.

Also...

I find it silly that there is so much divisiveness. So much classifying. So what if someone has chosen Buddhism, is it not a good thing that they have found their own peace?