Why Evolution is real science - let's settle this "debate"!

[Gary K]

I trust the KJV and sense the Holy Spirit’s presence when I read and study it, and no I do not sense God’s presence when I have read and studied MV’s. It really isn’t so much about the translation as with which manu scripts they were translated from. I don’t trust the Greek that Westcott and Hort, who were both occultist, translated from the minority texts Sin/Vac. So since the Holy Spirit convicted me to stay with the KJV should I obey God or listen to men ?

Live by your conscience. Ignore all the background noise.

Obeying God is our only safe refuge....

 

[marke]

I think the NKJV has it beat, though there are a few minor issues it has.
What error?

The NKJV omits 1 John 5:7 and other passages that should not be omitted from the Bible.

Say what you want about Wescott and Hort, their Greek New Testament they produced is one of the most accurate and
So what?
Corrupt how?
Corrupt how?
The three Greek textual families agree 98-99% of the time.

I recommend the book by Westcott and Hort contemporary, John Burgon, titled "The Revision Revised," an excellent rebuttal to Westcott and Hort's shoddy 1881 Revised Version.

Question: Can someone get saved by reading the Wescott-Hort Greek New Testament?

Yes, God can use bad Bible translations to inspire sinners to turn to God for salvation. However, He can also use donkeys or other means.

 

[Leatherneck]

Live by your conscience. Ignore all the background noise.

Obeying God is our only safe refuge....

My anchor holds .

 

[JudgeRightly]

The NKJV omits 1 John 5:7 and other passages that should not be omitted from the Bible.

For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one. - 1 John 5:7-8 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1John5:7-8&version=NKJV

I recommend the book by Westcott and Hort contemporary, John Burgon, titled "The Revision Revised," an excellent rebuttal to Westcott and Hort's shoddy 1881 Revised Version.

Yes, God can use bad Bible translations to inspire sinners to turn to God for salvation. However, He can also use donkeys or other means.

 

[Leatherneck]

For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one. - 1 John 5:7-8 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1John5:7-8&version=NKJV

NKJV 1Cor 1:18 says being saved (RC doctrine).. KJV … 1Cor 1:18 says are saved.

​

 

[marke]

For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one. - 1 John 5:7-8 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1John5:7-8&version=NKJV

The NKJV translators made use of the Alexandrian texts that were rejected by the KJV translators, giving some credence to the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus which were extremely corrupted. The footnote at their rendition of 1 John 5:7 renders the verse questionable, and that is the problem I have with their translation of that verse.

The devil casts doubt on God's word, and the NKJV is very subtle. Not only that but the NKJV has English renderings which blur the meanings of passages that are not blurred in the KJV. I believe the KJV is far superior to the NKJV.

1 John 5:7
The New King James Version ​

7 For there are three that bear witness 2in heaven: the Father, kthe Word, and the Holy Spirit; land these three are one.
Read more Share Copy
Hide footnotes

2	NU, M omit the words from in heaven (v. 7) through on earth (v. 8). Only 4 or 5 very late mss. contain these words in Greek.
k	Jn 1:1
l	Jn 10:30

 

[JudgeRightly]

NKJV 1Cor 1:18 says being saved (RC doctrine).. KJV … 1Cor 1:18 says are saved.

​

The NKJV translators made use of the Alexandrian texts that were rejected by the KJV translators, giving some credence to the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus which were extremely corrupted. The footnote at their rendition of 1 John 5:7 renders the verse questionable, and that is the problem I have with their translation of that verse.

The devil casts doubt on God's word, and the NKJV is very subtle. Not only that but the NKJV has English renderings which blur the meanings of passages that are not blurred in the KJV. I believe the KJV is far superior to the NKJV.

1 John 5:7
The New King James Version ​

7 For there are three that bear witness 2in heaven: the Father, kthe Word, and the Holy Spirit; land these three are one.
Read more Share Copy
Hide footnotes

2	NU, M omit the words from in heaven (v. 7) through on earth (v. 8). Only 4 or 5 very late mss. contain these words in Greek.
k	Jn 1:1
l	Jn 10:30

Let's move this discussion to a different thread. We're already off-topic as it is. Feel free to mention me in the new thread.

 

[7djengo7]

What were you born?

I was born atheist

Then, instead of saying

there have been something like 10,000 gods proposed by humans in different cultures.

shouldn't you be saying something like

there are NOT something like 10,000 gods proposed by humans in different cultures

or

I lack belief that there ARE something like 10,000 gods proposed by humans in different cultures

???

 

[justatruthseeker]

Suppose someone asked if you could discuss plumbing without discussing God. Would you give him the same answer?

Probably not, because plumbing doesn't upset you. Yet plumbing is like science, methodologically naturalistic. It neither endorses nor denies the supernatural. And so one can do plumbing or science while holding all sorts of religious beliefs, or even no religious beliefs at all

And that's the point, isn't it?

Except with plumbing we can actually see reproducible results….

Shall we start with the fossil record in which every single solitary fossil found of every single solitary creature remains the same for that creature for every fossil found of that creature… i.e. there exists not one shred of evidence that any creature underwent the slightest change over time.

The entire premise of evolution rests on imaginary changes that are never observed. Every single solitary place evolution is needed to have occurred one must put “faith” in imaginary missing common ancestors. Every single place on every single evolutionary tree for every change from one creature to another.

Unlike evolution plumbing has actual facts to back it up, not merely imagination….

 

[Derf]

Except with plumbing we can actually see reproducible results….

Shall we start with the fossil record in which every single solitary fossil found of every single solitary creature remains the same for that creature for every fossil found of that creature… i.e. there exists not one shred of evidence that any creature underwent the slightest change over time.

The entire premise of evolution rests on imaginary changes that are never observed. Every single solitary place evolution is needed to have occurred one must put “faith” in imaginary missing common ancestors. Every single place on every single evolutionary tree for every change from one creature to another.

Unlike evolution plumbing has actual facts to back it up, not merely imagination….

You might want to define what you mean by "creature". If a kind of animal rather than a specific being (like your pet dog), then you might be mistaken about these "changes". Even a specific animal changes over time: grows bigger, gains or loses hair, gains or loses teeth, gets old and wrinkled, etc. A baby in the womb goes through numerous changes in just 9 months. I'm with you in regard to evolution's false claims, but let's be careful about our own claims.

 

[justatruthseeker]

You might want to define what you mean by "creature". If a kind of animal rather than a specific being (like your pet dog), then you might be mistaken about these "changes". Even a specific animal changes over time: grows bigger, gains or loses hair, gains or loses teeth, gets old and wrinkled, etc. A baby in the womb goes through numerous changes in just 9 months. I'm with you in regard to evolution's false claims, but let's be careful about our own claims.

Show me one single fossil of any “creature” that shows any changes over time that supports their belief that fish became philosophers….

Every Tiktaalik fossil found remains distinctly Tiktaalik… every T-Rex fossil found remains distinctly T-Rex…. Every single one of them show absolutely zero changes for that “creature” over its entire existence….

As for my dog it came about from combining pre-existing genomes and never once did any evolve into another. Husky mates with Husky and produces only Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces only Mastiff. When Husky mates with Mastiff it produces the Chinook with backbreeding. But the Husky remains Husky, the Mastiff remains Mastiff, neither one evolve into anything…. And the Chinook appears suddenly in the record where it never existed before….

 

[Stripe]

... changes over time ….

Show me one example of change that is not "over time."

 

[Idolater]

Show me one example of change that is not "over time."

My information might be dated but it at least used to be thought that a "quantum jump" occurs instantaneously.

 

[JudgeRightly]

My information might be dated but it at least used to be thought that a "quantum jump" occurs instantaneously.

Still a sequence, and no, things cannot be in two places simultaneously.

 

[Idolater]

Still a sequence, and no, things cannot be in two places simultaneously.

It's not contended that a particle is in two places at once, but that it instantly goes from one place to another. In zero time.

Again, my information might be dated, iow it might have been shown by now that the "quantum jump" occurs at light speed, but when I first learned about this it was thought to be instantaneous.

And if it is instantaneous, then it is not change over time, so grammatically, a quantum jump is not a verb.

 

[Right Divider]

It's not contended that a particle is in two places at once, but that it instantly goes from one place to another. In zero time.

Which, by definition, means that it's two places at the same time.

 

[Derf]

Show me one single fossil of any “creature” that shows any changes over time that supports their belief that fish became philosophers….

Every Tiktaalik fossil found remains distinctly Tiktaalik… every T-Rex fossil found remains distinctly T-Rex…. Every single one of them show absolutely zero changes for that “creature” over its entire existence….

As for my dog it came about from combining pre-existing genomes and never once did any evolve into another. Husky mates with Husky and produces only Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces only Mastiff. When Husky mates with Mastiff it produces the Chinook with backbreeding. But the Husky remains Husky, the Mastiff remains Mastiff, neither one evolve into anything…. And the Chinook appears suddenly in the record where it never existed before….

Individual fossils don't change, except to crumble, perhaps. But if you were to find a fossil of your husky and above that a fossil of its chinook offspring, you would have exactly what you are saying doesn't exist. The cause of the sequence would not be evolution, but would be breeding. If there were, in the beginning, a single pair of dogs, and huskies and mastiffs, not to mention chinooks and possibly chihuahuas, that were subsequently found in the fossil record, we would be correct in saying there was some sort of change over time recorded in the fossil record, don't you think? The original pair was not either husky or mastiff, yet there they are as fossils (in our hypothetical).

 

[justatruthseeker]

Show me one example of change that is not "over time."

I’m still waiting for your one example of any change in any creature in the fossil record…

 

[justatruthseeker]

Individual fossils don't change, except to crumble, perhaps. But if you were to find a fossil of your husky and above that a fossil of its chinook offspring, you would have exactly what you are saying doesn't exist. The cause of the sequence would not be evolution, but would be breeding. If there were, in the beginning, a single pair of dogs, and huskies and mastiffs, not to mention chinooks and possibly chihuahuas, that were subsequently found in the fossil record, we would be correct in saying there was some sort of change over time recorded in the fossil record, don't you think? The original pair was not either husky or mastiff, yet there they are as fossils (in our hypothetical).

No we wouldn’t have change…. Neither the Husky nor the Mastiff would have changed over time into the Chinook… As we know in reality the Husky stayed a Husky, the Mastiff stayed a Mastiff. Although if you wish to consider the falsity of evolution over time by mutation and contemplate the fossil record is simply the normal mating of hybrids…. We can discuss that certainly. Then one might conclude that say, for example, triceratops and their relations are like dogs, merely different breeds….


I’ll pretend your playing dumb about the fossil that are rocks changing as just avoidance and not actually being dumb….

 

[justatruthseeker]

For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one. - 1 John 5:7-8 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1John5:7-8&version=NKJV

First found written in the margins and later put into some Bibles.