| Welcome to Religionvsevolution. We hope you enjoy your visit. Scroll Down To View Forum. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. To register please click register on the top left corner of any page, this entitles you to customize a profile and be notified if people have replied to your topic by email. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Evolution Documented In the Bible? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 12 2009, 05:04 AM (311 Views) | |
| dande1135 | Sep 12 2009, 05:04 AM Post #1 |
|
P = 40
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
There seems to be no doubt that to any reasonable person, that the Christian religion and its bible may seem far fetched, if not ridiculous. If a religion contradicts itself and requires its practitioners to turn a blind eye to logic, of what value is it? I say the answer is, very little. That being said, have you ever considered this? What if it is not the Bible itself that is lacking in logic, but rather its interpretation as well as its translation to English? Considering the time when the bible was translated and printed in the English language, it is not only possible, but probable that the translation was purposely bastardized in order to veil the truth of the message. The motive of course was for both the Church and its rulers to maintain its oppressive rule over the masses. A tradition, which has been continued, in many ways, to this day. Now hold that thought for a moment and I will briefly change gears. Please consider the advancements of some of the ancient civilizations. Compare the knowledge of technology of these ancients to our modern civilization. Flight (maybe), printing press, building of structures like the pyramids, and more. It would seem, that we have only “caught up” within the last few hundred years. Now compare their knowledge of natural science, astronomy, calendars, etc. to ours. Clearly they understood much. Is it possible that we are only now catching up in this area? How much did they really know? Where did this knowledge come from? I do not know the answers to these questions, but I submit that they knew enough that it would not be an impossible stretch of reason to think that maybe the Evolutionary Theory and Big Bang were understood by man several thousand years ago. What if that understanding was recorded? Back to my original thoughts. I have rejected organized, fundamentalist religion wholly. However, I have embraced the study of religious philosophy and its practical uses in life. I once heard spiritual philosophy described as follows: The Science of Life, the Supreme Science and the Art of Living, the Finest of the Arts. This is how I view religion. Now I would like to share something with you. I would like to look together at Genesis Chapter 1, verses 1-8. I could go further than that, but I wish to save that for another time. This will be a small example of how I interpret the bible. I believe these 8 simple verses, may describe the creation of the Earth through the process of evolution. I do not think the intent of the author of Genesis was for you to believe in miracles. I believe the intent was to share accurate scientific truth. The miracle stuff was interpreted into the meaning centuries later. I will first show the standard King James translation of these verses. Then I will restate these verses with one difference, the second time, I will replace “key words” with their actual meanings in English. In other words I am going to use translation from the Original Hebrew, instead of the translation offered in the 16th century by the Church. Please keep the intended meaning of “God” in mind as you read. Both versions are going to mention God. Please dispose of your preconceived notion of what God in the bible means. Consider the historical context. In the time when this text was written, gods were used to explain and help people understand natural phenomena. That is partly why there were gods for nearly anything and everything. So lets not assume that the author necessarily means a “supernatural” God. He could very well just be saying “nature” or “that scientific force that cannot be fully explained.” Or maybe he does mean a “supernatural” God, but if possible let’s put that aside for the moment. Also remember, “God said” is NOT to be taken literally. Of this there is no speculation. If someone said,” I went boating this weekend and the Sea was Angry.” You would not take it literally, you would know he meant the Sea was rough. Please be sure to keep this in mind, when God is “doing” this or “seeing” that. These are just personifications. King James 001:001 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 001:002 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 001:003 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 001:004 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 001:005 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. 001:006 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 001:007 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 001:008 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. Original Hebrew 001:001 In the beginning of our universe, God created the abode of the stars and the earth. I think this is an interesting way to put it since the Big Bang did not occur “in space”, rather it is what “created space.” Here is mention of the creation of not only Earth, but space as well. Without scientific understanding, how would you know space was actually formed and not just always there? 001:002 And the earth came into being in confusion, chaos, and emptiness; and darkness was upon the surface of the abyss. And the energy of life of God settled upon the surface of the transitory waters. Interesting point here, the transitory waters were also defined as violent, dangerous, and toxic. Is this a description of the toxic soup that bore the building blocks of life? Miller-Urey experiment? 001:003 And God said, let the light of life come to existence. And that is how the light of life came to be. I believe this is brief mention of the T-Tauri phase of our Sun and it’s coming of age to what we know it to be today. 001:004 And God saw the light of life, that it was beneficial: and God divided the light from the darkness. To my knowledge, Earth’s current rotation was not caused by the Big Bang, but was most likely caused by a collision created by a supernova exploding 4.6 billion years ago. I believe this is mentioned here because the event that created our 24-hour day is quite significant. 001:005 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the ending of the old and beginning of the new was the first time period. This is important, notice the translation from Hebrew is time period NOT day. So now we have the Earth formed, amino acids and DNA created, a blast from the Sun blowing away the toxic atmosphere, the Sun reaching maturity, and the Earth rotating at the rate of a 24-hour day. 001:006 And God declared, let there be life-supporting waters in the midst of the toxic waters, and let these waters be separate from one another. So with the building blocks of life in place, we needed suitable conditions for life to begin. 001:007 And God produced the life supporting waters and separated the waters which were not suitable for life from the water which were suitable for life, and it was correct. And so the process continues. 001:008 And God summoned the life-supporting atmosphere. And the ending of the old and beginning of the new was the second time period. Now we have the atmosphere we need for life to dawn as well. As described by science, over millions of years the Earth slowly became hospitable for life. Please note, I am by no means an expert in evolution or science in general. I only know the basics. I have the capacity to understand though. Please share your thoughts and comments. Thank You Edited by dande1135, Sep 12 2009, 05:09 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Graham | Sep 12 2009, 11:09 AM Post #2 |
|
Mod.
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hi Dande, interesting post. Never heard that idea before. There certainly is huge differences in the translations of the texts. In my opinion given the large amount of time between the writing of the bible and the scientific revolution I dont think there is much science in the story of creation. I feel that those verses could be interpreted to mean anything and everything you want it to mean. Therefore I think knowing the truth means that people try and insert science into the story of creation where there is none. I will give my interpretation of the first verse: "God created the abode of the stars and the earth" - its interesting but by abode of the stars I interpret that to simply mean the night sky above our heads that they knew existed and earth which had to exist. If it had some primitive word for other celestial objects which would have been visible to the naked eye at the time maybe I would consider it. Even the mention of another planet and I would have considered it a scientific statement. To me it just demonstrates that the authors could only see the stars and if they didnt know there were other objects in space except our planet and stars, then I dont think they could have understood the concept of the big bang. Also I think 'abode of the stars' and 'Heaven' can be used interchangebly. I dont think heaven in this verse means the actual 'heaven' after you die but rather heavens as in that which is above our heads. As far as the authors of the verse are concerned, I think that in their eyes god only created the stars and the earth. Created in this case is not used to mean created like the big bang. Your interpretations of the other verses are very interesting and I really dont have any arguments with your interpretations but in my opinion the verses are just the babblings of people living 2000 years ago who didnt have science and so made up fairytales to explain wonders of the world. Regarding the god creating day and night, if the authors had some knowledge of the big bang they would know that earth and the stars and light and darkness would have all come into existence at the same time. Stars and earth wouldnt come before light, its because of light that we can see stars. I dont really think that evolution can be seen in the bible. People of the time may have certainly noticed animals looked the same. As far as I know the bible classed a bat as a bird. But the people back 2000 years ago would not have understood the mechanisms of Evolution or see it happen in their lifetimes as it rarely happens in a single lifetime. In my opinion there is not any science in the bible and the stories are just the authors own views on how everything came to be. Let me know what you think of my interpretations. Edited by Graham, Sep 12 2009, 11:14 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| dande1135 | Sep 12 2009, 07:33 PM Post #3 |
|
P = 40
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Graham, thank you for your feedback. I would first like to explain a little more about my concept of what the bible is to me. I really enjoy spiritual philosophy and have found many practical philosophical principals about living a joyful life in the bible. Most of these principles of living are quite a bit more complex than the do’s and don’ts proclaimed by most Christians. These principals are also quite hidden, if you do not read with an open mind and heart, which most Christians do not do. Of course I do not believe the miracles in the bible are to be taken literally. I do not believe in a physical, eternal heaven and hell. Still, I believe in the philosophical words of the bible, I just believe they have been grossly misunderstood. In addition to the philosophical concepts, which have been of benefit in my life there is “other stuff” like the matter we are currently discussing. Whether Evolution is being mentioned in Bible or not. The conclusion either way will not impact the philosophical points I have come to cherish. To me, the two are completely separate issues. You may wonder why I am making these statements at this time. The reason is, because I would like to more fully explore my original points. I want you to understand that Evolution in the Bible is simply a matter of curiosity for me; it is not a foundation of anything I actually believe. I think that it is important for you to know that, because if someone is defending his or her “spiritual beliefs” logic is often discarded. I have no intention of discarding logic in this analysis. Now, regarding your interpretation of my thoughts. I think that it is a little premature to conclude that there was NO science in the bible, while it was a bit ambitious for me to imply that the author of Genesis had knowledge of the Big Bang theory. I think the truth may be somewhere in between. So please consider the following: I hope we can agree that certain ancient civilizations had certain knowledge and understanding that was “lost.” It was not until the scientific revolution that humanity picked up on the trail again. The thing is, our scientific discoveries did not stem from these ancient ones. We made our discoveries completely independently of their discoveries. This makes it easy to ignore the fact that certain civilization did have advanced understanding of science, thousands of years ago. Some of their “knowledge” was right on, some was completely incorrect, and some while somewhat incorrect, was impressively close to nailing down very complex scientific principles. I agree with you, that because these verses in Genesis are not in great detail. It is possible to “insert” meaning that is simply not there. So let’s distill these verses down to a simple timeline, without implying “advanced scientific knowledge.” Let’s assume for a moment that the author had absolutely no knowledge of “how” evolution of the universe happened. Is it still possible that certain civilizations were able to figure out in what order the universe was created? I bring this point up, because while it is easy to discard the notion that Big Bang was understood. It is a little more difficult to ignore the fact that it is an extremely unlikely coincidence that a “made up” story, would so accurately nail the order of events that occurred. For a simple item or two to coincidentally be accurate seems very possible, but with each accurate point, the likelihood of coincidence is diminished. First Verse, the night sky and the earth were created. To me, the elephant in the room is the lack of the sun. If you were telling a fictitious story, it would make sense at this stage to include the sun. Of course the sun was created at this time, but it was not yet shining as it does today. It was still in its infancy and not providing a “balanced” life giving light source yet. So the exclusion of the sun is correct. Second Verse, describing the earth in chaos, with the energy of life moving upon it. Now if I were making up a story of God, it makes sense to create an empty earth, but why even bring chaos into the story. Other than the fact that it is how it was in reality, it seems quite pointless. This is another accuracy. Next, God’s “energy of life” settled upon toxic waters. Now, really. If you are making this up, what is the point of saying that? This makes absolutely no sense when plugged into a fictitious story, there has to be a motive for saying such a thing. Why would a perfect God make toxic waters instead of just making it right the first time? It makes no sense until you plug it into fact. And why did God’s energy of life settle on the surface. In the traditional view of creation, God does not need to do such a thing, he just wills life and it happens. So again, this does not fit the story when interpreted this way. Yet when compared to the facts of evolution, it is once again accurate. Something happened in those toxic waters, the spark of life. Third Verse, now we get sunlight. So the author waits to provide sunlight until now. Please note there are different words for “light” in Hebrew. When describing things like stars, a word is used which is translated to “illumination.” The light described in this verse is translated to “light of life.” Without knowledge of evolution, this seems strangely out of place. If this were made up, would it not make more sense to have “light of life” before “God’s energy of life moved upon the toxic waters.”? If this is all made up, this is about the dumbest and most illogical story ever. If I were going to make up a story to trick people, I would at least try to make it convincing. This story does not even make sense if you believe in a God sitting in the clouds “speaking” the universe into existence. But consider scientific fact and it fits like a glove. Still coincidence? Forth and Fifth Verses, Day and Night as we know it to be, requires sunlight, as we know it to be. This is just another accuracy on the timeline. Sixth – Eighth Verses, God starts to make the Earth able to support life. Again totally illogical if we are to attempt to believe traditional creationism, this once again adds nothing to that point of view. So why would the author include something that damages his story? Why would a “perfect” God create a world that would not even support life? So the process of separating the toxic water from the good water that can sustain the creation of life adds something to the author’s fiction? I say no. Yet it is included even though it makes no sense, except in the view of scientific accuracy. I would make the same point about the atmosphere. So in summation. If the author of these verses was simply babbling, what are the odds of him being so accurate? I would think it is nil. What are the odds that someone who wants to write a convincing, superstitious story chooses to make it senseless and crazy? If you were going to make something up, wouldn’t you try to make it convincing? Now do not get me wrong. I am not saying any of this proves the existence of God. It simply does not. To me, God is not even relevant to this discussion. But I do think that these verses would help support the hypothesis that there was advanced scientific knowledge in ancient times that we have yet to recognize. Edited by dande1135, Sep 12 2009, 07:35 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Graham | Sep 12 2009, 09:49 PM Post #4 |
|
Mod.
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I find religion as a concept fascinating and I certainly agree the ancients did have good knowledge, I mean they built the pyramids and made roads and cities some even had a crude form of surgery. They developed tools and clothes. As far as science in the bible goes, there may be what seemed like science at the time it was written but by todays standards is not really science. In my opinion when they got science right on, it was a simple case of 'oh hey this worked lets do it again' and not a matter of using prior knowledge to test things. I think its more like accidental science. Again I believe when an ancient civilisation got close to understanding the big bang theory it was because their own beliefs happened to be close to the real thing by accident. Your first point you mention that the sun wasnt given as being at the start of the creation of the universe because it was still in the early stages of development. This point makes sense. I admit here my understanding of the physics of the sun is almost zero but I would assume that the brightness of the sun hasnt changed, at least not a 'visible to the naked eye' amount, in the time since humans developed. Therefore I dont think that ancients would have known that the sun would have started off with a lot less light than when they observed it. It might seem like a logical leap to think this by our standards today but I think it may be shocking to people way back when. Your second point is very good and very impressive, but again I think its a simple case of a myth that happens to be close to reality. I cannot really explain a definitive alternative to the toxic waters though, so I cannot really disregard your second point completely. It seems to me to be fair point. I would like to hear what others have to say on this one. All I can say is that im sure the ancients realised you could drown in water and that the sea water contained salt which made it bad to drink.Could the toxicity mean salty water or the fact that you can drown in water? Also different levels of salt mean different vaireties and amount of fish in the area of water (salt lake, dead sea). Fishermen may have understood this. The third verse talks about the light of life. This is out of place in the order of things. However I stick to my point in the other post that the heaven or abode of the stars means the sky where the sun is. So the sun was always there along with light. With regards to 'ligt of life' Im sure that the ancient farmers realised how important light was for life. Think about it, your a farmer and you plant crops under the shade of a tree. The crops dont grow so you dont have anything to feed yourself. With no light you see that grass doesnt grow very well and no grass means no food for cows and other animals. Next time, you plant crops where light can get to them. This scenario is just cnojecture but it seems viable. The ancients would have found out through simple trial and error that light was necessary for life. This is my opinion on the subject. 4 and 5 make sense day and night doesnt exist without light. the final points that the earth became more hospitable I cannot think of a major alternative to the progressivly sustainable atmosphere other than the air being very toxic in volcanic areas. It is possible that ancients knew that not all air can be sustainable. Still I cannot give an alternative so I would be interested to hear other peoples points. I think there is still a chance that the ancient writers happened to get simple guesses very close to the real truth. This seems like a hard point to accept. The odds may seem small. But everything is built on odds. What were the odds of the earth being in the optimal position from the sun for life to develope or the odds that the first cells would give rise to the diversity we see today? Again these are just my opinions. I believe that there was science in the ancient times. But science in the sense of trying random things with no research and simply seeing it works. Certainly as civilisations got more advance science did start to develope as people developed tools and other methods of doing things. This is different to the science we have today but science nontheless that is true. As for ancients having knowledge we dont have today, that can be true but in my opinion it would not be any huge knowledge that would change anything major today. The knowledge they may have had could be something like "what is the best place to strike a mammoth to bring it down in one go?" While I may disagree with your points they are very interesting and certainly put a perspective on creation that I had never heard of until now. I would like to hear your views on what I have said. Edited by Graham, Sep 12 2009, 09:54 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| dande1135 | Sep 13 2009, 05:46 PM Post #5 |
|
P = 40
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Thank you Graham for your logic. I think I have to agree with your last post entirely. Your description of ancients “science” being more a matter of simple trial and error as opposed to our current scientific process seems likely. This would explain how they could often be correct in the application of scientific principles, yet still not understand the true nature of the science itself. This would also explain the need for “gods.” For example, if you have practical knowledge about weather, you may be able to predict weather by means of visual phenomena, yet still have no understanding of pressure systems, etc. Therefore in the effort to explain the “cause” of weather, it would seem logical to someone ignorant of the scientific principle behind weather to attribute its properties to “the god of weather.” Regarding the sun, I have to agree with you because, without the proper equipment to view the life cycle of other stars, I believe it is impossible to simply use thought or logic to understand the life cycle of a star. If they lacked this knowledge, it is simply not possible for them to understand the life cycle of the sun, in the way I put forth. In the matter of the toxic waters, I had not considered that they might simply be comparing salt water to fresh water. I believe that this is absolutely correct. They would have well understood the limitations of salt water supporting life for plants, humans, and most animals. To further lend to the salt water vs. fresh water concept, notice that the “toxic” water was not completely removed from the earth, but rather “separated” from the “life supporting water.” This fits perfectly into the story, and it also is something that was easily within the realm of knowledge that the ancients would have possessed. In explanation of the “light of life” it does seem quite logical that they understood that you do not grow food by the light of a fire or the light of the stars, but rather sunlight. So they had a different term for “sun light” and simple illuminative light. Because they understood this simple concept, does not lend itself to being evidence of understanding the nature of these different lights. For the atmosphere, since the author did not explain what happened or changed with it other than it “became life supporting” it is difficult to guess what he may have been describing. At this point, it does not really matter. When you apply these variations to the story, it now seems quite probable that the stories similarities to reality ARE simply coincidence. The one I was really hung up on was the toxic water thing. But the salt-water explanation fits so wonderfully, I have to lean towards that as being what was meant. So, unless I learn new, compelling information that would support my original concepts, I have to say, I have changed my mind. Thank you so much for your helpful analysis. |
![]() |
|
| IronMan of Rome | Sep 20 2009, 06:57 AM Post #6 |
|
Evolution Documented In the Bible?There's more too the universe, then just Earth and space. It's a constantly expanding 'abode', a constantly changing one as well. The observation from a primitive view obviously leaves the readers convinced that 'formed' is an accurate statement, however this isn't the case for the modern era and shouldn't be for the future (assuming there is one). Literacy and scientific instruments could have developed faster if previous factions cooperated instead of fought. As a note, cosmology isn't biology. Actually, I think it refers to the planet in one of it's earliest stages:constant volcanic activity. Definitely speaks nothing of Abiogenesis. Very few species are extremophiles, anyways. As a source, I recommend: Alchemy: An Introduction to the Symbolism and the Psychology by Marie-Louise von Franz, Lecture 8 pg.206-239. Oddly enough, 'Alchemy' alongside 'psychology' fills in many gaps of misunderstanding. Solar bodies, like many forces in the universe, both give and take 'life.'
Why not both? 1) The 'Big Bang' is simply the expansion and separation of matter (such as entire solar systems). a) after this expansion is set in place, at the right point in time, said supernova happens. b) the rotation of Earth is simply a factor of gravity, not really much else, unless something else happens to intervene (like said supernova). 'Darkness' is the absence of 'light', not it's polar opposition, there can't be an absolute division. They can, and do, coexist. I do not see a correlation or relativity between the fictional bible universe, and that of this one. 001:004-005 show some odd characteristics for a 'God.' While I agree that we 'need' suitable conditions for 'life' to begin, we don't 'need' a deity. Especially one to declare who 'lives' and who 'dies.'
The process is hardly in continuation. Whats with '..and it was correct'?
All in the absence of any 'God'. Unfortunately, Abiogenesis and evolution, have not provided any species (that we know of) providing sensory detection of any deity. A more curious subject concerning evolution within the bible, would be the transitions of 'Satan' (his incarnations, and other supposedly rebellious 'angels') amongst the Abrahamic faiths. At least, I'd think so. Take Care, IMoR
Edited by IronMan of Rome, Sep 20 2009, 07:28 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community. Learn More · Register for Free |
|
| « Previous Topic · Proof/Facts Of The Bible And Other Godly Things! · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




12:16 AM Jul 11