The bible - fact or fiction???

[karnivore]

"change somewhat depending on where they live" = evolution.

and if man can evolve in these ways in such a short period of time (with the earth being billions of years old) I think it's plausible to think man as we know it today evolved much more drastically over these billions of years.

Then we get into the whole timeline of the Earth thing :)

If humans evolved, wouldn't we have fossils to back that up? Ive never seen any fossils of half animal/ half human. Its all been animals we can precisely say what it is. And then the point I brought before, have you seen a ACL? The way everything goes together so perfectly, I dont see how that could have been evolved.

Trying to remember exactly, but wasn't the "Theory" just a paragraph in one of Darwins books, not a actual experiment?

[AUTaxMan]

sure it's not an instant jump from single celled evolution to man, but it is a show of a fairly extensive evolution between the races due to areas of the world in which they lived. It's not just skin color and languages. The different races have many more differences than just that. There are different facial features, body types/sizes, and more. My point is simply even if you believe that god placed all of these people that descended from the same mother and father around the world in different climates, they ended up looking very different by the different places they lived over time. Not just had darker or lighter skin due to the area in which he placed them. Although I guess if you want to say that god also changes their looks as he "moved" these people around I have no defense to that.

Man, I've missed a lot this morning, but the Bible doesn't say anything about God changing peoples' appearance when they were displaced around the earth. I assume that because of the limited gene pools in which the displaced civilizations flourished, and because of climate and environmental conditions, differing races developed over thousands of years.

[mrveggieman]

Personally, I don't read KJV. So someone else can go into that one. My version says "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."[/quote]


That's another good point that you bought up. I remember someone telling me when I was younger that I should always go with the KJV of the Bible because that is the correct translation. My question is with so many translations of the Bible which one is correct and how do you determine such? Is anyone worried that some of God's message is lost in the translation? Also how come no one learns Greek and Hebrew so they can read the scriptures in their orginal form?

[habsheaven]

Im saying once they moved to their region their skin adapted to their enviroment. So yes, it changed with their languages.

Can we get into the specifics of their "re-location"?

How did He transport these people to these different worldly locales?

How did they survive in a new land (let's say the Arctic) when they were used to a climate found in the Middle East?

Why did some of these people begin worshipping Mother Earth and Father Sky, while others worshipped a Sun God?

How did He determine who didn't have to get uprooted?

Is this starting to sound absurd?

[karnivore]

Personally, I don't read KJV. So someone else can go into that one. My version says "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

That's another good point that you bought up. I remember someone telling me when I was younger that I should always go with the KJV of the Bible because that is the correct translation. My question is with so many translations of the Bible which one is correct and how do you determine such? Is anyone worried that some of God's message is lost in the translation? Also how come no one learns Greek and Hebrew so they can read the scriptures in their orginal form?[/quote]


When it means different versions it talks about how easy is it for you to read. People don't talk like they did in the KJV times, so instead of trying to decipher those words, it has been updated for easier to read.

People do learn other languages just so they can read the versions in Greek and Hebrew. To say noone does is a major stretch. Me? Its hard for me to learn Spanish, so I can't possibly learn those two.

[AUTaxMan]

That's another good point that you bought up. I remember someone telling me when I was younger that I should always go with the KJV of the Bible because that is the correct translation. My question is with so many translations of the Bible which one is correct and how do you determine such? Is anyone worried that some of God's message is lost in the translation? Also how come no one learns Greek and Hebrew so they can read the scriptures in their orginal form?

This is utter nonsense. There are several versions translated from the original Hebrew and Greek texts that I believe are superior to the KJV. I go to the ESV online, and my primary Bible is the NASV. All of the mainstream translations that are generally accepted are correct. People who attend seminary have to learn Greek and Hebrew.

[AUTaxMan]

Is this starting to sound absurd?

Yes, because you are asking questions that you know nobody can answer.

[karnivore]

Can we get into the specifics of their "re-location"?

How did He transport these people to these different worldly locales?

How did they survive in a new land (let's say the Arctic) when they were used to a climate found in the Middle East?

Why did some of these people begin worshipping Mother Earth and Father Sky, while others worshipped a Sun God?

How did He determine who didn't have to get uprooted?

Is this starting to sound absurd?

Not absurd, but someone like myself (Being 22 and recently getting in Apologetics) can't answer those questions.

But one stab at the "how did he disperse" part, the world was one super continent, Pangaea. Once Babylon happened, each went to their continent and it dispersed. (Again, just throwing off the top of my head. Definately not anything thats been documented, nor in "Doctrine")

[habsheaven]

Then we get into the whole timeline of the Earth thing :)

If humans evolved, wouldn't we have fossils to back that up? Ive never seen any fossils of half animal/ half human. Its all been animals we can precisely say what it is. And then the point I brought before, have you seen a ACL? The way everything goes together so perfectly, I dont see how that could have been evolved.

Trying to remember exactly, but wasn't the "Theory" just a paragraph in one of Darwins books, not a actual experiment?

You might want to see what you have been missing here:

http://www.worldmuseumofman.org/hum.php

[karnivore]

You might want to see what you have been missing here:

http://www.worldmuseumofman.org/hum.php

I am looking at the site, and reading about how long people have lived on Earth (according to their records), but I dont get exactly what your wanting me to look at? The fossils?