You misinterpreted the post you cited. Your self-imposed ignorance of science is appalling.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Cardinal Pell and Evolution
- Thread starter Kevin Armstrong
- Start date
Brian2
Veteran Member
I would say there are probably more than 3000 different versions (translations) of the Bible if we count all the ones in all the various languages on the earth. There are over 7000 languages in the world.
"According to Wycliffe Bible Translators, in September 2022, 3,589 languages had access to at least a book of the Bible, including 1,248 languages with a book or more, 1,617 languages with access to the New Testament in their native language and 724 the full Bible."
Translations have to be updated as languages change and so the KJV and other older translations aren't understood well these days. Not only that but as time goes on the knowledge of the manuscripts increases and the newer translations are from generally more accurate manuscripts.
Some translations are pretty literal, word for word translations and others try to do an idea to idea translation and there are those in between. There are advantages and disadvantages in each type of translation.
Some translations of course are biased towards certain doctrines and are inaccurate because of that, sometimes being outright lies.
I disagree that abiogenesis is 'only' a hypothesis. A hypothesis, actually a number of hypotheses like evolution, but I follow Google search research on the subject, and there are numerous articles on abiogenesis weekly on the natural processes for abiogenesis.
Last edited:
More likely irrational.
I actually agree, you should not support evolution 'because someone is a biologist or an anthropologist.' You should get a basic knowledge of the sciences of evolution yourself and understand over 170 years of discoveries and research that confirm the sciences of evolution beyond any reasonable doubt.
Very dangerous Paranoia with a heavy dose of intentional ignorance of extreme right-wing radical views. Get out from under your bed and take off your tin foil hat with coat hanger antenna.
One too many 'niods'
You could well be right. So much difference and interpreted different ways. Shows up on a fragmented religion each believing their version is correct.
Basically, all the translations present the content of Genesis, and the gospel author's support of a literal Genesis is relatively the same. The KJV has the most problems with translations and text errors based on recent discoveries.
Please document any significant differences or lies you are claiming in the different translations.
Last edited:
Despite the 'recent' statements by Popes that promote the harmony of Genesis Creation accounts and the sciences of evolution there remains a significant problem in the Roman Church as 31% at least believers reject evolution in the USA. The problem is great in countries with higher percentages of believers like Mexico and Brazil. Predominant Islamic countries have the highest percentage of those that reject evolution: Polling creationism and evolution around the world | National Center for Science Education.
The reason is that the religions of Christianity and Islam are anchored historically and theologically in a literal not only Genesis but the Pentateuch also. These ancient tribal scriptures specifically refer to literal interpretations to justify their belief. This is the problem with reform movements when the religion is anchored in a literal interpretation the scripture always calls people home, regardless of what the leaders upstairs try and justify scripture by reason.
There is a growing movement of the non-scientific ID to try and justify ancient scripture Creationism in both Christianity and Islam.
Judaism is the exception because its beliefs are not anchored in a literal interpretation, and since the Jewish Reformation movement in the 18th and 19th centuries, the importance of the Pentateuch was diminished. The scripture emphasis begins with Exodus. Jews are predominately anchored in their traditions, culture, and lineage, and to a certain extent Midrash has replaced scripture,
The reason is that the religions of Christianity and Islam are anchored historically and theologically in a literal not only Genesis but the Pentateuch also. These ancient tribal scriptures specifically refer to literal interpretations to justify their belief. This is the problem with reform movements when the religion is anchored in a literal interpretation the scripture always calls people home, regardless of what the leaders upstairs try and justify scripture by reason.
There is a growing movement of the non-scientific ID to try and justify ancient scripture Creationism in both Christianity and Islam.
Judaism is the exception because its beliefs are not anchored in a literal interpretation, and since the Jewish Reformation movement in the 18th and 19th centuries, the importance of the Pentateuch was diminished. The scripture emphasis begins with Exodus. Jews are predominately anchored in their traditions, culture, and lineage, and to a certain extent Midrash has replaced scripture,
Actually, @Brian2 is resorting to a 'Blue smoke and mirrors' performance to justify belief, and in reality, ALL the translations do not differ significantly in the text.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
In biology, abiogenesis (from a- 'not' + Greek bios 'life' + genesis 'origin') or the origin of life is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities on Earth was not a single event, but a process of increasing complexity involving the formation of a habitable planet, the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules, molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes. Many proposals have been made for different stages of the process... -- Abiogenesis - Wikipedia
Audie
Veteran Member
Grab that goalpost and run run run.Yep "snark" isn't an emotion, but snarky is associated with emotions.
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
snark1
- an imaginary animal (used typically with reference to a task or goal that is elusive or impossible to achieve).
"pinning down the middle classes is like the hunting of the snark"
snarky
[ snahr-kee ]SHOW IPA
See synonyms for snarky on Thesaurus.com
adjective,snark·i·er, snark·i·est.
- testy or irritable; short.
- having a rudely critical tone or manner:snarky humor.
True, but what I rejected was 'only' as an emphasis on the hypothesis. I consider it a little more complex than the above simple definition. My review of the literature indicates that a number of hypotheses are proposed to resolve the complex history of abiogenesis. The present most difficult and not completely resolved is the formation of RNA. We have determined some of the necessary reactions such as the role of phosphorus and the possible role of catalysts.
Definition - Snark a shark without teeth.
Its true that the overall stories are similar, the main points being agreed but I've read 3 bibles that do differ significantly, including missing important verses.
I know of the problems with the KJV, because they had limited sources, and more recent discoveries of texts have added and changed some verses, but I know of no major issues such as you describe. Some modern versions have changed the wording with modern language. The Dead Sea scrolls added some information to improve the Pentateuch texts.
I like the book 'Complete Gospels' edited by Miller as an analysis of all the known books relating to the gospels. I can refer to references that do a good analysis of Genesis and the Pentateuch
The main issue is the different versions do not change the basics of Genesis and the beliefs of the NT authors in a literal Genesis.
Last edited:
List of New Testament verses not included in modern English translations - Wikipedia
There are many websites dedicated to the differences. Just compare the kjv with the niv.
The bible is more than genesis
I acknowledged this, but the issue is the significance of the differences, which is very very limited except for those that have a stoic traditional attachment to the KJV as the one and only true translation
Whatever!
Have you read the history of how the kjv was compiled?
The bible is a little more than genesis