The evolution theory is a huge misinterpretation of the Bible.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
The evolution theory is a huge misinterpretation of the Bible. How was it possible for someone to get it that wrong?

The Bible clearly says God created the animals and man.

24 Then God commanded, “Let the earth produce all kinds of animal life: domestic and wild, large and small”—and it was done. 25 So God made them all, and he was pleased with what he saw.

26 Then God said, “And now we will make human beings;..

Do you see?

I don't get how some people seem to read man descended from the animals. It's clearly not what it says!

It’s called free will or choice and evolution kinda makes more sense from a purely atheistic mindset, it’s logical
Believing in God is a little strange

Actually not believing in god is illogical. Before the universe there was god. i.e. something that could create. We know that nothing plus nothing equals nothing. Whether God is more like the Christians believe or anybody else for that matter is irrelevant but it is illogical to think that nothing can become something from nothing. It is mathematically impossible, a paradox which simply can't exist

a reply to: Saibotkram1988

It is you that is illogical, you are proposing a 'God of the gaps'. That is if we can't explain something then it must be God.

We don't even know if there can be such a thing as nothing. I would suggest that it is 'nothing' which is mathematically impossible and no need for a 'paradox'.

a reply to: Saibotkram1988

Believing in deities is archaic and primitive, therefore it is not only logical but prudent to use and trust the scientific method in questions like this.

Claiming to know anything at all about pre-time in this universe is lunacy and is over and above arrogance. It demonstrates a very limited capacity for reasoned argument, like most fundamentalist religious people.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
The evolution theory is a huge misinterpretation of the Bible. How was it possible for someone to get it that wrong?

The Bible clearly says God created the animals and man.

24 Then God commanded, “Let the earth produce all kinds of animal life: domestic and wild, large and small”—and it was done. 25 So God made them all, and he was pleased with what he saw.

26 Then God said, “And now we will make human beings;..

Do you see?

I don't get how some people seem to read man descended from the animals. It's clearly not what it says!

It is clearly stated that let the Earth produce all kinds of animal life, so as I interpret that, to me it means that the Earth was given the ability to create life - after the fact.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
The evolution theory is a huge misinterpretation of the Bible. How was it possible for someone to get it that wrong?

The Bible clearly says God created the animals and man.

24 Then God commanded, “Let the earth produce all kinds of animal life: domestic and wild, large and small”—and it was done. 25 So God made them all, and he was pleased with what he saw.

26 Then God said, “And now we will make human beings;..

Do you see?

I don't get how some people seem to read man descended from the animals. It's clearly not what it says!

It is clearly stated that let the Earth produce all kinds of animal life, so as I interpret that, to me it means that the Earth was given the ability to create life - after the fact.

When expressing one's interpretation concerning what the Bible says (or attempting to understand it), it helps if you consider everything it says about the subject, not just choosing to take note of verse 24 alone while ignoring verse 25. Choosing a decent translation also helps.

Genesis 1:24,25 (NW)

24 Then God said: “Let the earth bring forth living creatures* [Or “souls.”] according to their kinds, domestic animals and creeping animals* [Or “moving animals,” apparently including reptiles and forms of animal life different from the other categories.] and wild animals of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God went on to make the wild animals of the earth according to their kinds and the domestic animals according to their kinds and all the creeping animals of the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Note that the Hebrew word rendered in this translation as "living creatures" (neʹphesh) is also the Hebrew word for "souls". Yes, living creatures such as animals are souls according to the Bible (or "souls" are "living beings/living creatures", whichever way you want to put that). That's because we do not have souls, but we are souls, just like animals are "souls/living beings/living creatures". A little bit of theology for ye related to the myth of the immaterial immortal soul and related misconceptions as taught by most (false) religions in this world. Come to think of it, off the top of my head, I can only think of 1 religion that does not teach its members that the soul is something immaterial, and its members are few in number in comparison to those who do teach and/or believe that. Which reminds me of Matthew 7:13,14:

13 “Go in through the narrow gate, because broad is the gate and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are going in through it; 14 whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are finding it.

Myth 1: The Soul Is Immortal (One Myth Leads to Another)

What is the origin of the teaching that the human soul is invisible and immortal?

The difficulty lies in the fact that the meanings popularly attached to the English word “soul” stem primarily, not from the Hebrew or Christian Greek Scriptures, but from ancient Greek philosophy, actually pagan religious thought. Greek philosopher Plato, for example, quotes Socrates as saying: “The soul, . . . if it departs pure, dragging with it nothing of the body, . . . goes away into that which is like itself, into the invisible, divine, immortal, and wise, and when it arrives there it is happy, freed from error and folly and fear . . . and all the other human ills, and . . . lives in truth through all after time with the gods.”​—Phaedo, 80, D, E; 81, A.

In direct contrast with the Greek teaching of the psy·kheʹ (soul) as being immaterial, intangible, invisible, and immortal, the Scriptures show that both psy·kheʹ and neʹphesh, as used with reference to earthly creatures, refer to that which is material, tangible, visible, and mortal.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia says: “Nepes [neʹphesh] is a term of far greater extension than our ‘soul,’ signifying life (Ex 21.23; Dt 19.21) and its various vital manifestations: breathing (Gn 35.18; Jb 41.13[21]), blood [Gn 9.4; Dt 12.23; Ps 140(141).8], desire (2 Sm 3.21; Prv 23.2). The soul in the O[ld] T[estament] means not a part of man, but the whole man​—man as a living being. Similarly, in the N[ew] T[estament] it signifies human life: the life of an individual, conscious subject (Mt 2.20; 6.25; Lk 12.22-23; 14.26; Jn 10.11, 15, 17; 13.37).”​—1967, Vol. XIII, p. 467.

The Roman Catholic translation, The New American Bible, in its “Glossary of Biblical Theology Terms” (pp. 27, 28), says: “In the New Testament, to ‘save one’s soul’ (Mk 8:35) does not mean to save some ‘spiritual’ part of man, as opposed to his ‘body’ (in the Platonic sense) but the whole person with emphasis on the fact that the person is living, desiring, loving and willing, etc., in addition to being concrete and physical.”​—Edition published by P. J. Kenedy & Sons, New York, 1970.

Neʹphesh evidently comes from a root meaning “breathe” and in a literal sense neʹphesh could be rendered as “a breather.” Koehler and Baumgartner’s Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (Leiden, 1958, p. 627) defines it as: “the breathing substance, making man a[nd] animal living beings Gn 1, 20, the soul (strictly distinct from the greek notion of soul) the seat of which is the blood Gn 9, 4f Lv 17, 11 Dt 12, 23: (249 X) . . . soul = living being, individual, person.”
...

Source: Soul: Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
The evolution theory is a huge misinterpretation of the Bible. How was it possible for someone to get it that wrong?

The Bible clearly says God created the animals and man.

24 Then God commanded, “Let the earth produce all kinds of animal life: domestic and wild, large and small”—and it was done. 25 So God made them all, and he was pleased with what he saw.

26 Then God said, “And now we will make human beings;..

Do you see?

I don't get how some people seem to read man descended from the animals. It's clearly not what it says!

It is clearly stated that let the Earth produce all kinds of animal life, so as I interpret that, to me it means that the Earth was given the ability to create life - after the fact.

When expressing one's interpretation concerning what the Bible says (or attempting to understand it), it helps if you consider everything it says about the subject, not just choosing to take note of verse 24 alone while ignoring verse 25. Choosing a decent translation also helps.

Genesis 1:24,25 (NW)

24 Then God said: “Let the earth bring forth living creatures* [Or “souls.”] according to their kinds, domestic animals and creeping animals* [Or “moving animals,” apparently including reptiles and forms of animal life different from the other categories.] and wild animals of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God went on to make the wild animals of the earth according to their kinds and the domestic animals according to their kinds and all the creeping animals of the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Note that the Hebrew word rendered in this translation as "living creatures" (neʹphesh) is also the Hebrew word for "souls". Yes, living creatures such as animals are souls according to the Bible. That's because we do not have souls, but we are souls, just like animals are "souls/living beings/living creatures". A little bit of theology for ye related to the myth of the immortal soul and related misconceptions as taught by most (false) religions in this world.

Myth 1: The Soul Is Immortal (One Myth Leads to Another)

What is the origin of the teaching that the human soul is invisible and immortal?

The difficulty lies in the fact that the meanings popularly attached to the English word “soul” stem primarily, not from the Hebrew or Christian Greek Scriptures, but from ancient Greek philosophy, actually pagan religious thought. Greek philosopher Plato, for example, quotes Socrates as saying: “The soul, . . . if it departs pure, dragging with it nothing of the body, . . . goes away into that which is like itself, into the invisible, divine, immortal, and wise, and when it arrives there it is happy, freed from error and folly and fear . . . and all the other human ills, and . . . lives in truth through all after time with the gods.”​—Phaedo, 80, D, E; 81, A.

In direct contrast with the Greek teaching of the psy·kheʹ (soul) as being immaterial, intangible, invisible, and immortal, the Scriptures show that both psy·kheʹ and neʹphesh, as used with reference to earthly creatures, refer to that which is material, tangible, visible, and mortal.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia says: “Nepes [neʹphesh] is a term of far greater extension than our ‘soul,’ signifying life (Ex 21.23; Dt 19.21) and its various vital manifestations: breathing (Gn 35.18; Jb 41.13[21]), blood [Gn 9.4; Dt 12.23; Ps 140(141).8], desire (2 Sm 3.21; Prv 23.2). The soul in the O[ld] T[estament] means not a part of man, but the whole man​—man as a living being. Similarly, in the N[ew] T[estament] it signifies human life: the life of an individual, conscious subject (Mt 2.20; 6.25; Lk 12.22-23; 14.26; Jn 10.11, 15, 17; 13.37).”​—1967, Vol. XIII, p. 467.

The Roman Catholic translation, The New American Bible, in its “Glossary of Biblical Theology Terms” (pp. 27, 28), says: “In the New Testament, to ‘save one’s soul’ (Mk 8:35) does not mean to save some ‘spiritual’ part of man, as opposed to his ‘body’ (in the Platonic sense) but the whole person with emphasis on the fact that the person is living, desiring, loving and willing, etc., in addition to being concrete and physical.”​—Edition published by P. J. Kenedy & Sons, New York, 1970.

Neʹphesh evidently comes from a root meaning “breathe” and in a literal sense neʹphesh could be rendered as “a breather.” Koehler and Baumgartner’s Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (Leiden, 1958, p. 627) defines it as: “the breathing substance, making man a[nd] animal living beings Gn 1, 20, the soul (strictly distinct from the greek notion of soul) the seat of which is the blood Gn 9, 4f Lv 17, 11 Dt 12, 23: (249 X) . . . soul = living being, individual, person.”
...

Source: Soul: Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2

Again...'let the Earth bring forth'...the Earth will bring forth nothing else. It is quite clear any which way it is written.

a reply to: InTheLight

Some people, though claiming to be guided by the light of the Bible, in reality prefer to stumble along in the darkness. Much falsehood masquerades as truth today. “The learned fool,” once said Benjamin Franklin, “writes his nonsense in better language than the unlearned; but still ’tis nonsense.” God’s Word is a light because it helps us recognize nonsense for what it is, despite its being clothed in the wraps of respectability and popularity. The Bible warns: “Look out: perhaps there may be some man that will carry you off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ.” The illuminating principles contained in the Bible enable even inexperienced ones to detect false wisdom. The psalmist said of Jehovah’s words: “The very disclosure of your words gives light, making the inexperienced ones understand.”—Col. 2:8; Ps. 119:130.

Now where did I hear the phrase:

'Your light is not my light'? (or something like that, I can't remember, perhaps some movie or TV-show)

The Bible is indeed clear about this subject: God made “the wild animals of the earth according to their kinds and the domestic animals according to their kinds and all the creeping animals of the ground according to their kinds.”

Evolutionary theory is incompatible with this teaching. Note that it was the kinds of animals that were created, not every individual species. But the various “kinds” were created separately and are not descended from one another. Within each “kind,” there could be great variety, as we see in the cat “kind” or the dog “kind” or the human “kind.” But genetic factors put there by the Creator would always keep these “kinds” separate from one another. That is why a cat and a dog cannot mate and start another form of life. Thus, this contradicts the evolution theory. But it does not contradict any observed facts. While animals produce much variety within their “kind,” no one has ever documented that one “kind” of animal has reproduced or evolved into a different “kind.”

But what of the structural similarities that exist between certain kinds of animals? These are understandable when we consider that all of them are the product of one Creator and that they were designed from the same materials of the earth to live in a similar environment.

Additionally, Genesis provides an answer to a problem that scientists cannot solve: From where did life come? Scientists try to answer this question with various theories, but in truth they cannot. And the hard fact that has been proved repeatedly in scientific laboratories is that life can come only from already existing life, and from the same “kind” of life.

Genesis also tells us that life is older than the universe and that all other life in heaven and on earth issued from the original Source of life, the almighty Creator, who says that his name is Jehovah. Science cannot come up with a better explanation, one that harmonizes with all the scientific facts that we can observe.​—Psalm 36:9; 83:18; Isaiah 42:8; Revelation 4:11.

The facts verify the Genesis account that living things were created “according to their kinds”.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: InTheLight

Some people, though claiming to be guided by the light of the Bible, in reality prefer to stumble along in the darkness. Much falsehood masquerades as truth today. “The learned fool,” once said Benjamin Franklin, “writes his nonsense in better language than the unlearned; but still ’tis nonsense.” God’s Word is a light because it helps us recognize nonsense for what it is, despite its being clothed in the wraps of respectability and popularity. The Bible warns: “Look out: perhaps there may be some man that will carry you off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ.” The illuminating principles contained in the Bible enable even inexperienced ones to detect false wisdom. The psalmist said of Jehovah’s words: “The very disclosure of your words gives light, making the inexperienced ones understand.”—Col. 2:8; Ps. 119:130.

Now where did I hear the phrase:

'Your light is not my light'? (or something like that, I can't remember, perhaps some movie or TV-show)

The Bible is indeed clear about this subject: God made “the wild animals of the earth according to their kinds and the domestic animals according to their kinds and all the creeping animals of the ground according to their kinds.”

You will interpret it as you need to or desire to and that's fine, but let others follow their own light and wisdom as they find it.

a reply to: InTheLight

Don't think I could stop you or others even if I wanted to, I don't have that power over your beliefs. That's not to say I can't 'argue against it'* while still letting you or others 'follow your or their own light and wisdom as you or they find it', as you put it.

*: or better said, show what the Bible actually says about the subject, all of it that's most relevant, not just the cherry-picked parts for the purpose of eisegesis. I wasn't 'arguing' that much in the sense that it may come across resulting from the way I phrased it above now. The opening of my initial comment was more of a suggestion (encouragement, tip or helpful reminder) than an argument. The 2nd comment was more of the same including a helpful warning from the Bible (or you can also see that as a reminder).

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: InTheLight

Don't think I could stop you or others even if I wanted to, I don't have that power over your beliefs. That's not to say I can't argue against it* while still letting you or others 'follow your or their own light and wisdom as you or they find it', as you put it.

*: or better said, show what the Bible actually says about the subject, all of it that's most relevant, not just the cherry-picked parts for the purpose of eisegesis.

Which Bible? Is there a newly revised one yet?

a reply to: Saibotkram1988

Best argument ever. Nothing comes from nothing. I doesn't seem to penetrate their hard thick skulls. I thought logic still existed but their imaginary hate towards a certain teaching must have made them impotent. It's the toll one pays for being hateful towards what is good. Forgive them for they don't know what they do.

How we share the same earth.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: Saibotkram1988

Believing in deities is archaic and primitive, therefore it is not only logical but prudent to use and trust the scientific method in questions like this.

Says the one who limits himself to scientific evidence to answer questions of life.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Saibotkram1988

Best argument ever. Nothing comes from nothing. I doesn't seem to penetrate their hard thick skulls. I thought logic still existed but their imaginary hate towards a certain teaching must have made them impotent. It's the toll one pays for being hateful towards what is good. Forgive them for they don't know what they do.

How we share the same earth.

Nothing comes from nothing is a poor argument that is frequently used by creationists in a sad attempt to justify nonsensical belief. Not knowing how or why does not mean God did it. There you have it, a nice simple reply that even a simpleton might grasp.

a reply to: midicon

Your reply doesn't change the fact that it's impossible for something to come from nothing. It's logical. Why is it you don't seem to grasp this? Or do you maybe believe in some sort of magical skydaddy? Why is it you lack proof of something coming from nothing, do you think?

Amazing how the ones claiming to be logical and reasoning don't seem to grasp this simple law of nature.

By this logic things appear out of nothing without a particular reason, just because.

Even a simpleton would understand this.

Open the magic box.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

There is no magic box...and there is no such thing as nothing.

Perhaps you can provide an example of nothing?

a reply to: midicon

Why don't you follow conversations? We are talking about origins here. The origin of earth, claimed to have come into existence for no particular reason. By nothing, for nothing.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: midicon

Why don't you follow conversations? We are talking about origins here. The origin of earth, claimed to have come into existence for no particular reason. By nothing, for nothing.

If you are talking about the origin of the Earth then science basically has that covered.

Nothing from nothing on the other hand refers to the 'what came before the big bang' or some such. The real answer to that is no one knows at the moment.

a reply to: midicon

Logic tells me nothing comes from nothing.

Dp

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: midicon

Logic tells me nothing comes from nothing.

Me too...that's why I say there is no such thing as nothing.
And just to add...I don't think scientists propose nothing either.