<p>Wow. Really? All the Christians I ever knew were vehemently against evolution.</p>
<p>Never forget that Christianity is a religion of over 2,000,000,000 adherents. You're going to find all types of different views depending on where you live. I'm glad that I can offer you a alternative to the view you're most familiar with. </p>
<p>While I'm no authority on the science and religion "debate," I don't feel that the two contradict as much as the media would like you to think. Much of this has to do with my perspectives on the Bible, but much more has to do with my conviction that science gives us a deep perspective on God's creation, allowing us to grow in our faith and our understanding alike. </p>
<p>For a truly different perspective, check out Michael Dowd's "Thank God For Evolution." I haven't read it myself, but if you're interested in the question of Evolution and Creation, it would be a great place to start.</p>
<p>Lol. I know some christians around here who would bite your head off for speaking of such things as this: "These lines, even if you don't take them literally (as I do not), would imply that God made the universe through an indirect mechanism. These quotes in Genesis don't show God forming little trees and cows out of clay; instead, they portray Him commanding the Earth (land) to produce such animals. Evolution could very well be that tool."</p>
<p>But it's good to know that there are many christians out there who think the way you do. Unfortunately, most of the christians I have met here believe in the "7000 year old earth theory."</p>
<p>The question boils down to this: do I base my faith, my love and my life in a collection of documents or in God? I just happen to choose the latter, as do plenty of Christians.
Don't get me wrong; I believe in the Resurrection, the Second Coming, etc. I simply don't make the Bible the very center of my faith. That position belongs to God.</p>
<p>One final note: Please--I beg you--don't judge Christianity by what I say, or what Christians you've met say, or any of that. No religion should be judged by its adherents.</p>
<p>A real bible is called simply "the bible". It can be found anywhere that has a catholic bent. Pretty much all protestant denominations use some kind of adulterated king james version of the bible. I am not catholic though, I just like their texts. </p>
<p>And Agryasianman, I know what you mean about only knowing the antievolution christians. I would suggest to you though that most christians (including the catholic church itself) believe there is no conflict between evolution and the bible. The ones that do believe there is a conflict though tend to be the loud angry ones.</p>
<p>But who defines the legitimacy of each type of Bible? No doubt, the Protestants will disagree with the unique texts in Catholic Bibles; the Catholics will disapprove of the unique texts (or omissions of Catholic texts) in the Protestant Bibles. </p>
<p>Oh, and congrats on Cornell!</p>
<p>Brief history of the bible:</p>
<p>The first book written was actually the book of Job. It is over 3500 years old. The ancient torah, or the jewish part of the bible is a collection of texts, most of which (generally agreed upon by academic historians, but there is still legitimate dispute)) were collected and bound together as a series when the jews were in exile in babylon (around 500 bc). Books of prophets were added and taken away over time. Then jesus came/died, and lots of gospels were written between 50-300 ad (also the letters of paul, acts, revelations, and a few others were written soon after 30 ad). There was no legitimate list of authoritative gospels until the council of nicea met in 392, under the command of the bishop of alexandria, they created what we now know as "the bible" (keeping 4 gospels, and eliminated about 15 from the cannon). 1100 hundred years later, a king of england decided that he A) wanted a divorce and B) wanted to reduce romes influence in his kingdom, so he formed the anglican church and created his own bible. The king james version of the bible eliminated a few books from the bible that condemed his activities (divorce and seeking large amounts of wealth wealth). This idea that the king james verion, or the NIV version of the bible is the inspired word of god is insane. If god inspired a bible, it was the original 392 one, not the 1512 king james knockoff. I also think that some lutherans and methodists may use the orignial bible, but im not positive on this.</p>
<p>But what books, exactly were removed by King James? It's not like you have two radically different Bibles from which to choose.</p>
<p>Reading and taking the Bible literally really limits one's understanding of its underlying meaning. If the Bible were meant to be taken literally, then I don't believe it would pertain to our time period at all.</p>
<p>3 Esdras
4 Esdras
Tobit
Judith
The Rest of Esther
The Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus (Sirach)
Baruch, with the Letter of Jeremiah
The Song of the Three Young Men with the Prayer of Azariah
The Story of Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
The Prayer of Manasseh
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees</p>
<p>They are not radically different. But the protestant bibles remove the theme that to get rich is evil. The catholic books also have a different translation for the greek word ergon. This can either mean "to work" or "to do". The catholics used the phrase "to do" to encourage people to do good things (to do good). The protestants used the phrase to mean "to work" which eventually led to the notion of the "protestant work ethic" because king jimmy wanted a bunch of loyal hard working servants (to work well). There are other numerous translational ambiguities, like the King James bible references unicorns and satyrs when the original hebrew texts talk about creatures with a single horn.</p>
<p>@tboonepickes: I like how you can really defend everything and just fire back...its hillarious</p>
<p>I have always had a hard time understanding how people can say that nothing in the Bible is to be taken literally or that by holding to a literal interpretation of the Bible is imposisble as it wouldn't pertain to our time period.</p>
<p>2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness</p>
<p>For this passage (2 Timothy2:16), the phrase given by inspiration of God translates a single Greek word. Literally the word means God-breathed. The words divinely inspired have probably thenearest English equivalent meaning.</p>
<p>Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.</p>
<p>2 Peter 1:20-21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.</p>
<p>1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of ys, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.</p>
<p>Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law (Bible), till all be fulfilled.</p>
<p>One can also deduce that the Bible is meant to be taken literally when one looks at all the prophecies it contains that were literally fulfilled. It the Bible were mere imagery, than we could not point to literal events that were foretold by the men who wrote the Bible at the prompting of God Almighty.</p>
<p>Regarding the "missing" books of the Bible...those books which can be found in the Apocrypha do not come from reliable sources and fail to meet the tests for historical reliability. Most of them were written centuries after the events they claim to tell a first hand account of, like the "Gospel of Thomas". They were attributed to authors who had long since died before the books had even been written. The distribution of these "missing books" was also so limited that there aren't but a few that can be found in their full form, so we cannot determine its accuracy. Most of the apocrypha books have little to no corroboration of their "factual claims" by any other ancient source.</p>
<p>Tboones....if the KJV removes any reference to wealth being the root of all evil, then why do we have...</p>
<p>"It is easier for a camel to do through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." Matthew 19:24; Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25</p>
<p>1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is a root of all evil</p>
<p>Hebrews 13:5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have; for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.</p>
<p>1 Timothy 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous</p>
<p>1 Samuel 8:3 And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment.</p>
<p>2 Timothy 3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy. (Wow....fulfilled prophecy can be found in that verse...just look at the unruly kids of today's generation, and those who are trying to keep up with the Jones' and those who are unthankful for what they have been give (just look at the FA thread and you can see tons of kids who aren't thankful they are not dirt poor and living in poverty).</p>
<p>Wow....for having removed the apocrypha to hide that wealth can be wrong, the 66 Cannonized books of the Bible sure seem to tell the story that man shouldn't seek after wealth or be overly concerned with wealth as wealth can be evil.</p>
<p>Nikkiil: If the writers of a book (in this case, Paul, Peter and other NT authors) call itself the literal truth, what good does that do us? </p>
<p>Let's focus instead on what Jesus had to say:
"Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law (Bible), till all be fulfilled."</p>
<p>I don't trust in my own analysis, but I would like to mention two things:
1--But did Jesus not fulfill the law? "I have not come to abolish [the law or the prophets] but to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17 NIV</p>
<p>2: The law is one portion of the Old Testament, but it certainly doesn't encompass all of the Bible. When I read this passage, I don't see Jesus talking about Biblical literalism; I see Him talking about a law which he came to fulfill.</p>
<p>P.S: Regarding your last post--I completely agree! I think you might even have left out the most telling verse from Christ Himself: Mark 10:20-21.</p>
<p>"Teacher," he declared, "all these [commandments] I have kept since I was a boy."
Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."</p>
<p>NikkiL, those books arent apocrypha though. The apochrypha is stuff like the book of enoch, where they talk about crazy stuff, or the gnostic gospels that were written 200 years after jesus died. In general, the apocrypha includes all of the books that were considered religious christian texts, but not deemed to have been fit for the bible in the council of Nicea in 392. The books that were removed in the king james version were part of the official church bible for the 1300 years between the council of nicea up until the protestants made their own bible. In their defense, if there was a correct way to reform the bible, it was their way. They took the 500 most educated (and crooked) anglican clergy and sat in a chamber for a few years until they unanimously agreed on the texts of their new bible. </p>
<p>The removed books also talk about christian spirituality, but thats another whole topic for some other time...</p>
<p>About the wealth removal, recap: This was done because KJ wanted his wealth gaining to be considered OK, but he was not effective at removing all of the texts, that is why the themes still exist. He tried to destroy the themes as far as their priority to the chruch are concerened (quite effectively, becaues i see stupid people like Rick warren and kenneth Koplan preaching wealth theology... but that again is for another time) </p>
<p>My whole point is that if you think the bible should be taken literally, then WHAT bible should be taken literally, because the NIV bible you probably use is clearly different from my "the bible" bible, and the "the message" bible is just freaking stupid. Yes, the OT says that so and so was divinely inspired and whatnot, but it also says that the penalty for eating shellfish is death, and there is a lot of space devoted to the proper sacrificial ceremonies for priests to use to attone for their sins. Must we follow those guidelines too?</p>
<p>"the penalty for eating shellfish is death, and there is a lot of space devoted to the proper sacrificial ceremonies for priests to use to attone for their sins. Must we follow those guidelines too?"</p>
<p>Not if you subscribe to New Covenant theology, which states that Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic law and replaced it with the Holy Spirit (or something like that, I'm not well versed in it.) You could also argue that the Mosaic law was meant for the Hebrew people only, making it irrelevant to Gentiles.</p>
<p>Whoa, but then that totally nullifyes the idea that the bible should be taken literally,</p>
<p>....whoaaa man, your freakin me out.......</p>
<p>Here's another question: for those of you who think that Genesis is literal, the creation story is literal, which of the creation stories do you believe? The first one or the second one? They are significantly different. Do you believe God created the world twice?</p>
<p>Here is an interesting article written by a reverend that you might want to read: Which</a> Creation Biblical Story?.</p>
<p>Actually, Tboone...I rarely use the NIV version, and definately not just by itself. I use multiple translations in addition to my Strong's and compare the verbage and original meaning, as well as context.</p>
<p>The same criteria that removes the Apocrypha from acceptable Bible versions also removes the books you referenced:</p>
<p>Tobit: Is considered apocryphal by Protestants; was never included in the ancient canonical Jewish Bible Tanakh; most scholars only regard this book as a religious novel because its historical details contradict what is known about the historical period from secular sources.</p>
<p>Judith: This book has been excluded by Jews and Protestants because it contains numerous historical mistakes: most scholars believe this book is unreliable from a secular standpoint because of those historical mistakes.</p>
<p>The Rest of Esther: These are Greek additions and not found in the original Hebrew text, but appear in the Septuagint. Even Jerome realized they might not belong in Esther, so they were only placed at the end of the Latin Vulgate for Esther and not where they appeared in the Septuagint.</p>
<p>The Wisdom of Solomon: Also called the Book of Wisdom is not traditionally thought of as having been written by Solomon. Most scholars believe it was composed centuries after King Solomon's death. This book was non-canonical in Jewish tradition.</p>
<p>Ecclesiasticus (Sirach): Not accepted by most Protestants and wasn't accepted into the Tanakh. There are multiple versions of the text, none 100% complete and what is available is still being evaluated by scholars.</p>
<p>Baruch: This is also considered to be an apocryphal book of the Bible. Is not in the Hebrew Bible.</p>
<p>The Song of the Three Young Men...: Also Apocrypha.</p>
<p>Susanna: Also Apocrypha. Recognized by the Jews as a morality tale but not included in the Tanakh. Many scholars, including Jerome, believed the original manuscript was never written in Hebrew or Aramaic because of its Greek puns.</p>
<p>Bel and the Dragon: Also viewed as apocryphal by most Protestants.</p>
<p>The Prayer of Manasseh: Currently viewed as apocryphal by Catholics, Jews and Protestants</p>
<p>1 and 2 Maccabees: Viewed as generally reliable historically, neither Protestants nor Jews consider it Scripture. </p>
<p>A lot of these books do not even discuss wealth, so your theory about why they have been omitted from the KJV is flawed. It might actually help if you researched some of this stuff before you started drawing conclusions. </p>
<p>In the Old Testament, all were bound by Mosiac Law. When Christ came, we became bound by Messaniac Law. There are still "laws" that must be followed, but the rigors of being bound to the Mosiac Law have been lifted. Now, instead of having to work to keep the law, as was the way with the Mosiac Law, Jesus keeps the law for us. </p>
<p>Jesus fulfiled the law, but not everything prophecized in the Bible has been fulfilled. When Jesus returns and sets up his Kingdom, then all will be fulfilled.</p>
<p>"Judith: This book has been excluded by Jews and Protestants because it contains numerous historical mistakes: most scholars believe this book is unreliable from a secular standpoint because of those historical mistakes."</p>
<p>Since parts of the Bible have already been disproved as historically accurate, do you think it might be possible that other parts of the Bible might also have technical mistakes but still retain their deeper meaning?</p>
<p>PS: could somebody please tell me how to quote messages because for some reason my stupid self can't figure it out</p>