The only people who think that evolution is meant to explain how everything got here are Creationists.

And yes, I agree with you.

creationsts are the only ones who say evolution involves the big bang, the origin of stars, the origin of planets, and the origin of life. Creationists take the view that "If you can't argue against something, lie about what it means and then counter the false definition you invented", AKA, straw-man argument.

Evolution ONLY deals with CHANGES in living organisms via inheratable traits (aka, dna). As far as evolution is concerned, it could very well have been god who created life on earth, evolution is just HOW that life changed into the myrid creatures on earth, humans, and new creatures in the future.

The two are linked for the christian god but not for some other form of a higher power(s).

The burden of proof is on the person making the affirmative claim, in this case the bible is the word of god.  Seeing as how I have seen some inconsistencies in the bible I see that as evidence against the bible and since the bible is used to prove the bible is true, which is circular logic and thus unreliable at best, I can't buy the bible as fact.  That's not to say there aren't some good stories in the bible, and there are definitely some good life lessons ("do unto others as you would have done unto you" is one of my favorites) in the bible but I don't see it as something to base a belief system on.

It was also forced on many people so I really don't count that as having an affect on people.  Not to mention the idea that just because a lot of people have been affected by it is no reason for me to accept it just like I wouldn't jump off a bridge just because lots of people are doing it.  If people, such as yourself, wish to read it and believe what it says as absolute truth that's fine, it's just not for me.

Who said they didn't?  That's also an assumption.

So.  They still influence your opinion of Jesus and even God as you read the stories.  You need to see the depravity that "existed" to appreciate the "need" for God to intervene or for Jesus to come on the scene and do his thing.

I never admitted anything.  Re-read it again.  I said that you need to see the depravity so that he appears like more than a man, I never said that I saw him as more than a man but merely that was the intent of the authors of the various books of the bible.

Reread my last post and this one.

Remember Karl Marx' "Das Kapital"?

Who can argue that it didn't affect many, many people. Is Karl Marx a god? I doubt it.

The Bible (and I am not commenting on the "New Testament" here) is as inconsistent as history. Different sources of the same legends put together plus a few hundred years of pretty authentic history form the whole.

Nope nothing to do with circular logic.  First of all the bible is unique.  Unique means.....1.one and only; single; solo.  2.  different from all others; having no like or equal. 

It's unique in its continuity, its circulation, its translation, its survival, its teaching and its influence on surrounding literature. 

I read this once by a professor...he said:  "If you are an intelligent person, you will read the one book that has drawn more attentin than any other, if you are searching for the truth." 

you've seen some inconsistencies?  Yourself?  Or because somebody told you?  You already told me you haven't read the stuff for what 10-20 years?  The bible isn't used to prove the bible is true although there isn't anything in the bible that has been proven untrue even after all these years.  Interesting isn't it?  Either you believe that the bible, written by about 40 diff men over a period of 1500 years is God's revelation to mankind or you don't.  I understand completely that you don't.  But at least get your facts straight because what you're basing your disbelief on is deception. 

Actually the bible has nothing to do with proving itself to be true.  It already assumes the reader understands he is reading truth.  The bible isn't about proving God.  It speaks to the reader who already understands that there is a God who created all that we see around us. 

not an assumption if you've ever read the four gospels and compared them.  It's quite clear they were not in collusion with each other.  In fact those who try to disprove the bible, (probably the majority) say the opposite of what you're saying.  They try to show what they see as inconsistencies between the four when in fact there isn't any.

So it's interesting....you're saying they all checked with each other before they wrote their version and that's why they fit so perfectly.  And others point out the seeming contradictions between the four saying they should have gotten together beforehand.  Interesting.  For instance the two geneologies...one in Luke's version and one in Matthew's version are different and have been thought to be inconsistent......  So which is it?  Can't be both.  They couldn't be in collusion with each other and not in collusion with each other at the same time. 

Just goes to show that people have opinions (strong ones at that) before they even read them because they want to so desparately to disprove them they'll believe anything the opposition has to say.  Now who's in the assumption business? 

Which Bible is unique?

The Samaritan Torah? The Hebrew Bible? The Hebrew Bible as used by the tribe of Dan ("Ethiopian Jews")? The Christian Bible? The Christian Bible as used by which Church? The Aramaic-Arabic recitation (the Quran)?

And which translation is the word of G-d?

Luther's? King James? Any of the Aramaic versions of the Christian Bible?

I have read both Luther's and King James and found several differences. I have also read a lot of the original Hebrew and it is different from both still.

I have yet to read the Samaritan Torah, but I have heard there is an English translation out now. (It tells the story of Adam to Moses from the perspective of a different Israelite tribe.)

I never understood why Muhammed and the Christians were so sure about which of the Jewish tribes had the correct account of G-d's word.

for all I know they all may be fine.  I'm not familiar with the Samaritan Torah.  They can all be fine Leauki.  The bible I have is quite consistent with another written in Polish or Chinese.  But it's the original Greek and Hebrew was handed down that was inspired. 

You make it much harder than it is Leauki.  There are many many Jewish scholars over the years and they have no such problems with the translations.  In fact, I just recently had the privilege to sit under a very old Jewish man who is proficient in many languages and he has no such problems.   His name is Gary Cohen.  In fact, he's probably the most intelligent person I've ever met in person.  He just recently wrote all the notes in the New King James Version that has just come out or is coming out. 

There are over 5,000 original copies of the Hebrew and Greek Testaments as originally written.  They all say the same EXACT thing.  If the modern translations don't stay true to them then they wouldn't be something worth reading.....for instance I don't like the much touted "The Message" bible or the JW's "New World Translation," because they did not honor the original language and made the bible say what they wanted it to say. 

Other than that most of the versions or translations  are completely reliable for the average reader. 

Which "over 5000 original copies" do you know about?

The oldest extant copies are among the Dead Sea scrolls and we have already discussed, in detail, some of the differences between those and the translations.

And then there is this big issue I had already addressed before with words changing meanings. Remember the word "earth", which 500 years ago meant "land" and only came to mean "planet Earth" by the 19th century? And suddenly Christianity had a world-wide flood to contend with. The flood is G-d's universal truth? The original Hebrew text doesn't say it (and neither does the Quranic version).

Just reading your interpretations of the Bible gives me an entirely new version that I cannot find in the actual Hebrew text. And you are telling me that the Bible is unique?

(One major difference between the Samaritan Torah and the Jewish Torah is that the Samaritan Torah commands the northern tribes of Israel to build a Temple on Mount Gerizim rather than Mount Moriah where the tribes of Yehuda, Simeon and Benjamin build theirs.)

The Dead Sea Scrolls are indeed the oldest but the great thing about them (and proves the authenticity of the bible) is they totally backed up the over 5,000 original copies known to be in existence (all protected and preserved) when these scrolls were discovered in 1947.  So it just showed that what we had in our hands that day in 1947 was what these ancient scolls  said as well.  Proving to us the bible translations we had in our day were highly reliable and accurate. 

I understand that and agree with you.  We must look at the timing and the context at which it was written.  But where I see you go off is when you get too much into wording alone and don't take either context or other scriptures into account which will help clear up confusion.  That's why I say sometimes you get too much into semantics.  It's like you only see one individual tree at a time and can't see the whole forest.  The meaning of words is very important but has to be part of the picture not the whole picture. 

like what?  My interpretation should have nothing to do with it.  You and I could read the same scripture but have diff interpretations especially if we're going with our own opinion.  I try not to do that.  Sometimes that comes into play but I try my best to be objective by looking at what the rest of the scriptures have to say and put the pieces together.  That's how the scriptures work...like a puzzle.  When I use my own opinion (and I try to convey that when I do) I'm usually not correct because I've let my own biases and experiences cloud my answer.  I'm a truth seeker.  I'm really not interested in my opinion and certainly not that of others especially at the expense of the truth. 

ok that would be a case, if you're right, that I would put with the other two examples I gave you.  If all the original copies say one thing and then this one says another.....I would have to go with the majority which is exactly what the ancient biblical scholars did. 

The Samaritan Torah would have had to be written after the Assyrian captivity because that's where they came out of and that was well after the original Hebrew version by Moses.  In other words they ammended the original which is what the JW's did with our modern translations to suit themselves. 

 I know all about the controversy between the two groups and that's why in the NT book of Acts the Samaritans did not recieve the Holy Spirit  like the Jews did until they were associated with the Apostles (Peter and John) so they wouldn't start a rivial Christian group like they did during Jesus' day.  Peter and John laid hands on them to bring them under the one roof of Christianity so they were all united. 

So again, the original text would be the correct version.  It always is.  Everything has to be compared to the original source. 

Do you not remember the issue with the Vav and the Yud?

The Christian translations translated with "pierce" or "dig" a word which in the Jewish Bible was "k'ari" ("like a lion", Kaf Alef Resh Yud). The Hebrew for "dug" (but not "pierced") would have been "karu" (Kaf Resh Vav).

Which version is correct? I think the Jewish version is correct.

And then finally the Dead Sea Scrolls gave us a third version: Kaf Alef Lamed Vav.

To me this supported the Jewish version, since a Vav looks very much like a Yud (it is just a tad longer). Whereas an Alef does not simply appear or disappear in a word (just like the "r" in "word" does not simply disappear).

So who is right about this passage?

I actually take context into account. I figure out which peoples were involved and what their culture was like. I know what the place names mean (Aram, Canaan, Arabia, Misraim etc.). That alone gives me an edge.

Both versions of the Torah were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, as far as I know. There is no reason to assume that the northern (Samaritan) version is younger than the southern version. They were both Moses' Torah and both predate the rest of the Bible. The kingdom of Israel split into two, one centered around Judaea, one around Shomron (Samaria). Three tribes lived in Judaea, two tribes lived in Samaria/Shomron/Israel (call it what you will), one tribe moved back into Egypt, one tribe was divided between Judaea and Samaria (the Levites), and the other six tribes are lost. (Just for completeness' sake, the "ten lost tribes" are those six plus half of Levi plus Dan, who went back to Egypt, plus the two Samarian tribes.)

I don't see how one Torah can be older than the other.

vaguely remember.  Isaiah 53?   I remember looking up the words that you brought up and not seeing a problem with our English version and that it fit quite well.  At the time I remember giving you what I saw using the original Hebrew and how it fit but you had your mind set.   There was no inconsistency no matter which translation you pick.  I would always go for the Hebrew definition understanding we are only trying to find the right word for it in our own language. 

I don't know either without checking first but even so...they could have both been included, I don't know but that doesn't mean that the Samaritan's is correct because they found it with the original.  The Dead Sea Scrolls were about a thousand years older than the copies we had in our hands at the time. 

Easy.  The Samaritans didn't even come into existence until the Assyrian captivity which was after Solomon's reign.  So if there are changes from the Hebrew Torah to the Samaritan (and I'm only going by you saying there is)  it has to be because the Samaritan's changed it.  And the place of worship was a bone of contention between the two groups.  They even mentioned this to Jesus in the NT (John 4). 

So since we have the originals Mosaic text in the Hebrew I would have to start there. 

Very true, and for me that is reason enough not to buy into it as a belief system.  I make no judgements on those who do, that is their choice.

Unique or not as far as I'm concerned it contains circular logic which makes it unreliable at best and certainly provides me with reason enough not to use it as a belief system.  If you choose to go into reading the bible with the assumption that there is a god then it may not contain circular logic but you have to go in with some assumptions first, which I choose not to do.

Yes myself.  The story of creation in genesis when I last read it (not 10-20 years ago but it's been a while) seemed inconsistent because there were essentially two stories of creation.  The idea that Noah could have built a boat large enough to hold two of every species is impossible as far as I'm concerned.  The list goes on.  I don't need to constantly re-read the thing to remember some of the inconsistencies and remind myself why I chose to not believe in it's teachings.

That's not interesting at all.  Again the burden of proof is on the person making the affirmative claim.  Can you prove that there was a burning bush that told moses what to do?  I don't need to prove it didn't happen.  If you choose to believe it happened that's fine, I don't.

That's your assumption.  I spent a number of years attempting sunday school every week and after that going to the services so my current views on the bible are not based on deceptions.

And that is a base assumption that one must have when going into reading the bible.  It's fine if you happen to have that assumption, I however do not.

You had asked something like how it could be explained that the stories mesh so well, I provided a possible scenario.  I was merely presenting a "what if" scenario.  You are assuming that they weren't in collusion to write the books, but what if they were?  And the opposite could be applied.

I don't care what the "opposition" says.  I'm not one of those idiots out there who see it as their mission to tear down Christianity.  That isn't my place, if someone chooses to believe in the words of the bible I have no problem with that as long as they aren't trying to shove it down my throat and I do my best not to shove whatever I believe down anyones throat.

Now I'm completely confused.  Earlier you were saying that you were a literalist when it comes to the bible and that there is basically only one way to read it.  Now you're saying that two people can read the same passage and come away with different interpretations.  It can't be both ways.  Either there is only one way to read it or it can mean different things to different people.

I'm just curious here because I don't know, how does anyone know what the "original" text was?  Do they have dates on them as to when they were written?  Do we know which ones were written first and which ones were copies of that "original", etc?

No, there isn't any inconsistencies.  Besides if there is a question in your mind how do you  know the confusion doesn't lie with you and not the scriptures?   Let me just go with what you gave me ok?

There's only ONE story of creation.  It's found in Chap 1 and it's chronological, telling us what day each part of creation was made. Seven days and all was complete.   Chap 2 focuses on just Adam and is considered a topical description of what was most important.  The bible does this alot.  Repeats itself to get the message across.  It's like taking a picture and then taking another picture immediately after but zooming in on the subject matter.

On the ark.  This has been proven by animal experts as completely acceptable.  So why wouldn't you believe it?  Do you know how big the Ark was?  Do you know how big the animals were?  Do you know how many animals were around at that time?  How do you know the animals weren't all babies?  So instead of having two huge elephants, he had two baby elephants, etc?  Look at the biggest ships we have today.  Queen Mary?  Look at the Aircraft Liners and they hold huge planes.    Do you think it could hold all the animals?   

Sorry, but you are believing someone else.  Otherwise you wouldn't be bringing up the same old stuff that every skeptic brings up......and when confronted with the truth they shrug and say....doesn't matter I still don't believe it because in all reality they don't want to believe it which brings up the question I asked you before.  Why do you suppose you don't believe in the first place? 

but you do have an assumption do you not?  You are assuming the bible is no diff than any other book even while I can show you quite clearly it's very unique.  That in itself should make one curious as to why and what makes it unique if they really wanted to know that is.  You do not.  That's ok.  That's where you are at the moment.  I'm ok with that. 

but I also answered that by reading of the texts it's clear they are not in collusion.  They all have their own unique twist with seeming contradictions on what happened but they do mesh perfectly.  Even tho many take a diff approach than you pointing out those differences. 

I am a literalist (as much as you can be) when it comes to the reading of scripture.  But that doesn't stop even two literalists from having a diff interpretation at times.  Hopefully one can show the other with other scripture the correct interpretation.   Most of the time it has to do with application.  There is only one correct interpretation of the bible (it interprets itself) but many applications can be made.  For instance.....in the book of Revelation Jesus is said to be knocking at the door and if anyone lets him in he will come in and dine with him.  Rev 3:20. 

Many misinterpretate that and say that Jesus is knocking on the door of our heart.  If we just open our heart to him he will come in.  It's ok to make that an application but that is not the correct interpretation.  The correct interpretation (by context) is that he's seen outside of his own church.  The church is too busy and they have no time for Christ.  He's shown outside his own church knocking on the door.  A famous painter way back in time painted a picture of what this might have looked like.  He showed Christ standing outside of a church with no doorknob.  The doorknob was only on the inside. 

The scholars thru the years have dated these ancient manuscripts by the paper that it was written on and the writing styles.  Some of the ancient texts were written on animal skins, bleached clean and then it went to paprus reeds and then vellum for one thing.   Some of the ancient texts are only fragments, some are small just a page or two and others with much more writings intact. 

You "vaguely remember"?

The problem was that your English version used the word "pierced" to translate a Hebrew word that meant "dug" and was translated as "dug" into several other languages (and as "encircled" into Latin).

The Masoretic text had "like a lion" instead.

And, finally, the Dead Sea Scrolls revealed that the word was neither "dug" (KRV) nor "like a lion" (K'RY). Instead it was K'RV.

In Hebrew letters:

"dug"/KRV: כרו

"like a lion"/K'RY: כארי

Actual text (from Dead Sea Scrolls): כארו

My guess was that the Dead Sea Scrolls accidentally wrote the י as a ו which is easy to do. (It happens to me all the time.)

The other guess was that the Dead Sea Scrolls added a letter א to the word for no apparent reason.

Either way, that gives us three versions of the same text, the Christian version, the Rabbinic version, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Which one is the word of G-d?

For Jews it's easy. The Jewish version is the word of G-d FOR JEWS. Since nobody else has to be bothered with Jewish law, it doesn't matter whether they disagree that the Jewish Bible is the word of G-d.

It's no wonder that Christians and Muslims had to come up with new holy books to explain all this stuff.

Edit: Found the H.