The Creative Evolution Theory

[CMclaurin]

I just thought I'd post this to get everybody's thoughts on the issue. This is one theory I stumbled upon while listening to NPR and the reading Genesis 1.

Has anyone considered the Big Bang did occur, not as how the atheists preach it, but that the event happened. Something would have to cause it, so I was thinking the Big Bang was God's Command for the Universe to begin? The initial act of creation, ripe with divine power, that formed the cosmic void in which He filled with His creations.

Another point, evolution occuring. In the same instance instead of saying it never happened, considering God initated the process. It would appear only man was a creation he directly focused on, the others he did just the same, but instead of creating them he told the Sea to give birth to them. After there kind, and through the generations, animals would have time to mutate and change in various ways. Of course, this would be considering the Seven Days not to be literal.

A passage refering to this is Genesis 1:20-23

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Anyway, as for the continental drift, it appears God created one continent at first. I would assume after Noah's Flood occured and the fountains of the Earth as well as volcanic activity bursted, the continets shifted.

For the One Continet: Genesis 1:9-10

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.


Now then we come to dinosaurs, let us assume the behemoth in Job is NOT one, and that existed prior to the flood. God cursed the serpent and said " ...upon thy belly thou shalt go..." anyway, this implies that prior to the curse he had another form of movement. All reptiles at the time had legs, yet after the curse they were forced to crawl. The last dinosaurs died out in the flood, and the nest generation of reptiles suffered the curse.

Movement change: Genesis 1:14-15

14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.


Please understand this is just a theory and all, and I would like your comments on it.

Yours in Christ
C.M

[Amanita]

Hi there.

You may want to google something called "Inteligent Design". From what I know about Christian traditions, it is rather controversial, as it does not take the literal 7 days approach., and does not seem to be in line with most of the views articulated on this board.

However, many scientists who are also Christians have come to embrace this concept, as it is similar to, if not exactly what you have described in your above post.

I am only suggesting you research the topic and come to your own conclusions based on faith; I.D is a far from new concept.

..As I said before, I.D is a very controversial matter to some Christians.... And as I am really only an observer on this board, I don't want to start a war or get flamed.

Take care!

Elizabeth

[Hootmon]

The Creative Evolution Theory This strikes me as the most sensible way to reconcile what Science has discovered with what Scripture tells us.

[frisian1970]

Originally posted by Hootmon
This strikes me as the most sensible way to reconcile what Science has discovered with what Scripture tells us.

:nod

[Angyl]

Originally posted by Hootmon
This strikes me as the most sensible way to reconcile what Science has discovered with what Scripture tells us.

Indeed, quite reasonable!

...

If the Bible is a lie.

[frisian1970]

Originally posted by Angyl
Indeed, quite reasonable!

...

If the Bible is a lie.

:yawn

Or your interpretation is flawed.

[Hootmon]

Originally posted by Angyl
Indeed, quite reasonable!

...

If the Bible is a lie. You know... Im getting fairly tired of being accused of calling God a liar when all Im doing is disagreeing with certain people's intrepretation of Scripture.

What makes you so certain you are infallible in this matter, Angyl?

[frisian1970]

Originally posted by Hootmon
You know... Im getting fairly tired of being accused of calling God a liar when all Im doing is disagreeing with certain people's intrepretation of Scripture.

What makes you so certain you are infallible in this matter, Angyl?

Exactly and attempting to understand God's revelation. I don't know about you, I am not intentionally trying to twist God's words.

:frusty

[Angyl]

Originally posted by Hootmon
You know... Im getting fairly tired of being accused of calling God a liar when all Im doing is disagreeing with certain people's intrepretation of Scripture.

What makes you so certain you are infallible in this matter, Angyl?

I'm not infallible at all. I just believe in the infallibility of the Book where apparently you don't. You seem to think that an omnipotent God was incapable of seeing his word translated into English as TRUTH.

I disagree.

No one said you called GOD a liar... just the English version of the Bible a lie (at least in some parts). If you believe that, the next question any reasonable person will ask you is how do you know which parts are a lie and which aren't? ON WHAT do you base your salvation? That could be wrongly interpreted too, ya know...

[frisian1970]

Originally posted by Angyl
ON WHAT do you base your salvation? That could be wrongly interpreted too, ya know...

The blood of Christ.

[frisian1970]

I don't have a problem saying that I don't have all of God's revelation figured out.

[Hootmon]

Originally posted by Angyl
I just believe in the infallibility of the Book where apparently you don't. That is not true. I believe Scripture is infallible in its message, and that message has been successfully communicated through the millenia.


Originally posted by Angyl
You seem to think that an omnipotent God was incapable of seeing his word translated into English as TRUTH. That is also not true. See above.


Originally posted by Angyl
I disagree. Feel free to disagree with the false Hootmon you have constructed. I would too if he existed as you described.


Originally posted by Angyl
No one said you called GOD a liar... Technically that is True. You implied that my view makes the Bible into a Lie. Not much of a difference really.


Originally posted by Angyl
just the English version of the Bible a lie (at least in some parts). I assert that there is both a literal AND a figurative intrepretation of the word 'Yom'. This assertion is supported in the Hebrew. I am not dogmatic about which is correct, but the figurative intrepretation better fits what we have discovered about the Creation through scientific investigation.


Originally posted by Angyl
If you believe that, the next question any reasonable person will ask you is how do you know which parts are a lie and which aren't? ON WHAT do you base your salvation? That could be wrongly interpreted too, ya know... Since your premise about me is invalid, so is your conclusion.

Perhaps an self-examination of your own beliefs might be beneficial.

[Angyl]

I've examined my beliefs thoroughly. I believe that when the translators of Hebrew wrote "Day" it was because that was what God wanted them to say. I believe that when they wrote the english word "day" all throughout the word as even God himself penned the 10 commandments instead of the words "long period of time" it is because God wanted them to.

I believe Scripture is infallible in its message, and that message has been successfully communicated through the millenia.

"The message." :confused

The words are wrong here 'n there but "the message" is okay?

All right, if that's what you want.

[Hootmon]

Originally posted by Angyl
I've examined my beliefs thoroughly. I believe that when the translators of Hebrew wrote "Day" it was because that was what God wanted them to say. You believe that the translators were inspired? All of them? If not, which translations are inspired and which arent?


Originally posted by Angyl
I believe that when they wrote the english word "day" all throughout the word as even God himself penned the 10 commandments instead of the words "long period of time" it is because God wanted them to. The word 'day' can be both literal or figurative in English as well.


Originally posted by Angyl
"The message." :confused

The words are wrong here 'n there but "the message" is okay?

All right, if that's what you want. Precisely!

To assert that Scripture is 100% infallible right down to the precise wording just leaves you open to silly criticisms.

I can show you some 'errors' in wording if you are really interested, but not unless you are willing to admit up front that you might be wrong.

[Angyl]

I've seen plenty of these supposed "errors" in the KJV translation and all of them have proven to be "errors" only inasmuch as the language has changed slightly from there to here. Words have become obsolete or have slightly different meanings. It's nothing a little delving into history won't fix. NOTHING, I've seen drastically changes the verse or sentence content at all...at least not to the scope that days would mean eons...

but please, post your examples.

[purplelinny]

Originally posted by Angyl

"The message." :confused

The words are wrong here 'n there but "the message" is okay?

All right, if that's what you want.

I'm afraid I agree with Hootman, Angyl. We know for sure that text has been added to the bible by man. Dotted throughout my learning bible are references that state that some words and even complete verses were not found in the original texts. There are uncertainties where 'He' can be read 'he', which totally change the meaning. I was actually devastated when I first realised that the bible was not 100% as is from the original - having been taught that it was completely accurate. But I do not dwell on it or make assumptions based on loose context.

And it's even something I would be reluctant to talk about - especially around non-beleivers or baby Christians.

But ultimately, the message of salvation is solid.
--
Lynda

[Angyl]

Originally posted by purplelinny
We know for sure that text has been added to the bible by man.

No we don't. YOu know that the commentary put in by the people who copyrighted and sold that Bible you're reading (for a profit, unlike the KJV) say so regarding the DIFFERENT texts they translated that "bible" from.

You choose to believe their word and their translation over the Textus Receptus which was used to translate the original KJV. That's a choice, but that doesn't make it fact.

[purplelinny]

2 Thessalonians 2:7 is an example of where 'he' could be read 'He' and vice versa, which completely changes the meaning, as detailed in the footnotes of NKJV

For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth [will let], until he be taken out of the way.
--
Lynda

[purplelinny]

Originally posted by Angyl
No we don't. YOu know that the commentary put in by the people who copyrighted and sold that Bible you're reading (for a profit, unlike the KJV) say so regarding the DIFFERENT texts they translated that "bible" from.

You choose to believe their word and their translation over the Textus Receptus which was used to translate the original KJV. That's a choice, but that doesn't make it fact.

Mark 16:9-20 is one of the most commonly talked about additions...
http://www.bible.org/cgi-bin/netbible.pl?book=mar&chapter=16

This was the first one that I learned about and it just about floored me :(:
--
Lynda

[Angyl]

Originally posted by purplelinny
2 Thessalonians 2:7 is an example of where 'he' could be read 'He' and vice versa, which completely changes the meaning, as detailed in the footnotes of NKJV

Sure, in the NKJV I could do that with absolutely any Bible out there. Throw a monkey in the works and say "well this could actually mean this and it would change the whole meaning.

What does that get you?

Confusion.

God is not the author of confusion.

A good study of the KJV (and nothing but the KJV) and the original texts it was translated from shows absolutely ZERO serious errors when you have an understanding of the laguage at the time it was written. Every other (copyrighted for profit) Bible that has come along since is nothing but a translation of the KJV AND other, supposedly "better" texts that the one used in the KJV.

[Angyl]

Originally posted by purplelinny
Mark 16:9-20 is one of the most commonly talked about additions...
http://www.bible.org/cgi-bin/netbible.pl?book=mar&chapter=16

This was the first one that I learned about and it just about floored me :(:
--
Lynda

That's precisely my point... the "New English Translation" you linked to got its information from manuscripts that were NOT used in the original english translation of the Bible.

Why?

Because those translations conflicted with THEMSELVES and every other translation available at the time.

It's a simple matter of trust, really. Either you trust the Bible you hold in your hand is "the one" or it isn't. If it isn't then...

then...

I really don't know how one can go about being satisfied with a flawed letter that is not quite the word of God.

[purplelinny]

At the end of the day... it gets dark... no really...
I think too much reliability can be put on the efforts of fallible man. ALL of the bible versions we read today have come through man's hands. Many of us have preconceived notions, wishful thinking and the clever ability to make something into what we want it to be.

Still looking forward to that powerpoint presentation :D:
--
Lynda

[Angyl]

Originally posted by purplelinny
I think too much reliability can be put on the efforts of fallible man.

Or not enough faith in the omnipotence of God. :D:

[purplelinny]

Originally posted by Angyl
Sure, in the NKJV I could do that with absolutely any Bible out there. Throw a monkey in the works and say "well this could actually mean this and it would change the whole meaning.

What does that get you?

Confusion.

God is not the author of confusion.

Agreed - but man is. It was man that made the translations and footnotes.

A good study of the KJV (and nothing but the KJV) and the original texts it was translated from shows absolutely ZERO serious errors when you have an understanding of the laguage at the time it was written. Every other (copyrighted for profit) Bible that has come along since is nothing but a translation of the KJV AND other, supposedly "better" texts that the one used in the KJV.

Like you, I put more credence in the KJV than I do any other version and am quite shocked at what some versions insinuate. However, there are also errors in the KJV. This page is quite lenghty, but if you scroll down to "Why are there errors in the King James version?", it gives a fairly good account and includes the noticeable errors.
http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/kjverror.html

The Genesis 1:2 error gives food for thought in the YEC debate too. :):
--
Lynda

[purplelinny]

Originally posted by Angyl
Or not enough faith in the omnipotence of God. :D:
You gotta be kidding!

The Lord has shown himself to me in ways I would have never dreamed possible!! The more I believe in his power, the more I see, the more I believe...

God is so awesome :thumb
:hail
--
Lynda

[Hootmon]

Originally posted by Angyl
I've seen plenty of these supposed "errors" in the KJV translation and all of them have proven to be "errors" only inasmuch as the language has changed slightly from there to here. Words have become obsolete or have slightly different meanings. It's nothing a little delving into history won't fix. NOTHING, I've seen drastically changes the verse or sentence content at all...at least not to the scope that days would mean eons... I am beginning to think you are a KJV-only-ist...


Originally posted by Angyl
but please, post your examples. Not unless you are willing to admit up front that you might be wrong. :wave

[CMclaurin]

Wow! Thanks for the replies, if not a tad bit off-topic.To the issue of Salavation; Does this mean you have to even believe in the rapture, the trinity, or other doctrines? No. Even though they are clearly outlined in the Bible, it comes by accepting Christ persoanlly. Salavation comes through personally accepting Christ as your Lord, allowing him to come into your heart and work through you, cleansing you of your sins, and, of course, repentence. This is what makes a Christian a Christian As for the Bible some things *may* have been added, it's likely the RCC added a deal of things before the translation into english, but you have to have faith that what is in there is meant to be. As for interpretation, lean not to your own understanding, I'm not trying to dismiss Genesis or anything ( not claiming anyone said that either ), just giving my on veiw on what it says. Not changing words around or stuff like that.

[Hootmon]

Originally posted by Angyl
A good study of the KJV (and nothing but the KJV) and the original texts it was translated from shows absolutely ZERO serious errors when you have an understanding of the laguage at the time it was written. Every other (copyrighted for profit) Bible that has come along since is nothing but a translation of the KJV AND other, supposedly "better" texts that the one used in the KJV. Now Im fairly certain...

[frisian1970]

Ok then why didn't God ensure all the other English versions of the Bible were 100% accurate (assuming that the KJV was as such)? Your premise is inherently flawed.

[purplelinny]

Originally posted by CMclaurin
Wow! Thanks for the replies, if not a tad bit off-topic.

Ooops - sorry :redface

To the issue of Salavation; Does this mean you have to even believe in the rapture, the trinity, or other doctrines? No. <snip>

Absolutely. :thumb
--
Lynda

[Angyl]

Originally posted by frisian1970
Ok then why didn't God ensure all the other English versions of the Bible were 100% accurate (assuming that the KJV was as such)? Your premise is inherently flawed.

For the same reason that God hasn't ensured that every human being born is 100% unflawed. Do you see the error in your premise?

Ask yourself the question "would Satan have any reason to want to corrput God's word?" and you will come up with every answer you could possibly want regarding other translations.

[Angyl]

Originally posted by purplelinny

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/kjverror.html

The Genesis 1:2 error gives food for thought in the YEC debate too. :):
--
Lynda

Will post more as I read this further. At first glance, however, all I'm seeing is a re-(mis)-interpretation of scripture that hasn't been turned into its own Bible (yet). Just the first three verses listed there are perfect examples of them taking a word that could mean this or that and deciding (on their own merit) that it SHOULD mean that instead of this.

I do not believe in the inspiration of man, I believe in the inspiration of God, erego when a person says "This word SHOULD be translated X" but it can also mean exactly what the KJV says it means...

guess which one I'm going to trust?

Conviction only comes in my seeing errors like "the word 'paper' in the KJV is translated from the [english] word COW and should read bovine."

Nothing like that has ever been brought to my attention in numerous discussions of this nature. It's always "day" from the word "yom" which should be YEAR (but can really mean year, day, long period of time and a whole host of other things but when cross-referenced in the rest of the scripture makes perfect sense exactly the way it is!) :D:

[frisian1970]

Originally posted by Angyl
For the same reason that God hasn't ensured that every human being born is 100% unflawed. Do you see the error in your premise?

Ask yourself the question "would Satan have any reason to want to corrput God's word?" and you will come up with every answer you could possibly want regarding other translations.

What is my premise?

Any other translation except the Greek?

[Angyl]

Here's my premise.

God wrote the peoples of the world a letter. He, being Perfect, wrote exactly what he wanted this letter to say on his behlf. He, being OMNIPOTENT, saw to it that it was written precisely the way He wanted it written... in whatever original language the human could write.
When it was translated from that language:
God again, being omnipotent, saw to it that He...

He...

...

He...


inspired the writing to go exactly the way He wanted it to. When there was any question about things that can have multiple meanings such as Yom, God gave them insight and wisdom to translate correctly.

Which version of the Bible did he do this with? The NIV? The KJV? The NKJV? The NSAB?

I've made my choice. All I ask is that people make one for themselves and stick with it... BELIEVE IT. It doesn't help to go around thinking that what you believe from God is somehow tainted.

Either we have a letter from God.

Or we don't.

There is no in-between. If I wrote you a letter and someone copied it, changing a few words here and there then it can no longer be said that the letter is from ME, can it?

Of course not. :wave

[frisian1970]

Originally posted by Angyl
When it was translated from that language:
God again, being omnipotent, saw to it that He...
inspired the writing to go exactly the way He wanted it to. When there was any question about things that can have multiple meanings such as Yom, God gave them insight and wisdom to translate correctly.


Well that is wonderful conjecture. You state it as fact, but what do YOU base that on? Study? Guidance?

[Hootmon]

Originally posted by frisian1970
What is my premise? Not believing that the KJV is the only inspired version of the Bible would be my guess...

[Hootmon]

Originally posted by Hootmon
Not believing that the KJV is the only inspired version of the Bible would be my guess...

Im wondering which are the only inspired translations in Spanish, Italian, German, etc...

[Hootmon]

Originally posted by Angyl
There is no in-between. If I wrote you a letter and someone copied it, changing a few words here and there then it can no longer be said that the letter is from ME, can it?

Of course not. :wave If your letter was translated into Italian, would it still be your letter?

Of course! :wave

[Angyl]

Originally posted by frisian1970
Well that is wonderful conjecture. You state it as fact, but what do YOU base that on? Study? Guidance?

I don't state it as fact in any other way than it is a fact of my belief.

I state it in exactly the same way that I state that there was once a a man named Moses who lifed a rod and parted a sea that was at least three miles across.

What do I base that on? Study? Guidance?

No.

Faith.

Without it, you've got nothing in a discussion like this.

It really is black and white.

[Angyl]

Originally posted by Hootmon
If your letter was translated into Italian, would it still be your letter?

Of course! :wave

Only if I were there to see to it that it was translated the way I WANTED IT translated.

Otherwise the answer is a resounding NO.

[CMclaurin]

Get a 13 year old to read KJV and they may never read any Bible again. It's my personal favorite, but I think the NIV and others, even if there are omissions, can lead a person to God. Our church uses NIV, I use KJV, but really; If you want to witness to the younger people, don't read from the KJV, we don't understand modern english well enough, let alone King James english.

Regardless, The Bible is a guide for learning about and coming to Christ. If a verse or two is only included in footnotes, if more is added, what matters is if it brings people to God and teaches the VERY basic message of Salavation and God's love for humanity.

[frisian1970]

Originally posted by CMclaurin
Get a 13 year old to read KJV and they may never read any Bible again. It's my personal favorite, but I think the NIV and others, even if there are omissions, can lead a person to God. Our church uses NIV, I use KJV, but really; If you want to witness to the younger people, don't read from the KJV, we don't understand modern english well enough, let alone King James english.

Regardless, The Bible is a guide for learning about and coming to Christ. If a verse or two is only included in footnotes, if more is added, what matters is if it brings people to God and teaches the VERY basic message of Salavation and God's love for humanity.

Und...Amen to that.

[Angyl]

Originally posted by CMclaurin
[B]Get a 13 year old to read KJV and they may never read any Bible again.
Or they might get saved...same way I did. Happens every day.

but I think the NIV and others, even if there are omissions, can lead a person to God.
true.

we don't understand modern english well enough, let alone King James english.
Sadly true. But the belief that the KJV is "difficult" to read is a misconception. It's rated at a 5th grade reading level, the NKJV at a 6th and the NIV at a 7th. They AREN'T easier to read. They're just a different read which, due to the way people assimilate information differently, may come more smoothly than others.

Regardless, The Bible is a guide for learning about and coming to Christ.
Absolutely agreed. All we're arguing here are minor details and semantics that don't usually matter that much.

[purplelinny]

Originally posted by CMclaurin
Get a 13 year old to read KJV and they may never read any Bible again. It's my personal favorite, but I think the NIV and others, even if there are omissions, can lead a person to God. Our church uses NIV, I use KJV, but really; If you want to witness to the younger people, don't read from the KJV, we don't understand modern english well enough, let alone King James english.

As an aside... most of the British people didn't understand King James english too well either. He was an arrogant man and not very Christlike. However, his principle was to stand strong in his Protestant faith with an absolute hatred for the Catholics. However, he did want to have the bible available for reading by the common man.

This is about the most comprehensive info I can find on King James and his commissioning of the bible translation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version_of_the_Bible

Here is an example of one of his instructions to the translators...
"When any place of special obscurity is doubted of, letters to be directly by authority to send to any learned in the land for his judgment in such a place. "

Interesting stuff!
:):
--
Lynda

Oh and... sorry for the continued threadjack!

[Angyl]

:eek

:freaked

:eek

:eek :freaked :eek

Do you know what the SOURCE is for that writing that you just linked to?!?!

[Hootmon]

Originally posted by Angyl
[B]But the belief that the KJV is "difficult" to read is a misconception. It's rated at a 5th grade reading level, the NKJV at a 6th and the NIV at a 7th. That doesnt make sense. On what basis were those 'ratings' derived?

[Angyl]

# of different words used and the difficutly in reading and understanding those words. What else would it be based on? It was some nationally organized sytem for rating literary works...but I forget the name. Our pastor just mentioned them in his sermon on this very subject Sunday Night. I'll ask him for it tonight.

[frisian1970]

Ok, I am out of this discussion...getting me too riled up.

Peace.

:):

[Angyl]

I honestly never thought you were the type to get riled up. Always thought you did the "riling" :laugh

[Hootmon]

Originally posted by Angyl
# of different words used and the difficutly in reading and understanding those words. What else would it be based on? Since the words used in the KJV are often quite archaic in their meaning, I just find it hard to believe that it was rated 'easier' than the NIV, which is a plain language translation.


Originally posted by Angyl
It was some nationally organized sytem for rating literary works...but I forget the name. Our pastor just mentioned them in his sermon on this very subject Sunday Night. I'll ask him for it tonight. Thanks.

[CMclaurin]

...ANYWAY, back to the orginal topic. I think I had a few posts about that. :P:

[purplelinny]

Originally posted by Angyl
:eek

:freaked

:eek

:eek :freaked :eek

Do you know what the SOURCE is for that writing that you just linked to?!?!

Err... yes, it's a free encyclopedia. The information provided is not biased in anyway. Why, what do you think is up with it?
--
Lynda

[Angyl]

Originally posted by Hootmon
That doesnt make sense. On what basis were those 'ratings' derived?

I found out that the reading levels that our pastor was talking about was set by Flesch-Kincaid. They are, by the way, the same people who have set up the readability system for Microsoft Word (if you ask about the readability of a document you create).

Also picked up one more interesting tidbit from my wife's memory of the sermon: The copyright for the NIV? The money from each one of those Bibles sold?

Goes to the World Council of Churches...

Edit to add:

Found this site on the readability statistics here: they agree what our pastor told us.
http://www.netc.com/~gok/bible18.html

[CMclaurin]

Well, I do love the KJV the best. I suppose even though the words are not commonly used, the presence of the Holy Spirit breaks down the barriers with people being unable to understand it.

[LisaAnn]

Here are some articles on the big bang and the Bible (http://answersingenesis.org/search/default.asp?qu=big+bang) if you are interested in reading them. :):

[sunshine4jesus]

Creative evolution?

Does this apply to all living things except man?

This is asked without sarcasm, cynisim, or anything other than a wish to know.

Thanks.

[CMclaurin]

Yes, all plants and animals. Man was a direct creation; Created be loved and to govern the earth. It is my spin on Theistic Evolution, I do not believe man evolved. It has been geneticly proven we are not related to the other species in the group Homo. Assuming the species were alive at the same time we were, they are likely to belong to the Giant group. We have devolved from Adam and Eve, however, as we are now just a fraction of what they were in mind, spirit, and physical structure.

[Amanita]

Angyl-


As far as I can tell, there is nothing un-Christian about Wikipedia:

Wiki
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The terms wiki (pronounced "weekee", /wiki/ in SAMPA) and WikiWiki are used to identify either a specific type of hypertext document collection or the collaborative software used to create it.


Amanita

[Angyl]

I didn't say there was anything uncrhistian about them necessairily. Just that I am cautious in believing everything I read...especially online, and a "free encyclopedia" with contrary information to all that I've learned about something in the past and doesn't list its sources is especially suspect.

Even the big encyclopedias like Encarta (which I have) will have a place where you can check for the contributors to the material).

[Hootmon]

Originally posted by Angyl
I found out that the reading levels that our pastor was talking about was set by Flesch-Kincaid. They are, by the way, the same people who have set up the readability system for Microsoft Word (if you ask about the readability of a document you create). Interesting...

Then the KJV must be more 'readable' mainly because they use a smaller variety of words in shorter sentences.