Creation versus Evolution. Why evolution is not sufficient to prove Bible wrong?

@DIABLISSAlthough some of your comments are wilfully as nonsensical as they are inflammatory in tone, you do have a point but also totally miss another.

The Bible we know or were taught in Christian backgrounds is not even original.

The OT is an anthology of pre-Christian, Hebrew myths and warped history books written over several centuries, and which survive as the Torah.

The first Christians as such, took a selection of them, put them in a different order and tacked on the New Testament books written by various evangelists who'd not originally set out to form a new religion.

(Jesus, whoever he really was, was Jewish, in a Jewish society; and the European spread of the later Christianity from its schismatic roots was due ironically very much to the Romans who had at first tried so brutally to suppress it. The nearest to original is probably the Egyptian, Coptic Church.)

Then the whole lot was subject to centuries of misunderstandings and mis-translations by European editors who probably had little or no understanding of the many ancient Middle Eastern cultures and faiths.

I have no idea to whom you refer although Christianity throughout Europe for centuries was tainted by its own leaders. They even, for a long time, forbade translating the Bible from Latin into any of Europe's many national languages lest the common herd read it for themselves. It was also riven from the Reformation on, by an ugly mix of politics and sectarianism.

The Kings James Authorised Version was a genuine attempt to get back to the original Jewish and Classical Greek literature without changing the basic stories and message. He established a team of some of the best linguists and theological scholars of the time, to produce the most accurate translations they could of the early books, into the formal English Language of the 17C. A lot of modern Christians seem to enjoy that version and similar liturgy as much for what now seems poetic prose, as for its the message! He did not give the task to "some English-speaking nut-job" whatever one of those is; and nor did anyone else.

'

You do though seem to miss a fundamental point about religion (not about A religion).

I agree that religions are human inventions and have always become excuses for evil human doings; but the point you miss is the basic nature of religion. You seem to fall into the trap set by the hard-line para-Christian fundamentalists on sites like this; who divide the whole world into those of their own dogma, and everyone else.

Religions in many different forms have come and gone across the world since time immemorial. There are currently at least half-a-dozen major deist faiths - some with various sects - plus philosophies like Buddhism; all active internationally.

So clearly none of them can claim uniquity and monopoly of right, righteousness or indeed self-righteousness - though many of their followers try it, some very aggressively.


What then, is happening?

Simply that whatever the logic of the object of the belief itself, or of the circular logic of claiming its truth simply by it being described in its devotional literature; humanity as a whole has always had an innate "spiritual" drive.

"Spiritual" in inverted-commas because it is a psychological, almost instinctive, yearning however personally defined, described or expressed; whether polytheist, monotheist or non-theist. It does not have to have a deity, but usually does,to give it a feeling of sense. Mystical maybe, but without it the need would be very uncomfortably harder to define.

Yes, many individuals find they do not need such mysticism personally. Far too many are forced to follow or deny it artificially as victims of religion used as a weapon of selfishness, from family to national level. Even so, you cannot deny that primary, near-universal human want, however much you ridicule or despise it.


Why have so many people down the ages wanted it?

It can't be just superstition meets ignorance although that was certainly a major driver, and to some, still is. Nor just a power-game or an attempt to destroy learning; which anyway are not religion but mis-use of religion.

Archaeological and historical evidence as well as individual faiths' writings show most religions developed three positive primary aims: seeking a "meaning" to life and everything in Nature, as a psychological support especially around dying and bereavement, and as social cohesion (though the last can be misused and dangerously so).

Oh yes, there were exceptions. There was a dark side. The Classical Greek and Roman soap-opera pantheisms portrayed humans' role as merely to propitiate deities who had no real interest in their Earthly servants. The old South American beliefs were worse, with appalling human-sacrificial rites until stopped by the Spanish invaders in the name of God and the Pope; but the colonists turned out to be even more inhumane. The Church of Rome and early Protestants loved killing each other as horribly as possible, to defend God - they thought.

That being religious can also turn some people selfish, mean and cruel is not an inherent trait of religious belief, but the very human failings and weaknesses of those people using their faith as an excuse. That is cowardly, yes, but challenges are rejected as being "against my [insert name of faith or deity of choice]".


Indeed, by wantonly ridiculing it like that you have not only misunderstood religion as a whole; but also fallen into the uni-view trap fallen into and now set in turn by, GodSpeed and others of his ilk in the many faiths and sects around the world!

@ArishMell OMG! Why do people have to answer like this just to ramble? I fell asleep three times.

I never said the Bible was original...i said i wanted to read the original version in its' original state. Twit

It is hilarious how persons like yourself copy a paragraph from someone else's writings and claim it as your own. and then you say it as if it were fact. It is merely another form of an opinion just like what i read.

I made a summation about all of the religious writings i have read and spoke very plainly about things that are written in history books. I wasn't going to give names and dates because then i would sound like some pompous wordy know it all like yourself.

you...on some weird level of phoney intellect chose to blather on using other people's words. It is funny though athat on some level, we agree that the Bible is nonsense. The original transcriber was jailed and killed for being an idiot.
Next time you want to write a college paper on this site...address it to someone else.

@DIABLISS No need to be rude.

@ArishMell Nice screed. Religion infected our minds when a few troglodytes convinced their fellows that, in exchange for a comfy level of physical support, these “shamans”would commune with the trees, stones and birds to make things work out right for the tribe. Some refinements followed.

It was nonsense then and it’s nonsense now but it pays pretty well. Visit the Vatican or Salt Lake City to see just how well.

@redredred Thankyou!

Oh, yes, I broadly agree with you but I think the problem is how the belief is used rather than the belief itself.

@ArishMell you were quite rude to me

@DIABLISS Was I? Not intentionally I can assure you, but if I was I do apologise.