0

Young's Literal translation:

2:19 And Jehovah God formeth from the ground every beast of the field, and every fowl of the heavens, and bringeth in unto the man, to see what he doth call it; and whatever the man calleth a living creature, that [is] its name.
2:20 And the man calleth names to all the cattle, and to fowl of the heavens, and to every beast of the field; and to man hath not been found an helper -- as his counterpart.

World English Bible:

2:19 Out of the ground Yahweh God formed every animal of the field, and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. Whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
2:20 The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every animal of the field; but for man there was not found a helper suitable for him.

Webster Bible Translation:

2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought [them] to Adam to see what he would call them; and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] its name.
2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowls of the air, and to every beast of the field: but for Adam there was not found a help meet for him.

Darby translation:

2:19 And out of the ground Jehovah Elohim had formed every animal of the field and all fowl of the heavens, and brought [them] to Man, to see what he would call them; and whatever Man called each living soul, that was its name.
2:20 And Man gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the heavens, and to every beast of the field; but as for Adam, he found no helpmate, his like.

The Bible in basic English:

2:19 And from the earth the Lord God made every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and took them to the man to see what names he would give them: and whatever name he gave to any living thing, that was its name.
2:20 And the man gave names to all cattle and to the birds of the air and to every beast of the field; but Adam had no one like himself as a help.

American Standard Version:

2:19 And out of the ground Jehovah God formed every beast of the field, and every bird of the heavens; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them: and whatsoever the man called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
2:20 And the man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the heavens, and to every beast of the field; but for man there was not found a help meet for him.

King James Version:

2:19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof.
2:20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

bit more than simply the King James Bible which has 'got it wrong' there, eh?

Trouble with all this is that there are not only disagreements about the translations used, there are even disagreements about what are the oldest surviving texts in existence!

Well, guys I think we have derailed a lot from our original discussion. In my paper I discussed three major points where evolution is in contradictions (atleast seems to be) with the religious scriptures (Genesis and also the Quran). I am stating my the points here:
1. Does evolution denies the existence of God?
2. The world was created in six days?
3. What about Adam and Eve?

I would like to know what you people think about this contradictions.

There are ofcourse other contradictions with evolution and Genesis:
1. The earth is young, only about 6000 years old.
2. Humans come before other creatures.
3. Global flood and fossils etc.

But I pereferred only to talk about contradictions that are common to both religions.

In reference to those questions, which I agree we should concentrate on as they are actually the point of the topic, I can view them only in reference and comparison to 'Creation myths' which are found in all religions, from all eras and places in human history. Whether it's the trio of religions which have sprung from the land and times of the Old Testament, the story of creation by Brahma in Hinduism, the tales of the Dreamtime from my own Australian Aboriginal heritage, or any of the multitudes of other Creation myths which have been told at different times and in different places.

I see no contradiction in the existence of all those Creation stories. I don't consider that any single one of them needs to be a 'definitive' answer, because I see all of them as mechanisms by which mankind can begin to understand the concept of Creation, each constructed in terms which are relevent to their place and time. Goodness, I'm happy to accept that ALL of them are handed down from that forever incomprehensible 'thing' we conveniently call the 'Creator', and I'm happy to accept that the 'Creator' isn't even a 'thing'.

Makes no sense to me whatsoever that any 'Creator', who is outside and beyond the realms of comprehensibility to mankind, is gonna provide a detailed comprehensive list of the processes undertaken. Seems to me that such descriptions are only ever gonna be 'divine inspirations' rather than 'divine explanations', and are by their nature forever restricted from being 'the Word of Truth'.

It's convenient to think of the Creator as 'God', and its conveneient to consider 'Creation' as a process. Those are concepts which are comprehensible to humanity, whereas the 'nature of God' and the 'nature of Creation' are not! For those who 'need' a Creation story, a Creation story is provided. For those who are content in their co-existence with Creation, such stories are simply literary metaphors, divinely inspired if you wish to think so, which seek in some way to 'describe the indescribable'. They are interesting, they are most often quite beautiful, and they serve a purpose. But that 'purpose', I believe, can only ever have meaning in reference to mankind.

The later development in understanding and capability which has led mankind to examine and more closely explain aspects of the process of Creation in tems of Evolution is not a contradiction of Creation. It is simply an expansion of our comprehension of it.

The other seeming 'ciontradictions' you've mentioned, Asif, can all be considered in a similar way. Does a 'day' to the Creator need to be identical to the 'day' that has comprehensibility to man? If 'divine intent' was to create man, does it contradict the intention to learn that, in the process of man appearing he came via the further development of other animals and species? I think not. After all, if a press a button to begin a manufacturing process which is designed to churn out cakes, there is a part of the process which first churns out batter. My original intent was to make a cake, and the batter is part of the process of getting there. (That's a rather poor example, but you see what I'm getting at I hope. It's late here and I'm tired :))

to those people who are going to get 'hung up' on their particular religious beliefs and their firm conviction that every word of the Bible was intentionally and literally written by 'God' I can onlly say that I respect the fact that you hold such views. If that's your 'view' and 'belief' then I'm happy for you that you have such meaning in you life. I simply don't agree with you, nor do I feel that I need such explanations to be in 'tune' with Creation. :D

Cheers.

0

It's not really science, because there are too many assumptions made, including an assumption that religion is false. If any one of those assumptions is proved false, evolution is false.

0

Those last two comments are a waste of space.

it's definitely science, not religion.

is simply a broad, blind statement which serves no real purpose other than to denigrate all people who believe in any faith whatsoever. The comment is so broad and blind, in fact, that it is virtually a statement that 'science' IS your 'religion'.

It's not really science, because there are too many assumptions made, including an assumption that religion is false. If any one of those assumptions is proved false, evolution is false.

This is another nonsense statement. You criticise the fact that assumptions are drawn, completely ignore the fact that a belief in a religion depends upon assumptions also, and then make the completely unjustified claim that if any particular scientifically investigated theory is shown to be invalid, all other theories should be considered disproven also, even though they be completely unrelated ones. You seem to be trying to say that scientific 'method' should be disregarded completely, and that's just plain silly!

0

Yes I agree with you catweazle. I also do not see the need for any contradictions between evolution and religions. However, people believing in the literal interpretations of the Bible will probably never agree on this. This is a great dilemma.

0

Not a dilemma to me mate :)

As a member I seek only to have an enjoyable and interesting discussion. As a moderator I seek only to ensure that things don't get off-track and out of hand.

Makes no difference to me if people change their minds or not.

0

i am a christian. i do not press my religion

religion not suppressing science?
Tell that to Galileo...
Other scientists have been killed as heretics for daring to proclaim things that didn't fit in the framework of the ruling religion.
Religious groups in the US and elsewhere want to ban evolution theory from being taught in schools as heretical

Evolution is supressing religion, christians only ask to be allowed to have a bible in school. they do not ask toban evolution. They only ask for an equal amount of teaching. What ever happened to freedom of religion? Evolution is forced on every child from kindergarten through college. I will not force a religion on anyone though

0

i am a christian. i do not press my religion
They only ask for an equal amount of teaching. What ever happened to freedom of religion?

Things like this are being taken away by SINGLE individuals. Take that ONE guy in florida for example: His daughter and wife were christian, but he was an athiest(spelling?)...He didn't like the christian religion so he's the one that got "Under God" taken out of the pledge of allegance, even thought this country was founded on religion...It's sad that one person can change things like that...A possible sign of future destruction. That's not the only occurance of something like this, there are MANY more.

0

i am a christian. i do not press my religion

Evolution is supressing religion, christians only ask to be allowed to have a bible in school. they do not ask toban evolution. They only ask for an equal amount of teaching. What ever happened to freedom of religion? Evolution is forced on every child from kindergarten through college. I will not force a religion on anyone though

No one should have any problem if Bible is taught in the schools. The problem is whether it should be taught as a religion or as a science. If it is being taught as a science then it would be disappointing.

0

Boy have i enjoyed reading this thread, i'ts like a book you can't put down. This one creased me up no end:

Yet when we look at the human body and all its organs and intricate systems we say it all happened by chance. What a joke, its so obvious that we are intelligently designed - the human body is one of the most intelligently designed biological system around !!!

I'm sorry but I don't feel intelligently designed at all !! I mean I wear out after just 70 odd years give or take, what use is that? I could go on but It would take to long.

If you walked past an orange tree in an orchard and you saw under this tree 9 oranges on the ground laid out in a perfect square - 3 top row, 3 middle row, 3 bottom row. Would you walk past that and think to yourself - "Oh they must have dropped out of the tree and by chance fell on the ground like that" or would you think "I wonder who did that and why?". Thats the same with evolution - its saying that design (order) formed out of caos by pure chance and no intelligence was behind it - its so ridiculous its embarrassing !!

Maybe fruit trees with a tendency to drop their fruit in such a fashion were extinguished long ago by natural selection as a crummy design, so long long ago (in human terms) it may have been a common site :)

Anyway I don't think it's order from chaos at all, if anything it's more chaos from less chaos. Consider the 2nd (or is it 3rd law) of thermodynamics, that the universal entropy can only increase, or become more disordered.

More on topic here's what I think (or I think i think) who knows? "I think therefore I am" who's to say?

What is intelligence anyway, who are we to say what's intelligent and whats not? us who have been here such a tiny, infitesimal, insignificant amount of time.

We are all made of the same stuff, we are all part of one enourmous organism, the Universe - as we have chosen to call it - perhaps that IS the one almighty being, but it doesn't know it yet, it is a mere few billion years old after all.

Like a new born baby that has no concept of self reaches out facinated by it's own feet exploring, experimenting. We probe our world then the stars and then beyond, elsewhere the universe explores it'self in ways unknowable by us in dimensions unkown to us. Perhaps It will mature and come to know it's own mind and create another...

Science is religion and religion is science the universe is one big paradox of paradoxes. Evolution? creation? they are one and the same, so what! it is but the blink of an eye in a much bigger picture, a picture we can never know in it's entirety as mere pawns in a bigger game. (very very very I cannot stress what small pawns we are)

My current religion dictates that it is bedtime, and who am I to argue.

0

Evolution is supressing religion, christians only ask to be allowed to have a bible in school. they do not ask toban evolution. They only ask for an equal amount of teaching. What ever happened to freedom of religion? Evolution is forced on every child from kindergarten through college. I will not force a religion on anyone though

No one should have any problem if Bible is taught in the schools. The problem is whether it should be taught as a religion or as a science. If it is being taught as a science then it would be disappointing.

Here is where I begin to have a few 'problems' to tell the truth. I don't agree that religion should be a core component of our education system. I don't see how religious education can be included in a State run education system and the system still remian true to the principle of "Freedom of Religion'. I have no problem with the fact that some people will wish their children to be educated in schools which DO have their religion as a core component, but they should be obliged to send their children to an alternative, privately run school. No particular religion should be 'forced' onto people by the mainstream, State run education system.

Similarly, I don't believe that any scientific theory about the nature of our existence should be 'forced' onto students as absolute fact. That's not done in my country, and if it is in yours then your country's education system is deficient. Any decent system of education will stress that theories are theories, and that while we can accept understandings as the best explanation available they are not cast in stone!

0

I don't agree that religion should be a core component of our education system.

In our country we could choose which religion we would like to study. If the education system brainwashes its students then I guess it's always dangerous. My point was to make the religion available for a systematic study in any educational institution--be it state run or private. If we can study communism, democracy why cant we study religion? If the religion is presented before them as it is without forcing it onto them, there is nothing to complain.

0

Studying a religion as an academic subjust area is not something I'd have issue with, I'd agree. 'Learning' religious doctrine as part of the curriculum is what I'd object to. That area of learning belongs outside the schoolroom in my view.

0

Studying a religion as an academic subjust area is not something I'd have issue with, I'd agree. 'Learning' religious doctrine as part of the curriculum is what I'd object to. That area of learning belongs outside the schoolroom in my view.

Correct, especially as a mandatory part of the curriculum.
If religious classes are offered as optional extras (or even mandatory in schools which parents may elect their children to not attend) I've no problem with that. But do give people a choice of what propaganda and indoctrination they expose their kids to.
And yes, that also means that leaflets and brochures from PETA, Greenpeace, ALF, and Hoffman la Roche have no place in the classroom.

0

The halls of power.

God 1: "Tut, look at them, those puny mortals arguing again as usual"

God 2: "Yes, jolly good wheeze of yours this latest experiment, what did you call it?"

God 1: "Evolution."

God 2: "Ah yes."

God 1: "Jolly good fun actually, the bit I'm most proud of is the weather he he that's still got 'em foxed!"

God 2: "Oh well must be off, I've got some worlds due a bout of pestilence in dimension 19. I'll see you in a couple of eons."

God 1: "Ta ta."

0

I personally find that religion and beliefs leave me in a void, where I am blinded from both feelings and logic. I find it easy to mostly disprove the existance of a god logically, but find it hard to accept my logic as a belief. Personally i blame my Church of England Schooling, when they teach you the nativity, crucifixition, noah's ark, feeding the 5000, what ever, as if it were true. As if it actually happened, when there is no proof, or evidence of this, apart from a book written yonks ago in a language they don't even understand. I used to even pray at night, for my family and stuff, I feal really angry and betrayed now when I think about that.

A woman came to my door a while back, with a baby in a push chair. It was 10am on Sunday, i had just got out bed, so tried to blag her away by denying any knowledge of religion. In the end, I had to admit i had heard of this Jesus Fellow, but refused to take any leaflets. She then turned her kid away in her pushchair, and told me that i would go to hell, and promtly walked off. In my opinion preaching religion with out someones consent should be against the law, and especially on the day of rest for God's sake.

As for evolution, I'm all for it.

0

Crucifixion happened, and was at the time (around the year 25-75 of our calendar) a pretty much standard way of execution in the Roman empire (beheading and poison being reserved mainly for high functionaries).
So any story set in that era in which someone is executed by the Romans would be quite correct to assume crucifixion as the method used.
As to the rest, those are indeed allegorical.

As to the existence of a Jesus of Nazareth, there's no reason why such a person may not have existed around that time and have been a carpenter's son turned religious nutcase (if the stories are examined he was a dissident Jewish priest or functionary preaching radical changes to the status of the priesthood, not something that priesthood would like to see).
Such a person would indeed be liable to be arrested by the Romans on request of the priesthood to prevent civil disorder, with execution a possible result.
The Roman official presiding over the trial would indeed wash his hands, this was a custom at the time and nothing specific to this particular case.
He'd also likely follow the will of the locals in sentencing, so if the priesthood wanted an execution they'd likely get one.

Executions in those days were public affairs and performed outside the city gates, so walking the prisoners through the city under guard was common.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.