Is evolution Compatible with the Bible?

[Atheist Mormon]

On 9/13/2016 at 0:14 PM, snowflake said:

 

So, is evolution compatible with the Bible?  If so, please explain how you come to that conclusion.

0% of the Bible is compatible with Evolution, all you have to do is read, starting from genesis (paying attention to creation part).

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

0% of the Bible is compatible with Evolution, all you have to do is read, starting from genesis (paying attention to creation part).

You can either take the Bible seriously, or you can take it literally. I don't think you can do both at the same time. 

[mfbukowski]

On 9/13/2016 at 10:45 PM, BCSpace said:

The Bible refers to the Book of Mormon.  The Book of Mormon contains 2 Nephi 2:22.  2 Nephi 2:22 tells us that the state of no death began when the creative period was over.

Check and mate.

I have never understood how you get that interpretation from these words:

Quote

 22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

Did you mean the "state of death" instead of the "state of no death"?  Was that a typo?

So the "creative period", to you defines all of pre-history including dinosaurs etc- what we now see as millions of years- as I recall your position.?

So then we have the creative period- with death undefined as such- natural processes occurring - earthquakes, animals recycling each other along with plants doing the same, possibly even some form of evolution but yet no "death" in a present human sense-  until Adam- the first human son of God who lived perhaps 6k years ago, when he transgressed there came the fall, and along with it "death" and grief and mourning as humans experience it?  (Dinosaurs I do not think mourned each other...  )

That is sort of the way I see that verse.

But you say above "the state of NO DEATH began when the creative period was over"

That "no" has gotta be a typo, right?

[thesometimesaint]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I have never understood how you get that interpretation from these words:

Did you mean the "state of death" instead of the "state of no death"?  Was that a typo?

So the "creative period", to you defines all of pre-history including dinosaurs etc- what we now see as millions of years- as I recall your position.?

So then we have the creative period- with death undefined as such- natural processes occurring - earthquakes, animals recycling each other along with plants doing the same, possibly even some form of evolution but yet no "death" in a present human sense-  until Adam- the first human son of God who lived perhaps 6k years ago, when he transgressed there came the fall, and along with it "death" and grief and mourning as humans experience it?  (Dinosaurs I do not think mourned each other...  )

That is sort of the way I see that verse.

But you say above "the state of NO DEATH began when the creative period was over"

That "no" has gotta be a typo, right?

Neanderthals intentionally buried their dead with flowers. They died out a long time before 6,000 years ago.

SEE http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/12/131216-la-chapelle-neanderthal-burials-graves/

[mfbukowski]

23 hours ago, mnn727 said:

I stand by my statement as does the Temple endowment presentation

I am confused.  there seems to be consternation about who "the god of this world" is and what kingdom this is?

trying to stay cryptic......

[Atheist Mormon]

33 minutes ago, Gray said:

You can either take the Bible seriously, or you can take it literally. I don't think you can do both at the same time. 

Either approach is a dead end for the question.

 

[RevTestament]

46 minutes ago, Gray said:

You can either take the Bible seriously, or you can take it literally. I don't think you can do both at the same time. 

Sometimes your little short cryptic comments hold a lot of truth... I like this one.

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, Teancum said:

See here is the rub.  So many LDS thinkers, apologists, etc want to make or reconcile their religious dogma with science.  That is fine. But to claim that the LDS Church really teaches some of the things that people jump through to save their faith and reconcile it with scientific evidence is simple nonsense.  Your reference above proves this out.

Thanks for agreeing with me that science has nothing to do with religion.    Actually the church insists that it affirms all truth including science.  Truth comes in "spheres"  D&C 93

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

The Genesis creation account is Moses' record of his endowment.
We also have Abraham's record of his endowment.
And we have the temple ceremony creation account as part of our endowment.
And there are hints of other endowments all throughout scripture.

None of these are exact history.  Moses (assuming you aren't a doubter in his existence) lived around 1300 BC.  Calling the Genesis creation account a historical record is incorrect, even if like me you believe in a literal historical Adam and Eve and creation etc.
The only person that could have written a history of the creation events would have been Adam.

Even if he didn't exist, it is someone's account of the same stories which can be seen as temple dramas

That works just as well for me as your version.   The only point we need to make is that that is what they are- for me the name of the actual author is unimportant

[RevTestament]

23 hours ago, snowflake said:

I agree with you Robert that the bible is full of various types genres within the text itself, and I was no English major.  However, you seem to dismiss the beginning of the book when it states "in the beginning". According to the "big bang" and the bible, there was a literal beginning to all of the universe, including space and time.   As I understand LDS theology the brethren don't agree with this because there is no beginning in LDS theology correct?  Matter is eternal, just re-organized by the newest god to be exalted.  So if often hear the arguments for billions of years or that days meant "generations" or "gaps".  I just don't see these as being supported by the text in the Bible itself.

So then we can take out Gen 2:4? That verse has no meaning? Why did God put that verse in there? Is it possible that He was providing a "definition" of the word "days" in His usage, and not as we think of it? In other words as a basis for our 7 day calendar, but not as a literal "earth day?"

What is the Lord doing here: 

Ezk 4:6 And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.

I submit when you answer that you might also see that the Lord can appoint a day for a generation.... He does tend to use symbolic speech...

Hosea 12: 10 I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets.

[mfbukowski]

52 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Neanderthals intentionally buried their dead with flowers. They died out a long time before 6,000 years ago.

SEE http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/12/131216-la-chapelle-neanderthal-burials-graves/

i know that

You missed the point

[RevTestament]

On ‎9‎/‎13‎/‎2016 at 11:45 PM, BCSpace said:

The Bible refers to the Book of Mormon.  The Book of Mormon contains 2 Nephi 2:22.  2 Nephi 2:22 tells us that the state of no death began when the creative period was over.

Check and mate.

 

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I have never understood how you get that interpretation from these words:

Did you mean the "state of death" instead of the "state of no death"?  Was that a typo?

So the "creative period", to you defines all of pre-history including dinosaurs etc- what we now see as millions of years- as I recall your position.?

So then we have the creative period- with death undefined as such- natural processes occurring - earthquakes, animals recycling each other along with plants doing the same, possibly even some form of evolution but yet no "death" in a present human sense-  until Adam- the first human son of God who lived perhaps 6k years ago, when he transgressed there came the fall, and along with it "death" and grief and mourning as humans experience it?  (Dinosaurs I do not think mourned each other...  )

That is sort of the way I see that verse.

But you say above "the state of NO DEATH began when the creative period was over"

That "no" has gotta be a typo, right?

I know our church has tended to take that as physical death...but what if it is referring to spiritual death and the fall from spiritual Eden? or the spiritual creation? And hence, the need for the tree of life?

What scriptures can be relied upon to show only physical death was being referred to?

I do know that sin brings spiritual death.

Paul said when the law came, I died. He tries to show that by following Christ one can live again. But not just spiritually, but physically as well. Of course the wicked will live again physically, but they have to wait.

[thesometimesaint]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

i know that

You missed the point

If there was no physical death before the fall of Adam. It seems problematic for Neanderthals to have died out long before Adam existed. Personally I like the idea that the Fall was metaphorical to spiritual death.

[snowflake]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

None of which is a dinosaur.

Fair enough, what creature do you think it is?  

[mfbukowski]

7 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

So then we can take out Gen 2:4? That verse has no meaning? Why did God put that verse in there? Is it possible that He was providing a "definition" of the word "days" in His usage, and not as we think of it? In other words as a basis for our 7 day calendar, but not as a literal "earth day?"

What is the Lord doing here: 

Ezk 4:6 And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.

I submit when you answer that you might also see that the Lord can appoint a day for a generation.... He does tend to use symbolic speech...

Hosea 12: 10 I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets.

Quote

 

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

 

I see these also as definitions, as God creates definitions and organizes verbally by defining experiences

The creation was by the Word, by whom all things were created....

God "called" (defined) the experience of light as "day" and darkness as "night"

And he "calls" (defines) the creative periods "days".  The calling the periods "days" is even clearer in the temple version.

Our definitions of reality ARE reality "as it is" at least as far as we can understand it.  Language is how we think and understand everything.

[Teancum]

30 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks for agreeing with me that science has nothing to do with religion.    Actually the church insists that it affirms all truth including science.  Truth comes in "spheres"  D&C 93

Nor does religion have anything to do with science. But if religion makes claims that are testable through the scientific method then there can be problems with the scientific method proves such claims as false.

[thesometimesaint]

4 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Fair enough, what creature do you think it is?  

Whales and elephants.

[snowflake]

24 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

So then we can take out Gen 2:4? That verse has no meaning? Why did God put that verse in there? Is it possible that He was providing a "definition" of the word "days" in His usage, and not as we think of it? In other words as a basis for our 7 day calendar, but not as a literal "earth day?"

What is the Lord doing here: 

Ezk 4:6 And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.

I submit when you answer that you might also see that the Lord can appoint a day for a generation.... He does tend to use symbolic speech...

Hosea 12: 10 I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets.

Only Joseph had the authority to remove or add or change scripture...or go back and change it again. 

[mnn727]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue#research

Do you understand what a "peer reviewed source" is?

Neither link you provided is one

[snowflake]

1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

0% of the Bible is compatible with Evolution, all you have to do is read, starting from genesis (paying attention to creation part).

Thank you, agreed.

[mnn727]

29 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

So then we can take out Gen 2:4? That verse has no meaning? Why did God put that verse in there?

God didn't. Man wrote, edited and translated the Bible.

[mfbukowski]

21 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

 

I know our church has tended to take that as physical death...but what if it is referring to spiritual death and the fall from spiritual Eden? or the spiritual creation? And hence, the need for the tree of life?

What scriptures can be relied upon to show only physical death was being referred to?

I do know that sin brings spiritual death.

Paul said when the law came, I died. He tries to show that by following Christ one can live again. But not just spiritually, but physically as well. Of course the wicked will live again physically, but they have to wait.

Yes I agree- good point.  I was thinking about physical death- and I get the impression that is what BC meant

But certainly spiritual death works very well here.

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

God didn't. Man wrote, edited and translated the Bible.

So God's not The Man of Holiness?

What if He is an archetype?  

Can a "real" being also be an archetype ?  Why not?

Edited September 15, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Gray]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Sometimes your little short cryptic comments hold a lot of truth... I like this one.

Thanks. I like compact little comments because I have a short attention span. I was actually paraphrasing something Bishop John Shelby Spong said, although I think I put it in stronger terms than he did.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Gray

[mfbukowski]

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Nor does religion have anything to do with science. But if religion makes claims that are testable through the scientific method then there can be problems with the scientific method proves such claims as false.

Viewed properly, religion makes no such claims.