Theological Problems with God-guided Evolution

[Deadworm]

Your ignorant pontification about the NJB demonstrates your ignorance of Hebrew.  In fact, Catholic scholarship is generally far more respected in the secular academic world than evangelical scholarship.  I say this as an evangelical ex-professor who regularly attended the Society of Biblical Literature, the most renowned academic biblical society in the world.  As for your other comments, well, since you don't know Hebrew, you can't read the best academic commentaries on Genesis that make my point.

[David1701]

20 hours ago, AandW_Rootbeer said:

What is the Jerusalem Bible (JB)? | GotQuestions.org

https://www.gotquestions.org › ... › Bible › Bible versions

 

 

 

Overall, the Jerusalem Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible are good English translations of the Bible. Very little Roman Catholic "influence" is seen in the New Jerusalem Bible

LOL!

Have you ever read the Apocrypha?  It is a set of uninspired books, full of factual and doctrinal errors, as well as fables; and every Roman Catholic "Bible" contains them.

Every RC "Bible" also contains RC notes, "explaining" passages in an RC way, so that no-one will be "confused" by what the Bible actually says.

Any article that claims that there is very little RC influence in an RC "Bible" is either completely clueless, or lying.

[David1701]

20 hours ago, Deadworm said:

Your ignorant pontification about the NJB demonstrates your ignorance of Hebrew.  In fact, Catholic scholarship is generally far more respected in the secular academic world than evangelical scholarship.  I say this as an evangelical ex-professor who regularly attended the Society of Biblical Literature, the most renowned academic biblical society in the world.  As for your other comments, well, since you don't know Hebrew, you can't read the best academic commentaries on Genesis that make my point.

It should come as no surprise to anyone, that RC "scholarship" is more respected by unbelievers than is Christian scholarship.

No Bible supports the false teaching that the third Person of the Trinity is "Mother Earth", nor would any genuine Christian.

[Desopixi Seilynam]

In 1925 in Tennessee it was illegal to teach evolution.
Times have surely changed.

But much of what we have been indoctrinated with in modern times are lies.

[AandW_Rootbeer]

4 hours ago, David1701 said:

LOL!

Have you ever read the Apocrypha?  It is a set of uninspired books, full of factual and doctrinal errors, as well as fables; and every Roman Catholic "Bible" contains them.

Every RC "Bible" also contains RC notes, "explaining" passages in an RC way, so that no-one will be "confused" by what the Bible actually says.

Any article that claims that there is very little RC influence in an RC "Bible" is either completely clueless, or lying.

We are discussing your accusation of the New Jerusalem Bible being heavily influenced by the RCC.   Evidence, however, suggests you are incorrect.   I could care less about other RCC influenced documents.   I only responded to your ACCUSATION!

Edited July 22, 2021 by AandW_Rootbeer

[Sparks]

9 hours ago, Desopixi Seilynam said:

In 1925 in Tennessee it was illegal to teach evolution.
Times have surely changed.

But much of what we have been indoctrinated with in modern times are lies.

Yep, that was from the Scopes Monkey Trial.  It's still illegal to teach evolution in some states without a disclaimer in the front of the science book, not that Darwinian Evolution is science.  Even colleges teach the disclaimer that Darwinian Evolution is just at theory, but it's surprising how many think it's fact.  Some think they have seen it with their own eyes.

Ironically, it's not illegal to teach Creation in school.  It's just the the communists (ACLU) will sue, and so the school's principles are scared. 

[David1701]

7 hours ago, Desopixi Seilynam said:

In 1925 in Tennessee it was illegal to teach evolution.
Times have surely changed.

But much of what we have been indoctrinated with in modern times are lies.

The culture in America was probably a lot more Christian, in 1925, than it is now.  I know that, in Britain, church attendance was enormously higher then than now.

Incidentally, there's quite a good modern film about the Scopes Trial (not "Inherit the Wind", which is very inaccurate and anti-Christian), called "Alleged".

[David1701]

On 7/22/2021 at 6:59 PM, AandW_Rootbeer said:

We are discussing your accusation of the New Jerusalem Bible being heavily influenced by the RCC.   Evidence, however, suggests you are incorrect.   I could care less about other RCC influenced documents.   I only responded to your ACCUSATION!

What evidence would that be?

I gave you proof that the New Jerusalem "Bible" is heavily influenced by the RC organisation; in fact, it is a Roman Catholic translation!  Did you not know that?

All RC translations of the Bible contain the Apocrypha (they call them deutero-canonical books, i.e. second canon).  These parts of the RC "Bible" support Roman Catholicism and are contrary to biblical Christianity, being full of factual errors, false doctrine and fables.

All RC translations of the Bible contain RC notes, to promote Roman Catholic doctrine, much of which is contrary to biblical Christianity.

There are also many biased translation choices, within RC "Bibles" and biased choices of the underlying text, again to support RC doctrine.

It's a good idea to know what you are talking about, before contradicting people...

Edited July 23, 2021 by David1701

[dad2]

On 7/17/2021 at 7:08 AM, The Barbarian said:

They don't mind bending the meaning of words, but only if it fits the narrative they want.

 

Explain how light was there before the sun if you claim the sun must be what the light was! No wonder you run off!

[AandW_Rootbeer]

On 7/23/2021 at 3:00 PM, David1701 said:

What evidence would that be?

I gave you proof that the New Jerusalem "Bible" is heavily influenced by the RC organisation; in fact, it is a Roman Catholic translation!  Did you not know that?

All RC translations of the Bible contain the Apocrypha (they call them deutero-canonical books, i.e. second canon).  These parts of the RC "Bible" support Roman Catholicism and are contrary to biblical Christianity, being full of factual errors, false doctrine and fables.

All RC translations of the Bible contain RC notes, to promote Roman Catholic doctrine, much of which is contrary to biblical Christianity.

There are also many biased translation choices, within RC "Bibles" and biased choices of the underlying text, again to support RC doctrine.

It's a good idea to know what you are talking about, before contradicting people...

You indeed did give me your opinion why you believe it was influenced by the RCC, that is true.   But I looked up to see where the connection to RCC and the New Jerusalem Bible was most prevalent at, and multiple sources claim there was hardly any influence from the RCC involved.   So, I either accept your word for it or theirs.   But I do agree the term [Mother representing God] is very Catholic in meaning.