jump to last post 1-30 of 30 discussions (307 posts)

Evolution, True or False!

  1. Craan profile image83
    Craanposted 2 years ago

    Does the theory of evolution make sense to you?

    1. GA Anderson profile image87
      GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Greetings Craan,

      There is an ongoing forum conversation about this here:
      Evolution is a Scientific Fact

      Maybe you would like to jump in there instead of starting a new thread?

      GA

      1. Craan profile image83
        Craanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Hello Mr. Anderson,
        Does the theory of evolution make sense to you?

        This was the question I posed on HubPages and they removed the question since it was receiving heaps of answers. HubPages highly suggested I pose this particular evolution question in the forums. This question is not the same as your Scientific Fact Evolution Forum.

        My evolution question rests on a person’s personal opinion! Christians will finally be free to voice their opinions as well instead of being shut out.

        1. GA Anderson profile image87
          GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I don't see much difference in the discussion of the two questions, but yes, it does make sense to me.

          GA

        2. PhoenixV profile image78
          PhoenixVposted 23 months ago in reply to this

          I haven't studied evolution much to be honest. I find the particular topic dry, for me personally. I think a lot of people are "fans of evolution" only because they think it contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis, and they can easily find their argument with those that "do" believe in a "particular" literal interpretation of Genesis.

          Let the earth bring forth grass...Let the waters bring forth... always sounded like abiogenesis to me.

          1. 0
            Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

            Evolution can clearly be seen in plants, people, and in everything
            Anything that exists, including evolution, comes from God, and can't be separated from him

      2. Enzo Sardellaro profile image72
        Enzo Sardellaroposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        I simply said in my  previous comment  that “Evolution is not an opinion, but a theory scientifically proven.”  I’d like to add something to what has been said so far. “Evolution.”  Everyone talks about “evolution,”  while we do not know enough  both about the subject , and on the  meaning of the word "evolution." Hence the issue of trivialization of the entire argument while this is not an issue to be trivialized.  Darwin himself had to fight against a "creationism" which was based on an exegesis of the Bible at  least corny, . What is the meaning of the word "evolution?” Let's start from here, because  it could go a long way , so long that someone will lose himself.
        In addition, Darwin declared himself a  "theist", not a "deist", pondering deeply upon the impossibility that our world derives  from random processes [According to Kant, the “deist”  believes in a God, while  the “theist”  in a “living God.”] . Darwin   only  affirmed   the TRANSFORMATION  of  species (metamorphosis), which depart  from a prototype and the persistence of PROTOTYPES during  the “development” (=”evolution”) of the organisms  (See chap. “Laws of variation”, “Variation under domestication” and “Variation under nature”).
        But I recognize  the complex nature of the subject matter itself, and I consider whether it would be possible to simply say: “it would always be better to study  rather than oversimplify and over-generalize.”
        Goodbye, see you soon!

    2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
      MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      It makes perfect sense to me. Is there something you don't understand about it? Plenty of intelligent people around here to help.

      1. Craan profile image83
        Craanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I believe God created the world and everything in it within six days, approximately seven thousand years ago including the first man Adam. The theory of evolution makes no sense to me!

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
          MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          That's interesting. Are you saying you don't understand the theory because you believe differently? I have lots of beliefs but it doesn't stop me from understanding scientific theories. I mean how do you form the opinion that something is false if you don't understand it? How can you argue that something is incorrect if you have no idea of what it is?

          For instance, the theory of evolution doesn't address the creation of life. So the two ideas (creationism vs. evolution) aren't necessarily at odds. I think possibly you object to the theories surrounding abiogenesis, which is a completely different thing.

          1. Craan profile image83
            Craanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Evolution was taught to me in HS at the time I was confused and questioned it. I can't understand how scientists formed the theory that Humans descended from Apes, when monkeys have 24 chromosomes and people 23. This makes no sense to me! And the theory of Dinosaurs sounds like a joke. The scientists have made up this one and conjured certain fossils and bones to come up with this amazing story. It sounds ridiculous, pardon the pun.

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              It sounds like you were very confused indeed. To my knowledge, there is no evolutionary theory that states that humans descended from apes. Certainly THE theory of evolution doesn't.

              Your idea about scientists creating fossils, I'm going to have to disagree. Why would they do that? In addition, how does the existence of dinosaurs directly contradict the idea of a creator God?

              Just for the record, not all humans have 23 sets of chromosomes.

            2. IslandBites profile image84
              IslandBitesposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Whaaaaaaaaat? Welcome to 1500s!

            3. 0
              Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

              In humans, each cell normally contains 23 PAIRS of chromosomes, for a total of 46. Twenty-two of these pairs, called autosomes, look the same in both male and female. The 23rd pair, the sex chromosomes, differ between male and female. Females have two copies of the X chromosome, while males have one X and one Y chromosome.
              Apes have 24 pairs.
              What makes apes so genetically close to human beings, despite the difference in the number of chromosomes, is the 9th and 14th chromosomes of an ape, if combined, and viewed on a chromatic scale, look like a palindrome of the human 12th chromosome.  If the ape chromosomes, 9 and 14 are joined and turned over, the result would look just like the 12th human chromosome.

              I believe in both God, and evolution

              1. 0
                Avis Langmeadeposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                Exactly---they are decidedly NOT mutually exclusive.

              2. 59
                rentacarmanilaposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                Creation and evolution are incompatible. You cannot be a true believer in God and creation and be moonlighting with evolution. Charles Darwin and many others like him are inveterate atheists. All those who claim to believe in creation and evolution at the same time are deceiving themselves. You cannot wholeheartedly serve two masters at the same time.

                1. 59
                  rentacarmanilaposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                  So, beware Avis Langmeade and Deborah Sexton!!! God is watching

                  1. 0
                    Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                    Yes, he is, and rewarding me daily, if you only knew how much

                2. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                  "Masters"?  But understanding how species evolve over time is no more "master" than understanding how fire works, or why the moon doesn't sail off into space.

                3. 0
                  Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                  ________________________________________
                  Creation and evolution are not separated, God made everything, including evolution.

                  After man disobeyed, and was kicked out of the garden, how do you know what new form man took..mankind had to evolve both mentally, physically, and spiritually..because they were debased

                4. 0
                  Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                  I serve only God. The New Testament is speaking of Mammon (money)
                  Matthew 6:24
                  No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
                  You're trying to use it, incorrectly, to prove your point.

                  When you say man can't serve two masters, remember that when you say you worship God, but give all your praise to Yahshua (Jesus)

                  1. 59
                    rentacarmanilaposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                    You claim to serve only God. To serve God is to do His will and follow his teachings. The bible teaches creation, not evolution. The bible does not teach that man came to be as a result of evolution. The bible teaches that God created man is His own image and likeness. If you believe the bible account, how can you, at the same time, believe in evolution that man came to be as result of some mutation. Common, don't be shy. Say where your loyalty lies.

                5. oceansnsunsets profile image87
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                  I think they are incompatible depending on how you define what evolution is.  It all hinges on that.  So depending on what you mean by that, I could agree or disagree.

            4. T4HOTA profile image60
              T4HOTAposted 23 months ago in reply to this

              Humans are not directly descended from modern apes; modern apes and humans had a common ancestor from which they branched from millions of years ago.  If you google images of the Human Evolution tree, it may become clearer for you.  I wish you luck on your findings.

    3. Mel92114 profile image59
      Mel92114posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Yes

    4. kess profile image59
      kessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I have long since disregarded the theory of evolution, for it fail to answer simple questions in a simple manner abd usually leaves one wondering instead of knowing.

      Even when you seek out the experts in that field, you are merely forced to take a side and defend it, despite of the glaring loopholes.

      I have come to the understanding that the theory materialise out of a misunderstanding of the reality of life/existence.

      Life is and always will be singular, and what we see in the variation of species is the result of the apparent division of life itself.

      This division will manifest itself as infinite differences, because life is infinite. But while being different, they all  must still reflect that which is their source and origin, life. Thus they all will be similar.

      So in the end I see, that each specie is exactly what they are and the differences among themselves and others are designed specifically for it's own survival, in and among it's particular locality. Inter breeding did provide for other variation but it will be limited, and will threaten the survival of the original, so therefore the tendency to revert is high.

      This is true for both plants and animals so when they are dislocated from their original state, they are more prone to die.

    5. 60
      landjassocposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Evolution Does not make sense to me as I don't believe we came from apes which came from something crawling out of the ocean.
      I believe in God and I am a Christian, descending, from the very first Christians, I am a Catholic.  This disclosure will bring out the ire of most nonbelievers and I am always amazed to see how fast these folks are to jump up in arms to denounce anyone that admits that they are a believer, especially a Catholic, when they know little to nothing about the faith we hold.  Our religion is steeped in tradition and our Mass is a re-enactment of he Last Supper.  Catholics are able to attend Mass daily in virtually any city here in the U S., any day but Good Friday.  The main feast days are Christmas and Easter.  These are universal holidays revered and celebrated by ALL Christians of whatever denomination.  It amuses me to hear the nonbelievers hue and cry over the word Christmas and the fact that it related to a religion - Christianity!  It should be called something else, BULL!!!  It is the celebration of the birth of Jesus the Christ, our Lord and Savior!
      If this offends you, sleep all the day, go to work as this is just another day for you. The same goes for Easter, the day Jesus arose from the dead.  Believe it  or not, your choice.

      1. 0
        Avis Langmeadeposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Your church supports the modern theory evolution of the species while making a complex and nuanced argument that it results from your Creator's intentional design.

      2. 0
        Avis Langmeadeposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        Your church accepts and teaches evolutionary biology in its schools; your Pope recently endorsed evolutionary biology. NOTHING precludes being a Christian and Catholic and accepting science---including evolutionary biology. Ask your parish priest about this sometime.

    6. oceansnsunsets profile image87
      oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      If what one means by evolution is that we observe small changes over time, then I don't disagree with that because we have evidence for that all around us.  I don't think it means all that it is cracked up to be by some, with added on human belief and philosophy applied, while still calling it science. 

      It has caused us to have to be very critical in our thinking and reasoning, to discern when even very intelligent, world renowned scientists "leave" the science they are discussing and enter instead into their philosophy applied to the science many of us all agree on.  Its a very clever move, and we see it in writings of famous people.  Its all about the science, until it isn't, is my point.  I have to stick with the science, and other revelation that comes to us, as there is much more.

    7. kelojoubeauty profile image59
      kelojoubeautyposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      Yes it gives some times, but not in all the ways. I really experienced it. The power of evolution can definitely impact on us...

    8. Enzo Sardellaro profile image72
      Enzo Sardellaroposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      Evolution is not an "opinion". It is scientifically proved.

  2. wilderness profile image96
    wildernessposted 2 years ago

    Evolution: the scientific theory that living things evolve and change over long periods of time from what they were.

    As we see hundreds if not thousands of examples all around us, the answer is a "yes" for me.

    1. 59
      rentacarmanilaposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      There is nothing scientific about evolution. To conclude that "living things evolve and change over long periods of time from what they were' before searching for materials from all the corners of the globe to support that bogus conclusion does make it scientific. People like you mistake adaption for mutation. Some living things undergo some superficial changes to be able to survive certain conditions or environment. That does not make them fundamentally different from their ancestors.

      1. 59
        rentacarmanilaposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        They do not become a new species.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

          Can you define "species" for purposes of discussion?  What makes a "species", what differences from another animal group makes them different species?

      2. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        Animals or plants then do not mutate?  You have to know better than that - we see mutations all the time.

      3. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        ________________________
        Genes mutate very, very easily, and mutation brings change.
        But there is another reason we might evolve, and that is due to natural selection, the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment survive and produce more offspring

        1. 59
          rentacarmanilaposted 23 months ago in reply to this

          I can see now that you are totally ignorant of genetic mutation. When genes mutate, the result is always bad, not good. The result is always inferior to the original one. The result does not survive.

      4. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        _____________________________
        Mutation is of the genes, and it happens easily all the time. Genes can, and are constantly damaged
        Mutation is simply the changing of the structure of a gene, producing an alternative form which may be transmitted to all future generations This can be caused by the alteration of a single  DNA, adding to, taking away from, and/or rearranging larger sections of genes or chromosomes. This can greatly change the course of many things.
        Cancer cells damage/mutate people's genes
        Adaption isn't always "little changes"

        What's wrong with humans being created, and changing for the good of mankind? of ascending, and evolving?
        The Hebrew word, Tov and Ra, and translated as good, and evil, really means functional, and dysfunctional  Tov-Functional,  it did what it was meant to do, Ra-dysfunctional, it didn't do what it was meant to do

  3. Saadat Ali profile image61
    Saadat Aliposted 2 years ago

    Nowadays scientists accept that life was came from heaven. the name of first creature is Adam..!

  4. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
    wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago

    The general ignorance of mankind concerning evolution and "the meaning of life" is a necessary safeguard to protect the simian from itself. We can see the evil that has already happened since the Industrial Revolution and the splitting of the atom. A comprehensive understanding of the "why" and "how" of evolution could lead to the annihilation of all life on Earth. We are still living in the "Dark Ages", and it is important that we do so until we can learn the basics: loving each other, respect for the environment, and the total destruction of Capitalism and materialistic societies etc..

    Of course evolution is real, but it does not negate the notion of intelligent design. On the contrary, evolution helps the simple minded who look to men for answers rather than God,to understand that there is truly a divine purpose at work in the universe. The genius of Charles Darwin is not to be found in his postulate of Natural Selection, but in the fact that he is one of the first to give hope to the blind by providing "empirical" data to those unable to discern through the spirit, or divine essence.

  5. ChristianCarlsson profile image83
    ChristianCarlssonposted 2 years ago

    The main problem I see with this question is that it does not spark a discussion unless people go off topic, as it is a yes or no question.

    It is not even really about personal opinion, it's more about understanding of the theory and does not take into account if you agree or not.

    A rephrasing that does not change the core of the question at all would be: "Do you comprehend the meaning of the evolution theory?"

    To that question I say: Yes, I do understand the theory of evolution and it does make sense.

    Do I agree with it? Well, that's a topic for another discussion smile

    1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
      oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      Good points!

  6. 60
    landjassocposted 23 months ago

    Evolution says we evolved from the apes.  If so why are there still apes?
    I believe in one God, not a big bang theory or any great leas of something crawling out of the ocean evolving into an ape and then humans.  I do admit some people act like apes, but are still relatively human.  What other things made such a great leap as we are supposed to have made?  Are they birds 4 legged animals reptiles, what?  I really want to know as I cannot buy the basic concept.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      You can't buy it because you haven't the faintest what the basic concept is.  Study the subject just a little, and you will find that man did not evolve from apes, and that man is an ape (along with gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees and a couple of other species).  This is simple, basic biological taxonomy, not evolution.

      1. GA Anderson profile image87
        GA Andersonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        Come on' Wilderness,  be nice.  Just because you you have a different belief doesn't mean you can categorically  dismiss someone else's beliefs.

        You do have a solid base of what is, as is attested by the knowledge of today's science, but how, far will your confidence carry you when the "unprovable"  is seriously considered as a viable choice to consider?

        GA

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

          But, GA, I never even mentioned his beliefs.  Just his lack of knowledge of a subject HE brought up in discussion.

          As far as the "unprovable" being a viable choice; it's generally better to acknowledge our own ignorance than to gather in the "unprovable" and accept it as factual.  Keep trying, keep working towards learning whatever it is we wish to know, but not just quit because we "believe" we have and answer but don't know for sure.

      2. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
        wrenchBiscuitposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        It is good to see that you have finally come full circle and admitted the truth. Yes, the average man is certainly an intelligent breed of ape, and of course I use the word "intelligent" here in a relative sense, as no ape has the intellectual capability of those men who have evolved into "human beings".  Obviously, my perseverance and instruction have not been in vain. Thank You!

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

          Fascinating post.  Man is an ape, and no ape has the intelligence of a man. 

          I trust you DO see the fallacy of such a statement?

          1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
            wrenchBiscuitposted 23 months ago in reply to this

            http://s1.hubimg.com/u/12060606.jpg
            Based on your comment, I trust that it may impossible for you to understand an evolutionary process that has yet to be clearly defined, but yet, can be clearly seen. To give you an example: Nelson Mandela was a man / human being. Ronald Reagan was a man / ape. To provide a further clue: The superior man / human being,  is thinking on a higher plane; more removed from the carnal, and materialistic desires that drive the simian mind.

            1. 0
              Avis Langmeadeposted 23 months ago in reply to this

              Expert on the "Simian mind" now?

            2. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

              You really need to put a trifling bit (that's all it takes) of that much touted intelligence into learning before speaking.  For the evolutionary process is quite well understood by any taking a couple of hours to learn about it.

              Biologically Mandela was the same as Reagan (or you or I), something elementary biology tells us.  Mentally, about the same.  Spiritually - that will depend on what you think the word means and what you find to be good.  As no two people will agree on right wrong, we cannot compare two people spiritually even if we know what is inside their minds.  Besides, much of what you propose as a wonderful thing is unethical and no moral person would agree.  Forced racism for Indians in their schooling, for instance.

              1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
                wrenchBiscuitposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                Reagan had the mentality of a man / ape which is centered around materialism and the satisfaction of carnal desires. Mandela displayed a  man / human being mentality which was centered around selflessness. The superior evolution of Mandela over Reagan is clearly obvious. The man/ ape significantly outnumbers the man / human being here in the so-called modern age. Why else would traditions such as "Happy Hour" and  "Football" be so popular in the United States when children are being blown up in Palestine with U.S. tax dollars?

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                  You have no idea what the inner desires of either one was.  Nor do you have any idea what the capabilities (superiority) of either one was, except that both were very good at controlling others through speech. 

                  You don't even have any real concept of what is superior in man - thinking it is whatever matches with your twisted sense of morality rather than survival is foolish, and doubly so in a discussion of how evolution works.

                  1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
                    wrenchBiscuitposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                    You take  a relativist position concerning my understanding of Mandela and Reagan, but then you resort to an emotional idealism to dismiss my comments and question my authority. According to you, I "have no idea" about two very public men, yet you claim to know all  about me.

                    The reason many of you do not understand evolution is that you , like many scientists, have attempted to reach explanations based solely on a physical explanation or analysis. That in itself is indicative of a primitive man/ape mentality.

            3. oceansnsunsets profile image87
              oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

              This seems simple "side taking" to me.  You have your set of beliefs which you think are superior, like we all have beliefs, and you make assertions that include within them your "vote", or taking of a side.  Then state it as fact, or "your side wins," etc. To me, this is another example of assuming the worst about the person or side that you don't agree with, and assuming of the best about the other.  Perhaps, assuming too much. 

              All without making the case.  People can disagree with you, even 100% disagree.  Does that make them right, and Nelson Mandela, the man/ape in that scenario, over man/human being? Good grief.  Harsh you are, thankfully not my judge, as man it doesn't take much! Kind of mean and unfair, if you ask me!  Which likely, you therefore won't, lol.

              1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
                wrenchBiscuitposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                What do you know about Reagan and Mandela? I have studied them both. I have read and listened to their speeches, and understand their views on various matters. I don't need to make a case when the information is freely available to anyone who knows how to read and understand. Apparently you are not used to someone who speaks the truth.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                  But you don't speak truth.  You speak only your opinion, basing it on a myth and an outdated set of morals that has caused this country endless grief.

                  Reagan and Mandela were both human.  Neither was an "ape" in the common vernacular.  Your claims that Reagan was just that - a subhuman ape - is absolute nonsense.

                  1. bBerean profile image59
                    bBereanposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                    Some found "Bedtime for Bonzo" confusing.  Could be a simple mistake.

                  2. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
                    wrenchBiscuitposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                    It is you Mr. wilderness who stated that men are apes. Are you disagreeing with yourself?

                2. oceansnsunsets profile image87
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                  No, I expect people to speak the truth.  I do know how to read, thanks.  I know a bit about both, though perhaps not as studied as some, and I can admit that. 

                  I think that when calling one an man/ape, and one a man/human being, you do need to make the case.  Its just put downs, especially considering how you have shown your views on things to be, and disapproval of America since 1492..  I do think a lot of what you say black and white, about non black and white things.  It is harsh, and not that harsh is bad, but it ought to be reserved for when it is needed.  I do think that you would have to assume the best about one, and the worst about the other.  Neither are perfect.  But man/ape?  Not everyone maybe has seen what I have seen and learned in a short time.  I guess I could just stop asking you to be fair.  Its looking like I will just get put down for it, and find that even what I do say gets turned around. 

                  Its a lot of time needing to be dedicated to people responding to all that junk, before you can even get around to talking about what you clearly want to be talking about anyway.  It would save us all a lot of time.  If its just fun for you, then I want no part for sure.

      3. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        ________________________________
        Saying we are apes, is not scientific and is an opinion, not fact
        Man is a primate not an ape. Primates are all of these below
        The lemurs, bushbabies, tarsiers, marmosets, monkeys, apes, and humans. They are distinguished by having hands, hand-like feet, and forward-facing eyes, and are typically agile tree-dwellers.

        As you can see, both apes and man are primates, but apes are not human, and humans are not apes
        When did you discover that apes and humans are the same thing? Wow, what a discovery!!

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

          Biologically, humans are classified in the family of  Hominidae, or "great ape".  The family includes  orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and humans.

          Also in the order of primates, the family of Hylobatidae (lesser ape) includes four genera and sixteen species of gibbon, including the lar gibbon, and the siamang, all native to Asia.  The lesser apes are highly arboreal, have lighter bodies and smaller social groups than the great apes.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

          From encyclopedia Brittanica:

          "Hominidae, in zoology, one of the two living families of the ape superfamily Hominoidea, the other being the Hylobatidae (gibbons). Hominidae includes the great apes—that is, the orangutans (genus Pongo), gorillas (Gorilla), and chimpanzees and bonobos (Pan)—as well as human beings (Homo)."

          http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top … /Hominidae

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

          "When did you discover that apes and humans are the same thing? Wow, what a discovery!!"

          I'm semi-guessing here, but think it was Biology 101, Eastern Oregon University, in 1970. 

          What makes you think man isn't classified as an ape?

          1. 0
            Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

            Apes, and humans are primates, but humans are not apes, any more than apes are human, and if you don't know that, don't ever say you believe in science again

            It has not been proven we came from Apes
            Apes are the gorilla, chimpanzees, orangutan, and gibbons.

            Again we could have evolved from lemurs, bushbabies, tarsiers, marmosets, monkeys, or the apes. All of these are primates, but it is probably something different entirely, I mean, there is the case of the missing link

            The theory is that humans and all living primates evolved from a common ancestor, not ape in particular
            This also has the telltale sign that we came from the people created directly by God

            I'm not sure how you think evolution is a case against God...sounds just the opposite to me

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

              Have you considered writing encyclopedias yourself?  Or teaching biology at the post graduate level?

              It's great you know so much more than anyone else, but even then you CAN always learn more.  You might begin by reading the links I gave you.

    2. Melissa A Smith profile image93
      Melissa A Smithposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      We evolved from a different kind of ape that no longer exists today.

    3. 0
      Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      ___________________________________________
      From a common Primate

      Dictionary for Primate
      a mammal of an order that includes the lemurs, bushbabies, tarsiers, marmosets, monkeys, apes, and humans. They are distinguished by having hands, hand-like feet, and forward-facing eyes, and are typically agile tree-dwellers.

  7. cam8510 profile image93
    cam8510posted 23 months ago

    Lets look at the literal six day creation concept.

    According to Gen 1:1-2, before day one the earth was a ball of water in a sunless space.  Ok, let's make our first correction.  It would have been a ball of ice.

    Day one, light/darkness, day/night created.  No sun was created until day four.  Earth still a frozen ball of ice.

    Day two, separated water on land from water in the sky......it was all still ice.   There was no sun.

    Day three, land and water separated.  The water was still ice, big piles of ice.  There was still no sun. 
    Also on third day, plants were created although there was no sun and all the water was in the form of
    ice. 

    Day four, The sun is created, the piles of ice begin to melt, the plants recover from the shock of being planted in frozen ground and in an unbelievably cold temperature.

    Day five, Twenty-four hours earlier, all the water on earth was ice.  The sun had been created and the ice began to melt.  How long would it have taken for all that ice to melt and make oceans?  Well, on day five, twenty-four hours after it was completely frozen, the seas were filled with fish and all other kinds of living things. 

    Day six, Forty-eight hours after the beginning of global flooding from melting ice, man and land dwelling animals were created. 

    This is a literal accounting of the Genesis 1 creation story.  I will predict that the answer to the above impossibilities will be that God performed some kind of miracle to resolve the conflict and this will be called science.  This is not science.  It is simply making stuff up as you  go along.  The literal interpretation you desire will not allow you to make up resolutions to the conflicts which are not explicitly stated in Genesis chapter one. 

    A literal interpretation of Genesis One yields a ball of ice, light without a sun, plants on frozen ground with no sun, sea life swimming in ice, humans and land animals existing in world wide flooding due to melting ice. Creationists say that Genesis chapter one agrees with science.  Where is the science here?

    1. 0
      Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      *******************************************************************
      The first thing that God created after he created Earth was light. So it wouldn’t have had time to freeze

      Genesis 1
      1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
      2  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
      3  And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

      Why Earth wasn't one big ball of ice 4 billion years ago when Sun's radiation was weaker

      University of Copenhagen
      Summary:
      Scientists have solved one of the great mysteries of our geological past: Why Earth's surface was not one big lump of ice four billion years ago when the Sun's radiation was much weaker than today. Scientists have presumed that Earth's atmosphere back then consisted of 30 percent CO2 trapping heat like a greenhouse. However, new research shows that the reason for Earth not going into a deep freeze at the time was quite different.

      The paradoxical question that arose for scientists in this connection was why Earth's surface at its fragile beginning was not covered by ice, seeing that the Sun's rays were much fainter than they are today. Science found one probable answer in 1993, which was proffered by the American atmospheric scientist, Jim Kasting. He performed theoretical calculations that showed that 30% of Earth's atmosphere four billion years ago consisted of CO2. This in turn entailed that the large amount of greenhouse gases layered themselves as a protective greenhouse around the planet, thereby preventing the oceans from freezing over.

      Mystery solved

      Now, however, Professor Minik Rosing, from the Natural History Museum of Denmark, and Christian Bjerrum, from the Department of Geography and Geology at University of Copenhagen, together with American colleagues from Stanford University in California have discovered the reason for "the missing ice age" back then, thereby solving the Sun paradox, which has haunted scientific circles for more than 40 years.

      Professor Minik Rosing explains: "What prevented an ice age back then was not high CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, but the fact that the cloud layer was much thinner than it is today. In addition to this, Earth's surface was covered by water. This meant that the Sun's rays could warm the oceans unobstructed, which in turn could layer the heat, thereby preventing Earth's watery surface from freezing into ice. The reason for the lack of clouds back in Earth's childhood can be explained by the process by which clouds form. This process requires chemical substances that are produced by algae and plants, which did not exist at the time. These chemical processes would have been able to form a dense layer of clouds, which in turn would have reflected the Sun's rays, throwing them back into the cosmos and thereby preventing the warming of Earth's oceans. Scientists have formerly used the relationship between the radiation from the Sun and Earth's surface temperature to calculate that Earth ought to have been in a deep freeze during three billion of its four and a half billion years of existence. Sagan and Mullen brought attention to the paradox between these theoretical calculations and geological reality by the fact that the oceans had not frozen. This paradox of having a faint Sun and ice-free oceans has now been solved.

      CO2 history illluminated

      Minik Rosing and his team have by analyzing samples of 3.8-billion-year-old mountain rock from the world's oldest bedrock, Isua, in western Greenland, solved the "paradox."

      But more importantly, the analyses also provided a finding for a highly important issue in today's climate research -- and climate debate, not least: whether the atmosphere's CO2 concentration throughout Earth's history has fluctuated strongly or been fairly stable over the course of billions of years.

      "The analyses of the CO2-content in the atmosphere, which can be deduced from the age-old Isua rock, show that the atmosphere at the time contained a maximum of one part per thousand of this greenhouse gas. This was three to four times more than the atmosphere's CO2-content today. However, not anywhere in the range of the of the 30 percent share in early Earth history, which has hitherto been the theoretical calculation. Hence we may conclude that the atmosphere's CO2-content has not changed substantially through the billions of years of Earth's geological history. However, today the graph is turning upward. Not least due to the emissions from fossil fuels used by humans. Therefore it is vital to determine the geological and atmospheric premises for the prehistoric past in order to understand the present, not to mention the future, in what pertains to the design of climate models and calculations," underscores Minik Rosing.

      Professor Rosing's scientific research has made its mark internationally on several earlier occasions, including research on the point in time when the first fragile life appeared and the impact of life's presence on the formation of Earth's landmass.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        There are competing (or perhaps additional) theories as well.  Radiation from radioactive minerals was much higher, heating the earth naturally and from within.  When formed, the earth was one giant ball of lava; heat from lava much closer to the surface was much higher.  There are also other "greenhouse gases" than CO2, which may have been present.  Massive tidal effects from a moon far closer than today would have heated the earth.  It is even possible (though apparently unlikely) that a larger solar wind "hid" the suns output and falsely made it appear to be lower than it actually was (if I understand that one).

        1. cam8510 profile image93
          cam8510posted 23 months ago in reply to this

          Wilderness, My post dealt with the earth floating in space, covered with water, prior to the creation of anything else.  This is what Genesis 1 describes.  There would have been no minerals, greenhouse gases, moon etc.  The earth was floating in a sunless space covered with water......ICE.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

            Of course there were minerals; they are an integral part of earth and buried throughout the entire planet - minerals are nothing but "dirt".  There were also gases; without an atmosphere any liquid water would immediately evaporate (unless it was all frozen solid).  And the moon was here before any life, or at least any life we know of (as the collision with the planet that formed the moon melted the entire surface of the planet).  The formation of the moon had a MAJOR impact on what the earth was, it's size, rotation and other factors.

            Genesis doesn't match reality very well, as you point out, but my post concerned ONLY the heat from the early sun vs water/ice.  Not the creation myth.

            1. cam8510 profile image93
              cam8510posted 23 months ago in reply to this

              I'll concede the minerals, but not enough heat to melt ice. Otherwise there would be no ice on earth today.  In addition, any lava, gases or minerals were covered by water. If you read my post I was presenting a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation.  In Genesis 1:1-3, the earth was alone in space.  There was no moon, no sun, no solar wind, no radiation from the sun.  Just the earth covered with water in an unimaginably cold space.  The water covering earth at that point would have been frozen.

              1. cam8510 profile image93
                cam8510posted 23 months ago in reply to this

                wilderness, sorry, I'm still defending my original post.  If you aren't arguing against that, I apologize for misunderstanding.

              2. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                I read it, but wasn't responding to it.

                But I wonder - the "ice moon" of Saturn, Enceledus, is heated by tidal effects; enough to make water/steam geysers through the outer layer of ice.  Plus, consider that the planet really was nothing but lava until the surface cooled enough to solidify; at the point, and for a long time thereafter, the surface would have been quite hot. 

                Even without a sun, the earth/moon system might have been able to have liquid water.  Not that there was no sun (there definitely was), but it's an interesting "what if".

                1. cam8510 profile image93
                  cam8510posted 23 months ago in reply to this

                  I understand what you are saying now.  Those are very different conditions from what Genesis One present.  While I do not believe in the Genesis creation story, I am simply presenting what the conditions would have been if it happened as written in Genesis.  Those conditions were a solid earth covered with water.  No sun, no moon.  Nothing whatsoever had been created except the water covered earth.  Given those conditions, there would have been only ice. 

                  Now, given the conditions you have described, yes, there would have been the possibility of liquid water if there was already an atmosphere to contain it.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                    There is an additional problem with Genesis: the earth was formed by collisions of smaller particles, lumps, mountains, etc. all orbiting...what?  No sun, no orbits, no collisions.  No collisions, no earth.

              3. 0
                Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                Read my post, that's explained, and as I said, a LIGHT bulbs put off light

                1. cam8510 profile image93
                  cam8510posted 23 months ago in reply to this

                  I'll try one more time.   BEFORE day one.  BEFORE the sun was created.  BEFORE the light was created, the earth would have been a ball of ice.  A belief in six, twenty-four hour days of creation,  would mean all the ice melted in the first four days of creation so that oceans could support life and plants could grow in the ground. All of this without the sun, but only an unidentified light after day one.

                  1. 0
                    Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                    I don't  believe it was six days, but  if it was six days, six thousand years, or more
                    God created everything, what makes you think God could not have melted the ice? That's quite a ridiculous argument. Do you think you have found a reason we should give up the idea of God? You haven't

                  2. 0
                    Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                    One more time, the light would have melted it. Or God..anyone who creates a Universe, can melt ice

                  3. oceansnsunsets profile image87
                    oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                    To Cam8510, from what I am understanding, you were trying to go after a literal interpretation of Genesis, 6 - 24 hour days.  Yet you are not presenting such a literal interpretation when you state that in the first two verses the earth had to be frozen.  So you are creating a fictional scenario, non literal scenario of those verses or account, in order to attack its literal account.  So you made a case that didn't need to be defended in the first place, because you never made the case, as I see it.  If I have misunderstood anything, please let me know.

      2. cam8510 profile image93
        cam8510posted 23 months ago in reply to this

        Deborah, The first thing that Genesis says God created was light.  Not the sun.  No heat is mentioned.  It is reading into the text what is not there to assume that enough heat to melt all the ice was also present.  A literal interpretation does not allow reading into the text. 

        Deborah, you need to think about your next comment.  You quoted Genesis 1:1-3 which was PRIOR TO THE CREATION OF THE SUN and then proceeded to explain "Why Earth wasn't one big ball of ice 4 billion years ago when Sun's radiation was weaker."  There was no sun.  According to Genesis, the earth was covered with water, alone in space.  With the sun, space can be as cold as minus 450 degrees fahrenheit.  Just think what it would have been without the sun.  Yes, the earth would have been a ball of ice.  Case closed  Your whole Copenhagen article is meaningless because it assumes the existence of a sun.  Mystery NOT solved.  There was no sun until Genesis 1:14, day four of creation:  "And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day."

        I'll make it even more simple for you.  Earth + Water - Sun = Ice.

        1. 0
          Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

          Even as small as it is, a light bulb gives off heat
          Since we don't know what the source of that light actually was, you can in no way debunk it.
          Why didn't you finish reading my comment?

        2. oceansnsunsets profile image87
          oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

          I am way behind and catching up here.  As for looking at a playing out of a possible literal interpretation in order to critique it and find problems with it, AND not wanting to read into any text, here is what comes to mind.  (Forgive if this has been addressed, and I just haven't seen it yet lol.)

          Could you be possibly reading "ice" into the text when it isn't supposed to be there?  If we are letting the text drive this, we have to let the text do that.  Here are the verses she shared again,

          "Genesis 1
          1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
          2  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
          3  And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."

          Since it doesn't say in what "form" the water was, (as you have concluded that it was ice), we have to assume it was in "water" form, as it says so.  Even in verse two it doesn't say the darkness was upon the face of the "deep ice."  Just deep.  Then in the same verse, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.  WATERS..... 

          So when you said the first correction to be made was that it was a ball of ice, aren't you injecting a form of water that isn't in the text, and also inject a naturalistic, materialistic process that isn't being described in the text?  Its in that first correction, I think we need to discuss more.  Perhaps it has been since.

          I am a believer in an older earth, currently, and believe it is a lot more likely billions of years old than thousands...   Still, I liked what you two are doing with running with the literal versions of 24 hour days and having this discussions.  That said, I can't find any justifiable reason to think God made it ice instead of water, which it would have had to be for your idea to go through.  Does that make any sense what I am asking, and suggesting?

          1. 0
            Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

            _______________________________
            That's what I've been saying. After God created the heavens and earth, God created light
            So there was no ice. Light creates heat, there was also very few clouds, there was co2 which Science says may be the cause of NO ice.. the other hubber keeps saying there was

            1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
              oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

              Well from what I have read, we have come to the same conclusion in a literal reading of the text, for different reasons.  I am showing how what he was saying about what you were doing, was I think what he was doing.  You have been trying to explaining from a different point of view, and he seems to still take issue with that.  Either way, its support for your view that it didn't need to be ice.

              1. 0
                Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                I am using scripture, logic, and science

                1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                  Those things are what I am using also.  Those things, facts, and reason (or what is most reasonable) are my favorite things to use in discussions.

          2. cam8510 profile image93
            cam8510posted 23 months ago in reply to this

            Only those who believe the text are bound to using only the text.  I do not believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis one.  I am free  to make logical conclusions and add those to my understanding of it.  One logical conclusion is that a ball of water in a sunless space would actually be ice.  The seas were populated with life on day five, one day after the creation of the sun.  Even the sun could not have melted all that ice in one day.   And plant life on day three before the creation of the sun?   Have you heard of photosynthesis?  When did you last read Genesis one with any attempt at understanding the order In which things were created?

            1. 0
              Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

              Gee, we've gone over that already, many times,  We've decided to agree to disagree..(never actually spoken)..remember?
              Some of us don't see the ice, sorry

              1. cam8510 profile image93
                cam8510posted 23 months ago in reply to this

                You ignore the ice.   There is no way that liquid water could have existed prior to day one of creation.

                1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                  Which verse are you getting that liquid water existed prior to day one of creation though? I can't find a verse that suggests that liquid water could have existed prior to day one of creation.  Here is verse one and two mentioning waters....

                  "1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters."

                  No one is ignoring ice that I can see, it is just being inserted

                  1. cam8510 profile image93
                    cam8510posted 23 months ago in reply to this

                    Genesis 1:1-2 are before day one.  When light was created on day one (verse three) the earth itself already existed. This Is when it would have been extremely cold and frozen.   Remember,   there was no sun.

                2. 0
                  Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                  It doesn't state when the water was created...so that argument is not valid
                  and in Genesis we are dealing with God, not a limited human
                  When God created something, it functioned as it should, that's what the Hebrew word "Tov" means, FUNCTIONAL, He created water functional, so it was liquid, not ice
                  He said let there be..and it was ...good (functions as it should)

                  He created light
                  Genesis 1:4
                  And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
                  Genesis 1:10
                  And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

                  It was all good...

                  1. cam8510 profile image93
                    cam8510posted 23 months ago in reply to this

                    Sure it states when the water was created.   It was made before day one of creation.   Earth was in space with nothing else except the water covering it.   There was no source of heat. No sun until day four.   Read Genesis 1:1-3 in context with the rest of the chapter.  I swear, some of you seem to have not read these verses in a long time. You just talk a lot about them.

            2. 0
              Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

              __________________________
              Actually, I posted a scientific article that disagrees with you about the ice, and you never responded..about cloud density, and Co2, plus the Greenhouse effect, and the Core of the Earth was hot........etc
              http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/126751? … ost2688306

  8. 59
    rentacarmanilaposted 23 months ago

    Evolution theory is based only on conjecture. Contrary to the claim being bandied around by evolutionists,there is nothing scientific about it at all. Everything about evolution is based on pure assumptions. Evolutionists make their own conclusions before looking for "facts" to support their already  made bogus conclusions.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      You are then prepared to show that mutations do not occur?  That characteristics and attributes of the parent are not passed to the offspring?  That a species never changes over geological time periods? 

      The "science" that shows these things would be interesting to see.

    2. 0
      Avis Langmeadeposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      Time to learn some basic biology "rentacarmanila".

      You are clearly not only misinformed, but equally uninformed.

      1. 59
        rentacarmanilaposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        The bible is the only true source of knowledge that is valid at all times.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

          Right.  Like women come from the rib of a man.  Absolute knowledge, it is.

          1. 0
            Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

            The Hebrew bible doesn't say that, only the English one does

            1. 59
              rentacarmanilaposted 23 months ago in reply to this

              My advise to you is that you should be disputing the the biblical account of creation. The bible says "it is fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living Father" So, stop disputing the indisputables

              1. 59
                rentacarmanilaposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                Let me correct the first sentence of my last reply. I meant to say that you shouldn't be disputing the biblical account of creation

                1. 0
                  Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                  I am a certified teacher of Jewish scripture, and a licensed ordained minister
                  I discuss scripture, that's what I do

              2. 0
                Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                I'm not disputing anything. I am discussing the topics
                You have made your comments, and I have made mine. Please stop giving advice to me, and don't tell me what to do,
                Thank you

            2. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

              I bow to your superior (much superior) knowledge of spiritual writings.

              1. 0
                Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                _____________________
                It was simply the truth, the Hebrew scriptures do not say "rib", (only the English one's do) so can't you go without getting sarcastic with me? and grow up a little  On all the other threads, according to you, you are the only one who knows how to think, and make choices,  but when someone knows a little something more than you, well.....

                1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                  Deborah, would you mind sharing what the verse about the rib actually says, in your understanding and from your own study?

                2. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                  I'm sorry - no sarcasm intended at all.  Your knowledge of scripture is simply out of my league, that's all.  A simple statement of fact, and a sincere compliment.

                  I've enjoyed our interaction but dang, you've got to learn to be a little less sensitive!

                  1. 0
                    Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                    If wanting to be SHOWN respect, is being sensitive, I never want to stop
                    It doesn't matter what someone feels toward others here, but we should show respect, It's the adult human way, and we never really know who we are speaking to

                    Thank you for the compliment

            3. PhoenixV profile image78
              PhoenixVposted 23 months ago in reply to this

              כב  וַיִּבֶן יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הַצֵּלָע אֲשֶׁר-לָקַח מִן-הָאָדָם, לְאִשָּׁה; וַיְבִאֶהָ, אֶל-הָאָדָם.     22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from the man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man.
              כג  וַיֹּאמֶר, הָאָדָם, זֹאת הַפַּעַם עֶצֶם מֵעֲצָמַי, וּבָשָׂר מִבְּשָׂרִי; לְזֹאת יִקָּרֵא אִשָּׁה, כִּי מֵאִישׁ לֻקְחָה-זֹּאת.     23 And the man said: 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.'

              http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0102.htm

              1. 0
                Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                I am speaking of the Hebrew bible not the online ones
                On the internet, they take the English scriptures, turn it into Hebrew, and call it the Hebrew scriptures.

                The Hebrew scriptures are written only in Hebrew consonants, there are no vowels used, so what you posted isn't real
                Don't try to use Hebrew as though it were English

                1. PhoenixV profile image78
                  PhoenixVposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                  Oh I thought you recommended the Jewish Publication Society's translations earlier.

                  1. 0
                    Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                    You'll also note I never said online version, and I also said I heard it was good, but I had never read it
                    Read it here
                    http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/126751? … ost2688724

                  2. oceansnsunsets profile image87
                    oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                    I thought she was suggesting looking it up online, when she said, "If you don't find it under JPS look up "The Jewish Publication Society", Hebrew bible in English."

                    So you weren't the only one.

  9. bBerean profile image59
    bBereanposted 23 months ago

    Wondering if "Happy Hour" is indeed in play here. wink

    1. GA Anderson profile image87
      GA Andersonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      It was/is when I joined/join in the thread. smile

      GA

  10. 0
    Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago

    My Mac Thesaurus
    circle
    noun
    1 a circle of gold stars on a background of azure blue | the lamp spread a circle of light
    2 light: ring, round, band, hoop, circlet; halo, disc, wreath; technical annulus.
    3 circles: sphere, world, milieu, arena, domain; society.
    4 wheel, move round, move round in circles, revolve, rotate, whirl, spiral, gyrate.

    So your one definition doesn't prove anything
    The Hebrew language lacked a specific term for sphere as well as terminology for infinite space. The word Chug (Chuwg), in context with other words in Isaiah cannot be used to prove that the Bible teaches a flat earth.
    You would have to learn Hebrew to understand what they meant.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      I'm too ignorant to know how to print Hebrew here, but googling "translate sphere to hebrew" gives a result.  I can't read it, but there does seem to be a hebrew word for sphere.

      Hard to believe that a people, any society then, didn't understand the difference between a sphere and a circle.  Although they look the same viewed head on, the appearance is much different when turned even a few degrees.

      1. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        Circle is the translation used. A lot of things changed when the Hebrew text was translated to Greek, and even more when translated from Greek to English.
        Hebrew words are tangible, and Greek words are abstract, and that's where the problems began

        I took this from my website
        On a frequent basis we attach a meaning of a word from the Bible based on our own language and culture to a word that is not the meaning of the Hebrew word behind the translation. This is often a result of using our modern western thinking process for interpreting the Biblical text. For proper interpretation of the Bible it is essential that we take our definitions for words from an Ancient Hebraic perspective. Our modern western minds often work with words that are purely abstract or mental while the Hebrew’s vocabulary was filled with words that painted pictures of concrete concepts. By reading the Biblical text with a proper Hebrew vocabulary the text comes to life revealing the authors intended meaning.

        Every word in the Ancient Hebrew language was related to an image of action, something that could be sensed (as observed by the five senses – seen, heard, smelled, touched or felt) and in motion
        Greek words were, and are abstract, meaning that the words can mean several things..Take the word Bless-Ancient Hebrew Word Meanings Bless ~ barak
        In order to interpret this word correctly we must find its original concrete meaning. In Genesis 24:11 we read, “And he made the camels “kneel down” outside the city.” The phrase “kneel down” is the Hebrew verb ברך (B.R.K), the very same word translated as “bless.” The concrete meaning of ברך is to kneel down. The extended meaning of this word is to do or give something of value to another. God “blesses” us by providing for our needs and we in turn “bless” God by giving him of ourselves as his servants.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

          No, that was a different "pictograph" or whatever it's called.  Sphere was not circle.

          1. 0
            Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

            You're reading someones website that does not truly understand Hebrew
            You have to look at the verbs and nouns around a Hebrew word to understand it
            Now you understand Hebrew more than a Jewish person?
            I don't believe you.

            I'll believe in God, it's your choice not to, but it is not your duty to lead others away from God

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

              No, just the box that a google search pops up.

              I don't know what being Jewish has to do with knowing Hebrew - you could say the same thing about Christians as their bible was mostly written in Hebrew.  But vanishingly few can understand Hebrew and of those that do, even fewer have taken the lifetime necessary to even try and understand the culture then.

              But mostly I just can't believe that a whole people, knowledgeable for the time, didn't understand that a circle isn't a sphere.  Geometry wasn't unknown then, after all, and other cultures even earlier had a firm grasp on 3-D objects.

              1. 0
                Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                The Christian's bible is not written in Hebrew. The Hebrew text was copied and changed

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                  What's that got to do with it?  If the original was Hebrew then that's where one should go for understanding.  Depending on a dozen or hundred "translators", all with their own axe to grind, is a sure way to misunderstand what was actually written/said.

                  1. 0
                    Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                    The meaning of the Hebrew words being changed, has a lot to do with it
                    I use the Hebrew version (written in Hebrew) of the Hebrew bible
                    The Hebrew Bible has not changed since it was canonized in 450 BCE
                    You're thinking once again of the English bible

                  2. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
                    wrenchBiscuitposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/12064840.png
                    That's where one should go for understanding? It's not surprising that you state the obvious and don't look any further toward what is even more obvious. I understand that this evil government has done it's job well. You appear to be completely convinced that all knowledge is written in a book by a man. But you have missed the most obvious source of understanding, which is God. I have no urgent need to read a book when I can communicate directly with the source, and so can many others ...  just as well as I.

                    You are angry because God has not spoken to you, or revealed your purpose. I cannot say why this is so, but I do understand that arrogance and pride can be a great stumbling block. It is only when I humbled myself before God that I was elevated to a higher status. Your present course will only lead you further and further into darkness and confusion, until one day you will find yourself at the end of this life. On that day, you will find no comfort in your contempt for me and my kind. But for me, there can never be an end as many will know it, for when this body falls down,  I will leap out of my skin,  and return to forever. Osiyo!

                2. oceansnsunsets profile image87
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                  Hi Deborah, what language was the Old Testament written in?  I was of the understanding it was Hebrew also.

                  1. 0
                    Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                    The bible was written in ancient Hebrew, and a couple of parts of the Books of Daniel and Ezra were originally written in Aramaic

              2. 0
                Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                You do know that Hebrews are Jewish, and Jewish people are Hebrew (Unless they became Jewish, but not born to a Jewish mother)  Judaism is the religion.
                I converted to Judaism, married a Hebrew/Jewish man, and became Jewish through those two acts, and I went through ritual
                An atheist can be Jewish.

      2. oceansnsunsets profile image87
        oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        Wilderness, did you ever share some exact verses that show the idea of circle over sphere in this thread?  I am not recalling it, but perhaps you did? I mean I know of what you are speaking and everything in terms of what you are describing, but I am interested in where you read it a flat like a pancake circle, instead of a sphere, that you are holding to this idea they didn't know the difference?

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

          LOL - by now I don't even know who, but someone said a verse somewhere said the earth was a circle, and took it to mean it was a sphere and therefore the ancients knew cosmology.  If I understood Deborah Sexton correctly (and not sure I did) she said circle WAS sphere in Hebrew, but then came back later and said there were two different Hebrew words for the terms. 

          So no, I'm pretty lost here, too.  I don't understand Hebrew, and don't really understand Deborah's comments either. I don't know where the idea originated either in this forum or the bible. 

          But either way, I hold that the people DID know the difference between a circle and a sphere, just didn't know the earth was spherical (if the bible verse was a correct translation in "circle").  They could well have thought the earth was ball shaped, even though they never circumnavigated the globe to find out, and the belief lost over the centuries, but supposedly the bible DOES say it is circular (flat) rather than spherical.  And maybe the original Hebrew DOES mean either word and the biblical scripture was "translated" incorrectly (not unlikely, as the bible had to fit in with the "knowledge" of the time, which was flat).

          1. Phyllis Doyle profile image94
            Phyllis Doyleposted 23 months ago in reply to this
            1. PhoenixV profile image78
              PhoenixVposted 23 months ago in reply to this

              That was a pretty good article or site Phyllis.  I saw Wilderness interested in translations, words and languages and here is an online concordance, that he might find useful. ( He probably knows about it or might already know about it, or use it, I'm not sure)

              http://biblehub.com/text/isaiah/40-22.htm

              http://biblehub.com/text/isaiah/22-18.htm

              1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
                oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                Thanks Phoenix, that is awesome.  I have seen that site before, but never spent time there.  This is not too different than some of the "paper" tools I have, in bulky book form, lol.  You went straight to particular verses also, which is more helpful and particular I think.  Its good that Phyliis shared a particular verse, so we can all agree on what is being critiqued. 

                In my study with my own tools, I find that word circle in Isaiah 40:22, to be one that has been brought up before, but then I saw it be encouraged to look up the English word for circle, on page two of this thread.  The Hebrew word given was the same, "chuwg", in Isaiah there, and the Hebrew definition for that is a circle, circuit, or compass. 

                This is why I say it depends on how one takes the Hebrew definition, and is translating it to us in English.  It seems in this case, for this verse, Wilderness would have been right to think it means just what the Hebrew version is saying, a circle.  A circuit or a compass could maybe be made to be a little more like sphere if forced, but still seem to be vague in regards to sphere. One could try to lean it toward sphere over circle, or stick to more of a flat one.

                Does this make the case that the ancients thought it was flat like a pancake?  Not necessarily.  Talking about the particulars though helps in creating productive discussion where we all learn though.  If there are other verses to look at, we can do that also.  This particular one looks like its circle, circuit, or compass.  Thanks for your links, which help all people that are on a search for truth of these matters, and shows we don't all have to learn the Hebrew language to be able to speak on it.

                1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                  I wanted to clarify, that Strong's, 2329, "chuwg", is the word I am focusing on because it is what is in the verse being discussed, or offered up.  If people want to post a different verse where circle is used also, then we can look at that verse also.

                  This page has been offered up, http://biblehub.com/hebrew/2329.htm, which is what I was referring to also, and is defined as circle, circuit, or compass. 

                  In a time where not all is presented as totally clear, and what is clarifying what exactly, the particulars matter I think, because accusations can be made or suggestions that don't really make sense, that simply aren't necessary.  (Like we need to be able to read or know Hebrew to fully understand, in essence.  Though I am sure it helps. If anyone wants to discuss another verse, that results in another use of the Hebrew word circle, I am totally open to using these same great tools.

                  There was a suggestion before, that the tools we have at our disposal are faulty, like the Masoretic texts etc, were in error or some such thing.  I know this isn't true now for a fact, because the person making that claim is using the same things as some of us already were.  I am glad it is online too, after all!  We need to test everything, and not necessarily believe everything we hear, even if it is said with great authority.  Major kudos to those that made what was once the case, available for the common student seeking the same knowledge.  Not to diminish the study of those that dedicate their life to such pursuits.  To those that have and seem to be so happy to share the gifts that I think God made available for us all, thank you!  (Interlinear Translators, those that secured the most ancient copies of the texts like the Masoretic, Concordances like Strong's, and Hebrew and Chaldee dictionaries, etc.)

              2. 0
                Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                You would be incorrect about me, and the Hebrew word for sphere

              3. oceansnsunsets profile image87
                oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                Thanks Phyllis, very interesting how they break it down there, and how if the same Hebrew word was used to suggest one thing, were to be used in other places, it would make the reading of the scripture very awkward indeed. 

                The way circle is used in Hebrew in that verse, doesn't seem to be anything much more than circle, as we look it up.  The tools I have seen used, are also the tools used to get the information to Wilderness throughout.  Using our common verses from our bibles, English dictionaries, and concordances and interlinear translations.  Sometimes, these things have been suggested to not be enough, that one has to actually learn the Hebrew language to know what it says from the ancient texts.  That is a belief that I don't share with the person making that claim.  Not when we have the tools we do have.  I did go back and look, and this is a good verse to go by, as we can each evaluate it for ourselves with the tools at our disposal and see, then.

            2. oceansnsunsets profile image87
              oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

              Ok, thanks Wilderness.  In case I missed it, I wanted to ask.  Its possible the Israelites did know it was spherical, and also just spoke of it in different ways as we see.  I saw others posted particular verses, and am looking at those.  Some do support what you are saying, it seems.  It looks like how one interprets the definitions given by the particular Hebrew word sometimes too.

    2. 0
      Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago

      Proverbs 8:27 (KJV)
      27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

      Compass  in Hebrew is: מצפן said Mschugah and means
      1. girth, circumference, scope, range, circuit, compass, around
      2. frame, round framework, setting, bordure, compass, orbit   
      3. domain, confines, territory, realm, scope, compass
      verb
      4. surround, wreathe, encircle, compass, shroud

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        Which is why both context of surrounding text AND a solid understanding of the culture then are both important in understanding.  Which of 25 English words best translates the original Hebrew?

        1. 0
          Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

          I know, that's true, which I do. My husband Joel is Hebrew, and also understands it. His pen name on Hubpages is Joel McLendon.
          We both use separate pen names for our last name

    3. cam8510 profile image93
      cam8510posted 23 months ago

      Hey everybody.......all else aside.  HAPPY HOLIDAYS my hubber friends.

    4. Robert Ellsworth profile image60
      Robert Ellsworthposted 23 months ago

      The phrase "theory of evolution" is a misnomer. Evolution itself is a fact - what's theoretical is the mechanisms of how it works. The most famous theoretical explanation of course is Darwin's theory of Natural Selection. It's place as a bedrock of modern biology shows it's probably correct. Gould and Engel's theory of evolution via punctuated equilibria is also considered sound.

    5. oceansnsunsets profile image87
      oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago

      Once I got home and had time to look, my interlinear Hebrew bible translation, from the Masoretic texts, translates Genesis 2:21-22 to be rib also, for whatever that is worth.  (Which means a lot to me, I don't know of a better source than the Hebrew Masoretic texts, though there may be, and in which case I would like to know about those.) . From my understanding, the Hebrew and Aramaic words that have been preserved by the Masoretes, are as good of a source I have access to, textually speaking. God has a way of preserving his revelation in its various forms, and for that I am grateful.

    6. 0
      Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago

      Take this verse for instance. in Genesis 2:21
      On a human, flesh covers the ribs.
      When God took the female from the side of Adam, it says he closed up the flesh instead.
      If it was a rib, he would have said he closed up the flesh. But the flesh he closed had to have been connected for it to say, he closed up the flesh instead..think about this

      Genesis 2:21
      And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs (sides) , and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

      God created him  both male, and female
      Genesis 1:27
      So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
      These verses alludes to the fact, men and women were side by side

      He called the male and female Adam..
      Genesis 5:2
      Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

      Even today, men have the XY Chromosomes...He is still both male and female, but women are all women with the XX Chromosomes

      1. PhoenixV profile image78
        PhoenixVposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        Now you are making an argument for your preference of translations ie It's "thus" and here are some allusions/reasons to why you think it is so. Neither - side or rib - is the only correct translation. No one can say tsela is only side and cannot be rib, neither could anyone say it can only be rib and never side. You may prefer it, but you cannot say one is wrong.

        An argument or display of confirmation bias eg  Gen 1: 27-28 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. And God blessed them; and God said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and (multiply, <---- Not likely if Adam is a hermaphrodite.) But it illustrates an attempt to reconcile a belief that Adam contained both female and male parts, so  somehow we want him to "split somewhere" and one side taken from a whole "sounds better" for those purposes. Such as the past apologetics on the death of Judas. It "sounds" like he was being talked about, when the phrase "reward for iniquity" is used, so let us "assume" it's him , and so now lets just reconcile the differing deaths.

        1. 0
          Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

          ____________________________

          I didn't say Adam was a hermaphrodite, they have 2 sex organs. Don't put words in my mouth, or I won't reply to anything you say, I hate being misquoted
          Adam had a female attached to his side. God removed her, and gave her a separate life  I got it from scripture

          About the rib

          In Hebrew, and in the Hebrew scriptures, it does not say “rib,” it says  “side.” It is the same word used in other places where the word “side” is used.

          The Hebrew word translated as rib in Genesis 2 is tsela. The only other place in the Bible where the English word rib occurs is in Daniel 7:5, translated from a completely different Hebrew word. The word translated as rib in Daniel, is the Hebrew word ala, not tsela

          In Jeremiah 20:10 It says "For I heard the defaming of many, fear on every side (tsela)…” Would he have been saying “fear on every rib”?

          Daniel 7:5
          5 And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side (tsela), and it had three ribs (alas) in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh.

          Are you saying you speak, read, and understand Hebrew. And that you know how to look at the verbs, and nouns to figure out what it's saying. Or are you just copying the opinions of others?
          Rib is you guess, side is what I know..

          1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
            oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

            Deborah said to Phoenix, "I didn't say Adam was a hermaphrodite, they have 2 sex organs. Don't put words in my mouth, or I won't reply to anything you say, I hate being misquoted."

            He didn't say that you said Adam was a hermaphorodite.  He wasn't attempting to quote you when he used that word.

            As for the two being connected in the way you are sharing, thanks for sharing that view.  I had never heard it be suggested before!

            1. 0
              Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

              I don't want to debate this.with you, I was talking to the other person, and yes he did. I said Adam was created both male and female, he pointed out that God had told them to multiply, and he stated that it would not be likely if Adam was a hermaphrodite. He WAS debating what I said

              If you know how to put it all together, you can see he was saying that in reply to what I said

              You might want to read both my comment and his. I understand what people are saying, especially when they are speaking to me
              http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/126751? … ost2689195

              1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
                oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                You never said hermaphrodite.  Phoenix didn't ever say you did say it.  You said he put words in your mouth and misquoted you.  I was simply pointing out that wasn't true.

                If you put something together from his words, and maybe have questions, you could always ask him before putting words in his mouth.  I am sure he would tell you, where he got that word from  (I am only seeking fairness and truth.)

                1. 0
                  Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                  Could you drop it, and allow the person I was speaking to, interpret it
                  I know what I did and didn't say

                2. PhoenixV profile image78
                  PhoenixVposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                  Thanks for setting the record straight.

                  1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
                    oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                    No problem.   Cut and dry.

                    1. 0
                      Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                      Well, okay,  both of you guys, please don't reply to anything I say and I won't reply to you, you can change your story, and defend each other, but I won't put what I say in jeopardy again.  Goodbye

          2. PhoenixV profile image78
            PhoenixVposted 23 months ago in reply to this

            I never quoted you as saying hermaphrodite. I quoted the Word of God.  I then put in parenthesis :hermaphrodite and I put it in parenthesis because I thought it the most accurate of words that conveys male/female. No reason to erroneously claim offense. No need to claim offense where none was given. It's just a word to me and carries no connotation.

            In fact, I got the notion from Here:   There is an opinion in the Talmud that states that God originally created Adam as a hermaphrodite and then split that one being into two separate bodies. Sincerely,

            ---> Rabbi Ari Lobel

            and in response to you writing quote -"men and women were side by side" and "He is still both male and female" - regarding chromosomes

            There has been a long debate over rib/side by more qualified people than you or I, so it interests me, so no need for "stunts" on my or your part.

            It is not my "fault" that words have two meanings eg fault, it could mean mistake or it could mean a crack in a rock formation.You prefer it to be side. Either rib or side is correct. To say one is wrong is, well,  illogical.


            Now your claim that Daniel 7:5 is translated -one side = (tsela), (I bolded above in your post)

            5 And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side (tsela).



            A total of eight incomplete copies of the Book of Daniel have been found at Qumran, two in Cave 1, five in Cave 4, and one in Cave 6. None is complete, but between them they preserve text from eleven of Daniel's twelve chapters, and the twelfth is quoted in the Florilegium (a compilation scroll) 4Q174, showing that the book at Qumran did not lack this conclusion. All eight manuscripts were copied between 125 BCE (4QDanc) and about 50 CE (4QDanb), showing that Daniel was being read at Qumran only forty years after its composition. All appear to preserve the 12-chapter Masoretic version rather than the longer Greek text. None reveal any major disagreements against the Masoretic, and the four scrolls that preserve the relevant sections (1QDana, 4QDana, 4QDanb, and 4QDand) all follow the bilingual nature of Daniel where the book opens in Hebrew, switches to Aramaic at 2:4b, then reverts to Hebrew at 8:1.[35]source 

            The Masoretic Text does not translate Daniel Chapter 7 verse 5 as side equals tsela as you claim. Would you like to change your mind on that?

            1. 0
              Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

              You were replying to me about saying: the first people were made male, and female, and you replied by insinuating I was saying Adam was hermaphrodite. You didn't just quote scripture
              I never said you were quoting me, and I never thought I said hermaphrodite, I'm awake, but you were insinuating that if they were male, and female, they were hermaphrodite. Now you're trying to take it back.
              I understand what people say

              1. PhoenixV profile image78
                PhoenixVposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                I wanted to discuss the actual relevant things and I see no point in discussing anything further. I discuss scripture, thats what I do. There is a good reason they translated it specifically to rib, correctly in my opinion. But it takes logic and patience and understanding to know why. I dont have the patience. (to relate why I believe so)

                1. 0
                  Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                  Here you go
                      PhoenixV wrote:

                      Now you are making an argument for your preference of translations ie It's "thus" and here are some allusions/reasons to why you think it is so. Neither - side or rib - is the only correct translation. No one can say tsela is only side and cannot be rib, neither could anyone say it can only be rib and never side. You may prefer it, but you cannot say one is wrong.

                      An argument or display of confirmation bias eg  Gen 1: 27-28 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. And God blessed them; and God said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and (multiply, <---- Not likely if Adam is a hermaphrodite.) But it illustrates an attempt to reconcile a belief that Adam contained both female and male parts, so  somehow we want him to "split somewhere" and one side taken from a whole "sounds better" for those purposes. Such as the past apologetics on the death of Judas. It "sounds" like he was being talked about, when the phrase "reward for iniquity" is used, so let us "assume" it's him , and so now lets just reconcile the differing deaths.

    7. 0
      Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago

      Adam and Eve (Let him that can hear, hear what is being said)
      Genesis 1:27 KJV
      So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.- They were both Him, and Them

      He says He created man, and He created him male and female. Then He refers to the man as them.

      God was not speaking of a separate female, because although He had already created humanity as male and female, at that point Eve didn’t yet exist, at least not separately with a different name.
      Eve was the first to be separated from her husband Adam, but female had already been created, Eve was separated from Adam later after everyone was created both male, and female attached to each other


      He created male and female in the same body, which wasn’t working well for someone in a physical body. God said Adam needed a help meet.

      Genesis 2:20
      And 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.

      *In Hebrew, Help meet does not mean someone to wash clothes and cook, it means someone to have marital relations with. This was impossible with them being side by side. All the animals were separate

      Genesis 2:21-23
      And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his sides (ribs), and closed up the flesh instead thereof

      22. And the side (rib), which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.I suppose he had to make her so she could survive without being attached to Adam

      We all know ribs are mostly only bone with no real amount of flesh, yet in verse 23 when God brings Eve to Adam he doesn't just say she is "bone of my bone" but adds that "she is flesh of my flesh".
      Adam seemed to recognize her right away

      23. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (Hebrew says "She was taken from man")

      We have no idea how they multiplied before the separation. Birth through reproduction was a punishment, after they ate from the tree

    8. oceansnsunsets profile image87
      oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago

      Well that is too bad. I would have rather we just have been real careful with what we say, and be clear on what is being accused, etc.  (If anything.)

      This is interesting stuff.  I guess I am fine with stopping communication, but it didn't need to be that way.  If we keep having this level of disconnect over common words and ideas, perhaps it is best.  For instance, I don't see any changing of any story.  I don't have any need to defend a changing of story.  sad Still, it is unfortunate.  Then, no discussion happens, which isn't a goal of mine.

      If you change your mind, or want to discuss in the future, just let me know.  I enjoy studying the Hebrew scriptures very much, for whatever it is worth.

    9. 0
      Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago

      I kind of got a laugh out of this, I don't even know how I found it, I've never looked up the word Atheist
      I do agree with at least one philosophy included smile
      Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke
      http://www.science20.com/writer_on_the_ … oke-139982
      From the above site
      This line of thought has led to some scientists claiming that “atheism is psychologically impossible because of the way humans think,” says Graham Lawton, an avowed atheist himself, writing in the New Scientist. “They point to studies showing, for example, that even people who claim to be committed atheists tacitly hold religious beliefs, such as the existence of an immortal soul.”

    10. 0
      Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago

      Wilderness, and anyone interested. You're not understanding what I am saying, so, this is how Hebrew words work
      The Greeks use Biblical words differently than the Hebrew people do.

      Hebrew words are always based on and described as something tangible. Something you can understand through the five senses. For instance “In God’s bosom”. is used to express “In God’s loving care”

      “The arm of the Lord” is used to represent power and authority to carry out his will. Arm is used to describe, strength, power, and handy work. The Hebrew word Ruach, is Wind, and Wind is used to describe God’s Spirit. Wind is a powerful force. and It can be felt.

      When a Hebrew speaks, you can “see” the images, “hear” the sounds, “smell” the aroma, and “feel” the sensation of the words he is speaking. This is a great tool in understanding scripture.

      Whereas Greek words are based on intangible, vague, and abstract ideas. Many of the Hebrew words have been translated using abstract words to define Hebrew physical words/meanings, and understanding, consequently, the images and meanings are lost. This type of writing leaves interpretation wide open. By this I mean that you can get many interpretations.

      In the Jewish Bible tangible words are always used. Here’s some examples

      The tangible word “eat” is used for the word “understand”

      To eat” or “To drink” means “to comprehend” or to “come to understand”  “To Partake of something. The word “Understand” is an abstract word that you can’t see, hear, smell, or feel.

      The word round can’t be comprehended by any one of the five senses, but circle can

      You can see a circle but you can’t see  round, except by a circle

      Misunderstanding this, the word was translated as circle

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        But of course you can tell the difference between a ball and a circle of paper.  One of your senses, touch, is ideally suited for this purpose even if the eyes or nose are not.  You can "feel" the difference quite plainly.

        Not that that means the word was translated correctly, just that it can't be judged incorrect simply because of this difference in language.

        1. 0
          Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

          _____________________________
          I thought you could grasp ideas, but you keep repeating yourself, over, and over, the same error
          I'm finished talking to you, because I told you, it is the the way the Hebrew text was translated into English. Circle is not the Hebrew interpretation. But I think you understand this, but you're just wanting to harass
          How would you like it if I called your family (mine: The Jewish people) stupid? The Hebrews weren't
          You can't see round, just a circle, and you can't hold round earth and feel that it is round, it's a little big
          Goodbye

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
            Kathryn L Hillposted 23 months ago in reply to this

            You have a 2D abstract representation. You have a 3D concrete reality.
            Can the abstract represent the concrete? or can the concrete represent the abstract?
            I would say its a matter of the representations not being able to represent each other with utmost representational accuracy as in the case of the former the representation is flat and in the case of the latter the representation is spherical. Now, if the representation of the former were to have values and shadings to resemble the latter, then yes the former could represent the latter!  However, a ring cannot identify a ball.
            I hope this will bring back the harmony you all must have had a one time. big_smile

            1. 0
              Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

              A ring, or a circle is round, and can represent earth

              If you draw you house on paper, it is flat, but it still represents your house..It is a likeness of your house.
              Tell  someone to draw earth, they will usually draw a circle...a ball is represented by a circle, etc and that's what they'll draw, a circle

              All these circles represents earth
              https://www.google.com/search?q=drawn+e … mp;bih=879

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
                Kathryn L Hillposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                ...only if it has realistic shadings. However, a house depicted on a 2D plane is an abstract of the form of the house.
                Houses and Balls in this case cannot be equally represented by the abstract, as in the case of the former the reality of the sphere MUST be accounted for. But, in the case of the latter the form of the house is a given and understood by any earthling who resides in that actual type of geometric structure.  Earthlings who have only lived in Caves, Huts or Teepees… Not so much.

                There is also the bothersome aspect of the line in representing reality in an abstract way. Solid shapes represent realities in a much more accurate way than outlined shapes.

                But, of course, these musings are just my own honest logical deductions.

                1. 0
                  Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                  _________________
                  Please! you don't get what I am saying either

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                    wish I did.. But, per usual I have come to class late.

    11. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
      wrenchBiscuitposted 23 months ago

      And so it has been revealed, the importance of nuance and cultural significance when seeking to understand  certain words and phrases, especially those of a distant time. Yet, you still are unable to accept the wisdom of  a higher authority. They say that "Diamonds are a girls best friend", but in your case I must paraphrase:"Semantics is an apologist's best friend!" Once again you have attempted to create a fiction in order to win an argument. Deborah Sexton clearly stated: "The word round can’t be comprehended by any one of the five senses, but circle can." This is an accurate statement. She is obviously referring to the "word" round, not a round rubber ball. She further clarifies her meaning by saying: "You can see a circle but you can’t see  round, except by a circle."  Read , listen, and learn.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        Yes - read, listen, and learn.

        None of your senses can "see" a word, only the object referred to.  And yes, just as Deborah says you can "see" a ball as a circle, but you can also "feel" the ball as a ball - the senses CAN correctly interpret the word into the actual object.

        1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
          wrenchBiscuitposted 23 months ago in reply to this

          The fact that a person can feel a round ball is elementary,and has nothing to do with what she was suggesting. There is an old Jewish saying that goes: "It s a bigger (blank) that argues with a (blank), and so it is here that I must say goodbye, and leave you to fill in the "blanks"..

    12. 0
      Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago

      For those wanting to criticize and pretend they know Hebrew
      Well, What do you know??!
      I found this, and it says everything I have smile

      Chug, Chuwg
      http://biblehub.com/hebrew/2329.htm

      Dur, Dure
      http://biblehub.com/hebrew/1754.htm


      http://biblehub.com/text/isaiah/40-22.htm
      2329 [e]    ḥūḡ (Chug) (Like the Ch sound in Chanukkah, which is Hanukkah)

      http://biblehub.com/text/isaiah/22-18.htm

      1754 [e]    kad-dūr (a) (Dur)

      hatzi ka dur; the term in Hebrew means “half a sphere.”

    13. 0
      Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago

      _______________________________
      People have called the ancient Hebrews stupid, yet it is the stupidity of the Hebrew language, that is at fault
      I found this
      More than one way to express the Hebrew word Dur, (Dure, Dor) aka Circle

      By: J.A. Benner

      This Hebrew word is used 167 times in the Hebrew Bible and usually translated as "generation". While the Hebrew word דור and the English word "generation" are similar in meaning, it is important to understand the differences in order to have a clearer picture of the authors understanding of the word which may impact how the passage is understood.

      A generation is time from one birth to the birth of the next generation. While the word דור has the same meaning, there are differences. In our Greco-Roman culture we see time as a line with a beginning and an end while the Eastern mind sees time as a continuous circle. While we may see a generation as a time line with a beginning and an end, the Hebrews saw a generation as one circle with the next generation as a continuation of the circle. There is no beginning and no end.


      The word דור is a child root derived from the parent root דר (meaning generation in Aramaic). In the ancient pictographic script this word is written as daletresh. The dalet is a picture of a tent door and has the meaning of an in and out or back and forth movement. The resh is the head of a man meaning man. When combined these mean "the movement of man", a generation is the movement through the circle of one man while the next generation is the movement of man through the following circle.


      In the ancient Hebrew mind the circle is the symbol for "order". Note the possibility of the ancient Semitic word DOR in the word orDER. This circular order can also be seen in the creation/destruction of the world. In our Greco-Roman mind we see the creation as the beginning of a time line and its destruction as the end of that timeline. But remember the ancient Hebrews see time as a circle. Genesis 1:1 says "in a beginning" (bereshiyt means in "a" beginning, not "the" beginning). This world was destroyed at the fall of man (a full circle). The world begins a-new with the new order of things and is destroyed again at the flood, another circle. The world begins a-new and will be destroyed again (as prophesied by the prophets). Were there circles of time prior to Genesis 1:1 and circles of time after the destruction to come?


      There are three Hebrew roots (each are adopted roots) that have the meaning of order. Within each of these is the DR parent root meaning "order" or "circle".

    14. cam8510 profile image93
      cam8510posted 23 months ago

      The theory of evolution is riddled with unanswered questions.   But these are at least being dealt with according to the scientific method and logic.  The theory of evolution is the best model for origins that has been presented.

      1. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago

        Even with this proof that  Chug and Dur means ball, and circle (Both) , you are closing your eyes on purpose

        Chug (Hug) means horizon and circle, and is interchangeable with Dur ball. They didn't have an actual ball that children play with, and ball is used to express round
        Chug (2329)
        http://biblehub.com/hebrew/2329.htm
        http://biblehub.com/hebrew/1754.htm

        Hebrews use root words and combine 2 and 3 root words to form another word. English doesn’t do this. So far, no one that has commented seems to be able to learn Hebrew, because none has been able to grasp the Hebrew ideas. Chug does not hint at a flat earth..the idea never came from them. That was a Gentile thought

        God's name appears 6,878 times in the Hebrew bible, and his name is important, yet the English bible translates his name simply as God, Lord, and Father. This is the bible which Christians believe in, and trust, and that’s just what they did to his name, a lot of things were changed. But people will believe a lie
        Exodus 9:16…”I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth”.

        Strong's Conc. Hebrew Lexicon

        http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.c … index=1754
        1754 duwr dure from 1752; a circle, ball or pile:--ball, turn, round 

        http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.c … x=23292329 chuwg khoog from 2328; a circle:--circle, circuit, compass.

      2. cam8510 profile image93
        cam8510posted 23 months ago

        But it does not matter if genesis 1:1-2 are before day one or part of day one.   The sun still was not created until day four.   The freezing temperatures would have lasted from day one to day four.  All the creative acts in those verses (3-14) would have been carried out in frigid temperatures.

      3. cam8510 profile image93
        cam8510posted 23 months ago

        Genesis one can be debated theologically but not scientifically.  Supernatural creation and miracles can not be counted as science which deals only with natural phenomena.

      4. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago

        _________________________
        People who are Jewish and speak Hebrew, especially Ancient Hebrew, know without a doubt that the Masoretic Text is incorrect, and greatly flawed. And although those who speak English will read about a Hebrew word, and think they know everything about it, they don't, and they have a long way to go to understand even the simple concepts

        This agrees that the Masoretic Text is incorrect, and the original Hebrew scripture is the only correct one
        The Orthodox Jewish people, Hasidic..are the original Judaic religion, and they know those Masoretic texts are corrupt, but people want to believe a lie.
        https://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/2 … al-hebrew/

        This is why the English bibles, like the KJV is corrupted, because it came from the corrupted Masoretic Texts
        Here's the video again
        We got our Hebrew bible manuscripts in Israel, written in separate books, written before the Masoretic changes
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOfg8R3Ngvs
        One thing though, he states that without vowel points it didn't say anything, I disagree, it said things, but it couldn't be spoken without vowel sounds..that's probably what he really meant

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
          Kathryn L Hillposted 23 months ago in reply to this

          Edit: Evolution is a mystery. Oh well.

          1. 0
            Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

            _____________________________
            Sorry, I don't believe in Jesus, there is no proof he even existed, except in the NT

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
              Kathryn L Hillposted 23 months ago in reply to this

              Why should we not discount the OT? Especially when you consider how ANCIENT it must be. Originally, it was passed down generation to generation for who knows how many decades or centuries through song/ the spoken word based on the memories of who knows who... before ever being written down.
              How accurate can it be?

              1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
                oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                I think it is pure belief in something, being expressed there.  Having a different measurement for what is acceptable.  Anyone can simply discount things they don't want to be true or believe in.  Yes, we are talking about much more ancient texts/manuscripts being believed in, over the more recent.

                In the past on HP, I have run across others that ask me and or others  to cease contact with them, when good points are made, (tough to rebut), and they maintain they know more because of their claims (which may or may not be true.  Even if true, a good argument has to be a good argument, and hold good premises) 

                There are hostile witnesses even, not just the NT texts.  It also makes complete sense that some need Jesus to not be the Messiah, and better yet to not have existed.  Its picking and choosing what can be ALLOWED to come to us historically, while accepting a host of other, more difficult to believe in things.  I think it could be said that it is simple rejection through denial in some cases, etc.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                  And Yet God sent us the Key to Happiness only 2,000 + years ago.
                  Thank You, God.

                  TWISI and thanks for the freedom of speech we still have within the borders of our united states.

                  1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
                    oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                    I too, am thankful for that same thing!

          2. 0
            Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

            ___________________________
            Did I say that? No, I didn't, evolution is real, and it's not a mystery. If you got that from what I said, and you replied to, than somethings wrong, somewhere

            There are several Jewish religions, and we believe alike in some things, but not all, just because I post a link to one thing that is true, doesn't means I accept , and support everything.
            Name one place I posted a link that is based on those corrupt texts. (I'm not saying this to you Kathryn) Yes, they are in error and corrupt, and anything I have said, I stand by, and I've changed nothing. Anyone who thinks I have, please post a link to it.
            This mistake comes from a lack of knowledge, and understanding, but people want to be right, instead of testing the word

            To understand Hebrew, you have to know that words are made from combining 2 or 3 root words, and anything containing those root words, are related. You have to understand that the original Hebrew scriptures were written only in consonants, with no vowels (vowels are used in only one place to reveal a certain deep truth about God, and I am the only one who teaches this, because God revealed it to me, and I am a "named" bible scholar )
            You have to know the Hebrew idioms that were popular at the time of the writing, and who wrote the text. You need to know their allegory, euphemisms, metaphors, similes, and other parts of speech in the Hebrew language, at the time the text was written.

            If you use one of those internet translators, in reality, you are only getting the English answer, and usually they give one meaning to one word, when there could be many, depending on the root words

            There is a lot I would like to teach, and share, but it seems it is not wanted. Sometimes, God makes a way, and you reject it

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
              Kathryn L Hillposted 23 months ago in reply to this

              uh, that is my (edited) rebuttal to your arguments.

              1. 0
                Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                __________________
                How can it be a rebuttal to what I said, when I didn't say it.
                Point me to the place where I said evolution is a mystery
                And I see your meaning in the word "edited"

                That is a nonsensical rebuttal, to what you imagined

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                  Are you not attempting to explain that very beginnings of creation / life / evolution as it is described in Genesis... of all places?
                  Now you are jumping into false interpretations of Jesus.
                  I mean really?! At Christmastime, even?
                  Thanks for nothing.

                  1. 0
                    Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                    _______________________
                    No, not hardly. You would think you could understand something someone says. You haven't understood one thing I've said, so far. I was asked to explain certain things, but that's between me, and the other person, so there's no need for a rebuttal from you

                    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
                      Kathryn L Hillposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                      No, an open forum is just that:
                      Open.
                      If any one wants to correct me, I am open to correction and I will never butt into a two way (?)  conversation again.

                      Well, I thought we had freedom of speech here in HP Forums!
                      Don't we?

                      1. 0
                        Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                        ________________________
                        Oh but you're criticizing me for the questions I answered, asking if I am attempting to explain creation.
                        It's an open forum for me too wink  hmm : tongue lol mad  rollcool
                        Are you ganging up on me with all the rest???  Can't you think for yourself?

                        No, I won't let a non Hebrew speaking, and non Jewish person correct my beliefs..sorry
                        I'll never denounce mine, and my husband's religion

      5. oceansnsunsets profile image87
        oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago

        Its simply humorous, to see a person talk against the Masoretic texts, after they posted links to sites on this thread, that are based on those Masoretic texts.  It will hard to take such a person seriously when they speak so bold, especially.

        This is when you know the discussion or debate is not about actual facts of matters, logic, or reasoning, but about personally held belief about others and their ideas.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
          Kathryn L Hillposted 23 months ago in reply to this

          ((( Thanks oceans, oceansnsunsets!)))

          1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
            oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

            You are welcome Kathryn!  smile  Have a good night!

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
              Kathryn L Hillposted 23 months ago in reply to this

              smile   And you, as well.

      6. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago

        I link to the NT, and quote from it to show certain truths too, but I certainly don’t accept it as from God, and I don’t accept the Masoretic Text either.
        I don’t care about the Gentile Messiah, and It doesn’t matter to me in the least if he existed or not. He’s not the Jewish Messiah promised to his people, and he never fulfilled any of the messianic prophecies.
        It is truly funny you think I don't want the Gentile messiah to have existed, how could that possibly effect me?

        Even your NT says:
        Matthew 7:22
        22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
        23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

        Who teaches "all you have to do is have faith, and no good deed is needed"?, and who teaches you don't have to obey God's commandments, and that his laws have been abolished? These are the ones in Matt. 7:22,23

      7. Angelladywriter profile image81
        Angelladywriterposted 23 months ago

        The depths of Jehovah's wisdom is awe inspiring. When you do research on the human body especially, the intricate details concerning the cells within our bodies that are "like a walled city. . ." If we look at God's beautiful creations, there is no doubt an intelligent creator is responsible. For more information go to the Holy Scriptures and such publications as "Draw Close to Jehovah.

       
      working