How often do we hear people “explaining” religious beliefs by stating “The Bible says so,” as if the Bible fell out of the sky, pre-translated to English by God Himself? It’s not that simple, according to an impressive and clearly-written book that should be required reading for anyone who claims to know “what the Bible says.”
Bart Ehrman’s Exploration: Who Changed the Bible and Why?
The 2005 bestseller, Misquoting Jesus, was not written by a raving atheist. Rather, it was written by a fellow who had a born-again experience in high school, then went on to attend the ultraconservative Moody Bible Institute in Chicago. Bart Ehrman didn’t stop there, however. He wanted to become an evangelical voice with credentials that would enable him to teach in secular settings. It was for this reason that he continued his education at Wheaton and, eventually, Princeton, picking up the ability to read the New Testament in its original Greek in the process.
As a result of his disciplined study, Ehrman increasingly questioned the fundamentalist approach that the “Bible is the inerrant Word of God. It contains no mistakes.” Through his studies, Ehrman determined that the Bible was not free of mistakes:
We have only error ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways.
(Page 7). At Princeton, Ehrman learned that mistakes had been made in the copying of the New Testament over the centuries. Upon realizing this, “the floodgates opened.” In Mark 4, for example, Jesus allegedly stated that the mustard seed is “the smallest of all seeds on the earth.” Ehrman knew that this simply was not true. The more he studied the early manuscripts, the more he realized that the Bible was full of contradictions. For instance, Mark writes that Jesus was crucified the day after the Passover meal (Mark 14:12; 15:25) while John says Jesus died the day before the Passover meal (John 19:14).
Ehrman often heard that the words of the Bible were inspired. Obviously, the Bible was not originally written in English. Perhaps, suggests Ehrman, the full meaning and nuance of the New Testament could only be grasped when it was read in its original Greek (and the Old Testament could be fully appreciated only when studied in its original Hebrew) (page 6).
Because of these language barriers and the undeniable mistakes and contradictions, Ehrman realized that the Bible could not be the “fully inspired, inerrant Word of God.” Instead, it appeared to him to be a “very human book.” Human authors had originally written the text at different times and in different places to address different needs. Certainly, the Bible does not provide an an “errant guide as to how we should live. This is the shift in my own thinking that I ended up making, and to which I am now fully committed.”
How pervasive is the belief that the Bible is inerrant, that every word of the Bible is precise and true?
Occasionally I see a bumper sticker that reads: “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it.” My response is always, what if God didn’t say it? What if the book you take as giving you God’s words instead contains human words. What if the Bible doesn’t give a foolproof answer to the questions of the modern age-abortion, women’s rights, gay rights, religious and supremacy, western style democracy and the like? What if we have to figure out how to live and what to believe on our own, without setting up the Bible as a false idol–or an oracle that gives us a direct line of communication with the Almighty.
(Page 14). Ehrman continues to appreciate the Bible as an important collection of writings, but urges that it needs to be read and understood in the context of textual criticism, “a compelling and intriguing field of study of real importance not just to scholars but to everyone with an interest in the Bible.” Ehrman finds it striking that most readers of the Bible know almost nothing about textual criticism. He comments that this is not surprising, in that very few books have been written about textual criticism for a lay audience (namely, “those who know nothing about it, who don’t have the Greek and other languages necessary for the in-depth study of it who do not realize there is even any “problem” with the text).
Misquoting Jesus provides much background into how the Bible became the Bible. It happened through numerous human decisions over the centuries. For instance, the first time any Christian of record listed the 27 books of the New Testament as the books of the New Testament was 300 years after the books have been written (page 36). And those works have been radically altered over the years at the hands of the scribes “who were not only conserving scripture but also changing it.” Ehrman points out that most of the hundreds of thousands of textual changes found among the manuscripts were “completely insignificant, immaterial, of no real importance.” In short, they were innocent mistakes involving misspelling or inadvertence.
On the other hand, the very meaning of the text changed in some instances. Some Bible scholars have even concluded that it makes no sense to talk about the “original” text of the Bible. (Page 210). As a result of studying surviving Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, Ehrman concluded that we simply don’t have the original words constituting the New Testament.
Not only do we not have the originals, we don’t have the first copies of the originals. We don’t even have copies of the copies of the originals, or copies of the copies of the copies of the originals. What we have are copies made later-much later. In most instances, they are copies made many centuries later. And these copies all differ from one another, and many thousands of places . . . Possibly it is easiest to put it in comparative terms: there are more differences among our manuscripts and there are words in the New Testament.
In Misquoting Jesus Bart Ehrman spells out the ways in which several critical passages of the New Testament were changed or concocted. They are startling examples:
A.) Everyone knows the story about Jesus and the woman about to be stoned by the mob. This account is only found in John 7:53-8:12. The mob asked Jesus whether they should stone the woman (the punishment required by the Old Testament) or show her mercy. Jesus doesn’t fall for this trap. Jesus allegedly states “Let the one who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her.”
The crowd dissipates out of shame. Ehrman states that this brilliant story was not originally in the Gospel of John or in any of the Gospels. “It was added by later scribes.” The story is not found in “our oldest and best manuscripts of the Gospel of John. Nor does its writing style comport with the rest of John. Most serious textual critics state that this story should not be considered part of the Bible (page 65).
B) after Jesus died, Mary Magdalene and two other women came back to the tomb to anoint the body of Jesus, according to Mark 16:1-2). They were met by a man in a white robe who told them that Jesus had been raised and was no longer there. The women fled and said nothing more to anyone out of fear (16:4-8). Everyone knows the rest of Mark’s Gospel, of course. The problem with the remainder of the story is that none of it was originally in the Gospel of Mark. It was added by a later scribe. Those additions include all of the following:
Jesus himself appeared to Mary Magdalene. She told the eleven apostles (minus Judas) about this vision, but they did not believe her. Jesus then appeared to the apostles, chastising them for failing to believe. He tells them that those who believe will be saved and those who don’t will be condemned. Then follows a critically important passage of the Bible.
And these are the signs that will accompany those who believe: they will cast out demons in my name; they will speak in new tongues; and they will take up snakes in their hands; and if they drink any poison, it will not harm them; they will place their hands upon the sick and heal them.
Jesus is then allegedly taken up into heaven and sits at the right hand of God, while the disciples go forth into the world to proclaim the Gospel in miraculous fashion.
Without the above passages (which, again, were not written by Mark) the Pentecostals lose their justification for speaking in “tongues.” And the Appalachian snake handlers have no basis for their dangerous practices.
C) John 5:7-8 is the only passage in the entire Bible “that explicitly delineates the doctrine of the Trinity (that there are three persons and God but that all three constitute a single God):
There are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Spirit and these three are one; and there are three that bear witness on earth, the spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one.
Ehrman cites strong evidence that this Trinity passage was entirely concocted and foisted upon Erasmus by outraged theologians who needed support for their prized theological doctrine (page 81).
—
Ehrman reveals numerous other difficulties with the popular assumption that the Bible was perfectly handed down from its original written expression.
Many believers rely fervently on the King James version of the Bible, for instance. They sometimes even say “If the King James was good enough for St. Paul, it’s good enough for me.” Ehrman points out many problems with the King James version, warning that “we need to face up to the facts.”
The King James was not given by God but was a translation by a group of scholars in the early 17th century who based their rendition on a faulty Greek text.
(Page 209).
So what should we make of the Bible? Ehrman argues that the attacks of the New Testament are not simply collections of obvious, self-interpreting words. It’s the same problem we have with other important documents, such as the United States Constitution:
Texts do not simply reveal their own meanings to honest inquirers. Texts are interpreted and they are interpreted (just as they were written) by living, breathing human beings, who can make sense of texts only by explaining them in light of other other knowledge, explicating their meaning, putting the words of the text “in other words.”
(Page 217) The scribes changed the original words of the New Testament by putting them in other words.
In my experience, many people who cherry pick excerpts from the Bible as the proper way to determine what is moral are in utter denial that we don’t have accurate copies of the original writings. Most of them refuse to acknowledge that current popular versions of the Bible contain numerous discrepancies, even compared to the earliest manuscripts we do have. This is on top of the fact that their are hundreds of patent contradictions in the English version of the Bible. To most believers, none of this matters. Stay the course! In fact, in my experience most believers rarely read what the consider to be God’s own inspired word.
Ehrman’s book points out numerous troublesome issues that demand attention even assuming that the original writers of the Bible accurately reported the events described in their original writings (whatever those writings were). The elephant in the room, however, is that none of the authors of the Gospels ever claimed to witness any of the events they were reporting. Further, the extraodinary nature of Biblical claims demands extraordinary proof that ancient self-contradictory writings are simply incapable of providing, except to those of us who believe that the Bible is completely true “because it says so in the Bible.”
For all of those people who continue to go around clentching and thumping those Bibles they bought at Wal-Mart, and for all the rest of us who want to get the story straight, Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus should be required reading.
[Administrator’s Note: More than 540 comments were quickly contributed to this post, making this page too long to download and display. Therefore, on March 23, 2007, I closed off new comments. Last night (February 4, 2009), I discovered a WordPress plugin that allows me to paginate comments, thereby protecting the site from the sudden and repeated load of 540 comments.
Here’s the good news, then. Anyone who has not yet had his or her say on Bart Ehrman’s book may now jump in at the original post and post a comment. That’s right! If none of the 540 comments that have come before you didn’t address an important aspect of Bart Ehrman’s book, you may now remedy that omission, right here in the comments to this original post. Godspeed. ]
Hurst: what textual errors? some grammatical one slipped past and comments aren't editable.
Zataang, Bruce Almighty, Theresa: thanks 🙂 I'm thinking of putting it up on a googlepage or something, maybe elaborate a bit too, and add some other wack-jobs I didn't have place for.
I think it is common knowledge that the Bible was not written by God, but my various men who were not witness to the events of which they wrote. Throw in the countless misinterpretations, mistranslations and the deliberate inclusion and exclusion of certain texts and its very obvious that the Bible cannot be taken as Word in its current form.
I, for one, am sick to death of the inane Bible-thumpers who ram their beliefs down everyones throats. I really do hope there is a Heaven and a day of reckoning because a lot of these people have a lot to answer for.
To mnowlan:
You asked "So the question is do you believe that you need God, not the stories, but Him?"
No, I don't feel that I need god. I never have felt that way.
I do not say this with pride. I do not boast. It is just a statement of inner feeling as is your profession of faith.
The best way I can put it is to say that if there is a god (and I will never rule that out) she did a good job and made me complete and whole. I don't feel a void that needs to be filled with supernatural phenomina. I can accept that when I die it may be THE END. I get sad sometimes, I often feel lonely, I am lost at times…but it is something I can handle. She made me strong, surrounded me with family and friends, gave me health…what more do I need?
GOOD NEWS! There is no God, no Satan, no heaven, and no hell. It is precisely because we are intelligent that we reject the fantasies of religion (of any sort: Christianity, Islam, etc.). Morality, ethics, the good life, do not require religion. In fact, the flourish better without it.
I despise all organized religions and, as a personal crusade, work to undermine, and destroy them. In my opinion, doing just that would make the world a safer, happier place. I respect others right to believe what they want to, not their actual beliefs.
Jesus is a fabrication, as is the rest. I say this as an ex-believer. How idiotic it is of current-believers to suggest that just because non-believers have realized that Christianity/religion is complete hogwash (i.e., fake/false/made up) that they must be corrupt. Don't call us corrupt too readily; remember, we were once believers too…and you may join our non-believing, skeptical, intelligent ranks sooner than you know.
In response to Gatomjp, mnowlan writes: "Even though you may not realize it, your questioning reveals that you are searching for the Truth, God’s Truth, and that “man’s truth” doesn’t satisfy."
That is the essence of many arguments in support of religious belief, regardless of which religion is being promoted: that the cold, brutal way of nature (which mnowlan misnames "man's truth") doesn't satisfy. Well, of course it doesn't satisfy! Who wants to believe that he or she is a finite being who is going to die someday and utterly cease to exist? It's obviously a whole lot more appealing to believe one will be "saved" from death and will live forever in a wonderful place. It is the same self-delusion that causes so many people to buy lottery tickets: they all want to believe they will win, that they will be "saved" from a life of relative poverty and will live forever in a better neighborhood, despite the cold, brutal reality that the odds say otherwise.
Well, nature is a cold, brutal place, and "man's truth" has nothing to do with it. When Wow says, "The miracle happend inside my heart," Wow's "miracle" refers to the tipping point, when Wow accepted the self-delusion of eternal life. People who buy lottery tickets necessarily go through a similar "conversion" before they buy their first one.
This is not to say that religion doesn't offer protections from our cold, brutal world: most of the world's religions provide their members with the safety of an altruistic herd, they satisfy a desire to live for something greater than onesself, they provide rules for nutrition and social conduct that can enhance survival, etc.
Indeed, because nature is a cold, brutal place, the world's religions have undergone their own brutal struggles for survival — each local religion competing with all the other local religions for its share of believers — and the ones that were best adapted to their local environments were the ones that prevailed…and then spread into new places as their human "hosts" moved into new territories. This is why the distribution of religions around the world is so heavily dependent upon geography, just like other features of human culture and just like other animal species.
We might ask ourselves: what trait of the local environment enabled a given religion to prevail? Most likely, the religion that did the best in a given environment was the religion that best reflected the pre-existing pagan beliefs of that population. Co-opting pre-existing beliefs would certainly have enabled a given religion to "touch the heart" of that particular population and capture the greatest number of fervent believers.
We see this in Christianity, for example. See my comment here:
http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=551#comment-3…
Hi Gato,
You are obviously bright. It seems that you believe in God? Would you be willing to share a bit about how you came to that conclusion, and how sure you are (percentages are fine 🙂 ) that he(God) does exist?
Me, the guy who has concluded that god does not exist, am about 99.863153 percent sure that god does not exist. Just curious where you stand.
Thanks,
Scholar
I respect your conclusion that god exists. I feel equally strongly about the fact that god doesnt exist. I want to sing the praises of science. Isnt it wonderful? There is nobody watching over you reading your thoughts, or judging you. Its not like you are in some movie where someone can see your every move, inside your brain, its just you, you you. You have mistakenly put god in the place of one of the "you"s. Im not going to sugar coat what i believe, because I think you deserve to know, and you have been honest and thoughtful in what you have said in your posts. Might I suggest some light reading on the topic of anthropology and geologic time? I would be willing to read some Bible passages (with an open mind) if you were to suggest that.
Scholar
Mknowlan writes…
…Once we think we don’t need God, we are committing spiritual suicide….
I disagree, I hold myself to the highest standards of kindness, generosity, and honesty. I do community service, help teach classes to the disabled, tip well, vote democratic, play fair…etc.
God in not in the equation.
Scholar
To gatomjp:
Why do you continue to visit this site? I know I do because I want to reach out and share the Love that saves me. I now notice that you refer to God in the feminine. I don't have a problem with that, even as a Christian. Even while I believe that God entered this world as Jesus (male) and that Jesus Himself refered to God as the Father, I believe that these references were primarily because the earthly mindset was predominantly that the male was the authority, and has the strength. In actuality it is restrictive to think that God is only male, because He created both male and female. Limitations that humans set upon God reflect our limited human thinking, not God's. We continually attribute human traits to help us to understand.
I am perplexed, because you speak as if you don't need God, yet you make a statement that "She made me strong…". You seem to be recognizing someone else is in control, yet you do not want to relinquish your own control in order to continue to exist. I also notice, because I purposely capitalize God, that you did not. Is there some reason you choose to refer to God in the feminine and not the masculine? Have you been hurt by a male figure and so cannot attribute love to a "man", cannot believe a tale that attributes such love to a "male" God? Do you not feel that you can be loved, because you've been treated in an unloving manner by some male you thought you loved. I apologize if I press too hard but it is time to heal your wounds.
While it aches my heart, and I'm sure God's, but you are free to choose death. Even while I believe that death is the ultimate end of selfishness, and I believe you are committing spiritual suicide, I cannot make you stop. Selfishness takes many forms and shutting down is one of them. God gave you the choice. If He is willing to let you choose to love Him, and let you choose to die, then I must also be willing to do so. I am a male. I honestly don't believe you are telling the whole truth. You say "she did a good job and made me complete and whole" yet you also say things like "I am lost at times". You say you have never felt the need for God, yet that is the question that you pressed on Ray and others and practically implored an answer. You reveal yourself, even when you think you are not.
I know that God is working on you. She never gives up on you. I can see the struggle in your responses. As long as you refuse to fully trust your life to the One who made you, you are lost. I will do the only thng that I can and ask God to reach you. I can only hope that you will finally respond. It is the least I can do as your loving brother.
To Scholar:
You don't believe. Who cares, obviously you do….LOL
If you read your posts, it's almost as if you are trying to convince yourself that you dont believe…… Amazing…! keep up the good work.
Your personnal crusade is a battle of your own mind.
Have a peaceful life in your unbelief of God!!!!!!!
WELL SAID GRUMPY PILGRIM AND ABE VIONAS. A rational, well developed mind, will tend to reject wild, unsupported ideologies, such as Christianity. I think the missing ingredient for the religious folks is Modern education. When I say modern, this means books from the year 2000 and beyond, books from 1950 just don't cut it. Please do not believe just anything that you read, it is extremely important to look at the REFERENCES section to know the sources, (something which the Bible lacks). Generally speaking, the Universities and Scientific organizations of today have the most accurate books because they are based on previous research which has indeed been evaluated for its validity and improved upon if necessary. Just picking up some religious crap with all kinds of quotes and citations of random people from other ages of enlightenment WILL NOT SUFFICE for quality education.
Ehrman quotes a bumper sticker that reads: "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it."
To which the simple answer is "He didn't, I don't and it doesn't."
To grumpypilgrim:
Will you not read this response, just like you didn't read my previous response to you? Sorry, maybe your grumpiness is rubbing off on me a bit. I am fairly convinced that I'm not going to get through to you with my "self-delusional" beliefs. I guess I'm just drugging myself with my own selfish thinking and there really is nothingness awaiting me at the end of this life, according to you and your cold, cold world theory. There are things that have happened in my life and in the lives of my friends and family that say otherwise. There are no explanations for them, in my mind, other than God, but you can hold on to your cold, cold world theory. I hope you are faced with a personal encounter from God though, and realize your theory may be flawed. I believe it is up to Him to convince you, not me, so I'll let Him surprise you with His Love, on His timetable, not mine or yours. I believe He knows how to reach you. I'd be curious to know what motivates you to keep coming back to this site? Do you think you are saving us from our delusions with your grumpiness? Perhaps you are trying to justify your own beliefs for yourself as well? I guess you could accuse me of the same. I guess neither of us will really find out until we die. I guess I'm just taking the safer mental route by believing there is a God, just in case, just choosing to be happy, quite harmful I guess. If I'm wrong it doesn't matter. I hope your faith in your belief motivates you to love your fellow humans. But wait, what name did you use to describe yourself?
To Gatomjp:
Along with mnowlan, I will also pray that God reveals Him/Herself to you!
There are going to be many attacks following this post (maybe not since I stated it), but hang in there.
I hope you find the peace that God wants to share with you!
I leave you with this thought:
He is no fool,
who gives up that which he cannot keep,
to gain that which he cannot lose!
Take Care
To "Hi mnowlan" or Scholar:
I am glad that you allow me to have my "conclusion" yet you cite "facts" that God doesn't exist. I am willing to admit that I can't prove God exists, no one can. My inability to prove it doesn't prove the opposite, it simply leaves it in question. I am involved in science myself and am a bit more logical than the average person. I realize that there is more than just "me" though. Can you entertain the possibility that there is more out there than what you can see and measure? I must admit that I will not likely be convinced by reading anything on anthropology and geologic time that God doesn't exist, because I believe that God is greater than all the created universe. The conclusions that "man" makes about man by looking at bones and relics and rocks is simply creation attempting to define itself in my mind. Others have talked about the age of the earth and scientific dating techniques and it means little to me. The length of time arguments don't persuade me on this matter. As I believe in a God that can create a universe, I also believe that He can create one that appears to be millions of years old. The evidence that others cite are based on our own derived estimating techniques, with assumptions built on assumptions. It cannot answer the fundamental question of is there a God? That answer has to come from God Himself. Now Jews will argue that Jesus was not the Messiah, but at least they believe that God is in control, and defines us, and tells us what is Truth, not the other way around. Give me your book suggestions and I will try and read them as soon as I can. Please also give me a clue as to what I am answering or arguing in giving you references in the Bible? It's a big book, in my estimation anyway.
Hope to see such in depth study of Muslims Quran.
Blah Blah, I am trying to teach folks like you a little something about reality, thats all. I see the misguided folks posting in here, and my heart tells me to help them. Even you have learned a bit from reading the science which I have posted for the benefit of all. Every day I embrace the beauty of nature, but I understand how it works, the microbiology, the big bang, evolution, plate tectonics, human geography. When you have studied and read as much as myself and many top scientists (i am still a budding scientist, but have studied diligently over 20 years) you eventually see the incongruencies inherent in Religion, Spirits, Afterlife, Miracles, Angels, Devils, Jehovas witnesses, Mormons, Catholics, Islamic Fundamentalists, you name it. KNOWLEDGE 1, GOD 0.
Sunday school is BAD BAD BAD. They teach you things which can not be verified….BAD techniques, and not consistent with the scientific method. A THEORY, in scientific terms, has been tested and tested, countless times, and cannot be proven otherwise with the available data, in which case it is debunked. The theory of evolution is included, meaning that it has been tested by the top minds of our time, and proved, and re-proved, and re-re proved, and re-re-re-re-re proved. Thus the confusion arises when people confuse scientific "THEORY" with the every day english term "theory" which has completely different connotations. In every day english, theory is equivalent to a hunch or idea. So ANYONE who says that we are NOT related to MONKEYS is a CRACKNUT!!! IT IS PROVEN, WE ARE DECENDANTS OF PRIMATES. We (ALL OF US HUMANS) are nearly identical to chimpanzees in our instincts and social behaviors and share 99 percent of the same DNA…do you trust DNA tests in court? What if a monkey went on a killing spree, would it just be God's will.
Oh that is convenient….
Mnowlan attempts to explain why the earth looks "millions" of years old ….. "As I believe in a God that can create a universe, I also believe that He can create one that appears to be millions of years old".
For your information, if you ever take a test in school or something, and you have a question about the age of the earth…
Earth is 4.5 billion* years old.. give or take 100 million years (if god slept in that day, that is)
I am guessing you arent great with big numbers… 1000million=1billion
This is the correct(current knowlede)answer to the question, how could life just spawn without some greater power?
Despite comparatively intense bombardment by large impactors, chemical and radio-isotopic trace evidence of what appears to be biologically processed carbon in Earth's oldest surviving rocks — from western Greenland's Isua greenstone belt that are as old as 3.85 billion years — suggest that self-replicating, carbon-based microbial life became well developed during Earth's first billion years of existence. Some single-celled microbial life lacking a nucleus that segregates their internal DNA or RNA ("prokaryotes") from the surrounding cytoplasm may have flourished in darkness within cracks in Earth's seafloor crust and around deep, boiling hot ocean springs (known as volcanic vents or "black smokers") without a need for light or free oxygen in the oceans or atmosphere. Adapted to their very hot but watery enviroment, these microbes metabolized hydrogen-rich compounds or dead or live organic materials to derive the energy that sustains anaerobic life, including sulfate-reducing bacteria that produce Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S), fermentative bacteria that produce carbon dioxide and alcohol (-OH), and methanogenic bacteria — the methanogens found in sewage and mudflats today — that produce methane (CH4) gas as a waste product. Diminishment of cometary and meteoric bombardment allowed anaerobic microbes to spread widely in wet habitats. Life diversified and adapted to new biotic niches — some on land — but stayed single-celled. Some microbes developed a nucleus using cellular membranes to contain their DNA ("eukaryotes") through endosymbiosis. Then, some heat and acid resistant archaebacterium (e.g., Thermoplasma) may have merged with free-swimming spirochete-type bacteria, which became flagella or cilia, on a now, free-swimming protist that is easily poisoned by oxygen. About two billion years ago, however, some of these protists merged with oxygen-breathing purple bacteria, which became mitochondria inside them. Subsequently, some of these aerobic protists merged with photosynthetic bacteria, which became chloroplasts and other plastids, to create free-swimming green algae and the precursors of today's plant cells. After a massive extinction, intense evolutionary pressure through genetic isolation and selective adaptation resulted in a burst of multi-cellular evolution and diversity, leading to the first multi-cellular "animals." Lacking a backbone, these creatures were "invertebrates." Including worms, molluscs, and arthropods (joint-footed animals), invertebrates are among the most successful animals today. Plant eating life followed, such as insects and animals with backbones known as "vertebrates" (which include the Fishes, Amphibians, Reptiles, Dinosaurs, Birds, and Mammals)
(http://www.solstation.com/life.htm)
Before the mid-17th century, most people believed that God had created humankind and other higher organisms and that insects, frogs and other small creatures could arise spontaneously in mud or decaying matter.
Universally accepted definition of evolution:
EVOLUTION is the process by which all living things have developed from primitive organisms through changes occurring over billions of years, a progression that includes the most advanced animals and plants. Exactly how evolution occurs is still a matter of debate, but THAT IT OCCURS is a scientific fact. Biologists agree that all living things arose through a long history of changes shaped by physical and chemical processes that are still taking place. It is plausible that all organisms can be traced back to the origin of LIFE from inanimate matter.
The most direct proof of evolution is furnished by the science of PALEONTOLOGY, or the study of life in the past through fossil remains or impressions, usually in rock. Additional evidence comes from comparative studies of living animals and plants, including their structure (COMPARATIVE ANATOMY), BIOCHEMISTRY, EMBRYOLOGY, and geographical distribution. Approximately 2 million different species of organisms are now living, but it is estimated that at least 99.9 percent of the species that have ever lived are now extinct and that some 2 billion species have evolved during the past 600 million years.
Changes occur in living organisms that serve to increase their adaptability, or potential for survival and reproduction, in the face of changing environments. Evolution apparently has no built-in direction or foreordained purpose. A given kind of organism may evolve only when it occurs in a variety of forms differing in hereditary characteristics, or traits, that are passed from parent to offspring. Purely by chance, some varieties prove to be ill adapted to their current environment and thus disappear, whereas others prove to be adaptive, and their numbers increase. The elimination of the unfit, or the "survival of the fittest," is known as NATURAL SELECTION because it is nature that discards or favors a particular variant. Evolution takes place only when natural selection operates on a population of organisms containing diverse inheritable forms. Recently, natural selection was demonstrated for the first time outside of the laboratory when scientists observed guppies change their reproductive behavior over an 11-year period in direct response to being transferred to a new environment that had different predators.
TRILOBITE=PROOF THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST
No animal better captures the drama of evolution and extinction. Long before the fish inhabited the seas and the Dinosaurs roamed the land, Trilobites appeared some 600 million years ago during the Cambrian period. They belonged the phylum Arthropodal (joint-footed), a phylum which to this day represents the most successful (78%) of all animal life forms, including crabs, centipedes, spiders, shrimps and insects.The Trilobites, living in shallow seas, flourished as swimmers, crawlers and burrowers for some 350 million years. They evolved rapidly into many beautiful, bizarre and, even by today's standards, futuristic forms.
Earth's first life appeared early in the planet's history, nearly 4 billion years ago, when primitive bacteria appeared in sulfurous oceans under poisonous skies.
Full of carbon dioxide and nitrogen, with some additional hydrogen, water vapor, and perhaps a bit of methane, it would be billions of years before the air would be acceptable to today's oxygen breathers.
And we all have bacteria to thank.
It was bacteria that gave life its initial foothold, and it was bacteria by the trillions that engineered the planet for our use, taking in carbon dioxide and giving off oxygen, day in and day out for billions of years until there was enough oxygen in the atmosphere to support larger life.
(www.news.Harvard.edu)
mnowlan writes: "As I believe in a God that can create a universe, I also believe that He can create one that appears to be millions of years old."
You need to study your Bible more carefully because, according to the Bible, your belief is heretical. The Bible is VERY clear about this: God does not lie and does not create deception. Therefore, God could not have created a 6000-year-old universe and dressed it up to make it appear billions of years old. Your god is now trapped in a catch-22: if your god made the universe, then your god is a liar; but if your god is a liar, then your god is not the God of the Bible and did not make the universe (at least not in the manner stated in Genesis). You are therefore worshipping a false god.
I don't accept that the (provable) truth of evolution proves that God does not exist. It simply means that no supernatural interference is necessary (nor likely) to be involved in our origins.
Consider the principle of God-the-watchmaker. Some undetectable (scientifically unnecessary) entity started the whole shebang and then just sat back to watch it progress. It cannot be disproved. But this (unlikely) entity does not resemble the micro-managing, insecure God of any western Holy Book.