Bible accepts evolution

You really do have quite an unfortunate manner about you. Why so hostile and abusive? It really is not necessary.If you have any specific biblical quotations that support your assertions about the bible supporting whatever sort of evolution it is you do accept now would be a good time to share them with the rest of us.
If all you are going to do is be abusive, tell people to read the bible and then agree with you or shutup then there is little point in you participating further.It is my view that interpreting the bible or any other mythology with the benefit of modern science behind you in order to demonstrate that the text in question has somehow been proved correct is fairly pointless.
It is claimed that the Koran is consistent with Big Bang theory and now it is claimed here that the bible is consistent with evolutionary theory.
Neither scientific position was ever going to be deduced by Ismaic clerics or biblical scholars without some help from Darwin, Einstein et al.
Merely interpreting poetic verse in the light of scientific understanding proved nothing. It is no different to reading Nostradamus adding in some wild and highly subjective interpretation and analysis and concluding that he had the power of foresight.The OP would suggest that selective breeding was known to the author of the passgage. Nothing else. Apparently selective breeding of horses and other animals was practiced by both the Greeks and the Egyptians so that really does not prove anything at all.

I have just re-read the OP and have come to the conclusion that the whole premise of this post is redundent.The first example given shows only that selective breeding was a known phenomenon. This was practiced by the Greeks and the Egyptions so it is hardly surprising that this was known to those writing and compiling the bible.The second example very much relies on interpreting the passage in question with the benefit of evolutionary/genetic knowledge. It is hardly surprising that interpreted in such a way as to be consistent with current scientific knowledge that we should find current scientific knowledge to be consistent with this interpretation. The conclusion relies on the premise and vice versa. In other word it is a circular argument.Or am I missing something........?