Creation vs. Evolution

[Kdall]

Dear Kdall,

We accept from an account that Moses started writing about after the book of Genesis. I'm sure God told Him every word to write, because He does that with me also. I slip up sometimes, but I do my best. It's a spiritual bond is all I can tell you. As I write, the words come into my left ear according to what I should write. That's always how the Lord has done it.

I don't want to mess with going to radiation because it could have spread to another part of my body and then I will have to pay another $6,000 for that 8 weeks of radiation. So you can see why my hesitance.

Much Love, In Christ, Buddy!!

Michael

:sam: :banana:

Michael I think you may have misunderstood your doctors a bit. If it has spread to another part of your body (metastasized), then you MUST get radiation treatment. That's serious. You can't give it any advantages that it doesn't already have. It doesn't take time off. I hope you get better and soon, but if you have any way to afford radiation treatment then you need to do it

 

[alwight]

Appearances can ALWAYS be deceiving alwight. If you are NOT a spiritual person, you cannot understand the spiritual things. John 4:24 (NIV)

Yes, I may not be particularly spiritual, but does being spiritual actually get you anything tangible other than perhaps a nice comforting illusion? :think:

What is written about Jesus is in itself something that is written anonymously and un-verifiably.

Not at all, and some has been fully verified. You may want to give the following link a read? https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=105&article=91

I don't agree, the original source material for the four gospels is generally thought to be from the scripture of Gospel Mark or from something called the "Q Source".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source
The gospels themselves being written anonymously some decades after the death of Jesus as probably dramatized, evangelising accounts, not as historical narratives.
The gospel names used are thought to be simply a convenience and not the work of any actual similarly named apostle.
They are written as though from the viewpoint of an apostle but they don't claim to be written by one.

The only hard evidence of any real character from the NT is something called the "Pilate Stone" which seems to refer to Pontius Pilate.

What you state here for the most part is probably very accurate, but in this issue a lot of what is espoused AS science is indeed not factual or even proven. I don't lack confidence in science, just so-called science.

Science isn't about formal proof, it is about being rational and rigorous to explain the evidence. Unlike many un-falsifiable religious claims it can't simply be rationally dismissed while it best explains hard facts and evidence.
If some people make dubious scientific claims then make them cite the evidence and the reasoning involved.
Shouldn't real world claims made from an ancient scripture also be subject to similar scrutiny?
Should one particular scripture be granted special pleading for some reason?

Sorry can't remember that I did, but the old testament is really speaking of the four winds but here's a couple of links for you.

http://www.candicedoestheworld.com/2012/09/i-went-to-one-of-the-four-corners-of-the-world/

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c017.html

You can also check out the hyperbole in Is 40:22 (NIV) where is does indicate the earth is a sphere.

Again you seem to be seeing only what you want to see, and a "circle" is not the same as a "sphere", there is no "sphere" anywhere in the Bible.
Our more metaphorical usage today of Biblical terms is one thing, but it's really no use on the one hand claiming that the OT is entirely factually rigorous while on the other hand cherry picking where you will allow hyperbole and for it to be more symbolic and metaphorical.
If you are going to allow for metaphor or hyperbole in the OT then there is absolutely no rational reason to insist on (say) a young Earth, global flood or that Darwinian evolution must therefore be wrong. lain:

 

[alwight]

I don't want to mess with going to radiation because it could have spread to another part of my body and then I will have to pay another $6,000 for that 8 weeks of radiation. So you can see why my hesitance.

Much Love, In Christ, Buddy!!

Michael

:sam: :banana:

You've got to do what your doctors say you need to do Michael, this isn't about cosmetic surgery.
Here in the UK we don't have to worry about having the money, does it really come down to money in the US?
If you lived here in the UK would you even think twice?

Perhaps you really do think that in a few months it won't matter anyway. Yes I'm a non-believer but I really don't think you should be relying on being "saved" to save you from real world issues where more cancer is cured nowadays than kills.
lain:

 

[StanJ]

Yes, I may not be particularly spiritual, but does being spiritual actually get you anything tangible other than perhaps a nice comforting illusion?

Well that IS the point isn't it? Not being a spiritual person, you don't KNOW, what I know and HAVE experienced. It is INDEED tangible and not illusionary at all. Rom 10:17 (NIV) Heb 11:1 (NIV)

I don't agree, the original source material for the four gospels is generally thought to be from the scripture of Gospel Mark or from something called the "Q Source".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source
The gospels themselves being written anonymously some decades after the death of Jesus as probably dramatized, evangelising accounts, not as historical narratives.
The gospel names used are thought to be simply a convenience and not the work of any actual similarly named apostle.
They are written as though from the viewpoint of an apostle but they don't claim to be written by one.

Well although Wiki is good for a quick reference, and I myself support them through donations, it is NOT the most reliable when it comes to facts. The link I gave was written by actual scholars so you can choose to satisfy your penchant for not believing or you can accept the truth in the link I posted. You know...leading a horse to water and all that? I challenge you to find more competent sites than Wiki when it comes to this issue.

The only hard evidence of any real character from the NT is something called the "Pilate Stone" which seems to refer to Pontius Pilate.

Apparently you haven't read any from Josephus, Ignatius, Polycarp or Jerome? I suggest you check them out.

Science isn't about formal proof, it is about being rational and rigorous to explain the evidence. Unlike many un-falsifiable religious claims it can't simply be rationally dismissed while it best explains hard facts and evidence.
If some people make dubious scientific claims then make them cite the evidence and the reasoning involved.
Shouldn't real world claims made from an ancient scripture also be subject to similar scrutiny?
Should one particular scripture be granted special pleading for some reason?

Unless of course someone brings up ID or YEC, and then science is deemed to be the ONLY way some will believe.
It's a dual standard that is always invoked.

Again you seem to be seeing only what you want to see, and a "circle" is not the same as a "sphere", there is no "sphere" anywhere in the Bible.
Our more metaphorical usage today of Biblical terms is one thing, but it's really no use on the one hand claiming that the OT is entirely factually rigorous while on the other hand cherry picking where you will allow hyperbole and for it to be more symbolic and metaphorical.
If you are going to allow for metaphor or hyperbole in the OT then there is absolutely no rational reason to insist on (say) a young Earth, global flood or that Darwinian evolution must therefore be wrong.

Well you gave the examples and I gave you explanations for them. You can accept or reject them, but in all honesty most of your ilk don't. No a circle is not the same as a sphere, but how could it convey a flat earth? Also I suggest you look at the meaning of WORLD in both the Hebrew and Greek to see it connotes a ball or decoration in God's universe.
Form of writing does not mean truth is not being conveyed. Again CONTEXT is important, but one must approach reading the Bible from at least a true quest for knowledge and understanding. John 20:30-31 (NIV)

 

[alwight]

Well that IS the point isn't it? Not being a spiritual person, you don't KNOW, what I know and HAVE experienced. It is INDEED tangible and not illusionary at all. Rom 10:17 (NIV) Heb 11:1 (NIV)

I suggest then Stan that what you think of as knowledge and what actually is knowledge, are not demonstrably one and the same thing. :nono:

Well although Wiki is good for a quick reference, and I myself support them through donations, it is NOT the most reliable when it comes to facts. The link I gave was written by actual scholars so you can choose to satisfy your penchant for not believing or you can accept the truth in the link I posted. You know...leading a horse to water and all that? I challenge you to find more competent sites than Wiki when it comes to this issue.

I think it's perhaps a bit of a disingenuous red herring to simply take a pot shot at Wiki. I didn't learn about the Q document from there I simply use Wiki as a convenient reference to that which is generally thought of as reasonably widely held opinion. If it is wrong then someone should be correcting it but I don't think it is.
Giving me some rather unspecific apologetics to read isn't something I particularly relish btw.
If however you think that the gospels are verifiable and are historical narratives then perhaps you should provide your specific evidence for that. Imo Biblical scholars generally accept that the gospels were written well after the death of Jesus by anonymous authors, do you want to contest that?

The only hard evidence of any real character from the NT is something called the "Pilate Stone" which seems to refer to Pontius Pilate.

Apparently you haven't read any from Josephus, Ignatius, Polycarp or Jerome? I suggest you check them out.

What I said however remains quite true, the Pilate Stone is the only known "hard" evidence of any character from the NT. I Personally have no problem with a man or Rabbi called Jesus existing and being mentioned in writings outside of the Bible. None of that however is evidence of anything miraculous ever happening.
My disbelief is simply that no miraculous events ever happened and were probably only added to evangelise the gospels and to draw in the punters so to speak.
I simply conclude that a certain amount of exaggeration, embellishment and zeal must be expected, which would surely be more likely than a verbatim factual historical account.
To believe that any actual miraculous happenings ever took place must surely require some extraordinary evidence rather than simply the words of anonymous, unverifiable, perhaps very enthusiastic evangelicals.

Unless of course someone brings up ID or YEC, and then science is deemed to be the ONLY way some will believe.
It's a dual standard that is always invoked.

No it isn't, facts and evidence speak for themselves. If the natural evidence only indicates an old Earth then words in an ancient scripture do not amount to contradictory evidence. If you choose to reject specific science, not on the evidence but because of ancient words then you are rejecting worldly reality imo.

Again you seem to be seeing only what you want to see, and a "circle" is not the same as a "sphere", there is no "sphere" anywhere in the Bible.
Our more metaphorical usage today of Biblical terms is one thing, but it's really no use on the one hand claiming that the OT is entirely factually rigorous while on the other hand cherry picking where you will allow hyperbole and for it to be more symbolic and metaphorical.
If you are going to allow for metaphor or hyperbole in the OT then there is absolutely no rational reason to insist on (say) a young Earth, global flood or that Darwinian evolution must therefore be wrong.

Well you gave the examples and I gave you explanations for them. You can accept or reject them, but in all honesty most of your ilk don't. No a circle is not the same as a sphere, but how could it convey a flat earth? Also I suggest you look at the meaning of WORLD in both the Hebrew and Greek to see it connotes a ball or decoration in God's universe.
Form of writing does not mean truth is not being conveyed. Again CONTEXT is important, but one must approach reading the Bible from at least a true quest for knowledge and understanding. John 20:30-31 (NIV)

The OT also says that the Earth rests on pillars, or it hangs on nothing, so take your pick. However the point remains that if you adhere literally to the words of the OT to conclude that the Earth is young then sorry but you simply don't then get to cherry pick other OT scripture that you choose to be deemed as hyperbole, metaphorical or allegorical. :nono:

 

[StanJ]

I suggest then Stan that what you think of as knowledge and what actually is knowledge, are not demonstrably one and the same thing.

Well that's mighty patronizing of you. Your knowledge is actual and mine isn't? :jawdrop:

I think it's perhaps a bit of a disingenuous red herring to simply take a pot shot at Wiki. I didn't learn about the Q document from there I simply use Wiki as a convenient reference to that which is generally thought of as reasonably widely held opinion. If it is wrong then someone should be correcting it but I don't think it is.
Giving me some rather unspecific apologetics to read isn't something I particularly relish btw.
If however you think that the gospels are verifiable and are historical narratives then perhaps you should provide your specific evidence for that. Imo Biblical scholars generally accept that the gospels were written well after the death of Jesus by anonymous authors, do you want to contest that?

Not at all, and people on your side use the same argument all the time.
You took the time to read the entire Wiki article and yet won't take the time to read an article by a PhD scholar? You accept anonymous assertions over knowledgeable facts? Yeh that's pretty UNBIASED.(he says facetiously)

What I said however remains quite true, the Pilate Stone is the only known "hard" evidence of any character from the NT. I Personally have no problem with a man or Rabbi called Jesus existing and being mentioned in writings outside of the Bible. None of that however is evidence of anything miraculous ever happening.
My disbelief is simply that no miraculous events ever happened and were probably only added to evangelise the gospels and to draw in the punters so to speak.
I simply conclude that a certain amount of exaggeration, embellishment and zeal must be expected, which would surely be more likely than a verbatim factual historical account.
To believe that any actual miraculous happenings ever took place must surely require some extraordinary evidence rather than simply the words of anonymous, unverifiable, perhaps very enthusiastic evangelicals.

and I gave you info that refutes that, so it's up to you to learn...or not.

No it isn't, facts and evidence speak for themselves. If the natural evidence only indicates an old Earth then words in an ancient scripture do not amount to contradictory evidence. If you choose to reject specific science, not on the evidence but because of ancient words then you are rejecting worldly reality imo.

Really? Did these so-called facts come up and talk to you IN person?
So-called natural evidence needs to be observed and confirmed in a controlled diagnostic setting. Have they? Please cite something observable which can be confirmed through KNOWN science.

The OT also says that the Earth rests on pillars, or it hangs on nothing, so take your pick. However the point remains that if you adhere literally to the words of the OT to conclude that the Earth is young then sorry but you simply don't then get to cherry pick other OT scripture that you choose to be deemed as hyperbole, metaphorical or allegorical.

Well you must cite those in order for me to respond to them. I'm sure you understand the terms of this forum? If you want to debate the efficacy of legitimacy of the Bible, the at least be specific about what you are trying to disprove?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Michael I think you may have misunderstood your doctors a bit. If it has spread to another part of your body (metastasized), then you MUST get radiation treatment. That's serious. You can't give it any advantages that it doesn't already have. It doesn't take time off. I hope you get better and soon, but if you have any way to afford radiation treatment then you need to do it

Dear Kdall,

I know. I'm going to get the radiation done. Thank you, Kdall. Because everyone says I should. I'm not afraid to die.

God's Best For You,

Michael

:sigh: :cloud9:

 

[alwight]

I suggest then Stan that what you think of as knowledge and what actually is knowledge, are not demonstrably one and the same thing.

Well that's mighty patronizing of you. Your knowledge is actual and mine isn't? :shocked:

Partonising? Hardly, no it was simply a polite suggestion that you can't actually demonstrate what you claim to be true, actually is true, ...perhaps because it isn't?

I think it's perhaps a bit of a disingenuous red herring to simply take a pot shot at Wiki. I didn't learn about the Q document from there I simply use Wiki as a convenient reference to that which is generally thought of as reasonably widely held opinion. If it is wrong then someone should be correcting it but I don't think it is.
Giving me some rather unspecific apologetics to read isn't something I particularly relish btw.
If however you think that the gospels are verifiable and are historical narratives then perhaps you should provide your specific evidence for that. Imo Biblical scholars generally accept that the gospels were written well after the death of Jesus by anonymous authors, do you want to contest that?

Not at all, and people on your side use the same argument all the time.
You took the time to read the entire Wiki article and yet won't take the time to read an article by a PhD scholar? You accept anonymous assertions over knowledgeable facts? Yeh that's pretty UNBIASED.(he says facetiously)

Why didn't you answer my question Stan?
Can you not put into your own words your own reasoning without expecting me to be obediently impressed by selected pages of Christian apologetics?

What I said however remains quite true, the Pilate Stone is the only known "hard" evidence of any character from the NT. I Personally have no problem with a man or Rabbi called Jesus existing and being mentioned in writings outside of the Bible. None of that however is evidence of anything miraculous ever happening.
My disbelief is simply that no miraculous events ever happened and were probably only added to evangelise the gospels and to draw in the punters so to speak.
I simply conclude that a certain amount of exaggeration, embellishment and zeal must be expected, which would surely be more likely than a verbatim factual historical account.
To believe that any actual miraculous happenings ever took place must surely require some extraordinary evidence rather than simply the words of anonymous, unverifiable, perhaps very enthusiastic evangelicals.

and I gave you info that refutes that, so it's up to you to learn...or not.

As above.

No it isn't, facts and evidence speak for themselves. If the natural evidence only indicates an old Earth then words in an ancient scripture do not amount to contradictory evidence. If you choose to reject specific science, not on the evidence but because of ancient words then you are rejecting worldly reality imo.

Really? Did these so-called facts come up and talk to you IN person?
So-called natural evidence needs to be observed and confirmed in a controlled diagnostic setting. Have they? Please cite something observable which can be confirmed through KNOWN science.

Creationist it seems will often set up strange rules to deny what others will simply find to be reasonable and sufficiently convincing enough to believe from evidence and a rational scientific consensus. Do you insist on an observable young Earth or that miraculous events must first be observed before presuming them true? :nono:

The OT also says that the Earth rests on pillars, or it hangs on nothing, so take your pick. However the point remains that if you adhere literally to the words of the OT to conclude that the Earth is young then sorry but you simply don't then get to cherry pick other OT scripture that you choose to be deemed as hyperbole, metaphorical or allegorical.

Well you must cite those in order for me to respond to them. I'm sure you understand the terms of this forum? If you want to debate the efficacy of legitimacy of the Bible, the at least be specific about what you are trying to disprove?

But I'm not trying to disprove the Bible, I want you to explain which bits are the literal truth and why that is the case and which can be seen as more symbolic. Why should any of it be believed to be anything more than of human origin?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear StanJ,

I'm sorry to tell you this, but Alwight is one of my closest friends. I will not give that up. I'm sorry, but you will have to talk with him by yourself and deal with his questions, Stan. I hope you can understand that, StanJ. We've been close friends for two years now.

God Be With You!!

Michael

 

[StanJ]

Dear StanJ,

I'm sorry to tell you this, but Alwight is one of my closest friends. I will not give that up. I'm sorry, but you will have to talk with him by yourself and deal with his questions, Stan. I hope you can understand that, StanJ. We've been close friends for two years now.

God Be With You!!

Michael

Why would you be sorry Michael? I have no problem with Alwight other than he's on the WRONG side.
I always appreciate support, but I don't require it.

 

[StanJ]

Partonising? Hardly, no it was simply a polite suggestion that you can't actually demonstrate what you claim to be true, actually is true, ...perhaps because it isn't?

Not how it came across Alwight. When you use words like ACTUAL to describe your knowledge or the knowledge you have faith in, that to me is at the very least, patronizing.
I'm pretty sure I established up front that faith does not require proof.
Was I not clear in post #9540?

Why didn't you answer my question Stan?
Can you not put into your own words your own reasoning without expecting me to be obediently impressed by selected pages of Christian apologetics?

Actually I DID answer your question, but you said it was not acceptable to you AND expected me to accept some quasi academic submission from Wiki. The fact is, I'm NOT a scholar and as it's all been said before I don't waste my time restating it. As I've stated to you initially, my faith is in a personal savior, Jesus Christ, and that involves FAITH in what the Bible teaches. If you want to know if the Bible is real or viable at all, you can easily do that without going to Wiki, but of course that is your call. I simply testify and discern the written Word of God, I can't make you believe it.

Creationist it seems will often set up strange rules to deny what others will simply find to be reasonable and sufficiently convincing enough to believe from evidence and a rational scientific consensus. Do you insist on an observable young Earth or that miraculous events must first be observed before presuming them true?

With this kind of mindset you voice here, how can I possibly say ANYTHING that will find favor with you?
Yes, my faith tells me I must insist that ANYTHING man teaches has to line up with God's written word to be accepted as truth, and it doesn't, and hasn't for a considerable amount of my 61 years on earth. To assume or convey that my decision to believe is irrational and not scientific is to say your faith is in man-made so-called science and not God. Obviously that is an agree to disagree watershed.

But I'm not trying to disprove the Bible, I want you to explain which bits are the literal truth and why that is the case and which can be seen as more symbolic. Why should any of it be believed to be anything more than of human origin?

I've been reading and studying the Bible for more than 45 years now. There are MANY things I know about it and it cannot be answered in a few lines. IF you have specifics about AN issue then I can answer those specifics. Your rather broad request is just not reasonable, given you are predisposed to NOT accept what I would have to say.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Michael I think you may have misunderstood your doctors a bit. If it has spread to another part of your body (metastasized), then you MUST get radiation treatment. That's serious. You can't give it any advantages that it doesn't already have. It doesn't take time off. I hope you get better and soon, but if you have any way to afford radiation treatment then you need to do it

Dear Kdall,

Thanks for the info. I hope it has not spread because they want to charge me $6,000 for each part of my body it spreads to. I've already asked them about that. Thanks for caring, dude!!

Much Love, From God And Me,

Michael

:sigh:

 

[MichaelCadry]

You've got to do what your doctors say you need to do Michael, this isn't about cosmetic surgery.
Here in the UK we don't have to worry about having the money, does it really come down to money in the US?
If you lived here in the UK would you even think twice?

Perhaps you really do think that in a few months it won't matter anyway. Yes I'm a non-believer but I really don't think you should be relying on being "saved" to save you from real world issues where more cancer is cured nowadays than kills.
lain:

Dear alwight,

Yes, I wish I did live in the UK. You all get your health insurance for free, right? I don't know how they afford it, but it sounds wonderful and a blessing. I've got to pay $105 this month to see specialists. I will try to pay just $25 a month of the $6,000 cost. That way, I can afford it. They will let you do that, because at least I'm trying to pay for it. Thank you for your info and your caring heart, alwight!! I love you too!!

Many Blessings,

Michael

:cloud9: :cloud9:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Not how it came across Alwight. When you use words like ACTUAL to describe your knowledge or the knowledge you have faith in, that to me is at the very least, patronizing.
I'm pretty sure I established up front that faith does not require proof.
Was I not clear in post #9540?

Actually I DID answer your question, but you said it was not acceptable to you AND expected me to accept some quasi academic submission from Wiki. The fact is, I'm NOT a scholar and as it's all been said before I don't waste my time restating it. As I've stated to you initially, my faith is in a personal savior, Jesus Christ, and that involves FAITH in what the Bible teaches. If you want to know if the Bible is real or viable at all, you can easily do that without going to Wiki, but of course that is your call. I simply testify and discern the written Word of God, I can't make you believe it.

With this kind of mindset you voice here, how can I possibly say ANYTHING that will find favor with you?
Yes, my faith tells me I must insist that ANYTHING man teaches has to line up with God's written word to be accepted as truth, and it doesn't, and hasn't for a considerable amount of my 61 years on earth. To assume or convey that my decision to believe is irrational and not scientific is to say your faith is in man-made so-called science and not God. Obviously that is an agree to disagree watershed.

I've been reading and studying the Bible for more than 45 years now. There are MANY things I know about it and it cannot be answered in a few lines. IF you have specifics about AN issue then I can answer those specifics. Your rather broad request is just not reasonable, given you are predisposed to NOT accept what I would have to say.

Dear StanJ,

I must admit, I agree with you totally on all you have said. God wants us to believe by faith. Otherwise, if He showed Himself, EVERYONE WOULD BELIEVE, and thus all get the same reward. He wants people who TRULY LOVE HIM to get His good reward as His blessing.

Much Love And Prayers,

Michael

:cloud9: :angel: :angel:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Well that IS the point isn't it? Not being a spiritual person, you don't KNOW, what I know and HAVE experienced. It is INDEED tangible and not illusionary at all. Rom 10:17 (NIV) Heb 11:1 (NIV)

Well although Wiki is good for a quick reference, and I myself support them through donations, it is NOT the most reliable when it comes to facts. The link I gave was written by actual scholars so you can choose to satisfy your penchant for not believing or you can accept the truth in the link I posted. You know...leading a horse to water and all that? I challenge you to find more competent sites than Wiki when it comes to this issue.

Apparently you haven't read any from Josephus, Ignatius, Polycarp or Jerome? I suggest you check them out.

Unless of course someone brings up ID or YEC, and then science is deemed to be the ONLY way some will believe.
It's a dual standard that is always invoked.

Well you gave the examples and I gave you explanations for them. You can accept or reject them, but in all honesty most of your ilk don't. No a circle is not the same as a sphere, but how could it convey a flat earth? Also I suggest you look at the meaning of WORLD in both the Hebrew and Greek to see it connotes a ball or decoration in God's universe.
Form of writing does not mean truth is not being conveyed. Again CONTEXT is important, but one must approach reading the Bible from at least a true quest for knowledge and understanding. John 20:30-31 (NIV)

Dear StanJ,

I believe in everything you say. We are on the same wavelength as far as Christianity goes. Yes, of course a circle meant a sphere. The people in the olden days probably didn't know what a sphere meant, because wheels were circular. But what do I know? I do know that He made the sun and moon in a circle or sphere, and man probably thought they were circles. How could they tell otherwise seeing they did not have telescopes, etc. back then.

Much Love, In Christ,

Michael

:cloud9: :cloud9:

 

[way 2 go]

The OT also says that the Earth rests on pillars, or it hangs on nothing, so take your pick.

both pillars and nothing


link

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear StanJ and way 2 go,

You seem to be doing better without me than with me. I will help where I can!!

God Be With You Both,

Michael

 

[StanJ]

Dear StanJ and way 2 go,

You seem to be doing better without me than with me. I will help where I can!!

God Be With You Both,

Michael

I will pray God gives you strength and resilience Michael.

 

[alwight]

Not how it came across Alwight. When you use words like ACTUAL to describe your knowledge or the knowledge you have faith in, that to me is at the very least, patronizing.
I'm pretty sure I established up front that faith does not require proof.
Was I not clear in post #9540?

You tell me that your faith isn't blind, but it seems that when I ask you to then show me what the "visible" part to your faith is I get accused of being patronising or otherwise deflected instead. :idunno:

Actually I DID answer your question, but you said it was not acceptable to you AND expected me to accept some quasi academic submission from Wiki. The fact is, I'm NOT a scholar and as it's all been said before I don't waste my time restating it. As I've stated to you initially, my faith is in a personal savior, Jesus Christ, and that involves FAITH in what the Bible teaches. If you want to know if the Bible is real or viable at all, you can easily do that without going to Wiki, but of course that is your call. I simply testify and discern the written Word of God, I can't make you believe it.

I simply offered that Wiki page as an example of typical academic thinking, but if it's in fact a load of bovine scatterings then I would have expected it to be hotly disputed or corrected with better facts and evidence.

I don't have a problem with faith in Jesus, but when I get told that the Earth is only a few thousand years old and that science and all the natural evidence of Darwinian evolution is wrong and should be replaced with a YEC version of events, based entirely on a particular ancient scripture, then I think I can justifiably expect something more rational by way of an explanation.
However you also seemed to be telling me that the story of Jesus is in fact verifiable. I wasn't saying the story was wrong btw I was disagreeing with your verifiability claim and pointing out what I consider to be the generally accepted scholarly position based on the available facts and evidence.

With this kind of mindset you voice here, how can I possibly say ANYTHING that will find favor with you?
Yes, my faith tells me I must insist that ANYTHING man teaches has to line up with God's written word to be accepted as truth, and it doesn't, and hasn't for a considerable amount of my 61 years on earth. To assume or convey that my decision to believe is irrational and not scientific is to say your faith is in man-made so-called science and not God. Obviously that is an agree to disagree watershed.

I find convincing rationality in facts and evidence, but so far imo your faith has been just about as close to blind faith as makes no difference. God's word would be one thing but presupposing that God's word is literally what is written in a particular ancient scripture is what beggars belief for me.
The Bible is for me an extremely interesting historical work giving many insights to the past, but it is also ignorant, fallible and very human.

I've been reading and studying the Bible for more than 45 years now. There are MANY things I know about it and it cannot be answered in a few lines. IF you have specifics about AN issue then I can answer those specifics. Your rather broad request is just not reasonable, given you are predisposed to NOT accept what I would have to say.

I think that most of the detail in the Bible can be put to one side, I would really like to understand why it is regarded by fundamentalists as being infallible and literally historical, to the point of rejecting generally accepted scientific conclusions?

 

[alwight]

Dear alwight,

Yes, I wish I did live in the UK. You all get your health insurance for free, right? I don't know how they afford it, but it sounds wonderful and a blessing. I've got to pay $105 this month to see specialists. I will try to pay just $25 a month of the $6,000 cost. That way, I can afford it. They will let you do that, because at least I'm trying to pay for it. Thank you for your info and your caring heart, alwight!! I love you too!!

Many Blessings,

Michael

:cloud9: :cloud9:

Our National Health Service may not be perfect Michael but at least you don't have to worry about facing huge medical bills if the need arises. If your income ceases because of illness then that might be another matter.
Look after yourself.
:e4e: