As I See it!

[khalou]

And the spirit of God hoovered on the Waters of the earth. Let us take into context that the bible was not written to be a scientific text book. None of the God inspired writers were scientists of any kind. So the methodology of their writing is of a nature based on the understanding available in that time. However there are a lot of things written in the bible that have been validated by science and blatently ignored by those who are of the scientific community. To validate where I am coming from: I spent 7 years of my life trying to disprove creation, the exodus, the old testament miricles, and the birth, resurection, and divinity of Christ. And while I certainly can not claim the same genius of most of you sceptics I am open and intelligent enough to investigate both sides of an issue. For example: Creation of life- In the days that our planet was forming itself into what it is today the oceans of the world consisted of amoung other things around 60% amino acids. What are the two primary ingredients needed to form DNA? Energy and Amino acids. Now the bible states that (in Genisis 1) the spirit of God hovered upon the waters- energy/amino acids thus DNA. We could debate this with scientific circular reasoning but I would prefer not too as niether you or I can conclusively prove this either way however I offer it as an option. Dinosaurs- Genisis also states that in the very beginning the world was without form and void so there was a planet here before God began his work of FINALIZING THE STRUCTURE of the world as we know it today. One other point-neandrethal man: when humans age certain bones in the skull continue growing and others stop at a certain point. There is a computer enhancement program that ages the skull out over 300-400-600 years of age and the specs of that skull exactly match the demensions of a neandrathal skull. (Pardon the spelling) The final thing for today Evolution the evolving of one species to another is called Macro-Evolution it has never ever ever been proven or validated. The only evolution which can be validated is micro evolution which is the development of changes within a species. In conclusion I have ooked at many discussions in here where the scientific minds accuse christians of being closed or narrow minded. What I truly see is the unwillingness of some to at least be open minded enough to step down off the science pedestal and gather ALL the information needed before drawing conclusion. I certainly do not consider myself closed or narrow minded however I am single minded. Nothing proves there is not a God-nothing proves evolution-nothing proves that Jesus is not who he claimed he was. My choice is simple I've read the book I know who wins and I pick the winner. God Bless

This is your lucky day, then.

I am willing to admit that science can't even SEE most of what the truth might be because of its strict guidelines. Science insists that scientists of all faiths, all politics, all social groups, meet one unifying standard- the standard of the scientific method. So far, every scientist all over the world that deals with evolutionary subjects agree that evolution did occur. These are Christan's, Muslims, Jews, communists, parliamentarians, monarchists, atheists, pagans, vegetarians, pedophiles, you name it, there are scientists somewhere in the world that believe in something.

But no scientists gets anywhere without falsification of their work.

Do you have any idea how few atheists there are in the global scientific community?? You sound like scientists are trying to argue an anti-religious platform! How could that be? How could that possibly be??

But it might interest you that only American Evangelicals have a problem with how science is progressing according to the scientific method. I'm glad that your "research" has shown you that you are correct, but it certainly doesn't speak well for your religion.

If I drop a ball, it falls. Yet American Evangelicals and the Christian Right want to dispute what global science discovers, and wants to say that science is somehow biased against religion. What a crock! If God put it there, science will see it. If science sees something, and wonders about a conclusion, rest assured that, according to the scientific method, all those scientists of the world will try to prove why that conclusion is WRONG, not that is is right. That is falsification.

Too bad you spent all those years not even understanding scientific fundamentals. Christianity in America is like that though. It sets up the straw man that science is trying to disprove God's hand in creation, when there couldn't possibly be a more UNscientific goal as that. And then tries to tear it down by saying that science doesn't know everything. Guess who else says that science doesn't know everything? SCIENCE!

I tire of such conversations, because, if we were at all honest in America about science, then each and every person would understand this. Do you really want your own children to be so ignorant about the scientific method that even their counterparts in Uganda are probably better equipped in science than them?

Any God would not want this. I don't care which God you believe in, He would not promote such ignorance. If God created the universe, then He created SO MUCH MORE than you're willing to believe. If your opinion of His creation includes disputing evolution, then I pity you when you finally come face to face with the engineer of it.

And get a spell-check!

k

[khalou]

Scientific reasoning by definition cannot be circular while the bible and it's claims are nothing but circular; the bible is true because the bible says so, that is absolutely circular.

That's not a true statement.

Keep in mind, the Bible is like any other historical reference. The claims the Bible makes for itself can be backed up through testing against archaeological, historical, and cultural evidence. Furthermore, much of the Levitical laws are supported with recent (within the past 2000 years) findings in areas of biology, astronomy, and mathematics.

Therefore, in light of the evidence from non-Biblical sources, we can easily see the Bible is historically accurate in regards to the names, places, and events that took place. We also see that because of the scientific evidence presented, that the Bible was ahead of its time with respect to a culture that new nothing of modern science.

Therefore, we can conclude that because the Bible is accurate on ALL accounts, this points out the truthful nature of the Biblical writings. From this we can conclude that if the Bible is accurate in regards to the natural world, it must be accurate in regards to the supernatural world, for how else would a primitive society from 3000 years past be able to apply various "laws" that have a modern day, scientific explanation for them?

Purely by chance and coincidence? That's a bit of a stretch if you ask me.

From this we see that the Bible has divine authorship and since the Bible has proven itself on all other fronts, and the Bible states it was

[Floatingaxe]

That if we find this evidence, that the Bible is NOT the inerrant Word of God?

It won't ever happen! You be careful, khalou, because you also will have to meet that engineer one day soon!

[secondeve]

That if we find this evidence, that the Bible is NOT the inerrant Word of God?

It won't ever happen! You be careful, khalou, because you also will have to meet that engineer one day soon!

If the word of God is inerrant, why have archeologists found no remnants of some cities mentioned in Biblical accounts at the locations they were meant to be, and yet found the remains of cities which almost perfectly match the Biblical descriptions in other places? If the Bible was 100% inerrant, wouldn't all the Biblical locations for cities match up with where we actually find them? And some have never even been found at all.

Edited October 18, 2006 by secondeve

[SoulGrind]

If the word of God is inerrant, why have archeologists found no remnants of some cities mentioned in Biblical accounts at the locations they were meant to be, and yet found the remains of cities which almost perfectly match the Biblical descriptions in other places? If the Bible was 100% inerrant, wouldn't all the Biblical locations for cities match up with where we actually find them? And some have never even been found at all.

Why do you feel that the interpretations of man, who by his very nature is imperfect, rules out the possibility of a perfect God?

It sounds as if you are saying, "If I am imperfect, and my interpretations are imperfect, then God must be imperfect."

That's like trying to draw a ruler - then, you measure something with your homebrew ruler, then compare it to a manufactured ruler, then you notice the measurements don't match - then you exclaim, "THAT CAN'T BE RIGHT! This manufactured ruler must be wrong!"

There are many things in Biblical archaeology that have yet to be found - this is the same thing in the scientific community - we are constantly discovering new things. It's arogant to think we've discovered all there is to discover. It's also arogant to assume that what we have discovered is correct each and every time. There are many instances in various scientific fields where a discovery was made, just to be tossed out in light of new and better evidence.

A "lack" of evidence or "updated" evidence in no way proves that the Bible is in error - it does prove however that will still have more to learn.

[SoulGrind]

But you say something that is kind of incredible to me also. You say that "Unless you can disprove ANY aspect of the Bible with 100% proof (no speculations, no hypothesis, no theories - hardened proof), then we must agree that the Bible, based on the available evidence, is indeed what it claims to be, the only, the infallible, the inerrant Word of the one true God."

Do you also say the opposite? That if we find this evidence, that the Bible is NOT the inerrant Word of God?

Here is what I believe:

I believe that the Bible the the inerrant Word of God. I think I'd made this point very clear throughout all of my posts.

I also believe that if someone present evidence AGAINST the Biblical account, that all scrutiny must be applied to this evidence.

Recall, we are fallable, imperfect man looking at something that is perfect. We are bound to make mistakes - God is not.

Furthermore, IF the Bible were to be found in error, then the entire premise of Christianity crumbles. ANY error completely destroys the credability of the Biblical account, and therefore, the credability of God.

However, the Bible has stood the test of time for over 2000 years - and the Bible even makes the claim that the Word will not pass away until Heaven and Earth have passed away. It has a good start thus far in spite of over 2000 years of opposition from various sources.

I dunno about you, but my money's on the Bible it's proven itself through thick and thin and has always come out on top despite to opposition, despite the criticism, despite attempt to eradicate it, despite persecution, despite religious discrimination, despite, despite, despite...

Look at books like Uncle Tom's Cabin - you can't even read this book in High School anymore and it's hard to even find in a book store - but the Bible - you can find it everywhere... Even in the top drawer of the night stand in your local hotel/motel.

Yup - my money's on the Bible.

[SoulGrind]

SoulGrind,

I disagree. There are instances where the bible is historically inaccurate. However, I will not post them on these boards, because I did once before, and got put on moderation review.

I would like to see you apply your reasoning to every other religion. After all, until we can absolutely disprove an aspect of Buddaism, it must be the way of the world!

There are a lot of "gray areas" concerning various pieces of evidence.But there are just as many areas with solid proof.

But archaeology is a slow science - it's tedious and requires tenacious, patient individuals.

Just because you are missing one or two pieces from a puzzle doesn't mean you can't see the majority of the picture.

20 years ago, there were less archaeological findings than we have today. 50 years there were even less.

As we progress, as new things are uncovered, the more the Biblical account solidifies.

And yes - the same rules are applied to other religions and there have been such studies against religions such as Islam, Muslim, Zoeroaster, etc and while there are religious texts that paralell the Christian Bible, much in the way of the archaeological and scientific evidence falls short. This of course, is in favor of the Christian Bible, as being one of the few religious texts that stands completely on it's own under the scrutiny of the archeologists and historians.

[mrp1948]

Has anyone read the booklet entittled "Lord-Liar or Lunitic"? If not I would suggest it. God Bless

[SoulGrind]

Has anyone read the booklet entittled "Lord-Liar or Lunitic"? If not I would suggest it. God Bless

Haven't even heard of it.

I take it that it's a good one?

I like the title...

[StewartP]

Has anyone read the booklet entittled "Lord-Liar or Lunitic"? If not I would suggest it. God Bless

Haven't even heard of it.

I take it that it's a good one?

I like the title...

Perhaps it would be a better book if it were titled "Lord, Liar, Lunatic or Misrepresented?".

Doesn't have the same snappy alliteration tho'.