I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. Correct in the original
documents. I believe the prophets spoke REVEALED truth, Jesus was the Son of
God, Died, was Raised and no sits at the right hand of God. I am told these
things by REVELATION. I don't see how your charge fits.
Kevin wrote:
>>2) You discount the possibility of the miraculous. Did Balaam's ass
really talk? Did the walls of Jericho really fall? Did the river Nile
actually turn to blood -- or was it just a localized spill of cherry juice
from a ship navigating nearby? Did Moses have a rod that turned into a
snake (not to mention, did it really consume the other snakes)? <<
I do not discount the miraculous. My creation of Adam and Eve are
miraculous. I believe in the talking snake (and have been criticised for it
here by others) I believe Balaam's ass spoke. The walls of Jericho really
fell and the Nile turned to Blood. I will accept Moses' snake. If God can
raise Jesus from the dead, what are these piddling little miracles? I agree
with all the other miracles you list. So how in the world can you say that I
discount the miracuolous. For everyone listening, I BELIEVE IN THE
MIRACULOUS. This of course will bring criticism from the other side.
Kevin wrote:
>>So why is it so necessary for you to write a big long piece of work just to
say that our kids are going to have a problem when they are confronted with
[real] scientific *evidence*? <<
Because like the watchman on the wall, if I don't tell you your blood would
be on my hands. I have a way that they can hold to literal Bible and accept
the evidence of science. I am not the characature [sic] liberal Christian
that you believe all people are who accept evolution. Why don't you find out
what I believe?
Kevin wrote:
>>3) You discount the possibility that the *evidence* of ancient age might
be wrong.What if the chronometers used to determine the age of ancient stuff
IS incorrect? Isn't that possible? I think it is. Their accuracy is based
on assumptions, which may or may
not be true (as joe reimers has already pointed out...).<<
I used to think it was wrong. But why then did every single time I went to
verify what the YEC's were telling me did I find that they were not
representing the facts correctly? I have mentioned that I asked all the ICR
graduates that I had worked with what fact about geology, differing from
conventional geology that they were taught, which turned out to be true.
Remember what I said? They couldn't think of anything!!! And neither could
I.
I will give you another dating problem. The article which Morris cites
for his minerals into the ocean argument, the one that gives an aluminum age
of the oceans ats 100 years, also tells how the minerals are removed from the
ocean. Morris does not mention that. Why? Go look it up. it is in a book
Riley and Skirrow, Chemical Oceanography, 1965, in and article Goldberg,
Minor Elements in Seawater. p. 164. See if they don't tell you how the
minerals are removed. Besides, do you really think it is reasonable for the
oceans to be 100 years old?
you wrote:
>>4) You discount our calling. <<
Part of my calling is to stand for the truth! Factual, observational
spiritual etc.
You wrote:
>>5) You discount God. This is your biggest calamity of all. Maybe God has
a reason for doing things the way He did -- just like He has done many other
things which are fairly incomprehensible. Maybe He wants us to take some
things, like Abraham did, on faith in His trustworthiness. <<
How can I depend on the trustworthiness of a God who creates elements to make
the world appear old in one case and doesn't create elements to make the
world appear old in another, and then tells me that the world is young? If
you did that to me, I would not find you trustworthy.
You wrote:
>>If we turn that into a little itty bitty local flood, we miss the point.
The point is, THERE WAS A REASON WHY HE DESTROYED THE WORLD. If you say He
didn't really destroy the world, then, you also remove the lesson He was
attempting to convey.<<
Kevin, the Hebrew word which is translated as earth, in Gen. 6-9 can also be
translated "land" How do we know, independently, how that word should be
translated? Both global and local floods are within the scope of the data we
have. I feel the scientific data fits the local better.
Kevin wrote:
>>If we abandon the concept that Genesis 1-11 has historical content, then in
my opinion the scriptural account DOES become just another Salamander story.
<<
We fully agree here. That is why I HAD to develop another view of Scripture
or reject it. That part of Scripture must be viewed as historical.
Kevin wrote:
>>Glenn, I think this is probably the point where I take issue with you.
See, you are pitting yourself against a "salamander story" which claims to
be the direct revelation of God to mankind. <<
You have misunderstood everything. I am not pitting myself against a
salamander story. I am trying to avoid the Bible being treated that way.
Kevin wrote:
>>Jesus makes mention of Adam and Eve and he even refers to
Noah. Why would our Lord do such a thing if there were no historical truth
to these individuals as specific people?<<
Noah, Adam and EVe are historical? Is internet eating my words when I say
this over and over? They are not representations, they are real flesh and
blood people like you and me. You are arguing against my position because
you think anyone who accepts evolution must reject the Bible. that is not
true.
Kevin wrote:
>>I cannot condone or appreciate at all your suggestion that any large
segment of Genesis be treated as just another "salamander story".
Please go re-read that post. I never said the Bible should be treated as a
salamander story. I am trying to avoid that.
You wrote:
>>- all of the arguements rely on
certain assumptions being true, argurments made from an absence of evidence
(so where ARE all those bodies of humans destroyed in the flood?), etc. etc.
That's weak.<<
Agreed. But YEC arguments are also based upon assumptions and I have checked
on them and they are wrong. The shrinking sun isn't shrinking either.That
argument is based upon the assumption that Eddy and Boornazian were correct
in 1979. They weren't.
I have to go to work. . I wish I could finish this.
glenn