Fire away; at least you are more coherent than "Cummings".
>That it is or isn't a literal history is a matter of debate, and what or
>how much was added is the same. By asserting this you are yourself making
>some assumptions. These are assumptions YOU want to believe.
Hardly. Saying, "the Bible is literal history" is a testable hypothesis;
all you have to do is compare the "historical" accounts of the Bible with
known history determined by paleontological and/or archaeological and
scholastic research; no assumptions are needed. When that is done, we
discover that the events described in the first eleven chapters of Genesis
are contradicted by paleontological, archaeological and scholastic history.
As such, the logical conclusion is that this part of the Bible is not
>>Neither Christ nor the New Testament says anything that would "endanger"
>>committment to evolutionary science. As for the Old Testament, only the
>>first eleven chapters of Genesis challenge evolutionary science, but these
>>chapters do not add anything significant to the concept of salvation. In
>>the final analysis, there simply is no conflict between the Bible and
>Just one question. How do the Fall and surrounding covenants with God NOT
>have relevance on salvation?
Simple. First of all, there was no Fall; at least not in the way you mean
it. An objective reading of the Bible, with no attempt made to read into
the verses non-biblical doctrines like the Fall, demonstrates that the
sinning of Adam and Eve and their subsequent expulsion from the Garden of
Eden is a creation myth meant to explain why snakes crawl on their belly,
why women have painful childbirth, and why men have to toil to feed
themselves and their family, among other things.
Secondly, the covenants were conditional treaties set up between man and God
to address contemporary concerns, which did not include salvation. None of
the covenants said that men would be saved if they obeyed them, only that
God would watch over and protect them.
>>So I guess that when God says that the moon is a "light" like the sun, the
>>moon must really be a miniature star. How can you possibly question this?
>Why does that follow? Light gets to the earth via the moon does it not?
Try reading the Bible again. In Genesis it says that God made two lights, a
greater light to rule the day and a lesser light to rule the night. The
difference between the lights is one of degree, not kind. It is therefore
obvious that both were meant to be the same kind of object, but that one
shed less light than the other. That means that either the sun is simply
another satellite or the moon is supposed to be a miniature sun. Since we
know that neither is true, then either this reference to lights in Genesis
is supposed to be figurative or (if literal history) God got it wrong.
>>So I guess that when God says He holds all things together, gravity, the
>>strong nuclear force and electromagnetism must be false sciences. How can
>>you possibly question this?
>Why does that follow? No one said God wasn't the force BEHIND other forces.
As a matter of fact, lots of creationists have said that. Randy Bronson on
this list has said something very much like that, and Vernon has come very
close to saying it at times. In any event, if the Bible is literal history
written directly by God Himself, then should He have not said that He uses
natural forces to hold all things together? Since He did not say this,
should we not therefore conclude that God was EXCLUDING the possibility that
He used natural forces to hold all things together?
Now here's a question for you: why cannot God be the force behind evolution
as well as the force behind gravity?
>>So I guess that when God says He is the source for all illness and the
>>source for all curing, the germ theory of disease and immunology must be
>>false sciences as well. How can you possibly question this?
>Same problem. Just because God is the SOURCE doesn't mean He doesn't >allow
us to discover what the cures he has provided us with are.
Same answer. Again, the Bible does not say that God is the source of all
illness or health through natural forces; it says that God is the source,
period. Implying that illness or health are the result of God's direct
interaction, not His interaction through natural proxies. Therefore, either
the Bible was written by men who knew nothing of germs and immunology or the
Bible was written by a rather ignorant or egotistical god.
>>So I guess that rabbits must chew the cud, insects must have only four
>>and bats must be birds, since God said so. How can you possibly question
>Where does this come from? Just curious.
Leviticus, as part of the dietary laws.
>>I can see no difference between you and Stear, except how each of you
>>yourselves. You both make the same mistakes, you both believe the same
>>fanatical dogmatism, you both come to the same wrong conclusions. In
>>had I not known you were the Christian and he was the atheist, I would
>>not been able to guess who was what (either that or I would have assumed
>>were both atheists). You are both dead wrong; that's all there is to it.
>So there is no chance YOU are the incorrect one? That appears to me to be
>the exact reverse of the fanaticism you accuse them of. Be careful!
I arrived at my assessment with help from the Holy Spirit. If I am wrong,
then the Holy Spirit is wrong as well.
Kevin L. O'Brien