>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
Are they really? I personally have not been convinced evolution is the
answer. I think the possibility is intriguing, but after all the evidence
for and against still see holes in the logic used on BOTH sides of the
issue. I still maintain that most of those 11 chapters ARE NOT
contradicted. In fact, for much of it there IS no way to prove it right or
wrong (leading to the q of falsification which I don't want to go into).
>>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.
Personally the Fall is VERY Biblical. That doctrine is based explicitly on
the Bible is it not? If Genesis 2-3 are a story, what does Gen 1 explain?
(just curious w/ that last q)
>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.
Well, greater could refer to volume as well, and I think we'd all agree
the moon is smaller than the sun. Maybe that's the obvious meaning? Maybe
it indeed refers to their intensity, regardless of actual light source
(the sun in both cases as we know).
>>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?
Have they really? I think you're excluding the possibility that a part of
God is these forces. Or another view, God wouldn't be incorrect in stating
that He holds everything together whether or not He uses natural forces to
do so. Since He DID say he holds things together, we should stop there and
not overanalyze the passage.
>Now here's a question for you: why cannot God be the force behind evolution
>as well as the force behind gravity?
He can. I just don't think it's been established satisfactorily from all
evidence I've seen, so therefore I conclude that God CAN be, but didn't
choose that method. This sounds like the pointless question asked of both
sides of this issue:
Why limit God to 6 days?
Why limit God to natural means?
Noone's limiting God, just presenting the method they believe was actually
the way it was/is.
>>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.
Again, why are you limiting God to supernatural measures? I think you're
being a bit facetious, but these strawman questions which only concern the
limitations that can or cannot be placed on God should be cautiously
approached. What if I think God being the source implies sometimes or
mostly using natural proxies?
>>>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
I understand the rabbit and bat thing, but the insects thing is a kinda
if-then situation and doesn't say they have four legs. (sorry, being
technical with what the English appears to say)
>>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.
Otherwise called "Name-Dropping" or "appeal to authority". A simple
response to that is "how do you know the help wasn't from quite an
opposite source?" I think I understand why you said that, but again,
watch your assertions. I'm talking to BOTH sides of this issue again, and,
seriously, as I am a Christian and gather that many on this list are, the
friuts of the spirit are respected and perhaps should be more closely
followed. You're welcome to jump at me if/when I violate this myself, my
roommate does all the time! Just thought we should be more respectful,