Rcan: >Most evangelical true believers study, memorize, >apply and try to live the content of scriptures. You >obviously have spent little time with them. I spent >decades. And of course, the "true" ones aren't judgmental either, are they. JB
Ok, so it does not matter that someone thinks they believe , even that they feel they believe, or that they believe they believe. Because in order to believe, you believe, it takes something else. Makes Catch 22 seem somewhat incomplete.
Rcan: >:A) had nothing to do with post You'd like to think so wouldn't you. See below. >B) Everyone is judgemental. aren't they? Hmmm... think of your inclusion of the word "true" in your previous statement and then read the sermon on the mount. If you can't make the connection, I can't help you. JB
I see what you are saying. What I had read is that there was a significant flood, and evidence for it, in the Mesopotamian region at the end of the last Ice Age which could have been 10-20,000 years ago, which is pretty good timing. Here is an example of what scholars say happened in North American for example: http://environment.newscientist.com...tream-to-a-halt.html?feedId=online-news_rss20 I believe they call the above the collapse of the Laurentide Ice Sheet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurentide_ice_sheet For example, notice that scholars have found some flooding phenomenon around 7000 BC that they are struggling to explain: http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/gmis9743.htm This gives some more details about the Soviet team that went into the region and found evidence of Flooding around 7600 BC and this sounds like the same event as the above: http://www.haraldfranzen.com/articles/noah.htm But I agree that I am struggling to find anything older than 10,000 years ago at this point. I'll just have to keep digging.
You like to do a lot of chest-thumping, don't you? I understand what you're saying, but these are very poor examples. With a little research you can come up with a much stronger case.
Well, as I've mentioned several times, it's not necessary to prove the Bible literally true, because, if God exists, He's not subject to scientific proofs. He could make both science and theism simultaneously true despite any perceived contradiction, because, well...because He's God. I really don't understand why the faithful seem to require proof for their position of faith. That seems contradictory in itself. My view is that the Bible was written by men who took mostly hearsay evidence from their ancestors and did the best that they could to reconcile their limited historical view with their faith. A person of faith could nonetheless insist that God has placed His imprimatur on the Book and consequently, it is literally true, despite any contradiction with scientific evidence. My only issue with theists who insist that the Bible is true, is if they are of the ilk who must also insist that scientific knowledge is false, in order to sustain their faith. That is equally a contradiction, because if they are truly faithful, then they don't need scientific accuracy to sustain them. Scientists require faith in their ability to measure reality, and faith that the universe is logically consistent. So, everyone needs faith -- it's just different faith. Personally, I like the idea of a guy in red and white drag, flying around on a sleigh with eight reindeer, carrying gifts to good little girls and boys. Dosn't have to be true. Just has to get me through the cold winter nights.
One only needs to point out ONE error to refute the notion that the Bible is inerrant. ONE. I have provided several, and there are literally hundreds. You have not demonstrated why my evidence is insufficient. Please do so. I invite criticism of my evidence (saying that I engage in chest-thumping is essentially irrelevant). The answer to the question "Is the Bible inerrant?" is no.