Only one version?

Nos said
quote:
-------------------
Please, many of the "translations" in it were politically motivated.King James had gotten the playwright William Shakespeare to do much of the work in his "version" of the bible.
-------------------WS: Where might we find that news, sticking to credible sources? By credible I mean a source that is undeniably backed up by sources regarded as trustworthy, such as respected historians, encyclopedias, etc. The style of writing was certainly of the high quality employed by Shakespeare, but where the proof of his hand in the KJV?WHICH "translations" in the KJV were politically motivated, and what is the basis for that?

Nos has made some claims about the KJV that are not supportable. It is pure speculation, fantasy, folly until proven with some credible support. Meanwhile such accusations stand as lies against the truth. The truth is well documented, such that men can't delete it from the earth. It's the responsibility of anyone objecting to that to find the evidence. Most reasonable people accept the record. The agenda is obvious to me, that people who hate God and the Bible will say and do whatever they can, regardless the rules or laws, to damage things they don't understand or outright hate. I came here to defend the truth, but find the accuser unwilling to face the truth or his own lies. Why are such "debaters" tolerated?

Once again it appears typical that when faced with actual resistance the skeptics retreat into a sea of denial. Denial of reality is all they really have, rarely offering actual evidence, howevr weak it has been, to back up their claims. That is NOT debate, but pure argument with no substance. If you have something to say about what you believe, then offer the supportive information we can go check out. There are rules in this website, apparently brazenly ignored, again typical of skeptics armed with a virtual chest of ignorance. They MUST ignore the rules and present their case in the most pitiful of manners.No person will handle the poetic language style of the KJV without first being able to handle modern english versions of the Bible. That style is quite archaic, though absolutely perfect in grammar and quality, well understood by those accustomed to it. There is another principle at work concerning the Bible, whichever version selected. Secular scholars mastering language, reason and logic are easily put aside when they approach the Bible with intent to criticize. The Spirit of God has often failed critics, disallowing spiritual knowledge gained apart from the leading of the Spirit. He is merciful in not allowing men to become excessively accountable for revelations of holiness, leaving the ultimate charge of unbelief, original imputed sin, and personal sins on their record sufficient for corroboration of their eternal judgment and eventual delivery to hell. In other words, no man will attain to the spiritual knowledge of the bible apart from God's help. Those who gain that knowledge by His help, who then abandon it turning against the Savior denying His blood, accounting the works of the Spirit as ungodly, will find there is no more sacrifice for their unforgiveable state of apostasy.I say all that because the KJV language presentation captures the profound truths of God's Word far more deeply than modern versions which take the approach of an encyclopedia or newspaper text, often dropping the element of human emotion and the art of communication through poetic means. One may view the entirity of the Greek texts of Bible manuscripts and discover that without a working, excellent proficiency in Greek it is difficult to connect the actual original words into sentences easily understood in any other language. That applies to students of Greek, unless that is your primary language and all grammatical rules are adhered to. All others face the difficulty of mastering that language artificially. One can learn much about any spoken language, but until living with speakers of a language, the true knowledge of it is lacking.Enough scholars have come and gone in past generations that have solved all the problems of communicating the original messages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek origin, later Latin substitutes. The sources of the KJV are not outside that net of confidence awarded to mankind by selfless masters devoted to the truth, each checking the works of the others, maintianing a constant vigil of integrity of the truth in the written record. To say the KJV is faulty is to simply admit ignorance of the language. If it offends, find another version you can understand.I would suggest, however, the reader investigate the other versions and translations, considering actual errors captured through changes in language that in effect change the message of the original texts.
A good place to start is here:
TranslationsAs to why some Christians stick to the various KJV editions (no actual new versions, just changes like with editions of other books)
consider visiting some of the following websites that do a splendid job of demonstrating the efficacy of the KJV Bible:A Brief History of the King James Bible
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.htmlThe King James Bible Page
http://staggs.pair.com/kjbp/King James Bible Authority
http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/kj_bible.htm
Excerpt:
"Can we call the KJB the Word of God, authentic, perfect, Holy Scriptures which are divinely inspired and infallible in doctrine, our canon and standard of faith and practice because of the witness of the Holy Spirit of Truth?
Turretin combines the witness of the Scriptures and of the Spirit together saying, "We prove the Scriptures by the Spirit as the efficient cause by which we believe. But we prove the Spirit from the Scriptures as the object and argument on account of which we believe." As Turretin said, ""the word must never be separated from the Spirit (Is. 59:21). The former works objectively, the latter efficiently; the former strikes the ears from without, the latter opens the heart within. The Spirit is the teacher; Scripture is the doctrine which he teaches us." Our Baptist forefathers said in the London Confession of Faith under Article #5 "...our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts." Does the Spirit of Truth use the perfect KJB as authentic Holy Scriptures, which are divine and infallible in doctrine to lead us into all truth?For centuries English believers have held up their KJB and called it the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God. Even liberals in the early 1900s held up the KJB and said it merely "contains" the inspired word of God. Bible-believing scholars have held up the same KJB and said it "is" the inspired Word of God, while referring in their minds only to the lost original autographs. Other Bible-believing scholars have said the same thing often referring in their own minds only to the underlying Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek text. Some Bible-believers have said the same thing believing only in the inspiration of the KJB. Because of the growing confusion caused by these misunderstandings, I believe that when we use the term inspiration it is wise as Dr. D. A. Waite suggests to clarify our position with qualifiers. Each of us may choose to use different adjectives to describe the authority of the KJB. We may choose to call the KJB God's perfect, authentic, Holy Scriptures in English because of the divine, infallible doctrinal truth therein, derived by translation from God's inspired Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek underlying text.The great problem arises when we attempt to apply any of these authoritative terms to our English words and not to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words God gave by inspiration. God wrote only one Bible. It was in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words. These are the only inspired words of Holy Scripture from God we have ever received, or will receive. We need to always make that distinction very clear to promote truth and preserve our doctrinal integrity. I agree fully with Dr. D. A. Waite that when using these authoritative words for the KJB, we must carefully qualify them and connect them to their divine source in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. When we use any of these terms of authority concerning the KJB alone without qualifications we only weaken the doctrinal authority in our KJB, and our own intended Bible defense.Most of our differences in the use of authoritative terms regarding the KJB are a matter of semantics rather than doctrinal differences. We understand why the Dean Burgon Society has held the position it holds on the use of the term inspiration these many years. While modern theologians are attempting to remove all authority from the Bible we hold in our hands, we must defend and declare all the divine authority possible to our traditional Bible texts, including the original autographs, apographs, and accurate translations like our authorized King James Bible."

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
see, this is what happens if a large religion cannot keep its original texts. Poor you!
----------------------------------------------------------------------WS: The Jews have no original autographs, copies only.
The Christians have no original autographs, copies only.
The Muslims have no original autograph, copies only.What are you referring to? All are poor because of no original autographs? Why do you think it necessary to refer to the original to find validity? If I were to appeal to the U.S. Constitution in a matter of law, do you suppose I would be required to visit the National Archive Museum in Wash., D.C., to actually read the original document? Nobody has had to do that. Do you have a clue as to why that isn't necessary? If you need the answer from me, please indicate.Assuming you are already answering correctly, for the same reasons it isn't necessary for anyone to refer to the original autographs from which our Bible came. Sufficient geographical distribution and shear numbers of copies assured that there was no need in having available the original manuscript. There are certain guarantees we have access to the original text of those original autographs, making it impossible for anyone to alter what was given originally, or lose the original message. As soon as only a few copies of the original letters were made and distributed, it was like casting feathers into the wind. Unless all those copies could be retreived, each carries the integrity of the true Word of God, checked by the contents of the other copies making their way through the world. As copies of copies proliferated, the true copies self-verified each other, and it became easier and easier to spot copies with error, especially omissions or additions such as marginal notes. There apparently were no erroneous copies circulating initially since that issue never came up in the several councils through several centuries. At issue was whether to honor the tenets of Judaism, then whether to accept certain copies as inspired, and later in what order the accepted books should appear together, together with other issues.You, a Muslim, seem fond of slighting what we have possession of, being the Word of God usually presented bound together in "Bibles". Apparently you still don't realize the miracle of harmony between the 66 books written over thousands of years by many authors inspired of God. They exist in such accuracy and harmony such that it seems one person wrote them in one lifetime, never contradicting himself. We are talking 66 books. The Quran is all of one man in one generation. That seems suspicious to me. The Quran has no comparable base of previously existing revelations from which men can weigh the sayings of Muhammad. It is take all or perish. Everything hangs on the word of one man. Incredibly dangerous for anyone giving him serious consideration. Christianity, however, enjoys the benefit of having been prophecied to come through the Old Testament, with many witnesses contributing flawlessly to its precepts, all obviously by inspiration of ONE. The disciples of the Christ carried on the miraculous ministry of their master, in the same power of the Lord Jesus, again distributing the tenets of the faith among many, not just one authority. Since the gospel of Christ was duplicated many times over, there is the evidence of its efficacy, being reproducable. Muhammad's claims are not reproducable, nor can his words be verified. Therefore a follower of Islam cannot possibly have power or authority to question the authority of the KJV or any other Bible for that matter. You have no supportable base from which to judge. It would be more reasonable for you to make no reference to Islam when challenging the Bible or lack of original texts. Stick to comparing Bible verses to Bible verses to be safe. No outside reference could possibly do damage to the Bible.These are just a few reasons Bible scholars and Bible friends know the integrity of those books is beyond reproach, cancelling out any possibility of Muhammad successfully "correcting" what was written long before he came along. The Quaranic version of history and its comments about the historically verified Jesus is incredulous, rediculous, but believable among people who will never be afforded a chance to read the Bible for themselves. That is why there are severe penalties for anyone making Bibles available in Muslim nations, lest the people believe the truth.Every maker of a Bible version or translation has had access to either ancient manuscripts or other works based on copies of the original texts. The paths taken are a matter of record, demonstrating the foundation of every Bible was sure.The problems experienced these days are very real, not experienced in the very first Bibles issued by hand copying, later by printing press. Languages remained relatively stable until people began widespread travel and commerce, effecting ever increasing language changes. That wasn't a problem in 1611. Up until that time English wouldn't even be considered suitable for such a book, the preferred language being Latin or French. It had not been long since the English language was considered suitable only for the poor. It was simply the desire of King James to get the Bible into the hands of the population at large. There is no valid point to be made that makes that project one of politics, or that the translation failed to capture the nuances of Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, or Latin, surprising the scholars of that time. Its handling of the original text, be they directly translated or borrowed from previous Bible works, did not fail to capture the message of those original texts, as attested to by many Bible scholars of many generations who could compare the KJV to known oldest copies of Scriptures.It has been the modern versions of the past century that began a departure from the original textual messages, in mostly poor attempts to reduce the English language to even less quality than necessary. Other factors entered in, including socio/political pressures such as appeals to de-emphasize the male identity of God, and to diminish the condemnations of certain sins gaining tolerance in western culture. Some versions are even more blatant, obvious distortions of the record, such as the Jefferson Bible.Learn the history of the Bible before castigating it. It's too easy to expose lies against the KJV, my pleasure to undertake.[This message has been edited by Wordswordsman, 10-07-2002]

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What I had meant was that that discussion was long over and I didn't want to start banging my head against his wall again, plus I don't want to attend his circus either.
----------------------------------------------------------------------WS: My comment was current as of your post #31-33 of 48, which discussion was not complete in that your comment remains your opinion, not at all fact, still requiring a basis for stating it. I am pointing out that most of your comments are baseless, pure speculation, hardly fitting for any debate. You should back up your claims with SOMETHING besides what lies between your own ears. A for instance of the sort of comment that is inappropriate is the current one, "that discussion was long over". I have kept it open by adding to it. Any post from #1 onward is subject to comment and accountability applies. Until you yield admitting you have no basis for your comments, the matter remains open. So upon what do you base such comments about involvement of Shakespeare and politics in the making of the KJV? Where can I go verify your evidence?The reason you find yourself "banging your head against" what you call a wall is because Jesus Christ is my wall, my fortress, against whom you cannot prevail. My trust and wisdom is in Him. You are dealing with HIM through me. Resistance is futile- you can't prevail leaning on forwarded lies of atheist webpages and other Bible skeptic sources. They are frustrated and desperate to find a crack into which they can thrust an arrow of deception. It's a delibrate rebellion against the one living, all powerful God of the Bible who will have the last word. It is no circus, but the most serious of matters you can imagine. Many authors of the Bible, a sea of scholarly experts, and live witnesses testifying to the influence, power and authority of God support those statements.

quote:

---

Hmm..as an atheist I never found anything about the bible compelling and am not even convinced that a real individual named Jesus ever existed...thus I have prevailed....so have lots of other people.

---

I find that attitude quite puzzling, a common flaw in so many atheists who refuse to believe extra-biblical historical accounts that are very real and verifiable. Amazing! What is most amazing to me is the irrational denials against so much evidence. I suspect that fault carries over into atheistic presentation of science, guaranteeing suspicion from anyone more logical, reasonable, certainly those who actually taste of faith in God.

​

You don't PREVAIL with pure opinion with no substance. What you DON'T believe is even farther from legitimate debate substance. Such UNBELIEF is simply subjective nonsense that can't be backed up except within your own mind. You can't project unbelief without proof against something to believe in.

​

What do you do with extra-biblical historians evidencing the same Jesus the Bible describes? Deny all who include Jesus? Is that your basis for denial? If I find time to enter the science debates, will you change the rules there to demand I not support my opinions with simple denial of what you call science?

​

Historical verification of Jesus Christ in the same venue as found in the Bible:
http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/quotes.htm#James

​

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man IF IT BE LAWFUL TO CALL HIM A MAN, for he was a doer of wonders, A TEACHER OF SUCH MEN AS RECEIVE THE TRUTH WITH PLEASURE. He drew many after him BOTH OF THE JEWS AND THE GENTILES. HE WAS THE CHRIST. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, FOR HE APPEARED TO THEM ALIVE AGAIN THE THIRD DAY, AS THE DIVINE PROPHETS HAD FORETOLD THESE AND THEN THOUSAND OTHER WONDERFUL THINGS ABOUT HIM, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day (Antiquities 18:63-64)."

​

Josephus wasn't the only one: Runtime Error

​

Omit the sources obviously/possibly biased. Just look at the secular sources. Are you so biased yourself you can't believe any witness that dares mention THAT name?

quote:

---

WS:My trust and wisdom is in Him.

​

YOU: Whatever floats your boat

---

Falling for Nos's tricks? You are appearing to be quite irrational, more and more, disqualifying yourself as a possible credible debater.

quote:

---

WS:You are dealing with HIM through me.

​

YOU: This sounds like megalomania...so far your manner and reasoning hardly seem to represent the "loving god" you claim must be forced down everyones throats.

---

Megalomania defined: a mental disorder marked by feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur
(c)2000 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

​

Qualify that remark as not a direct violation of group rules, being you are a licensed physician qualified to diagnose me with the information available. Otherwise, once again you appeal to personal opinion AGAIN. No fact, just opinion based on.....what?

​

Rule 3:"Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person. The Britannica says, "Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach."

​

MY statement, however, is BASED on biblical statements meant for BELIEVERS.
Col. 1:27
"To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:"

​

2 Cor. 5:20
"Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God."

​

John 17:21
"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."

​

2 Tim. 1:14
"That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us."

​

etc., etc.

quote:

---

WS:Resistance is futile-

​

YOU:Resistance is magnificently successful...thus the billions of other people who have completely different beliefs from you.

---

Opinion without basis. Numbers of rebels is no proof the minority belief is wrong. Virtually all of those religions have no proofs of any intervention whatsoever between their gods and men. No accounts of neighboring nations(kings) acknowledge they were physically punished or affected by the gods of neighboring enemies. The Babylonian kings so acknowledged. There is a WEALTH of extra-biblical evidence of much of the stories of God's dealings with the enemies of Israel. There is also far more secular ancient history on the side of the Bible than most people, including Christians, realize: Page not found - Biblical Archaeology Society

quote:

---

WS:you can't prevail leaning on forwarded lies of atheist webpages and other Bible skeptic sources.

​

YOU:You can't prevail by the completely unscientific, dogmatic, wishful thinking of forwarded lies of fundamentalist conservative egocentric unskeptical sources either.

---

Sure I can, if those sources are validated in more ways than the obvious biblical ones such as historical accounts etched on tables of stone and pottery, but for us Christians we know it is pointless to rely on those extra-biblical sources for our own comfort, being the sort of proofs needed for skeptics. In what was does the scientific method enter into religion?

quote:

---

WS:They are frustrated and desperate to find a crack into which they can thrust an arrow of deception.

​

YOU:Most don't give a crap until religious groups claim that their mythology should be taught as science...particularly when they do not even know what the science is they are against..i.e. do you personally even know what the theory of evolution entials? What are the major tenets? Have you read Darwin?

---

Can you back that up? Sounds like your OPINION omly. Got some polls to support you? ANYTHING? Besides, you atheists are losing in the education arena. I think the list is up to 31 states now allowing insertion of official creation science curriculum. Where is your majority now? The minority appears to be getting its way. Hummmmm.

​

Evolution. I taught it for 17 years, in ever increasing doses as the textbooks included more. I considered evolution one of those givens from high school days until I began to run into creation science knowledge. I was changing my views already by the time I became a Christian. I read Darwin, and many other now classic books on evolution, but added to that many written by creationists. There is enough material on both sides to warrant a balanced presentation, if for no other reason than to stimulate young minds.

quote:

---

WS:It's a delibrate rebellion against the one living, all powerful God of the Bible who will have the last word.

​

YOU:You have no evidence outside your own wishful thinking and that of others to support this..no physical evidence..you cannot even "disprove" that Vishnu is not the one true living god.

---

The point to be wisely gained is that there is no way to disprove the Bible. I use it as A source in deduction of what is reality. Note that I did not claim I sought to prove anything about Vishnu, real or unreal. However, I have yet to meet anyone believing in that claiming any personal relationship or intervention from Vishnu. Few religions have their gods acting among men in any real way. They are more accurately concepts rather than beings able to interact.

quote:

---

WS:It is no circus, but the most serious of matters you can imagine.

​

YOU:Then argue seriously rather than criticizing a debate because nobody else here seems to agree with you.

---

I am very serious with my approach, citing sources, THEN opinions based on sources. I am directly criticizing that last post to which I respond now as not fitting to be considered any form of debate whatsoever.

quote:

---

WS:Many authors of the Bible

​

YOU:Hardly says anything about its validity...there are lots of authors for lots of publications

---

Sure it does. That so many authors independently wrote of the same God and His message so harmoniously is evidence of divine inspiration. The statistics involved as staggering, further evidence the writings are immutable, solid references as to God's Word to man.
What body of authors have come close to that feat, another collection of works that contain no contradictions between the authors?

quote:

---

WS:, a sea of scholarly experts

​

YOU:LOL! Now you plead to the authority of experts...why did a Google search tell you that they must be correct...and I have yet to see a sea of scholarly experts find any scientific merit in the bible.

---

Why are atheists so insulting with their LOL's? Is it so easy to laugh at someone who is sincere? In a live debate I suspect you would be publicly derided for such behavior in the midst of actual intellectuals.

​

Experts exist for the purpose for which I use their knowledge. Of course I appeal to their collective contributions, including those of creationist scientists. You labor under a misconception that the Bible itself provides the scientific data of creationists. The Bible INSPIRES men to recognize the truth of creation, opens their eyes to God's perspective, frees them of the pain of rebellion. The Bible convinces them there is a wrong way to view reality, guiding them through encouragement in other areas to pursue the truth against overwhelming odds. The results are evident these days in the many convincing books, speeches, debates, articles, technical papers, research, and other supports from esteemed scientists on the creationist side.

quote:

---

WS:and live witnesses testifying to the influence, power and authority of God support those statements.

​

YOU:Live witnesses are notoriously unreliable....and you will witness anything you want to believe in your state.

---

Should you ever find yourself needing the favorable testimony of live witnesses, I suspect you will learn to appreciate that source of support. Most societies place GREAT reliance on two or three witnesses testifying the same information. Actually, I can't think of a single society that doesn't. Christianity has MANY witnesses to answered prayer, miracles verified by physicians, financial miracles attested to by unexplained wealth, and a long list of other evidences of a dynamic relationship beteeen Gos and men.

quote:

---

Well here goes for evolution, thousands of scientists from every kind of religious background finding supporting evidence. A sea of scholars supporting it. Thousands of scientists actually doing expermimental research confirming it....does not require belief...

---

When these Bible attacks stand exposed for what they really are, I will have time to address all that. The current "challenges" are my priority. But I'll capture that last thought as being typical of a sterile scientist with no spirit, no life, just a "dead" observer with no convictions except denial of the spiritual with no support at all. Ah, the atheist scientist. Millions of Christian mothers are learning their children must approach science atheistically. Wonder how they will react? I wansn't taught that way in all my years of education. When did that become the norm?

quote:

---

only a sound mind, education, and hard work....the antithesis of the fundamentalist who requires a weak mind, blocking of access to education, and hard work threatening all those who disagree.

---

Support, please. Opinions AGAIN without a single shred of support from any source whatsoever! I can list many famous people considered the best minds of all times that subscribed to creation science in some aspect of the subject. Blocking of access of education? How? Where? When? Once again, false accusations, all opinion, no basis. How could ADDING creation science block education? Few students even care about evolution anyway, which is a very real block of their education. People can SENSE there is something very wrong about the claims of evolutionists who EXCLUDE God. People are sick of that according to many polls. But there is a growing interest in science as students enter the DEBATE in their classrooms, studying the opposing sides. In time virtually every state will have sanctioned official inclusion of both disciplines FOR the benefit of advanced education (FACT, school boards are considering the changes all across the land, and so are education experts in charge of directing curriculum). FEW students in public schools are inspired to pursue any more than the required minimum of topics of science (FACT, painfull, awful, but reality). Why? Because they were turned off by creation science? Hardly, for it has been excluded (FACT). All they had was evolution (FACT), which IMHO has been killing interest in science, being a depressing chain of unreal thoughts sure to put anyone into general educational apathy. So why the depressed state of education in the sciences and math? Think about it, then answer me. I would suggest first reading up on the many hundreds of current articles and statistics generated by national, state, and local education institutes and governing bodies. Those reports are right down my line, making me lament I left teaching. Ah, but all that OTHER mess teachers put up with these days, and getting worse! Nope, I'm reminded why I left.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
I find that attitude quite puzzling, a common flaw in so many atheists who refuse to believe extra-biblical historical accounts that are very real and verifiable.

​

John:But there are no extra-biblical accounts that are real, verifiable, and meaningful.

---

Your simple denials of fact are pitiful and worth nothing. Respected archeologists, historians alike have and are verifying not only Jesus but much of the Bible, a fact denied by few scholars. The large majority differ only in the details, such as what exactly Jesus did say, and what was meely attribute to Him. You are not cognizant of facts. I gave you a start with sources, yet you just up and deny. Well, that can work with your beliefs about evolution and the alleged historical figures that supposedly began that myth. Can you prove Charles Darwin lived? PROOF. Not some website cut and paste. Do you have a witness that knew him, saw him, that can prove his claim?

quote:

---

WS:What do you do with extra-biblical historians evidencing the same Jesus the Bible describes?

​

John:There are a very few references to a man named Jesus. Most of those references are questionable and none of them are detailed enough to justify the claim that they are "evidencing the same Jesus the Bible describes"

---

You contradict yourself from above already.
You said there are NO accounts real, verifiable, meaningful. Pure speculation, unfounded opinion. Then you compound your errors saying there are few references. There are many. On what basis would you decide them questionable? Are you a Bible scholar? An archeologist? An historian? There are professionals in those fields who are in fact qualified to make that judgment. Few of them are so ignorant as to deny the evidences. They differ in the interpretations, the motives of Christ, his origins, other details that probably can't be settled empirically.
Interesting that the Jews didn't publish contradictions to the claims of the writings of the apostles in that generation. If those things were not true, then where are the extremely important, vital refutals? I doubt any Jew of the day was willing to contradict what the masses saw, touched, believed. Skeptics had to wait until all the original witnesses were dead. Even then few stepped out to question Christian history. You miss the point that those known accounts with little detail do agree in summary of what the Bible says about Jesus. The matter was of little emphasis to a man like Josephus, more interested in chronicling Jewish history. I think God used him to get in a word. Can you prove He didn't?

​

Deleting senseless babble...

quote:

---

WS:In what was does the scientific method enter into religion?

​

John:It doesn't. If it did, religion would disappear.

---

Religion came first, co-existed with science, continues unabated, and based on its track record would far outlive any science. Science can't satisfy the soul of man. It provides distractions, toys, machines that rust. Nice while we have it (some of it), but we could live without it. Men did before, and could continue without.

quote:

---

WS:The point to be wisely gained is that there is no way to disprove the Bible.

​

John:No way at all? Even hypothetically?

---

Disappointed? Even the best hypothesis is not proof of a certainty. It is less potent than a theory. A hypothesis needs to be self-testable in its own assumption, so what value is there in any assumption that disagrees with the spiritual? What would it compare to?

quote:

---

WS:I use it as A source in deduction of what is reality.

​

John:The question I'd like answered, sincerely, is why should I care?

---

I'll remember that when it comes time for you to cite a precious source. Very likely I'll simply deny its validity, deciding that now, regardless its strength. Sources are out, right? Yours, mine, every source is pointless, meaningless, fabrication, not even real, just a quirk in an energy stream, which itself is probably not really there?

quote:

---

WS:Few religions have their gods acting among men in any real way. They are more accurately concepts rather than beings able to interact.

​

John:Have you read much mythology? There are mountains of blatantly obvious contradiction of this claim.

---

I once enjoyed those stories, never once believing any of them to be real, but certainly entertaining. Relatively few people on earth believe any of that stuff. Why? Nobody I know claims to have seen any of the creatures, nor have I read of any claiming to have witnessed such characters as in Greek or any other mythology. They were not presented as visions or dreams, but supposedly actual experiences, therefore subject to proving by finding the relics. So where are the fossils? Where is the evidence? The Bible, however, enjoys the support of many scholarly Jewish, Christian, other religious, and entirely secular archeologists and other scientists digging up and studying actual verifying relics in Bible lands that testify to the veracity of the Bible. But of course you wouldn't browse such knowledge sources lest you realize the truth? There were no claims of impossible creatures seen by men, except for the obvious witness of dinosaurs and other extinct animals recorded in its pages. Their lithified remains remain as evidence they were real creatures.

quote:

---

WS:Sure it does. That so many authors independently wrote of the same God and His message so harmoniously is evidence of divine inspiration.

​

John:A harmony in your head perhaps.... freaking chaotic in mine.

---

MOST scholars, even the most secular of them, agree on the harmony of the books of the Bible, though not necessarily the meaning of the contents. From a purely analytical perspective it is undeniable. Many just won't believe those words, many do. Your conclusion is lonely, baseless, pure opinion. Almost any search on the subject will turn up statements that verify what most scholars believe about that. What are you so afraid of? You put forth an agorophobic air about it.

quote:

---

WS:Christianity has MANY witnesses to answered prayer, miracles verified by physicians, financial miracles attested to by unexplained wealth, and a long list of other evidences of a dynamic relationship between God and men.

​

Johnick a religion and I will show you many witnesses to the very same things. Now, how do we choose between them?

---

So let me see some examples of that. We know how easy it is to back that up concerning Christianity. How about some Buddhist prayers answered? Who would answer them? Yeah, let's begin with Buddhism. This should be interesting. We should be able to choose between sets of two at a time, right? Then lets take on Hinduism. Maybe by then I'll have in my home an actual native Christian missionary from Hyderabad, India, who comes here every year to raise funds preaching. His name is Satish Kumar, http://www.calvarymission.org. Maybe he can fill you in on that one, being a former high caste Hindu. He'll be staying with us a week, and we will be eating authentic Andrea Pradish fare, learning more about his home and his goals. Meanwhile, lets consider how much more or less palatable Buddhism is than Christianity. Are you up to backing your statements? Of interest to me will be the authenticity of their religious claims versus the veracity of the Bible.

quote:

---

You exclude yourself as you are neither logical nor reasonable and your posting history is the evidence to back it up. Also you show your woeful ignorance of science by claiming all scientists are athiestic as most are christians....but this is a common flaw of fundamentalists. Your definition of irrational appears to mean anyone who disagrees with you hence I think you are a megalomaniac..the definition still stands.

---

I won't drop to your pack-level. You can lash out all you want, for I understand your confusion, the terror of knowing you are wrong but can't admit it. We undersand you can't handle facts. It's OK. Calm down.

​

As for most scientists being Christians, I challenge that. Most atheists challenge that. It appears to me the average polls reveal that about 55 percent of scientists believe no god was involvd in evolution, which also matches other polls that indicate 60% believe there is no god, and others have varying concepts of what God is, most of which don't qualify as true Christian beliefs. However, 40 percent who actually believe strongly in evolution admit "God guided the process, including the creation of man", labelling them theistic evolutionists, which is an unacceptable compromise, leaving such believers outside the spectrum of Christianity. Christians believe the teachings of Christ, else one can't possibly fit the definition. Of that 40% who admit some form of possible divine intervention, few match biblical descriptions of the relationship between God and man, most placing God far away and detached, unresponsive, as though He started everything off then left it to develop.

quote:

---

WS:Such UNBELIEF is simply subjective nonsense that can't be backed up except within your own mind. You can't project unbelief without proof against something to believe in.

​

YOU:Your BELIEFS are subjective as you can provide no evidence for them physical or otherwise and cannot show that yours are better supported than those of any other religion no matter how much you denigrate them.

---

If a person reads and believes men eventually evolved from primordal slime, is that subjective or objective thinking? Requires a little faith to believe, or is supported by empirical data? If proved beyond the realm of faith, then present your facts. Deduction laced with assumption won't cut it.

quote:

---

WS:What do you do with extra-biblical historians evidencing the same Jesus the Bible describes? Deny all who include Jesus? Is that your basis for denial? If I find time to enter the science debates, will you change the rules there to demand I not support my opinions with simple denial of what you call science?

​

YOUlease do enter the science debates. However, when a group of people who a priori believe anything the bible says then claim that anything they see or read supports the bible while all contradictions are the work of a great conspiracy then there is no reason to take them seriously. John in his post also makes this point.

---

I see you dodged my main point. Can't handle it?

​

I would love to get into the science part of it, but these rediculous challenges to the Bible can't be left standing unchallenged. That is all I can find time for. I still work for a living. I have lots of ideas to test out on you guys, but it'll have to wait.

quote:

---

WSmit the sources obviously/possibly biased. Just look at the secular sources. Are you so biased yourself you can't believe any witness that dares mention THAT name?

​

YOU:Nope, but an a priori belief that the bible is true is similar to what the ICR does in its research. It specifically states that evidence inconsistent with the bible will not be tolerated so I dismiss them entirely.

---

It is fact that millions of people are regular witnesses to the truth of the Bible in their daily lives. God interacts with us on a regular basis in ways outlined in the Bible. Of course, atheists are not part of that community and experiences of it, so can't comprehend such a possibility. There is a world of testimony stretching back through time which they regularly simply deny or object to. I can't help you with all that. You must pursue such things yourself. I personally have experienced the world of unbelief, knowing what that is about. There is no manual for living it. One is on his own there, a wanderer in time with no real place to go to in life. I find the Bible way quite fulfilling and matching up with the good of life. There would be no logic at all in believing things of that dark side when I know those contradict the side of the light of God. ICR has an objective which leaves no time or resources for promoting antithetical agendas. Why would you expect them to carry opposing ideologies? Do atheists carry Bibles? The issue is black and white, extremely polarized.

quote:

---

WS:You are dealing with HIM through me.

​

YOU: This sounds like megalomania...so far your manner and reasoning hardly seem to represent the "loving god" you claim must be forced down everyones throats.

---

You need to read the rest of the story about our loving God. He is at the same time a jealous God, tolerant of nothing that opposes His Word. He already is the God of Judgment, a God of wrath against rebels. But yes, He is love, expressed in the giving of His Son Jesus on the cross for men's sins.

quote:

---

Running to Percy hoping I get banned there WS It is an opinion based entirely on your post. You claim that you personally speak for your god, that resistance is futile, and other chest beating low brow statements....it certainly fits the definition you posted.

---

That is a definition of fundamentalist belief in God as opposed to a quai-belief in some things about God. When I met Him, I decided to believe everything about God. I have great confidence in His abilities, His nature. He changed mine. My boast is in Him.

​

I'll resume a little later today...

quote:

---

WSpinion without basis. Numbers of rebels is no proof the minority belief is wrong.

​

YOU:However, you are the one who almost without exception makes appeals to the authority of poll results you find doing Google searches as demonstrating that what the majority thinks must be correct as you do further down in your post to me. So you can't have it both ways.

---

I think you don't understand what the term "appeal to authority" means in this style dialog. I refer to bonifide, statistical data that stands up under the test of mathematical statisticians. Polls do provide valuable data as to what people think. A very small sample size yields extremely accurate data with high confidence. You only demonstrate ignorance in those two points. Please catch up. Let's add yet another point in which you express ignorance. Google is a powerful search engine that helps me find websites. Some of the websites I quote from are official government sites, and I go directly to the pollsters. You may do so likewise, but will need a credit card to access the data other than obtain a short summary of the polls by subject. I think I am on far better foundation than you who simply deny, deny, deny. You seem to be saying you don't intend to try to understand a fundamentalist Christian position. Save me the time of responding if that is your agenda.

quote:

---

WS:Virtually all of those religions have no proofs of any intervention whatsoever between their gods and men.
*********************
YOUpinion without basis

​

No accounts of neighboring nations(kings) acknowledge they were physically punished or affected by the gods of neighboring enemies.
****************************

---

I'm searching for an archeological article about some inscriptions that are considered written or dictated by a neighboring king in Syria (Assyria). There are several such testimonies, but too many articles to search through. I got there by verifying the decree of Darius. It is too easy for you deny, usually ignoring the truth when it is proven. Should I bother? Will you say yu could care less after my spending many hours relocating evidence? At what point might I think you are aware much of what you've posted so far is unfounded denial? [quote]WS:The Babylonian kings so acknowledged. There is a WEALTH of extra-biblical evidence of much of the stories of God's dealings with the enemies of Israel. There is also far more secular ancient history on the side of the Bible than most people, including Christians, realize: Page not found - Biblical Archaeology Society[/b]
****************************************YOU:Every religion has its own dogma that each believes is "obviously" supported and that all others are wrong.[/quote]You are not aware of the fact that most archeologists verify biblical events, names, claims, though sometimes reluctantly? Even secular historians marvel over the accuracy of the Bible, and its efficacy is undeniable among all but determined skeptics like you. Your statement lacks the support it needs to make all other religious claims equal to those of the Bible. A quick review of world religions, ancient-modern, reveals most of them offer no personal god whatsoever, therefore make no claims as to exclusivity. Islam claims exclusivity, but has no personal god interested in interacting with men. There is no comparison between any world religion, their claims, or any other feature, to that of the Bible. The religion of the Bible is unique, alone, independent of all the others, self-subjected to many tests of its claims.

quote:

---

WS:you can't prevail leaning on forwarded lies of atheist webpages and other Bible skeptic sources.

​

YOU:You can't prevail by the completely unscientific, dogmatic, wishful thinking of forwarded lies of fundamentalist conservative egocentric unskeptical sources either.

---

Illogical. One cannot be a fundamentalist Christian and a liar both.

quote:

---

...the entire point of this forum is that religion (specifically a fundamentalist sub sect) is trying to claim that it is the same as the scientific method i.e. creation science.

---

I disagree that is the point of this forum. If it is, the existence of it is pointless, for fundamentalists are making no such claim. One here or there might, but overall, that is a misconception. The Bible makes no claim to be a scientific journal, nor do most creationists believe their religion = scientific method. I believe your approach is a classic "red herring" fallacy. It might be true that many fundamentalists, and most other groups, couldn't define "scietific method", but I've not seen any equate religion with that. Where might I observe that claim?

quote:

---

YOU:Most don't give a crap until religious groups claim that their mythology should be taught as science...particularly when they do not even know what the science is they are against..i.e. do you personally even know what the theory of evolution entials? What are the major tenets? Have you read Darwin?

---

I have another thought in answer to that. I've been in on the reviews of the proposed new science textbooks, even though not under contract lately. I like what I see. There isn't a scripture in any textbook, no doctrine whatsoever. Only references to divinity or the possibility of a god that created, but not by name. The science topics are essentially unchanged, though with updates, some not so kind toward evolutionists, logging some of the frauds in recent history. The main thing I remember is there were no direct statements of cause through evolution without some discussion of alternative theories of explanation. The phrase "the horse evolved from...." is gone, and all like it. Now an example would be "some believe the horse evolved from....while other scientists believe many original species of horse simply became extinct reducing the original numbers...". None of it teaches religion. They simply leave open the fact there is deep divide among scientists, leaving it up to the student to arrive at his own conclusion about origins and where the various species came from. However, the lesson plans still require them to learn (well, to be taught) all of the former state-required elements. I don't recall seeing any indication any student would be required to show proficiency in anything religious. The emphasis is on awareness, not on dogma. I didn't follow up on which texts were selected or when they will be offered. It is just a matter of a little time when most if not all states will have set that in motion, and you will be able to borrow some textbooks, see for yourself there is no religious teachngs, just general references to possible divine intervention. Any person could insert the name of their god in those references.

quote:

---

WS:Can you back that up? Sounds like your OPINION omly. Got some polls to support you? ANYTHING? Besides, you atheists are losing in the education arena. I think the list is up to 31 states now allowing insertion of official creation science curriculum. Where is your majority now? The minority appears to be getting its way. Hummmmm.
*******************************

​

YOU:No, America is losing in the education arena...further erosion of the primary school system will lead to a nation of morons dependent on foreign talent for economic advancement...And do YOU have any support that all evolutionary biologists are athiests..You are truly ignorant.
As to backing up the statement...when do you see scientists engaging religious groups other than in cases where relgious fundamentalists try to impose their mythology on scientific principles...or are you asking a different question?

---

Until Christians arose in reaction to the tide of atheism in the schools, education WAS deteriorating quickly. Apathy was rampant among students AND teachers. Education seemed to be of no use anymore, and people just couldn't seem to figureout why. But now the statistics are showing some signs of slow improvement. Time will tell.

​

I find it amusing that you think our education system will result in a nation of morons. You are burdened with many lies.

​

Biology teachers associations are admittedly mostly atheist or agnostic, all supporting national evolution-only creeds with wording that would repel any true Christian. I dropped out of all those associations years ago. The newsletters sometimes were alarming, as though a national call for the eradication of Christians who oppose evolution. Comments by pastors against evolution were the headlines, causing the editors to rage against fundamentalists. The simple answer for most science teachers was to just buckle and avoid any public acknowledgment of their faith to keep in good standing. I'm not made that way.

quote:

---

WS:Evolution. I taught it for 17 years, in ever increasing doses as the textbooks included more. I considered evolution one of those givens from high school days until I began to run into creation science knowledge. I was changing my views already by the time I became a Christian. I read Darwin, and many other now classic books on evolution, but added to that many written by creationists. There is enough material on both sides to warrant a balanced presentation, if for no other reason than to stimulate young minds.
******************************************************++

​

YOU:However, I find this highly unlikely as you have taught evolution as you have shown absolutely no knowledge of it....you only answered one part of the question as well...what are the tenets of the theory of evolution? What was the great synthesis? Hint: what does transmission genetics have to do with evolution....

---

My avoidance of talk of evolution is purposeful, not wishing to leave the topic. You are trying to distract, avoiding the real issues. If I wanted to discuss your stuff, I'd be "over there". I am quite aware of the theory, which is laced throughout most high school science topics. You apepar to have a narrow view of the issue, failing to distinguish between evolution in general and I presume biological evolution based on the next question asked. Biological evolution is defined loosely as change of a population over a longer time span than the lifetime of any one individual organism, the changes effected by inherited genetic materials, detected by observation of the alelle frequency of genes within a population. There are many mechanics involved, but modern genetics concentrates on the characteristics of DNA.

​

So what does that have to do with this topic?

quote:

---

WS:The point to be wisely gained is that there is no way to disprove the Bible. I use it as A source in deduction of what is reality. Note that I did not claim I sought to prove anything about Vishnu, real or unreal. However, I have yet to meet anyone believing in that claiming any personal relationship or intervention from Vishnu. Few religions have their gods acting among men in any real way. They are more accurately concepts rather than beings able to interact.
**************************************+

​

YOU:You use it as a source in deduction of reality? So you do or do not take it literally? Just curious.

​

Ever meet a Hindu? There are other religions that also believe in direct interventions of their gods so your statement is not supported by fact.

---

[Added missing close quote. --Admin]I do take the Bible literally where its contents are obviously to be taken literally. I don't take the obviously figurative as literal.

​

I already announced here that a former Hindu high caste man from India will be here in my home Tuesday for the third time in as many years. You can engage him some then, getting some interesting perspective only a Hindu would know. His English is not good. If there is someone here who understands his particular dialect and written code, maybe it would be better for an interpreter to step in. Otherwise, you can ask some peculiar questions and let him tell me what to type.

quote:

---

You quote scripture and claim it is fact. You claim your opinion is fact including the denigration of Islam and other religions,..even other christian sects particularly catholics. So your manner is even more unfit in a forum of debate.

---

You would have me abandon the tenets of my faith, while you hold out your own tenets of the pagan religion of evolution? Evolutionists claim those are facts, though not proven. I have supportive evidences for my religion, you have claimed supportive evidences for evolution. Counterclaims galore. While you swim in liquid sulphur or whatever it is down there, you can meditate upon who was right. Of course I denigrate Islam and all the others, because the God of the Bible leaves no room for tolerance of them. None. Zilch.

​

You seem to have totally forgotten the whole point of this topic thread. I am not debating evolution at this time. I am interested in the Bible inerrancy issue.

​

Such a long post, and too many interruptions. I have work to do. I'll return here later.[This message has been edited by Admin, 10-13-2002]

After spending valuable time reading several of the posts of the fellow in Germany, I've concluded I'm dealing with a reprobate mind there, a classic "Christian-baiter" atheist. Since those posts were allowed here without critique, with all the personal insults and castigations, what I have to say here is allowable and proper for this list.It's a riot that he claims to be an anthropologist, or a person with some training in that field. I don't believe that claim, believing rather you are an armchair wannabe. I would suspect a person with training in that discipline would be fairly intelligent. Such a claim casts a dark curtain over the field should he be representative. I am confident that there would be no way of carrying on further dialog with such a person that rejects practically everything I might say, denying sources, requiring proofs while not supporting his own statements. It's all pointless, useless, vanity and vexation of spirit.One way of proving the ignorance demonstrated in your past few posts is the rejection out of obvious ignorance concerning statistics as applied to polls, sample size terminology, etc. It's inexcusable. Small samples are sufficient for large populations, whereas relatively large samples are needed for very small populations. The larger the sample, the more sure you can be, but the relationship isn't linear. For instance, 500 people polled scientifically can yield a 95% confidence with a very narrow confidence interval (+/- 5% extreme), representing 15 million people. A properly conducted poll of 20,000 Americans can easily represent the entire population of the US with high confidence and accuracy. If the sample size is increased for a large population, the improvement on confidence isn't significally improved enough to warrant the expense of taking larger samples than are customarily taken in polls, except in results of nearly 50-50 opinions from samples of only 5,000. It would be for a small population, such as polling this group. It would be feasible to poll every member here, assuring a very highly reliable opinion survey, but only of this population. This group isn't a fair representation of the nation, being limited to people who use the internet, who are interested in opinions, discussions, who are probably opinionated, who are trying to keep abreast of the issues. That narrows the field to a very small percentage of the population, so concensus here doesn't mean much.Skeptics cite the possibility of people polled could be lying to pollsters. That has been studied much, and the factor isn't great enough to change the results of polls significantly. The questions can be phrased in ways that false answers can be detected, presente to the population rapidly enough that a person wouldn't be able to carry through an agenda of consitently lying.There are obvious misuses of the process, such as taking a poll from only viewers of a politically left/liberal, or a right/conservative radio talk show, television program or interest group, claiming the results represent the entire population. That's offset by pollsters that sample randomly using computer generated phone numbers and calling people at hours that will catch both the working class and home-bodies, weekdays and week-end days, across all the factors of race, gender, career, religion, etc. Such polls will of course differ significantly from special interest group polls. Someone in this forum recently cited such a poll that of course defies all scientifically conducted polls, yielding opposite results, a predictable outcome, usefull only to groups intent on brainwashing its constituents.Pick any book on statistical analysis, or any online tutorial. They all repeat what I'm saying. Your problem is that you dislike what the nationally recognized, mathematician-supported polls have to say about what you believe, so you castigate them as useless unless one of your preferred special interest groups matches your belief. That proves you are not a scientist, or it proves you are too biased to be useful as one. In any event, your overall bias proves you are not fit to be regarded as scientifically minded, abandoning the science method, ignoring factors that are significant. REAL scientists use statistics, the same processes used in polling.I'm not interested in searching manually through textbooks for you. That takes time, choosing a textbook, going through the index, finding excerpts, typing them out only for you to continue your pattern of denial. You won't find me wasting time on you in the future. It's a ridiculous waste.I'd suggest that you face up to your ignornace. Go study the issue of polls, learn for yourself the scientifically sound, mathematically supported field of polling statistics. Realize you don't know much about life, or science for that matter. You rely on brainwashing. You hate God, rebel against Him, predictably acting like you do.I also realize your aversion to online search engines must be accepted as something real with you, so I'll accept that you won't believe whatever I present from there. That ends our dialog. It's illogical, moronic thinking to reject the use of it, but hey, you have a problem that appears irreconcilable. The whole idea of using online sources is to save time looking up subjects and typing. Often the information obtained that way is more current than ten year old textbooks. You apparently fear etherspace and the knowledge it can lead people to concerning exposure of your beliefs, not venturing much past these discussion groups, certainly not into areas not familiar to you. In that vast expanse lies what people need to know to be persuaded evolution is a farce, a cult religion. That is why I've diagnosed you as spacially agorophobic.Considering the risk of laying before your tender eyes some results of a Google search, I've decided to list them anyway as a parting gesture. Deal with it the best way you can.Polling, statistics, etc:
404 - Page Not Found.
404 - Page Not Found.
Sample Size Calculator - Confidence Level, Confidence Interval, Sample Size, Population Size, Relevant Population - Creative Research Systems
USA TODAY"2001: Gallup Poll
(Evolution Challenged) (Reconciliation)Gallup poll shows U.S. still split over evolution. The results of the most recent survey reveal a nation still torn over the issue of human evolution. A majority (57 percent) of Americans choose "creationism" over "evolution" when asked which term best describes human origins. Yet many people who select "creationism" might not call themselves "creationists." A great number of them do not rule out the possibility of human evolution altogether. Thirty-seven percent of all respondents say that humans evolved over millions of years, yet guided by God. In the 20 years that Gallup has run the same survey, public opinion has changed little.""2000: Science Standards
(Battle in the Schools) (Reconciliation)Science standards called "reprehensible." A nationwide study sponsored by The Fordham Foundation laments that 19 U.S. states do "a weak-to-reprehensible job of handling evolution in their science standards." Twelve states shun the word "evolution," and four avoid topics in evolution completely. The study stresses that creationist views have no place in the science classroom, yet also sounds a conciliatory note: "Scientists and science teachers do well to keep in mind that a large majority of Americans believes that faith in God is the surest way to appreciate the wonder and grandeur of life itself. Schools need to recognize and honor that faith."
Evolution: Religion: Evolution RevolutionSCIENTIFIC AMERICAN polled its readers, finding the trend revealed in 1914 that showed only 40% of scientists believe in God remains the same today. For a good comment on that:
http://www.meridianmagazine.com/sci_rel/001025belief.htmlYour assertion that a majority of scientists believe in God is totally false, again representing your overall ignorance. There are many more references that support the 60% atheist cound among modern scientists. It is also interesting that there is a reformation going on that could turn that ratio 180 degrees in the next decade, especially as the old school retires and dies off.As I go through your post comments, one by one I see a pattern of blind denial of fact. I can imagine what a discussion about evolution would be like with you- chaotic at best.A search of several archeology sites brings up thousands of articles that make you look foolish. Most scientists believe archeologists are legitimate scientists, even those who specialize in Bible archeology. It is apparent, though, that most atheists disagree, believing they are too biased. What they don't realizew is that many of those people choose that specialty to attempt to prove the biblical record is inaccurate. They have not been very convincing, usually directly neutralized by other digs and conclusions from data. The problems in that field come not from the scientists uncovering the past, but other related scholars who misuse the results. Even some Isreali Jewish scholars have gone on record as denying the biblical record, suggesting the data allows Israel no rights to their land. They have been adequately neutralized by high profile archeologists, but damage was done. The field is highly politicized, but the facts remain the facts, the data is there, can't be ignored. Interpretations of the facts are biased.I'm not going to play this game with you. I already realize that no matter what information I post, you will deny either the truth of it, or the validity of the author, if that information neutralizes your beliefs. You will only accept information that supports your tenets, fitting the profile of the average online evolution supporter. This is characteristic of discussion groups dominated by atheists. They are not accountable to anyone since they have no incentive to be honest, objective participants. Morality is necessarily meaningless to them, having no reason to follow any rules or societal manners, prefering such concepts as "relative moralism" or "situation ethics" in the classrooms. Hence the alarm growing among Americans over what impact atheist teachers of evolution are doing to the current generation of developing minds. Education is being taken back by people who have learned the value of biblical morality and the advantage of a person approaching science from God's perspective. They are the ones that will benefit mankind practically, while the atheists entertain atheists.You are far from being objective or reasonable. You said I "cut and ran" from the teaching field. Many teachers do that, abandoning the career when they realize the retirement can't support them, that a salary of $30,000 isn't enough to maintain decent vehicles, home, or provide our children a good college education. It make beggars of teachers. Coupled with the oppressive policies of the past 8 years of government interference, the field is impractical for anyone trying to raise a family. It has become a place for retirees whose living is already set. My teacher retirement so far will be $350 a month, to which SS would be added ($1,200). Not enough.In my last year I flunked several 11th grade boys that rarely attended class, couldn't pass tests, never turned in homework, were insolent, disobeying rules, defiant. The NAACP defended them. Admin awarded them C's across the board in a compromise. The following summer I spent over $2,500 in insurance deductable payments for five events of vandalism to my vehicles, yard, and home. Other teachers had similar problems, some more than mine. The school suffered over $30,000 in cumulated vandalism, most of that from a vehicle doing damage to the football field, the landscape, signs, and painted brick walls, all swept under the rug, nobody caught or punished that we know of. One boy was witnessed shooting my home with paintballs, but we couldn't get anything done about it. The girls' P.E. teacher was struck in the abdomen by a teenage boy when she ordered him out of an all-girl class (he popped in to show out), rupturing her spleen, in class, in session. Nobody would testify against the boy out of fear of his threats. We moved out of that school district, and I went into private business to begin rebuilding net worth out of necessity, reassessing the balance of my working years. Teachers are not supported the way they should be.The biology textbooks have not covered the intense topics found on the debate forums. Evolution is referred to here and there, not actually emphasized, with no more than three pages on DNA/RNA, modern genetics in one chapter. But I taught every bit of what was there, and covered the minimum requirements in the approved lesson plans. I wasn't at all enthusiatic about pressing it, not believing in it, though not well acquainted with creationist views. I did what was required concerning evolution information.Enough of you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctrbill:
"approaching science from God's perspective." ?

​

If you see things from God's perspective then you are of necessity a god yourself. Yes?

---

No. However, I believe this from the Bible:
1 Cor. 2:16
"For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ."

​

Jesus was accused of violating the law by claiming He was deity. He responded by quoting the scriptures:
John 10:34
"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"

​

If judges among men were called gods, why would it be blasphemy for Him to claim deity when He was the Son of God and one with God? Jesus is deity, as the scriptures testify, which also reveal my own position in Christ, as a citizen of heaven, a subject of the Kingdom of God, a co-heir with Christ. While not deity, I am a child of God, a judge among men able to identify the dogs.

​

I do have the same perspective on reality that is characteristic of deity, that of the Lord Jesus Christ. I get that from the Bible and through leading of the Spirit of God in me.

​

You seem to lack identity with a proper recognition of the true God. There are many gods in this world, but only one true God. It couldn't be that there are many competing gods, else heavenly warfare would break out destroying everything in an instant, for the ideals of all those gods oppose each other.

​

The was a young boy who never knew which of two women serving as "mother" actually birthed him. Both claimed him, keeping him confused. One day a mother looked out the door to see the boy in danger of attack from a tiger creeping upon him. She stepped outside to command the boy to run to the house before the tiger got him. The boy froze up upon seeing the tiger advancing, unable to run. The woman issued more instruction from the doorway, trying to get the boy to do something to save himself. Upon hearing the clamor, the other woman investigated, seeing the danger. She rushed to the boy, intercepting the tiger's path, falling into the claws of the tiger to her death. The tiger was satisfied with his prey, allowing the boy to escape.

​

The boy then knew who his real mother was. The other woman represents religion. Religion has no real god that can save, being too far away and uncommitted to be personally involved. Religion can only issue instructions for people to try to save themselves, unable to overcome the power of sin, represented by the tiger. The woman sacrificing her life for the boy represents the true God, the only God ever willing to give his life for the sins of men. The boy represents all humans, incapable of saving themselves through any deed or deeds. Sin keeps men captive, destroying them.

​

A young man fell into the river, unable to escape its current, being a weak swimmer. Bystanders called out to him to swim harder. "Save yourself". Some offered swimming lessons as the young man failed to resist the pull of the water. Word was sent to the young man's father, who rushed to the scene, immediately diving into the river, saving his son. God, the true Father, saves, while religion offers ways to save yourself.

​

Understand the nature of God, and how He views His children of faith.

​

Understand the impact of too many religions in the world. A man suddenly homeless in the cold of winter was invited to travel to a friend's home, to live there while the owner was away on business. "I will leave a door key under the mat for you to enter my home." Upon reaching the place, the man discovered thousands of similar keys under the mat. "Which one is the right one?" He tried one, it failed. He continued trying keys, each failing. The man perished from exposure to the weather before gaining entrance. The false keys prevented his finding the true key in time to be saved.

​

There is only one true key, and that is Jesus Christ, who is also the Door. There cannot be many keys to the same heaven. There is only one. Christians carry the true key, willing to share it with those not able to discern the true from the false.

​

Understand that true religion is to give life. One can give without loving, but cannot love without giving. God gave His only Son that we might live.

​

Understand why God accepted that punishment we deserve. If I ask to borrow a fine watch from you, you might allow me with a caution of its great value. I accept, wearing the watch, but alas, return to you with the watch broken. I beg your forgiveness. If you forgive me, saying "That is unfortunate, but I forgive you, don't worry about this.", would true forgiveness be in effect if you required me to repair the watch? No. If you forgave me, you accept the watch as is, accepting the expense of repairing it. But if you refuse to forgive, refusing to accept my apology, then I remain unforgiven, subject to the penalty of repairing the watch before returning it to you. Ah, but if you forgive, you accept the penalty.

​

In the same sense, if I sin using my hands, and God forgives me, a penalty remains to be paid. Blood must be shed. Hindus believe this. Shedding of holy blood is sufficient. If the violation is in my hands, then God's forgiveness must bring punishment on His own hands. If my feet were swift to carry me to sin, then God's forgiveness of that must involve punishment of His feet. If my mind is used in sinfull exploits, then forgiveness of my thoughts must involve punishment of God's head. My entire body was involved in sin, requiring the punishement of the entire body of God in order to satisfy the penalty. It was satisfied on the cross of Christ, with nails in His hands and feet, a crown of thorns on His head. True love gave. Hindus have millions of gods and gossesses, not one of which is known to have so given. But their own religious texts tell of a time when God would come down, be born in a manger, of a virgin, shedding His blood, dying for the sin of men, making it possible for a person to enter heaven. When they hear of the Asian God not born in America or Britain, but Asia, who did that, they accept Him, eventually realizing the other gods on their walls offer them nothing. Hindus are finding their own, true God in Jesus Christ. So are many other people of other religions. God saves.

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctrbill:
If you see things from God's perspective then you are of necessity a god yourself. Yes?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
No. However, ...
I do have the same perspective on reality that is characteristic of deity,

---

quote:

---

So, your answer is No, with a qualified Yes?!

---

You continue to lack understanding of the subject. I am a new creature in Christ, being conformed to His image glory to glory.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
It couldn't be that there are many competing gods, else heavenly warfare would break out destroying everything in an instant, for the ideals of all those gods oppose each other.

---

quote:

---

A. There couldn't be competing gods, AND their ideals oppose each other?

---

How could a god be a successful god if other gods opposed a god? If no god could affect another god, then none could be gods, being limited.

quote:

---

B. War between the gods would destroy everything? Wouldn't an omnipotent god have the upper hand in such a conflict? Is your god not omnipotent?

---

A god is a god. How could there be grades or degrees of gods? If there were multiple gods, one could not be superior to the others, else the others would be less than a god. My God is the only God, with no other gods before Him. He won't have it, not even tolerating ficticious gods. His nature is revealed in the Bible, making it impossible for the existence of any other god.

quote:

---

BTW, If I had wanted a sermon I would have asked.

---

Nobody asks for sermons. Sermons are delivered by inspiration of God to people needing sermons.

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctrbill:
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me" Deuteronomy 5:7 KJV

​

What other gods?

---

Judges. It is not consistent with Scriptures that there are any other beings in the universe classed as actual gods like Jehovah is God. Elohim refers to human judges who had power of life and death in their hands, with no recourse but to accept their judgments. They were "as" gods, subject only to the God of judges. Even today an act of Congress would hardly dismiss a ruling of the Supreme Court without a very high proportion of votes against it, practically impossible, probably requiring a Constitutional (Bill of Rights) ammendment.

quote:

---

"The LORD your God is God of gods" Deut.10:17 KJV

​

God of what?

---

You have the bad habit of plucking verses out of context to make a case for something that was not addressed there. There was no mention of any other god, or any hint there was a god or gods the Lord competes with. That verse means the Eternal your Creator is the Creator of creators, the Sovereign of sovereigns, the Strong One, the Mighty One, the Fearful One, who champions the cause of the fatherless and widows without respect of persons. There is no man or angel equal to God, no king, no inventor, no politician, no mastermind world leader greater than God. He alone is the one to fear, to obey. Because God loves the orphan, the stranger, Israel was to so respect them and others God loves.

quote:

---

"God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment" Psalm 82:1 RSV

​

What divine council?

---

This verse has been translated thus:
"God stands in the congregation of God; in the midst of the judges He gives judgment" (Berkeley);

​

"God stands in the Court of the Judge, in the midst of the Judges and asks" (Fenton);

​

"God stands in the congregation of angels; he judges among the angels" (Peshitta).

​

The contextual idea is that God is the Judge of judges in courts of justice established when He instituted human governments.

quote:

---

"Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord" Psalm 86:8 KJV

​

Which gods?

---

Psalm 86:7-10 KJV
"In the day of my trouble I will call upon thee: for thou wilt answer me. [8] Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works. [9] All nations whom thou hast made shall come and worship before thee, O Lord; and shall glorify thy name. [10] For thou art great, and doest wondrous things: thou art God alone."There I present the truth of the lie made by taking that verse out of context. You have misquoted that verse. It is clear there is no other god to be worshipped, that the issue of "other" gods was clearly known, that most religions around David sported dumb idols. Obviously David's use of the word 'elohiym is referring to greatest of earthly kings regarded as gods by their subjects, potentates, magistrates, judges, angels on earth and in heaven, and of course greater than any dumb idols regarded as gods which are no gods at all. No dumb idol of stone, glass, metal, plastic has made itself alive, speaking, acting among men. If it were so, the media would have it front page continuosly- we would hear all about it.

Psalm 82:1-8
A Psalm of Asaph.
"God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. [2] How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. [3] Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. [4] Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. [5] They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. [6] I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. [7] But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. [8] Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations."The obvious application concerns earthly judges that take bribes, favor the rich, oppress the poor. God is their Judge. God set up governments of men, instituting judges among them, calling them gods. Men gods. Great power, but not so great they are immune from God's judgement.Jesus quoted that one in John 10:34. He was not refering to deity when he referred to plural gods. It wasn't anywhere in the idea. Wise up. He was reminding the Pharisees, priests, etc, that GOD had called them gods in that Scripture, in the context of men of power, of judgment, not deity. Now if men could be called gods, why would it be so heretical for the Son of God to claim deity?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
Elohim refers to human judges who had power of life and death in their hands, with no recourse but to accept their judgments. They were "as" gods, subject only to the God of judges.

---

quote:

---

This makes no sense in context, WS.

---

The Bible doesn't acknowledge any other real god than the one true God. The one true God doesn't acknowledge any other god of men as real. They are all false gods. Bible scholars are almost universally agreed on that. The condusion is due to pantheists trying to justify many gods by misuse of the Hebrew elohim. Here's an excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia, a rather complete rendering of the word that is in agreement with all the Bible dictionaries and references I have:
"If we have recourse to the use of the word Elohim in the study of its meaning, we find that in its proper sense it denotes either the true God or false gods, and metaphorically it is applied to judges, angels, and kings; and even accompanies other nouns, giving them a superlative meaning. The presence of the article, the singular construction of the word, and its context show with sufficient clearness whether it must be taken in its proper or its metaphorical sense, and what is its precise meaning in each case. Kautzsch (Encyclopaedia Biblica, III, 3324, n. 2) endeavours to do away with the metaphorical sense of Elohim. Instead of the rendering "judges" he suggests the translation "God", as witness of a lawsuit, as giver of decisions on points of law, or as dispenser of oracles; for the rendering "angels" he substitutes "the gods of the heathen", which, in later post-exilic times, fell to a lower rank. But this interpretation is not supported by solid proof." CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: ElohimIf you remain confused about the uses of the word, try http://www.bibleprophet.com/Doctrine/ABC030.htmlThere is the pantheistic view of many gods like the one true God, then there is the Judeo/Christian view of only: The one (plural:three-person) God is Elohim; the heavenly accompanyment of the One God- angels, other created beings; men with powers of gods permitted by the One God- judges. Nowhere in the Bible does any other being emerge as credible as being a god other than Jehovah. Any attempt by men to promote any other god met with total failure, as when the prophets of Baal tried to conjure up Baal in the face of Elijah's challenge. No god ever once has sttod before the One true God. People attracted to Greek mythology can't seem to appreciate that fact, insisting somehow other gods are acknowledged in the Bible. They will have to settle for Homer's imaginations.

quote:

---

WS:There was no mention of any other god, or any hint there was a god or gods the Lord competes with.

---

[quote]It is funny that you respond to the mention of other Gods in the Bible by denying that other Gods are mentioned in the Bible.[quote] There are many references to many false gods of men, in contrast to the only living, true God. Idols were a reality, though not true gods. Nobody could deny stone and wood idols existed, but the true God denies they represent any true being.

quote:

---

WS:That verse means the Eternal your Creator is the Creator of creators, the Sovereign of sovereigns, the Strong One, the Mighty One, the Fearful One, who champions the cause of the fatherless and widows without respect of persons.

---

quote:

---

Sure it does. But you left out the part about "God of Gods". It is a throwback to a pantheistic past.

---

It is merely one of the failures of the English language. It is impossible to substitute one English word (god) to suitably render the full meaning and use of elohim. Among the learned the use is implied, taken for granted, understood. This is one reason for early objections to the Bible being offered in English, rather than in more scholarly languages such as Latin and French. One must go to the Hebrew scholars to determine its proper meaning, though the Christian concept of the triune godhead is lost there.