Who to believe , Ham or Ross?

I didn't deny that he said it was ALSO figurative. Don't you think he accepted the literal interpretation ALSO from what he wrote? All that stuff about many ways to read it?Anyway, thank you very much for acknowledging that the literal reading has a solid scholarly history at least. It took a lot of work digging up those quotes but I'd still like to find quotes from the greats between Augustine and Luther if I can find them. I didn't become a Bible-believer myself by reading modern evangelicals. I was originally attracted to many medieval writers.I would like you to get this though: I simply said Augustine had a lousy traditional meaning of the Greek word "tupos" ("symbolic" in Augustine's version) to conjure with, and that this problem was probably caused by its Latin connotations, which we no longer have to worry about, and I demonstrated the Greek so that you could see how they made the mistake they did. I thought this was a very likely conclusion, but I guess if after rethinking it, you don't, so much for that.

It was supposed to be a discussion about different views of the Bible among creationists and it's veered into the usual contentions about the Bible from both creationists and noncreationists. I've found out that most creationists here don't take the Bible as completely inspired by God, though they disagree among themselves about how much and so on. I'm surprised. But I gather that those who do take it as fully inspired or to be taken exactly as written don't hang out around here.I would simply suggest to the partial-Bible-accepting creationists (or evolutionists as the case may be) that if you don't take it as written, then you are forced to trust your own fallible judgments on whatever portions you reject. Why would you put your own judgments above those of the people who were there at the time and reported on what they witnessed? And considering that no two of you agree on these things, what makes YOUR personal judgment better than THEIRS?

But what evidence do you have that they were there at the time? That they were truly witnesses? That they really reported what they saw? That they even existed?

Excuse me but this is nothing but the latest mind-rape perpetrated by modern "scholarship," an epistemopathology of the direst degree (that term comes from one Dr. Sigmund Koch who brilliantly questioned some stupidities in the field of Psychology in the 70s, and how well it applies to all the other fields of modern inquiry).Nobody would ever say that there is NO subjective distortion to be taken into account in all reports (it accounts easily for the minor discrepancies in the gospels), but the idea that there is no such thing as objectivity is just a modern conceit and delusion. Perhaps you haven't been subjected to the direct assault on reason in the form of Deconstructionism but that is where all this hoohah got started, this idiotic pretension that nothing at all is to be trusted -- but the REconstructions of modern scholars ARE to be trusted, imagine that!!Nobody can live by that principle and in fact nobody does, but they have no scruples about screwing up everybody's mind by claiming it's true nevertheless. Objectivity takes personal integrity and the intention to BE objective and it is not impossible, it was in fact the standard aimed for until these destroyers took over, but nobody even much bothers to try any more because of this mind-destroying nihilism that has overtaken the universities. This is an outrageous lie. If anything it's only SINCE the modern age began that we've been getting more and more mythology than real history, at least in the field of journalism. The true God of the Bible has inspired His followers to the highest standards of truthfulness, and certainly the writers of His word. The Christian influence on Europe brought high standards of truth and objectivity, along with the faith that real truth was possible, truth about all facets of life, inspiring empirical science for instance, and it was the Christian view that built modern civilization. It is idiots who teach such things as you just stated who are going to bring it all crashing down around us. The job of modern historians is "made difficult" if it is, by the idiotic idea that nobody can trust anything anybody ever said or wrote.If you treat your friends to constant questioning of every trivial thing they tell you, about their lives, about what they did last night even, I'd expect you to have been punched out a few times and lost a lot of friends to boot.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-30-2005 10:21 PM

We don't.We depend on evidence and the record that GOD left. And that's NOT the Bible.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, there it is, the proof that the Deconstructionists have destroyed all truth and reality. Wow. They've done their work well. You need material evidence, material proof for everything. No longer is anyone taught how to judge the integrity of a report.I can tell they're honest men and I can tell they are real human beings and nobody's fiction. If you can't tell it, I'm sorry, really sorry. Nothing else to say.Now this IS something C.S. Lewis wrote well about. Ask him why you should trust these reports. He knows the difference between fact and fiction.

Another victim of the false idol "Evidence." Please see my answer to Nighttrain, #111.

So you have no response except ranting and assertions. LOL. We did judge the integrity of the report. Geology showed integrity, the Biblical account does not.The Bible can't even tell one tale. There are two creation stories, two flood stories and in both cases, the tales are mutually exclusive. Yeah, right. That's why they can't even get the story straight.FAITH, there is NOT a flood story in the Bible, there are two flood stories in the Bible. There is not a creation story in the Bible, there are TWO creation myths in the Bible.The evidence in the universe though IS consistent and accurate.You may not believe it. That's fine. But do understand that your beliefs do not constitute reality.They are BAD science and far worse theology.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, at least the universe itself is consistent and accurate, but I can't say the same for the fallible human beings who study it fallibly and make fallible theories about it. Which is exactly why God had mercy on us miserable dunderheads and gave us His word to steer us right.But it's a free country. You're free to be wrong.

quote:

---

It is mostly instructions, not things to believe, but things to obey. The Bible on the other hand is mostly things to believe.

---

Except the whole of Leviticus.And a lot of what Paul writes.But anyway, so what?Are you saying that people believe in the bible because it's filled with things to believe?

quote:

---

Well, there it is, the proof that the Deconstructionists have destroyed all truth and reality. Wow. They've done their work well. You need material evidence, material proof for everything. No longer is anyone taught how to judge the integrity of a report.

​

I can tell they're honest men and I can tell they are real human beings and nobody's fiction. If you can't tell it, I'm sorry, really sorry. Nothing else to say.

---

So, are people who's minds are fooled by optical illusions dishonest and lacking in integrity?Also does this mean that you will be drinking poison without harm and healing the ill by touching them with your hands sometime soon?If you do these things under normal experimental controls, I will convert to your version of Christianity immediately.If you cannot, then you have to admit that part of the Bible is wrong.

quote:

---

Well, at least the universe itself is consistent and accurate, but I can't say the same for the fallible human beings who study it fallibly and make fallible theories about it. Which is exactly why God had mercy on us miserable dunderheads and gave us His word to steer us right.

---

Faith, do you think DNA paternity tests are accurate?Yes or no is all I need as an answer.

Pray tell how you personally judge the integrity of a report?Who are these honest men? Offering their virgin daughters to strangers? Killing children? Existing in a vacuum because we can`t find any 'evidence' that they ever existed?C.S.Lewis once said (roughly) 'I have read thousands of works of narrative and that`s one thing you can say about the Bible, it`s narrative'. The only question to settle is whether it`s fictional narrative or non-fictional. But that deserves a thread of its own.

your answers are half-rant and half "you should believe nuff said".Who do in the bible do you feel has the most historical evidence that they actually existed?I'm not asking for a quote from the bible - what record of the time or source(s) proves this person existed?This message has been edited by General Krull, 31-Mar-2005 12:46 AM

You'd be wrong. My friends are scientists. When I ask for confirming evidence, they present it to the best of their ability. They don't storm off in a huff because they know what it takes to actually know anything. Now, I don't always ask, because often, it doesn't matter if what they're telling me is true or not.But when it comes to stuff where I might make changes in my life as a consequence - say, because the Bible says to, or something - I look for evidence. It's idiotic not to.Tell me, Faith - how do you distinguish truth from lies? What's your methodology for truth-detection? Tell me about those standards, and how you employ them. From where I'm looking, you don't appear to have any standards in regards to truth and objectivity whatsoever. So drop the name-calling and prove me wrong. Prove that objectivity can be reached by human beings. Refute solipcism, if you can. You'd be the first.Ever.AbE: More on not taking people's words for things - I'm sure you have this mental cartoon where Crash's friend tells him about something he did over the weekend, and Crash says "oh yeah? prove it." And the friend says something like "are you calling me a liar?"Here's a hint, Faith, because you're clearly not old enough (or haven't been lied to enough) to have learned this yet: when people ask you if you're calling them liars, its generally because they're lying to you. That's what I meant before when I called you "gullible"; your only apparent methodology for determining if the Bible is lying to you is to see whether or not the Bible says its not lying; unless you're an idiot, and I don't think you are, this is a methodology that you would find ridiculous applied to any other individual or source.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-31-2005 02:06 AM