Existence of Demons (and Angels)

You thought wrong. Witness evidence is simply most of what we have and it's sufficient, but other kinds of evidence help when the Bible is being attacked the way so many here attack it.

I've tried many times to show you that you are wrong, but you prefer your own opinion so I'll leave you to it.

Commentaries on that passage say pretty much only that God blessed Jacob for his industriousness, one suggesting that possibly that sort of method was common in Jacob's day, but none treat it as a claim to anything scientific. The passage itself gives no clue, simply says Jacob did this and these were the results.

Of course they are. That's the definition of a miracle after all. God made the universe; God established its laws; and only God can break them, but He has done so only on a very few occasions for very specific purposes.

God certainly never breaks His MORAL law, but I've never heard that about His physical laws. However, some miracles are more in keeping with natural law than others. The sun standing still and the waters of a sea standing upright for the passage of some millions of people are certainly contrary to natural law. But on the other hand healing is a natural process, so when it occurs dramatically and rapidly by God's answer to prayer, against all normal expectation, it is more like a restoration of nature than a violation of natural laws.

But it makes sense that if something violates natural law it IS due to supernatural intervention. That's a problem only for those who don't believe in the supernatural, not for those who do.

I'm sorry, I just have a lot of trouble following your reasoning. It's a bit on the abstruse side.

quote:

---

The only claim that I am suggesting is that God is the source of knowledge. Surely He forbids us not to think!

---

How does this relate to miracles? What does it mean to say He FORBIDS us not to think? Who ever said we shouldn't think?

quote:

---

I am unconcerned with science except when science is used along with other human wisdom to define a belief. Since science cannot define God, God is never included in the definition. Just as some are concerned when religion is used to define science, I am concerned when man defines reality pertaining to origan.

---

I THINK you are saying that science can be a religion unto itself and is usually set up in opposition to God? Is this what "science is used...to define a belief" means? If so, I agree, but I'm not sure how it relates to the topic.

quote:

---

So, if I understand what you are saying it is true that the Bible does contain some material which contradicts our scientific understanding. However, you assume these examples to be due to the intervention of God or some other supernatural entity that exists in your belief system.

---

If it isn't clearly PRESENTED as science (that is, a practice based on natural law) it can't properly be considered a contradiction to science. I have to agree that the passage you chose is the closest to such a POSSIBLE contradiction, but since no explanation is given of why Jacob did what he did, whether it was the inadequate science of the time, an act of faith or what, there's just no conclusion to be drawn about why it worked.Yes there are certainly contradictions to natural law in the Bible, and most are clearly identified as God's interventions, intended to demonstrate that God really is God. You found one that isn't clearly identified one way or another.

quote:

---

I fail to see how we could expect any clearer presentation form a pre-scientific account like the story of Jacob. It is clearly stated that Jacob and his rods were the causal agents and God is left unmentioned.

---

There is no clear conclusion that can be drawn from that fact. God is left unmentioned in the Book of Esther too, but Mordechai and Esther are nevertheless both understood to have been appealing to Him constantly and the entire story is understood to be the working out of His intervention on behalf of His people.

quote:

---

How can it be in nay way significant that the Bible lacks statements that we could not reasonably expect it to make even if the story, were simply a legend with the same factual basis as other legends ?

---

All the Bible is regarded by believers as factually true, so this story is too. This is what makes everything that is included in it and everything that is left out of it significant. You may need to rephrase your question in case I missed your point.

I have never ever ever discounted ANY kind of scientific evidence. What I have done is dispute that EVOLUTIONISM and the GEO TIMEFRAME are scientifically supported.

I've answered this many times already. No, I don't reject geology, I reject the Geo Timeframe. No, I don't reject biology, I reject evolutionism. I understand these terms are just about synonymous in most people's minds so that they have a terrible time separating them but that's what I'm trying to do, separate them.

Yes, "intertwined" is what it is, the theory relating to the science as a parasitic vine to a tree. It has no intrinsic relation to geology, simply habitual association. It would be a VERY interesting test for scientists to practice describing their observations in objective terms leaving out the geotimetable and evolutionism. It would be difficult but since the theory is inessential, not impossible. It's simply a bad habit.

Yes, apparently it sounds like quibbling, but the point is that these theories are NOT "conclusions" from the sciences. The sciences do NOT support evolutionism or the Geo Time Table. These two theories are IMPOSED on the sciences and the actual evidence is forced to fit into them.