Why Literal?

Dan:
First, I would appreciate it if you capitalized 'Bible' (it's a Holy doctrine that has been used, since the time of Christ, and unfortunately perverted by atheists).
In answer to your question:
There are 2 translations to the Bible: the King James version (which is the closest to the original ancient Hebrew scrolls, and therefore I recommend it) was officially produced in 1611. It is written in Rennassiance English, but still understandable to the modern person. It was followed by a direct line of copies, from several languages around the world, leading back to the original Hebrew authors (just after the Christ's death). That is why the King James' version is most trustable.
The other versions are more modern (the New International Version, the New American Standard, the Revised Substandard Version, etc.) are from a scripture similar to the King James version, but many things were altered and twisted to take on seperate meanings. The differences between the King James version and the rest is what's largely responsible for people claiming that the Bible can have 'seperate meanings.'
In Matthew Chapter 4:4 it says: "Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God." In John chapter 1:1 it says: "In the beginning was the Word..."
Read the book of John some time today or tomorrow (it takes less than a couple hours).
You see, the King James version says that God KNEW what He wanted to be the word, and it says that man lives on EVERY WORD. So, according to God, you'd better take EVERY WORD from God's original Holy scripture (King James version) and apply it to your life. I'm afraid that many modern Christians are neglecting to do that. Jesus said, in John 14:6: "I am the way, the truth, and the Life. No one enters the kingdom of God [heaven] except through me."
You see, IF the Bible (the trustable, original version) is not to be taken literally, then how do we know whether we go to heaven or hell. The Bible says that all we have to do is KNOW Jesus in belief, prayer, and loving worship and we will have our name written in Heaven's Book of Life (Revelation 20:12).
So, all in all, there IS NO empirical reason (or evidence) that the Bible cannot be taken literally... Besides, we are seriously out of luck if we choose to reject the Bible just because 'some people' claim it is not to be taken seriously.
Also, "God" is referred to 831 times in the Bible, so we'd better believe it if we are to believe in God.
If you have more questions regarding the Bible, let me know (I am not a professional on evolution or biology or geology... but I AM a Bible-believer and I am more than willing to help). Jesus said in his famous "sermon on the mount": "Love thine enemies." So I am obligated by God to love even those who hate me back (so don't be afraid of offending me or choosing to rebuke me).
In Christ,
Booboo

Conclusions where faith is involved?
Trust me, faith is needed by EVERYBODY.
Want to see if you can avoid FAITH an entire day? Okay, here we go.
Don't sleep at all tonight (you cannot trust 100% that your alarm clock is going to wake you up in time for work). Then, before eating your cerial, examine EVERY kernel or flake to make sure it is truly healthy for you (don't trust the box that says it's healthy).
If you're single, then when you meet a girl you like, ask her what her name is. When she replies, say "I don't believe you." See where your relationship'll go without ANY faith.
Then, examine your car (this can take a long time, afterall, who knows whether or not those manufacturers are trustworthy). After that, walk to work (you have to have faith in the other drivers on the road if you are to drive anywhere). Then, when you get your paycheck today, tell them "I want cash" (you need faith that your check can truly be chashed for real bills).
Don't touch your TV tonight (you need faith that it will not explode when you push the 'power' button).
See how impossible it is to live without faith?Also, don't blame the world's problems on God (notice that things were perfect in the Garden of Eden UNTIL ADAM disobeyed God and ate the forbidden fruit).
God is like the pilot of your life. So don't throw out your pilot and them complain when the plane crashes (similarly, we can't blame God on our problems if we've thrown him out of our lives). Think about it: if EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON EARTH was a truly-informed, Bible-believing Christian that obeyed the 10 commandments, then there would BE NO murder, rape, lying, cheating, stealing, racism, discrimination, abuse, idol-worship, laziness, swearing, wars, incest, pedophilia, evolution, drunkenness, drug abuse, suicide, or CANCER!
Yes, the cure for cancer has already been known about for years but has been suppressed by secular organizations like the FDA because it's so cheap! Seriously, hospitals and health insurers are suppressing the cure for cancer because they are making too much MORE money off of chemotherapy and radiation. The cure for cancer is called amygdalin (better known as the rare vitamin B17) Cancer is a vitamin B17-defficiency disease, and getting it from eating enough apricot pits (the most concentrated source of B17) will prevent cancer with almost 100% assurance. If you want more info on the cure for cancer, go here:
Alternative Cancer Treatments : B17 & Apricot Seeds - Cure for CancerIf you want to order B17-enriched apricot seeds, Here is the website:
Page not found | BluegrassNet

Pamboli:First, I was referring to King James and "the interpreted modern versions" as the "2 basic" translations.
Second, you need to brush up on Israeli history... You see, the gospel was written in by St. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, spanning (the original documents) from 50-70 AD, and was written in Palastine and Syrian Antioch (modern Lebanon).
Every several hundred years, the scrolls would be copied as the originals wore out. By 1611 King James' version was out there.
On the other hand, Alexandria (northern Egypt) was using THEIR OWN interpretations and alterations to the scripture of the original Gospel.
Alexandria formed a cult (a perversion of the original) out of what they wrote and 'deleted' from scripture. Nevertheless, the Alexandrian scrolls were from the original time of the Gospel (and that is why modern scholars ASSUMED they were trustworthy, because they were that ancient). Thus the Alexandrian versions were translated to the modern NIV, RSV, NRSV, NAS, etc. while the old English version was translated originally from the notable Hebrew scholars. Today, it is known that the King James version is most original and most authentic, because it matches much more closely to translations from Greek and Hebrew that were around just a few decades following Christ.
Also, who told you King James was homosexual? Besides, he is not Jesus, therefore it would not destroy the Christian faith to find out that a scholar may be sexually impure.
In Christ,
Booboo

Do you skip over certain areas?
I said: (emphasis added), "If everybody on earth was a truly-informed, Bible-believing Christian, who OBEYED THE 10 COMMANDMENTS..."
You need to be more open-minded and contientious of EVERYTHING I write.
I have noticed that many people on this forum are taking ONLY A FRACTION of what I write and then picking it apart, while ignoring the big picture of what I was trying to say (again, focusing on the wrong, or irrelevant, part of the argument).Also, there is no scientific evidence for evolution, so DON'T make that assumption!!! Charles Darwin (although a theologian) was not a Christian. Charles Lyell HATED creationism. Enrst Mayr (a modern evolutionist at Harvard) is very close-minded about creation (I have his book sitting next to me.) You see, since the Bible goes against evolution, there is no scientific evidence FOR evolution, and any literal Bible-believing Christian is not an evolutionist, and since "are we still evolving" is a question with a built-in assumption, therefore there WOULD BE NO EVOLUTION (there would be no books published about it, there would be no scientists believing in it, and there would be no evidence for it, as there already is none)!

Trust me, evolution is built on weaker foundations
Where is the evidence of evolution? I want to see it! I read professor Mayr's (of harvard) on evolution and his arguments against evolution I could take apart in a few minutes--they were either outdated, inconclusive, or flat lies like Haeckel's drawings.You evolutionists like to spend your time dissecting a creationist's comment to make you feel good. You say I'm wrong in certain areas, but if evidence goes against evolution, GET A NEW THEORY!!! I could go for days on the scientific, legitimate, perfectly-sound evidence that seems to conflict with your theory. I've also noticed that evolutionists are good at bending or manipulating the research and evidence to make it fit with their theory.
C-14 is based on many assumptions, and doesn't work. K-ar dating is based on similar assumptions, and we don't even know if it works well (the KBS tuff was a perfect example of the unreliability of K-ar). Even the scientists who say "we know why the KBS tuff was dated inaccurately now" that would still leave them up to speculating whether or not all their OTHER dates were accurate. Take the freshly killed seal--it was dated as having died 1300 y.a. Or the dinosaur bone that was carbon-dated as being 20,000 y.o.
You see, when scientists date an object of already-known age, it is doesn't work, but when they date an object of unknown age it is ASSUMED to work. (I can only pray that you get the picture).
Also, if you think the Bible says the earth was a flat circle, look again!!! Read revelation: the Hebrew word used for 'circle' simply means "round object" While it also says that "the angels traveled to the four corners..." How could a circle have four corners? Simple: North, South, East, And West. If a "round object" has those four dimensions, then it is OBVIOUSLY not a flat circle. (yet again you ignorrance to the Bible scairs me).

I'm ranting now? Oh, I'm sorry, I should have known that I was the ONLY person doing that. You have done nothing but rant against me, at least within the posts I have seen.Also, it is not anyone's back against the wall. I'm just upset that evolutionists here are quite arrogant. You say you want good evidence for creation. Guess What? The evidence for ceation is just as sound as the evidence for evolution (that should tell you something about your logic). I could spend a few minutes picking apart your so-called reliable tests.
Also, the LIVING snails that were dated 2200 years old had nothing to do with seawater. Besides, if seawater changes the reliability of carbon-14, how do you know that dirt in the ground DOESnt?

First of all, you'll never find "...this book is perfect..." written in the Bible, because it was written over a period of 1500 years, by dozens of writers, and therefore was not a "Book" until centuries later. I agree with Paul on that the Bible is inspired and has no flaws--Matthew 4:4 says: "Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word of God..." **EVERY WORD!**The Qu'ran may say it's perfect but it makes MUCH more obvious contradictions (the Bible makes no contradictions--it's the secular interpretations that says the Bible contradicts itself).
"Raise the Jews on your shoulders above all others..." (Qu'ran)
"Allah wages hate on all who don't love him..." (Qu'ran) According to the Qu'ran, Allah changed his ways from the time of Moses to the time of Mohammed. "But the LORD Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and forever..." (Hebrews 13:8). "God is Love, and he who abides in love abides in God..." (1 John 4:16). In the Qu'ran Allah is hailed with 99 different names, but "LOVE" is not one of them, as the LORD is in the Bible.
(Allah hates those who hate him, but the LORD loves all--whether he punishes them for their disobediance or welcomes them into Heaven for their salvation, the LORD loves all).
Great example, Paul...
In Christ,
Booboo

David:You have good points here. There is no legitimate reason that the Bible CAN'T be trusted. I have been studying the Bible for all the years that I've been a Christian and all those "Contradictions" and "Inconsistencies" are just the product of the reader's imagination. If one holds the Bible for the truth about God and the history of the world, and reads every word of it, then there is no confusion found.Cashfrog and Schrafinator:
First off, nowhere in the Bible does it go AGAINST germs or the sun being the center of the solar system. (The Bible says that the earth is the center of God's attention in the universe, because that's where we are, but the Bible DOES NOT say that the earth is the universe's or the solar system's center). Also, fossil evidence DOES NOT prove evolution (there is a wide lack of transitional fossils--and even if they DID find a rare transitional fossil that would still not prove evolution--it would just prove that there was once an animal with characteristics between two other animals). Evolutionists know that they can't PROVE evolution, so they try to discredit the Bible for it's truth about God.

You keep saying that there are contradictions in the Bible...
Show me an irrefutable, definite contradiction in the Bible in your next comment, and I'll show you a misconception.Of course there is no room for compromise between evolution and the Bible. Look, finding transitional fossils still would not PROVE, beyond doubt, that any part of the Bible is wrong. I'm going to believe the Bible because of the risk. You see, the reason creationists may seem to be stubborn is because the risk of not believing the Bible is Hell. Romans 6:23 says "the wages of sin is death [hell]..." If a Christian decides to doubt evolution JUST BECAUSE it is inconsistent with the Bible, they are not being ignorant or stupid--they just are fearing eternal damnation.Also, there is not much of a point in defending some of my other threads--the evolutionists there are just coming up with excuses and "propositions of science" that go against creation. The "UPLIFT" argument cannot be used to rebuke EVERY SINGLE evidence that exists for the flood, just as you all try to do here. Also, creationists' arguments are more sound than you think. If you are using evolution-logic to "explain" the problem with creation science, then you could keep us busy forever (but you still wouldn't have any proof). Send me, (here at THIS forum) the most irrefutable, powerful evidence YOU have for evolution and I'd be glad to dissolve it in a few minutes. I read Ernst Mayr's book on evolution (he is a Harvard professor of zoology) and ALL the arguments he seems to be using against creation is out-dated and unreliable logic.

In response to your argument (sorry if this is in the wrong thread, but now you're using personal attacks instead of science, so I've willingly and, without your 'fear', abandoned those other threads).The GLO-gene represents that animals can produce natural vit-C, while humans cannot. Have you ever wondered why many animals can stay in perfect shape by living off of only one or two sources of food? it's simple: their bodies are more self-sufficient in producing vitamins needed for their health. Have you ever wondered why animals in captivity often get cancer, yet those same animals in the wild DON'T? God commanded (Gen. 1:29) to eat the fruit, the vegetables, and the SEEDS! Did you know that if your diet consists of at least 10 apricot SEEDS, you will NEVER get cancer? It's true, go to any search website and type in amygdalin (the natural cancer suppressant that is found in the seeds of apricots and peaches) You'll get all kinds of websites that either sell amygdalin, apricot seeds, or teach you about why the cure for cancer has been known for hundreds of years all along.So, why is cancer so much more common today than it was just a few centuries ago--more people eat meat, potatoes, and soda than the ones who eat fruit and seeds. When you eat an apple, it is healthy to eat the seeds. You see, "evolution" of plants and humans would have to go hand in hand in order for our common ancestors to have been self-vitamin-sufficient.
Also, did you know that the digestive enzymes of man are more closely-related to that of a chicken, and not a chimp or an orangutan. Yes, that proves we evolved from a chicken, not a chimp (LOL).Evolutionary proof, indeed.Try better next time.

I am only replying to questions raised:
Yeah, as for my reference to the chicken enzymes and human enzymes being more similar than between humans and apes, I got that from Dr. Comninellis (he’s a medical research doctor). His book is entitled Creative Defense. I don’t exactly know what year or publisher it’s by because I lent it to an atheist friend of mine.As for the apricot seeds; yes, they DO contain cyanide, but the cyanide won’t harm you if you keep your apricot-seed intake no more than 14 - 16 per day. Want to know why? Because the same apricot pit also contains rhodanese- -a protective enzyme that neutralizes the cyanide by converting it to a by-product that is actually beneficial to one’s health.
Also, with the billions of dollars spent on chemotherapy and radiation, more people are making a profit off of cancer than are getting it, so that is why the FDA is suppressing the use of B-17 (because they would lose money for conventional cancer research). Jesus said, for the love of money is the root of all evil That is the same reason why medical students in today’s universities are being taught that B-17 doesn’t work, when in fact it DOES.I tell the truth: B-17 IS a cancer suppressant, and works with approximately 98-99% accuracy with both treating and preventing cancer.
Booboo

Ned:No offense, but I wouldn't trust your "science" at all. First of all, where exactly did you get that Dr. Comninellis is lying? I've read his biography and have a list of his colleagues: his 'Dr.' is legitimate. Also, I'd like to see where you seem to have all the answers from (because your arguments are much more bias than even some of the other evolutionists).Also, like I said, the FDA's claim that apricot seeds are dangerous is just a coverup to get people to believe that they need to pay thousands of dollars for cancer treatment.Try again.

Here is a source regarding the enzymes in humans and chickens:Page not found : Stanford Universitywj:
Your personal remarks and irrevelant attacks are neither needed, nor appreciated. If you expect a legitimate, scientific, one-on-one debate, cut out the CRAP!!!

Good point, Ned.
That website did not mention chimpanzees (it only mentioned that the Myb is similar only to frogs, chickens, and humans). From that, I would probably conclude that, if humans and chimpanzees were more closely related between THAT enzyme, then that website would have mentioned apes along with the chickens and the frogs.I was just curious (it's not hard evidence for either side, or else it would be trustworthey for one or the other.)Anyway, back to the point:
Why do the atheists claim that Gen 1 and Gen 2 contradict? THey don't. If you read the two chapters carefully, you'll notice that Gen 1 was referring to the creation of the entire world in the order it happened, while Gen 2 was referring to ONLY the creation of the Garden of Eden, and the creation of plants within thereof. You see, God wanted Adam to SEE God make the garden, because otherwise he would have been tempted into trusting Satan (notice that only Eve was decieved into believing Satan because she wasn't there with Adam to see God create Eden, so Eve was decieved, and then Adam ate the fruit along with Eve because he was decieved by the woman, not directly by Satan).

Did you read ALL of Gen 2? You see, in verse 1 it says: "Thus the heavens and the earth were completed..." Then it goes on to say, in verse 8: "And the LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden..."
Then, in verse 9 it explains that "out of the ground the LORD God aused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight..." You see, when going in chronological order for the verses, they make perfect sense.Notice that verse 9 did NOT say "out of the ground came every plant over the entire earth..." it only said "out of the ground came every plant..." Also notice that, beginning with Gen 1:1 and going through Gen 2:3 there was a different author writing that, for in Gen 2:4 it BEGINS to refer to God as "the LORD God" and not just "God." That is found in every Bible I've ever seen. Also, the writing style is slightly different between Gen 1:1-2:3 and Gen 2:4-- for the former mentions "evening, morning, and the numbered day," while the latter mentions only the events and not the time at which they took place, and indicates a change in authors, which would also explain the slight confusion, if you're still not understanding.