Summations Only

Interesting answer. So it is then necessary to consider the Bible as a complete work, contrary to your assertion that doing so impedes using the Bible as evidence?

Yes and no. Its never wise to limit our learning to something already written. We can expand on it through discussion...or we can go write our own book...which would you do?Is the evidence we seek evidence for absolute (or complete) truth or is this a necessity?

The Bible is a complete work in the sense that all its books contribute to the same ultimate end, as prescribed by God, but the fact that individuals separated in time often by hundreds of years and by different historical circumstances wrote the various books ought to demonstrate that it's no fiction.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I know you think you know that. However, what you think you know doesn't correspond with reality. Talking snakes are not real.Edited by ringo, : Malfunctioning shift key.

That one was, beause it was possessed by Satan, and he can talk.But yes I believe a lot of things *modern man* can't believe, ever since I became a believer in God. The Bible is full of supernatural occurrences that you all dismiss out of hand just because they're supernatural.But becoming a Christian made me a believer in them after forty five years as a nonbeliever. Well, really, for me the road to belief in the Biblical God was through encounters with supernatural phenomena that my New Age friends took for granted. They didn't believe in God but they had seen angels and demons and had all kinds of strange supernatural experiences. I was having a few of those myself so I found theirs interesting and believable. But mine got scary and I was very glad to find there was a solution to that scariness in Christ.I got to pondering this and related things and wrote a blog post on it last night that some here might find interesting.Or not: Rum Thing: Is Christianity a Fairy Tale Come True?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But there is absolutely nothing in either Genesis 2 or 3 that says or implies that the serpent was Satan, was possessed by Satan, related to Satan, ever knew Satan or was even in the same room as Satan; plus in the story found in Genesis 2&3 the serpent tells the truth while the god character lies.How can you not see that the story in Genesis 2&3 is not about God, that the god character like the serpent are just plot devices and that it is a "Just So" story?

Satan isn't real. If he was, you could provide real-world evidence. I don't dismiss anything out of hand. But I do distinguish between "supernatural" and "real". I use "real" for things that have real-world evidence and "realistic" for things that have superficial real-world "evidence" but are not really what they seem to be - e.g. movie special effects. "Supernatural" is something for which there can not be real-world natural evidence.You just seem to be hung up on a need to call something "real". It's like whistling in the dark.

And there you are again speaking your false reading of the Bible from the deepest darkest jungle of self-inspired Bible mutilation. You aren't even in the same part of the jungle as other Bible mutilators. That's the thing, when you go off on your own you leave not only consensus and tradition behind you even leave other weird loners behind. A place from which you'll never see that the Bible is a collection of reports that all work together to a common end, so that we find out in the Book of Revelation that the serpent in the Garden WAS Satan. God doesn't tell us everything at once, He reveals the truth in stages that are more digestible for human minds. Of course you refuse to submit your mind to His methods and there you are deep in the jungle. I hope there's enough to eat out there.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Uh, you want me to summon him and introduce him to you?

Please.

What?You go from accusing me of denying that the Bible is a God-inspired whole, but now "admitting" it, to what exactly? But the evidence is incredibly strong and worthy of trust. Yes of course the authors didn't all have a fine grasp of what they were writing, they wrote what God inspired them to write, and the New Testament, Peter I think, even says that the prophets didn't fully understand the wonders that were being revealed through them. All that is evidence for God's inspiration of the scriptures after all, which is the subject of this thread. The Bible was written to be just clear enough for believers but obscure enough to throw off people who have an inclination to scoff. Pascal said that. The scarlet thread is very clear to some of us, but if you spend all your time demanding perfect clarity you're just going to find yourself deeper and deeper in obscurity. Try believing it instead of criticizing it.

Hubris!

That WOULD be hubris, and I'm so glad it can't happen. Just saying it gave me the creeps. Of course if I tried it he might send me a low-ranking demonic functionary in his place. That would be creepy enough. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Still hubris.But Satan would be on your team, you've driven more people away from Christianity and the Bible than Satan ever has.

The truth can't drive anyone away from Christianity. From false "Christianity" yes. Not that I think I've done a stellar job of it, but I know I've only presented truth here.