Creation

That happens a lot on the Internet. People develop a "personal relationship" with somebody who turns out to be completely different from the way they portray themselves.So how do you know you can trust the source?

The same way he could have stone tablets when the words "stone" and "tablet" didn't exist. He might not know what you were talking about but he'd still have his stone tablets.

It's been proven untrue even if you choose to believe it's true. You jump through a lot of hoops to convince yourself that the Bible is true, even the parts that have been proven untrue.My question was: How do you decide that the Bible is true?

It only takes one untruth to prevent the whole Bible from being true. Truth is correspondence with reality. Probably not. If the Bible tells a story about a flood which we can prove is untrue, why would we trust it on other topics that can't be proven one way or the other?

I gave you an example in Message 441:

quote:

---

Plants growing on the third day (Geneis 1:11-13) before the sun was created (Genesis 1:14-19).

---

That isn't even logically possible, much less scientifically or historically correct.

quote:

---

Once upon a time there were three bears....

---

That story has a beginning too. But later on it claims the bears lived in a house and sat on chairs and slept in beds, so we have reason to question whether it is true.Similarly, Genesis claims that there were plants before the sun, so we have equal reason to question whether it is true.

He had nouns whether he had a word for them or not. If you believe he wrote Genesis, you don't have to go beyond chapter 1, verse 1 to find a noun: "God" is a noun, "heavens" is a noun, "earth" is a noun.

You have a habit of scoffing at things without thinking first.Let's try this again: "It only takes one untruth to prevent the whole Bible from being true."Some people believe that the whole Bible is true - every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God, etc. Right?If one thing in the Bible was false - e.g. the Flood - then the whole Bible would not be true, would it?If one piece of fruit in the bag is not an apple, then the whole bag is not apples, right?So what's silly?

So do you understand that Moses had nouns, even if he didn't call them nouns?

My point is that "the beginning" is the beginning of the story, not necessarily the beginning of the universe. "Once upon a time, God created the heavens and the earth." We can only go back as far as shortly after the Big Bang. If there was a Big Crunch that initiated the Big Bang, we have no way of telling.So trying to make the Bible agree with science won't work.

Those are "shortcomings", not falsifications. They're questions that have not been answered yet. That isn't what I said. I said that if there is one falsehood in the Bible, then you can't say that the whole Bible is true. There still may be other truths in it.I'll give you a different example from the one I gave Phat: If you have the binary number 11111111, you can say that every bit is 1 (true). But if you have the number 11111011, you can not.

Nobody has said that he called them "nouns". He did know what a noun was, no matter what he called them. He must have known what they were because he used them.This is why it's so hard to take you seriously: You don't understand English, so why would we think you understand Hebrew?

You claimed that the Big Bang was proven false. Message 522Questions do no prove it false.

You have no way of knowing that because you've never seen it as it was originally written.

That's an open question. Sez you. With your opinion and two dollars, I can buy a cup of coffee. Sez you. Your opinion on the Big Bang has less value than your opinion on the best flavour of ice cream. Why are you saying that if you're not trying to reconcile the Bible with science? What theological difference does it make whether or not the universe had a beginning? But the Bible doesn't say anything about expansion. No. It only means that the universe was once smaller than it is now. A series of contractions and expansions would produce the same observations. But it doesn't agree. The Bible doesn't mention expansion at all.

I did. I copied and pasted it directly from your post. A shortage of evidence is not "proof" that the Big Bang is false.