Biblical Tall Tales

Some Christians insist that every incidental is crucial to their faith. That if the Bible is not "literally" and "completely" true then their faith is somehow damaged. That is part of the point of this thread.You are, then, one who agrees that the Bible does not have to be and is not literally true and not 100 % accurate.

The Bible is only copies. We have no originals.

Then you are, as I understand it, a Christian. You are with the majority of the world's Christians in this view.You also have no reason to be concerned about the findings of science as it is not in conflict with this view. It is also the view of a reasonable percentage of practising scientists.And finally to bring this back to the topic at hand: you'd agree that the most likely conclusion is that Goliath was somewhere in the high 6 foot range and not at a height that is outside the most extreme range that humans are naturally capable of reaching.

and if you have some of the witnesses describing the car that caused the accident as a 2004 Nash Rambler what would you conclude about those witnesses?

80 is, in case you didn't notice, a number. Numbers are derived through calculations based on defined inputs. Perhaps one or the other of you has this derivation?If no one has such a derivation the number is not presently defined and no amount of arguing will make it any less undefined.I believe whoever originally gave the 80% (was it Nuggin) made it clear at that time it was a wild-assed guess. There is no use arguing over a WAG with another one. Just give the details of the calculation of a better one.ABEOpps sure enough it was Nuggin and he made it clear that 80% was the minimum. To call this doging and weaving is delusional at best.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-01-2006 06:45 PM

This is not on topic for this thread but if you will actually explain your alternate interpretations I will try a new PNT for this topic.This line is used a lot. Everytime someone who makes this claim is asked to present the evidence being used, the analysis of it and the logical reasoning that produces a different conclussion they don't know what the evidence is, they make no use of what is there, don't make use of existing analysis or supply a new one and offer no logical steps to get to a different explanation of ALL the evidence. And, finally, when pressed, they skip out and drop it like a hot potatoe.Do you think you can support a "different interpretation"? Don't expect to get any help from the various creation-"science" websites - they make all the errors listed about and add in some rather misleading "facts".Let me know and I'll save you the trouble of starting the process off.