Why Literal?

Erm....I think you're reading too much in.This psalm says that God's way is perfect. It's very specific - law, statutes, precepts, commands.All it is saying is that the commands for right living by God are perfect, right, sure etc.Why do you jump from this to "The Bible is.....". There is no support for your leap.

quote:

---

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).

---

Oh, I am willing to bet that most "bible perversion" is done in the name of God, by other Christian sects that you don't agree with, rather than by Atheists.

quote:

---

You see, since the Bible goes against evolution, there is no scientific evidence FOR evolution,

---

The bible also goes against the Germ Theory of Disease and the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System.Does this mean that, because the bible goes against these ideas, that there is no evidence that germs cause disease, that the sun is the center of our solar system?------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

If the Bible really does go against the Germ Theory of Disease or a Heliocentric Solar s
System, I'll go with the Bible. I don't believe that the Bible does go against these theories, though. If Scientific American magazine came out with an article written by acclaimed wise scientits, stating that they had proven that those theories were untrue, you would read it, no? If there was any fossilization at all for evolution, I would take modern science a lot more seriously. If the theory of Evolution was based on observable, repeatable, falsifiable evidence, it could be called a scientific theory.

quote:

---

If there was any fossilization at all for evolution, I would take modern science a lot more seriously.

---

You have GOT to be kidding. If you haven't seen the evidence, it's because you aren't looking for it or refuse to accept it.

quote:

---

If the theory of Evolution was based on observable, repeatable, falsifiable evidence, it could be called a scientific theory.

---

So what exactly do you think is indicated when new species are observed coming into existence? And do you really think the sorting of the fossil record actually verifies the flood story? Do explain.

Passages exist that say just that. If you believe that those passages say something else, it's based on your own interpretation and not a literal reading of the bible. Sci-Am is not a peer-reviewed journal, so unless the scientists had a formal paper for public viewing, most people would reject their claims. But if they had a model that explained more diseases than the Germ Theory (kind of hard because we can see germs at work with technology such as microscopes) their theory would be considered. The claims of science are always tentative because they move closer to the truth each time. Can you say the same for your bible? There's plently of fossilization. Including transitional forms aplenty. The problem with fossilization is that it's an inherently rare process. We're lucky to have any fossils at all. It is a falsifiable theory. One potential falsification would be observation of fully-formed animals springing forth from nothingness via the action of a god or gods.Observable? You can see the same fossils scientists use to make their conclusions. You can see new species arising in the lab and in the wild. You can see random mutation + natural selection give rise to function without design. What else do you need to observe?Evidence is never falsifiable. Only theories are falsifiable. That you don't seem to know the difference does not bode well for our ability to reason with you...For somebody who demands such high standards from science, you seem to be pretty credulous about the bible. Maybe you could give US "observable, repeatable evidence" that the bible is the literal words of god?

I hold that my belief in the Bible is faith, not science. I assert that your belief in Evolution is equally faith because it is not science. I'm not just trusting your judgement about those verses. Just because you or I think we have understood a verse literally, doesn't mean we have understood it. I know that I can be wrong. The verses in Job make sense to me as I study them carefully, making sure to check my understanding of them against my understanding of the rest of the Bible. The most noticeable difference between us is that I hold the Bible to be the standard and you hold yourself to be the standard. Check up on your claims about fossilization, you have little scientific company left holding that view with you.

Are you writing this in 1840? That is an absurd statement.

And I explained how it is, in fact, science. Did you have a specific disgreement with my evidence for its scientific basis, or are you just going to pretend like you didn't read it? To the contrary. I have the support of at least 300 scientists named "Steve", as well as the rest of the paleontology and biology communities. Do you have some evidence that the thousands of fossils uncovered as transitional elements are now no longer considered so? You would, of course, have to prove this for all of them...

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

And yet you still haven't bothered to demonstrate this, nor even to engage in any real discussion of the matter. You can't have missed the many open threads concerning such things? Thus, I must conclude that your pronouncements are nothing but rhetoric-- baseless and hollow.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

There is no legitimate reason that the Bible CAN'T be trusted.

---

Depends what you mean by trusted. This isn't a question of trust, but a question of using the Bible as a some sort of absolute standard of objective truth for every aspect in every sphere of reference for every statement it makes. Your assertion, for all its bombast, only appears to be supported by ...

quote:

---

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.

---

... which is no support at all. In my long experience of Bible study I can certainly say that the claimed consistency and lack of contradiction are just the product of imagination. There - so what? Such an assertion adds nothing, but it appears to be all you have. The sum of your statement is nothing more than that in your imagination, the inconsistencies are resolved, while in another's they are not.

quote:

---

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.

---

Of course - if one takes any document whatsoever to be absolute truth, and then, as David does, put any discrepancy down to a failure of understanding, then all it requires is the "right" exegesis. What is the "right" exegesis? Why the one that resolves the discrepancies you perceive, of course! It's all very easy if only you will trust in the truth of text.

quote:

---

Evolutionists know that they can't PROVE evolution, so they try to discredit the Bible for it's truth about God.

---

There is no attempt here, so far as I am aware, to discredit the Bible - only to discredit the flawed logic of those who seek to mould its message to their narrow and extremist view of what a holy text should be.

Now that's what I call "hedging your bets". You've basically said "evolution is false because there aren't any transitional fossils, but even if there were, evolution would still be false." That doesn't leave much room to convince you, now does it?Wouldn't an animal with characteristics between two other groups be a transitional form? Especially if we could reasonably infer that it was related to those two groups in some way? You'll have to convince me that it wouldn't by definition be a transitional form.

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.

There's a number of biblical contraditions awaiting your perusal in a couple of the forums. Pick anyone you like.But in order to be a biblical literalist, you must provide an reconciliation that is NOT based on either outside context, or recourse to previous translations. As a biblical literalist, you can't interpret the words. You have to take them at face value. Address any contradiction (you pick), but you have to do it with those restrictions, or else you can't be a literalist. Thus, creationism is a kind of intellectual cowardice. I couldn't have made a better point if I tried.Here's a crazy idea - maybe Hell doesn't exist? If the bible is wrong about the origin and development of life - which you appear prepared to admit, if you weren't scared of Hell - maybe it's wrong about a lot more? Maybe it's wrong about Heaven and Hell? Maybe it's wrong about God? Maybe there's not much point in defending your posts because they have no defense? Maybe that should give you a clue. Anyway, they're YOUR topics - you picked 'em - so if you can't support them, why did you post them? Not that we'd know from your efforts.