Is the Bible Reliable? Science and Scripture

Dead man walking. . .

Well, man wasn't supposed to die in the GOE. Why should animals?

Quote..
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die... Unquote

So... they had no knowledge of GOOD or EVIL before they ate the fruit... so one must assume that that arsole god of yours must of realized that they were completely innocent, so he came up with all that bullshit, so he could get to torture them and I assume when they died, he stuffed them in his oven called hell..... can't believe you guys could believe all that bullshit

Hmm

I'm stunned by your intellectual prowess.

Futher thoughts on neo's position:

CHAPTER 12

SCIENTIFIC FOREKNOWLEDGE



The scriptures were written to offer spiritual rather than scientific enlightenment. However, as with history, when the subject of the natural order was touched upon, it was done so in truth and never has this become more apparent than right now. Numerous scientific discoveries made in the 20th century have confirmed what was written in the Bible thousands of years ago although the Bible's description of our physical realm has always been challenged as inaccurate by the scientific establishment. So it is somewhat ironic that in the last 10 years that same scientific establishment has been forced to concede that the biblical prophets were, in fact, very accurate.

But of course committed naturalists will always deny the truth of the Bible, no matter how much confirmation it receives. They prefer to blindly accept what they see or hear in a media that is as overwhelmingly naturalistic in its philosophy as the scientific establishment that feeds it. Skeptics would sooner believe what they see on "Nova" rather than consider a rational harmony of scripture and science.

Of the entire Bible, the writings of Moses in Chapter 1 of Genesis, penned 3500 years ago, have been the most severely attacked. But the first chapter of Genesis actually contains the most astounding words of antiquity ever examined when viewed from a modern scientific perspective, as we will see. Even so, Moses' epic has been lumped with other ancient creation myths as quaint and interesting but scientifically absurd. Upon reading those other creation narratives, however, it becomes obvious that they are rooted in superstition and paganism and bear no resemblance at all to Genesis. (For comparison, at the end of this chapter are summaries of creation myths from around the world and the first 31 verses of Genesis, Chapter 1.)

Genesis is pulled down to the level of these pagan myths primarily because it says the universe was created in just 6 days, a transparent erroneous tradition among certain Christian & Jewish sects. After all, as most high school students know, the big bang took place between about 15 billion years ago, according to various sophisticated methods of calculating the age of the universe, so a six-day creation scenario is nonsense. As we have seen, however, that critique is a straw man and a properly translated Bible does not say that everything was created in six 24 hour days but rather in a series of "ages" of indeterminate length.

One of the biggest differences between Genesis and "the myths" regards time. The myths, and the belief systems behind them, have all made the assumption that time stretches infinitely into the past, an erroneous belief in light of current big bang cosmology. Genesis, on the other hand, agrees with current scientific knowledge regarding a beginning for time and the universe. In fact, the theory of relativity highlights the scientific accuracy of Genesis, not only in reference to the birth of the universe but in other areas as well. It is so extraordinary it is worth looking at a little closer...

http://www.williambrugman.com/default.asp

Peddle whatever horseshit tickles you--nothing in Genesis literally says what you claim it means, and what it literally says contradicts what you claim it means.

Mornin' Set. I see the carnival is open. Would you like a funnel cake with your coffee?

No, i've got a better breakfast at hand. The carnival, however, opens every time you trot out your "Garden of Eden as test of free will" bullshit.

Actually, Set, you are mistaken. But you have raised so many phony issues. So, may I first deal with your assertion of polytheism?

You didn't include a citation, but are you referring to the use of the word 'us' in Genesis 1:26?

Surely, you haven't forgotten that humans were not the first sentient creatures, have you?

Scatology notwithstanding, it is a most defining issue.

We all know you think so, but you fail to convince anyone but the bible-thumpers who are already schooled in that pap.

Actually, I have yet to convince them, either. Most of them cannot understand that foreknowledge by necessity is incompatible with free will. For one thing, it would deny free will to the creator - if there is a creator, of course.

There is no basis upon which to assert that foreknowledge would bind an omnipotent being in its actions. Foreknowledge would allow an omnipotent being to continually refine its "creation," by changing things and the course of events, and using its foreknowledge to determine the effect of the changes.

Foreknowledge would imply knowing the outcome before creation. Thus, thousands of years of human misery would have at one time existed only within the mind of the creator, which he subsequently unleashed in an act of sadistic fury. Hardly the image I have come to embrace.

Gotta feed myself now. Bye

However, it is an image which is consonant with the vile sonuvabitch who is portrayed in the Bobble.

A cursory reading of the OT might bring one to that conclusion. However, since the entire OT was written to identify Jesus, (as the name means 'Jehovah's salvation'), a closer look should be in order.

Translation: Neo doesn't like what scripture actually says, so he wants to present an exegesis which suggests that it means what he would prefer it means.

Translation of translation: The scriptures indicate that one may choose a course of action and that a sinner may repent. If the respective outcomes were foreknown, then we are just going through the motions as puppets. Therefore, Set doesn't really comprehend the full meaning of the scriptures.

But he is an OK fellow, nevertheless.

What i comprehend is the persistence, the desperate insistence upon self-delusion on the part of religionists and political ideologues. All too sadly, going through motions as puppets is an excruciatingly accurate description of religionists, although not for the "reason" with which you approach the idea.

Basically, your argument is founded on an assumption that there are no contradictions in scripture, and that is divinely inspired and inerrant. That's hardly solid logical ground upon which to stand while making one's claims.