Believe the Bible - or mock the Bible - which do you choose?

[RickG]

There is a thread here that starts with a mock-the-Bible list -
Apr 30, 2016 #1

By contrast we could choose to believe what the Bible says. Because it is so clear and irrefutable in its statements that even atheists can figure it out.

Notice how the devil starts with "mock the Word of God" as his opening gambit in Genesis 3?


And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?”

Then notice how clear and irrefutable the text of God's Word "by contrast"?

Okay, so are you suggesting that if a person does not take all scripture in the bible as literal, it is being mocked? Just a simple yes or no please. Thank you.

 

[BobRyan]

We could choose to believe what the Bible says. Because it is so clear and irrefutable in its statements that even atheists can figure it out.

Notice how the devil starts with "mock the Word of God" as his opening gambit in Genesis 3?


And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?”

Then notice how clear and irrefutable the text of God's Word "by contrast"?

Originally Posted by BobRyan =========================================
One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him.

"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. "

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.

=====================

"Six days you shall labor... for in SIX days the LORD Made..." Ex 20:8-11

Spoken by God and written in "legal code" not in "parable"

-------------------------------------------------------------

But then arises the religion of evolutionism whose by-faith-alone claim is that "A pile of dirt will sure-enough turn into a rabbit over time - given a sufficiently talented and large pile of dirt... and a sufficiently long and talented length of time filled with just-so-stories that are easy enough to tell".

Such a religion as that is ideal for an attack on the Bible.

And for the sake of the T.E. that does not want to start with the atheist's earth-sized 'pile of dirt' -- we have the "tiny amoeba" version of that same doctrine on origins.

"An amoeba will sure-enough turn into a horse over time - given a sufficiently talented amoeba ... and a sufficiently long and talented length of time filled with just-so-stories that are easy enough to tell".

===========

Darwin also claimed that faith in evolutionism destroyed Christianity for him - ...

-- Darwinism leads to atheism according to a number of prominent scientists.

When I said in the OP that "rejecting Romans1 is a 'distinctively atheist' position" - I refer to this

Romans 1:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse


Darwinism's ability to destroy christian faith in those that accept it (given a long enough period of time) - is something that Christians 'should not notice' say 'some' in the Christian community. Others argue it should not be discussed so it can continue its work without detection.


"Among leading scientists in the field of evolution, 87% deny existence of God, 88% disbelieve in life after death, and 90% reject idea that evolution is directed Toward an “ultimate purpose.” 12 "
from http://www.kmlhs.org/UserFiles/Serv...e/FACULTY_FILES/Bartelt/losingfaith020214.pdf



Darwin's Christianity - destroyed by belief in evolution
===================================

Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused thee.



But I had gradually come by this time, i.e. 1836 to 1839, to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindus….

By further reflecting… that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracle become, - that the men of the time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible to us,- that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,- that they differ in many important details…

I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation…. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans… which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.



I can, indeed, hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true;

Darwin (1887) III p. 308 omits the last sentence which is included in the later version of the work [Barlow (1958)].

=====================


Romans 1 says that our infinite God has made what we see around us - and that HIS "invisible attributes are CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been MADE" -

Obviously atheists would not agree with that Romans 1 statement. Rejecting Romans 1 is a "distinctively atheist" position.

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================

That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not.

Okay, so are you suggesting that if a person does not take all scripture in the bible as literal,

hint:"That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not."

I did not say anything about "all scripture is literal" and we both know it.

So you don't quote me saying it -- rather you "quote you" as if your "quote of you" is somehow a "quote of me"??? -- and then we are not "supposed to notice"?

Really??

Please be serious if you intend to defend evolutionism.

Meanwhile I keep pointing to the glaringly obvious detail seen not only by Bible Believing Christians - but also by pretty much everyone - the Bible describes a 7 day creation week -- and not a zillion years of Darwinism.

This is just not that hard. In fact - it is the easy part.

 

[JacksBratt]

Okay, so are you suggesting that if a person does not take all scripture in the bible as literal, it is being mocked? Just a simple yes or no please. Thank you.

Yes, I do for one... If you don't, how do you know which ones to take as literal and which not?

Many passages are parables, these are obvious. Revelations is another book that is cryptic. However, Genesis is literal for sure.

What about Jesus walking on water? Making wine from water, feeding the 5000? Jonah swallowed by a fish? Jericho's walls falling? Crossing the Red sea?

Jesus rising from the dead? Just where do you accept the Bible as literal and where do you say "nah...... allegorical..."

Seems, to me, there is a pattern..... Is it an idea that holds my salvation in the balance? Yes = solid truth. No = nah mythical, allegorical, parable or story. Does it contradict evolution? Yes = metaphor. No? solid truth....
Does it make the earth young? Yes = myth No. I'll consider it.

 

[RickG]

We could choose to believe what the Bible says. Because it is so clear and irrefutable in its statements that even atheists can figure it out.

Notice how the devil starts with "mock the Word of God" as his opening gambit in Genesis 3?


And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?”

Then notice how clear and irrefutable the text of God's Word "by contrast"?

Originally Posted by BobRyan =========================================
One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him.

"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. "

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.

=====================

"Six days you shall labor... for in SIX days the LORD Made..." Ex 20:8-11

Spoken by God and written in "legal code" not in "parable"

-------------------------------------------------------------

But then arises the religion of evolutionism whose by-faith-alone claim is that "A pile of dirt will sure-enough turn into a rabbit over time - given a sufficiently talented and large pile of dirt... and a sufficiently long and talented length of time filled with just-so-stories that are easy enough to tell".

Such a religion as that is ideal for an attack on the Bible.

And for the sake of the T.E. that does not want to start with the atheist's earth-sized 'pile of dirt' -- we have the "tiny amoeba" version of that same doctrine on origins.

"An amoeba will sure-enough turn into a horse over time - given a sufficiently talented amoeba ... and a sufficiently long and talented length of time filled with just-so-stories that are easy enough to tell".

===========

Darwin also claimed that faith in evolutionism destroyed Christianity for him - ...

-- Darwinism leads to atheism according to a number of prominent scientists.

When I said in the OP that "rejecting Romans1 is a 'distinctively atheist' position" - I refer to this

Romans 1:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse


Darwinism's ability to destroy christian faith in those that accept it (given a long enough period of time) - is something that Christians 'should not notice' say 'some' in the Christian community. Others argue it should not be discussed so it can continue its work without detection.


"Among leading scientists in the field of evolution, 87% deny existence of God, 88% disbelieve in life after death, and 90% reject idea that evolution is directed Toward an “ultimate purpose.” 12 "
from http://www.kmlhs.org/UserFiles/Serv...e/FACULTY_FILES/Bartelt/losingfaith020214.pdf



Darwin's Christianity - destroyed by belief in evolution
===================================

Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused thee.



But I had gradually come by this time, i.e. 1836 to 1839, to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindus….

By further reflecting… that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracle become, - that the men of the time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible to us,- that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,- that they differ in many important details…

I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation…. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans… which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.



I can, indeed, hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true;

Darwin (1887) III p. 308 omits the last sentence which is included in the later version of the work [Barlow (1958)].

=====================


Romans 1 says that our infinite God has made what we see around us - and that HIS "invisible attributes are CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been MADE" -

Obviously atheists would not agree with that Romans 1 statement. Rejecting Romans 1 is a "distinctively atheist" position.

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================

That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not.




hint:"That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not."

I did not say anything about "all scripture is literal" and we both know it.

So you don't quote me saying it -- rather you "quote you" as if your "quote of you" is somehow a "quote of me"??? -- and then we are not "supposed to notice"?

Really??

Please be serious if you intend to defend evolutionism.

Meanwhile I keep pointing to the glaringly obvious detail seen not only by Bible Believing Christians - but also by pretty much everyone - the Bible describes a 7 day creation week -- and not a zillion years of Darwinism.

This is just not that hard. In fact - it is the easy part.

I ask a simple question and ask for a simple yes or no answer and get a dissertation. Let's try it again from a different perspective. If I do not view the Book of Genesis as being literal, am I mocking the bible, according to the OP. And this time please, either yes or no. After that we may proceed with discussion of you desire.

 

[Speedwell]

Who supposes that the author of Gen 1 believed he was describing anything else than a creation week of seven regular-length days? Not even the respected clergyman and Hebrew scholar James Barr, it appears--although he was, in his lifetime, a vehement opponent of the YEC doctrine of literal inerrancy.

 

[RickG]

Yes, I do for one... If you don't, how do you know which ones to take as literal and which not?

Thank you Jack, I appreciate your straight forward answer. I of course do not agree. However, I do not conclude that either of us is right or wrong. That is just my opinion. And of course you and others may wonder, just what do I base that on? The answer of course would be multiple reasons. Just looking at the creation story Gen 1:1, it is quite a bit different from what we factually know about the earth. As for scripture I ask the following:

1. Translation
2. Context of the time verses context now of words and phrases.
3. Absolute verification of who and when it was written down.
4. Who decided what was scripture and how do you know?
5. Who decided what went in the bible and what did not and why?
6. Why don't we use what is contained fully in the oldest known complete bible?

 

[JacksBratt]

Thank you Jack, I appreciate your straight forward answer. I of course do not agree. However, I do not conclude that either of us is right or wrong. That is just my opinion. And of course you and others may wonder, just what do I base that on? The answer of course would be multiple reasons. Just looking at the creation story Gen 1:1, it is quite a bit different from what we factually know about the earth. As for scripture I ask the following:

1. Translation
2. Context of the time verses context now of words and phrases.
3. Absolute verification of who and when it was written down.
4. Who decided what was scripture and how do you know?
5. Who decided what went in the bible and what did not and why?
6. Why don't we use what is contained fully in the oldest known complete bible?

When you say "factually know about the earth", it reminds me of the 30 years or so that I was under the impression that lemmings ran, in herds, over cliffs to their deaths...... A solid truth for many years and now, with new information, becomes a huge error.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Yes, I do for one... If you don't, how do you know which ones to take as literal and which not?

Many passages are parables, these are obvious. Revelations is another book that is cryptic. However, Genesis is literal for sure.

Therefore, you believe the Earth is flat as described in Isaiah 40:22, and you believe the Earth is the center of the Universe, or at least the Solar System as mentioned in Isaiah 38:8, repeated in 2nd Kings 20:11.

Since you don't know which passages to take literally and which not.

 

[JacksBratt]

Therefore, you believe the Earth is flat as described in Isaiah 40:22, and you believe the Earth is the center of the Universe, or at least the Solar System as mentioned in Isaiah 38:8, repeated in 2nd Kings 20:11.

Since you don't know which passages to take literally and which not.

Really? This is what I believe, that the earth is flat? Due to the Bible saying the earth is a circle?

Tell me, what shape is the moon when you look at it? A square? A triangle? or... a Circle?

I find it odd that when people really want to ridicule someone, the flat earth comes up.

I have seen nowhere in scripture where the term flat is used in conjunction with the earth.

I have investigated the flat earth topic. I don't believe the earth is flat. However, there are some very intelligent, knowledgeable people who have some questions that, when answered, are more difficult to explain with a globe than a flat earth.

That topic is one for another thread and in the end just causes a bunch of name calling.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes, I do for one... If you don't, how do you know which ones to take as literal and which not?

Through scholarly study of the texts which YECs for the most part reject--out of fear, perhaps, that the results will pose difficulties for those doctrines which set them apart from other Christians.

 

[BobRyan]

Then notice how clear and irrefutable is the text of God's Word "by contrast"? God's Word - so incredibly obvious - even the atheist professors can see what it is saying.

Originally Posted by BobRyan =========================================
One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him.

"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. "

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.


=======================

That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not.

Okay, so are you suggesting that if a person does not take all scripture in the bible as literal,

hint:"That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not."

I did not say anything about "all scripture is literal" and we both know it.

So you don't quote me saying it -- rather you "quote you" as if your "quote of you" is somehow a "quote of me"??? -- and then we are not "supposed to notice"?

Really??

Please be serious if you intend to defend evolutionism.

Meanwhile I keep pointing to the glaringly obvious detail seen not only by Bible Believing Christians - but also by pretty much everyone - the Bible describes a 7 day creation week -- and not a zillion years of Darwinism.

I ask a simple question and ask for a simple yes or no answer and get a dissertation. Let's try it again from a different perspective. If I do not view the Book of Genesis as being literal, am I mocking the bible, according to the OP.

If you do not view the virgin birth, the 7 day creation week, the incarnation, bodily resurrection of Christ, miracles of the Bible, ascension of Christ into heaven as "reproducible in the lab" or "observable by science" - you are not alone.

But if you imagine all of these Christian details to be mere 'story telling' then how do you differ from the same claims made by our atheist friends.


If you claim that at mere whim-and-fancy the Bible may be declared to be myth -- then how do you differ from our atheist friends?

If you claim that it is only "your whim" that can determine when the Bible is myth - and not the atheist's whim - then how do you differ from our atheist friends who gladly turn the tables around on you in that regard?

Details matter.

=====================

"Six days you shall labor... for in SIX days the LORD Made..." Ex 20:8-11

Spoken by God and written in "legal code" not in "parable"

 

[BobRyan]

Through scholarly study of the texts which YECs for the most part reject--out of fear, perhaps, that the results will pose difficulties for those doctrines which set them apart from other Christians.

Then notice how clear and irrefutable is the text of God's Word "by contrast"? God's Word - so incredibly obvious - even the atheist professors can see what it is saying.

Originally Posted by BobRyan =========================================
One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him.

"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. "

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.


=======================

That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not.

 

[BobRyan]

Therefore, you believe the Earth is flat as described in Isaiah 40:22, and you believe the Earth is the center of the Universe, or at least the Solar System as mentioned in Isaiah 38:8, repeated in 2nd Kings 20:11.

Since you don't know which passages to take literally and which not.

"The four corners of the earth" -- is still a phrase we use today - are we all cavemen in your view - because of that idiom?

The Bible says that the earth is a circle and the the sun carves a circle of light on the surface of the earth.

And of course - that is because the earth is a sphere and the light from the much larger sun - will always inscribe a circle on a sphere no matter how large or small the sphere that is smaller than the sun - regardless of the orientation of the sphere to the sun. ... And that would not be true of a plane.

The anti-Bible argument is as in this case - anti-science as well.

 

[Speedwell]

Barr was right. What's your point? Why do you keep posting over and over again a quote from someone who I agree with who was outspoken against your Bible doctrine?

 

[RickG]

When you say "factually know about the earth", it reminds me of the 30 years or so that I was under the impression that lemmings ran, in herds, over cliffs to their deaths...... A solid truth for many years and now, with new information, becomes a huge error.

When I say factual it is something I have experienced and verified physically, not something someone told me as a kid.

 

[JacksBratt]

Through scholarly study of the texts which YECs for the most part reject--out of fear, perhaps, that the results will pose difficulties for those doctrines which set them apart from other Christians.

I really don't think that our creator wrote a book that needs "scholarly study" in order to understand.

How could He do that and then tell us to come "as little children".

Au contraire... when we come as arrogant, men and women with pride of human based knowledge, we are thinking ourselves wise yet we are fools.

Like I said before, if you were to read the Bible without the infection of man made stories, whims and pompous self proud concepts, you would come to the simple conclusion of six literal days and a young earth. All this from a God who contains every bit of power necessary to accomplish this feat and still have infinite power to spare.

The Bible says so, God has the capability..... man is wrong.

Oh ye of little faith.

 

[W2L]

I really don't think that our creator wrote a book that needs "scholarly study" in order to understand.

How could He do that and then tell us to come "as little children".

Au contraire... when we come as arrogant, men and women with pride of human based knowledge, we are thinking ourselves wise yet we are fools.

Like I said before, if you were to read the Bible without the infection of man made stories, whims and pompous self proud concepts, you would come to the simple conclusion of six literal days and a young earth. All this from a God who contains every bit of power necessary to accomplish this feat and still have infinite power to spare.

The Bible says so, God has the capability..... man is wrong.

Oh ye of little faith.

Well said, I agree.

 

[JacksBratt]

When I say factual it is something I have experienced and verified physically, not something someone told me as a kid.

For many years, the whole world thought lemmings plunged to their death. Not just the kids. It was even a phrase or common saying. Just cause you were a kid doesn't mean the rest of the world was.

The science of today is the fodder for humor of the future.....

The Bible remains true forever.

 

[JacksBratt]

Well said, I agree.

ty

 

[Speedwell]

I really don't think that our creator wrote a book that needs "scholarly study" in order to understand.

How could He do that and then tell us to come "as little children".

Because the basic message of our salvation is clear in the Gospels to all who can read.