Christianity and science .. vs.. junk-science evolutionism

[BobRyan]

Are you a literal "virgin-birth-ist"?
a literal "bodily resurrection-ist"?
a literal "ascension into heaven-ist"?
a literal "7 day creation-ist"?

or do you say that since none of that is reproduced by tiny mankind - in the lab -- then none of it happened "in real history"?

==========================================
2+2 = 4 ... is NOT "a matter of interpretation".

God can say something that is accurate, correct, and understandable - and so with "literal virgin birth" and "literal bodily resurrection of Christ" and "literal bodily ascension of Christ" and "literal 7 day creation week"

In the Bible we have this "legal code" -

Ex 20:8-11 "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy - SIX days you shall labor... For in SIX days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

Gen 2:1-3
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made

No such language found in even ONE of evolutionism's 'texts' to state that particular "belief".

As for "the obvious" it is not merely Bible believing Christians that notice it.

Turns out ---

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.’

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


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 statement. Rejecting Romans 1 is a "distinctively atheist" position

=========================== by contrast

blind faith evolutionism believes in a doctrine that goes something like this
"an amoeba will sure enough turn into a rabbit over time given a talented enough amoeba and a long and talented enough length of time filled with improbable (mount improbable) stories easy enough to tell but they are not science"

So then "Choose" your religion.

 

[BobRyan]

Don't forget the evolutionists warming up moths on their car bonnet and gluing them to the trunks of trees, resulting in the Journal Nature lamenting the loss of a prize horse in their stable of evidence? Prize horse indeed

Contrived evidence - such as the moth and Marsh's infamous horse series still on display at the Smithsonian - has strong "emotional appeal" but is of no actual scientific value.

What then is the "motivation" to produce "contrived evidence" -- well Ernst Haeckel will tell you that the answer among blind-faith evolutionists is that "everyone is doing it" -- but that level of perfidy alone would not be sufficient to explain the trend. There is another more devastating reason for pumping out "contrived evidence" and it is the great paucity of substantive evidence for evolutionism.

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


Collin Patterson (atheist and diehard evolutionist to the day he died in 1998) - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history speaking at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 - said:



Patterson - quotes Gillespie's arguing that Christians

"'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'"


Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact (saying): 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"


"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...


"...,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

Patterson said -

“Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing…that is true?

I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural history and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said “I know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school”

"...I'm speaking on two subjects, evolution and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either...One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let's call it non-evolutionary , was last year I had a sudden realization.
"For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. "That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long...

It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that's all we know about it...

about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolution as revealed truth in some way."
========================================

Now time to "think" -- this is coming from a highly published diehard atheist full-fledged "believer" in evolutionism. He is not about to leave that position no matter how much junk-science he finds there.

But many blind faith evolutionists argue that their religion of evolutionism is not junk science - but is in fact solid objective science... like chemistry or math. When is the last time you heard a world-renowned chemistry or math scientist say -- "knowledge about chemistry is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that's all " ?? - while standing before an all-star list of his peers??

Does not happen!!

 

[BobRyan]

here are a few examples of people "choosing" as described in the OP

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

Darwin and Dawkins both looked into this and came to the same conclusion - better to "mock the Bible" in their POV.

The T.E. quote above is not the only one who claims that his Christianity was being set aside by belief in the doctrine on origins found in evolution -

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

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

when Christians say that "rejecting Romans1 is a 'distinctively atheist' position" - they may be referring 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.

 

[BobRyan]

Are you a literal "virgin-birth-ist"?
a literal "bodily resurrection-ist"?
a literal "ascension into heaven-ist"?
a literal "7 day creation-ist"?

or do you say that since none of that is reproduced by tiny mankind - in the lab -- then none of it happened "in real history"?

\
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
On a literary and theological level, yes. On a scientific level, no.

I understand that they all get a "literary yes" because the text itself is stating the fact as we read it.

But then they all get a "science no" because they cannot be reproduced in the lab????.

But then a double-speak "yes" on a theological level of 'yes theologically a virgin birth idea is ok but as science fact of what happened in real life - it gets a no"??

But here's the thing, I'm not dogmatic about science, and I recognize that it isn't science that is going to impart Eternal Life to me

I am dogmatic that science is a great tool for knowledge and objective science unbent by efforts to make it junk science is ideal -- especially for Christians who think critically and are not easily "duped" as Patterson would put it.

--and it's also for this reason that I'm not a Transhumanist. I don't have faith in science.

On the other side of the coin, how is the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection subject to science?

the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the bodily ascension of Christ the 7 day creation week are obviously physical events that take place in nature - in real life - in history. Real historic events where the actor is "God Himself".

Can we "trust God" to have done what He actually said He did -- in real history? "The fact" of the 7 day creation week is embedded "in legal code" as we see in Exodus 20:11.

None of these Bible-history "events" can be "reproduced in the lab" as I keep pointing out. (And you keep sidestepping)

They are all foundational to faith - as even John points out in chapter 1 of his Gospel.

Believe the Bible - or deny the Bible. it is a "literary fact" that Moses was not writing as a Darwinist and neither was John - nor were their readers inclined to "read darwinism into the text". Both start off their text with affirmation of the Bible fact of creation - and both move on from that foundation to the subject of the fall man and the Gospel.

 

[BobRyan]

I'm very, very, very sure that not only will we disagree about the nature of the first chapter of Genesis, as well as about the practical nature of science itself, we will disagree, too, about the very nature of the written word of the Bible itself.

Bingo!

The issue here is not science - it is "the Bible"

 

[Ken Behrens]

The Bible gives us God's POV for real historical occurrences. For the most part, we do not understand how these people thought about the world, or even about themselves. So what God is commenting on is a report we have never seen, and in a language and culture we wouldn't understand if we did. Try to imagine a person from 1600AD hearing you say that we can immunize against the plague or that we can talk to anyone anywhere in the world instantly. Or that we can cook without fire (microwave). Of velcro. Or try to imagine what they would say if they found a cellphone with recorded videos on it. These issues are an invitation to learn more about God and how He processes the world. It's sad the Library of Alexandria was destroyed (in part by Christians), so we do not have the reports we need, and we must work from sketchy archeological finds.

 

[ken777]

It is apparent that self interest requires scientists to not contradict accepted science dogma - this applies to evolution, man made climate change, SAD (same sex attraction disorder), and probably many other areas

 

[BobRyan]

The Bible gives us God's POV for real historical occurrences. For the most part, we do not understand how these people thought about the world, or even about themselves. So what God is commenting on is a report we have never seen, and in a language and culture we wouldn't understand if we did. Try to imagine a person from 1600AD hearing you say that we can immunize against the plague or that we can talk to anyone anywhere in the world instantly. Or that we can cook without fire (microwave). Of velcro. Or try to imagine what they would say if they found a cellphone with recorded videos on it. These issues are an invitation to learn more about God and how He processes the world. It's sad the Library of Alexandria was destroyed (in part by Christians), so we do not have the reports we need, and we must work from sketchy archeological finds.

So then.. do.. or do not accept the "virgin birth" -- the bodily resurrection of Christ, the bodily ascension of Christ?

Or do we need "another Bible" to explain the Bible no matter how easy to read - the Bible is?

 

[BobRyan]

The T.E. main points start with the idea that the Bible is too hard to read - or it is "up for grabs no matter how clearly it is worded".

The Bible must be attacked in that way "as the start" because there is no 'science' for the virgin birth or the 7 day creation week as if what God does 'Can be reproduced by man in the lab' -- as we all know.

well we could "imagine" that the Bible is too hard to read in Ex 20:11 and Genesis 1:-2:3 -- but as James Barr points that "imagination" game does not go very far.

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

As you may recall - the "details" being much avoided so far --

Turns out ---

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.’

By your response, I take it that you don't have any infallible, extra-biblical books on biblical interpretation, or any other sources, to offer to me. Ok, then... how about instead fallible, but respectable extra-biblical books on biblical interpretation.

"Again" pretending that the Bible sooooo hard to read that one needs another Bible-2 to tell them what the Bible says - is nonsense. And then no matter how simple Bible-2 the information adverse could claim they need a Bible-3 to explain Bible-2 to explain the Bible.

how many 2nd, 3rd, ... nth Bibles would it take for you to believe in the virgin birth? the bodily resurrection of Christ? the 7 day creation week? not taking God's name in vain??

Hence I give you this very simple example of just such a case of easy-to-read Bible examples. Sooooo easy -- even the professors at all world class universities "can see" it.


In the Bible we have this "legal code" -

Ex 20:8-11 "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy - SIX days you shall labor... For in SIX days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

Gen 2:1-3
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made
=============================================

In your response - you never take the details in the text and argue that it was too difficult for you to read -- not even when I give you such simple examples. (All the while claiming you need "another Bible" to interpret the Bible for you).

You are clearly gaming the subject - please be serious.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

It is apparent that self interest requires scientists to not contradict accepted science dogma - this applies to evolution, man made climate change, SAD (same sex attraction disorder), and probably many other areas

which would fall "short" of objective science.

(BTW - there used to be an ice age... so clearly we have "climate change" )

 

[ken777]

which would fall "short" of objective science.

(BTW - there used to be an ice age... so clearly we have "climate change" )

Climate change is very evident in my corner of the world with rainfall dramatically reduced ... the extent to which this is man made and requires drastic solutions is not so clear.

 

[BobRyan]

Climate change is very evident in my corner of the world with rainfall dramatically reduced ... the extent to which this is man made and requires drastic solutions is not so clear.

Agreed. Trying to tie everything to cows and hairspray etc is a much more doubtful claim. But there is no doubt that climate change happens - even before hairspray was invented.

 

[Jipsah]

Are you a literal "virgin-birth-ist"?

Yep.

a literal "bodily resurrection-ist"?

Yep.

a literal "ascension into heaven-ist"?

Yep.

a literal "7 day creation-ist"?

Nope.

Are you a literal "Body and Bloodist"?

or do you say that since none of that is reproduced by tiny mankind - in the lab -- then none of it happened "in real history"?

Do you say that our Lord couldn't possibly have meant what He said when He instituted the Eucharist? Can't prove in the lab that the elements are His Blood and Body, so there's an end of it, right? Says so right there on your doctrine.

But then a double-speak "yes" on a theological level of 'yes theologically a virgin birth idea is ok but as science fact of what happened in real life - it gets a no"??

I'll bet y'all can "prove" it's just wine in a lab, can't you?

 

[BobRyan]

Yep.
Yep.
Yep.
Nope.

Are you a literal "Body and Bloodist"?

Do you say that our Lord couldn't possibly have meant what He said when He instituted the Eucharist? Can't prove in the lab that the elements are His Blood and Body, so there's an end of it, right? Says so right there on your doctrine.

I'll bet y'all can "prove" it's just wine in a lab, can't you?

Hmmm "spin this to a discussion of the Catholic mass"???

Is Jesus a real "wooden door" (John 10)? nope. Figure of speech.
Did faithful disciples in John 6 "bite Christ"?? nope. Figure of speech being used there as well.

John 6 - eating literal flesh is worthless it is my WORDS that have Spirit and LIFE
63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.”

When being at war against the Bible - those who choose it usually are so far out in the open that the flaw in their doctrine is "obvious" as in cases I highlighted.

Start a thread on that subject if you like - no need to derail this one.

Oh and by the way thinks for demonstrating irrational "pick-and-choose" in your yep-yep-nope list instead on "consistent Bible reading" (because that is the very point I was trying to make)

 

[Jipsah]

Hmmm "spin this to a discussion of the Catholic mass"???

Nope, and I'm not Roman Catholic. It's about taking the word of the Lord literally or not. I take His Word that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are His Body and Blood. You do not. Just pointing out that in your list of literalisms, you missed a pretty significant one, one that you call upon modern science to "refute". Sauce for the goose...

Is Jesus a real "wooden door" (John 10)? nope. Figure of speech.
Did faithful disciples in John 6 "bite Christ"?? nope. Figure of speech being used there as well.

Kinda like the "days" in Genesis, especially those "days" when there wasn't yet any sun. And how long did St. Peter say God's "days" were"?

But then. how many people packed up and left our Lord for saying that He was "the door"? How many thought His saying that the bread and wine were His body and Blood was a "hard saying", and left Him because of it?

The long and the short of it is that it's your doctrine, and nothing else, makes you demand that a "day" in Genesis is anything but a literary device, but that the very Words of our Lord must not be taken at face value in His institution of the Eucharist.

So no, you're not a literal Body and Bloodist. Thanks for clarifying that.

" The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.”

And you're obviously one of those who do not believe His Words as touching the Eucharist.

When being at war against the Bible - those who choose it usually are so far out in the open that the flaw in their doctrine is "obvious" as in cases I highlighted.

So we see. Thanks for the illustration. (And try not too use scare quotes for emphasis; that's not what they're for. Italics are what you want.)

Start a thread on that subject if you like - no need to derail this one.

Hey, you're the one who made it a thread about literalism or lack thereof. Glass houses, dude.

Oh and by the way thinks for demonstrating irrational "pick-and-choose" in your yep-yep-nope list instead on "consistent Bible reading" (because that is the very point I was trying to make)

The points themselves were inconsistent. But if being consistent is important, you'd best start taking our Lord's Word on the Eucharist literally.

 

[BobRyan]

Yep.
Yep.
Yep.
Nope.

Are you a literal "Body and Bloodist"?

Do you say that our Lord couldn't possibly have meant what He said when He instituted the Eucharist? Can't prove in the lab that the elements are His Blood and Body, so there's an end of it, right? Says so right there on your doctrine.

I'll bet y'all can "prove" it's just wine in a lab, can't you?

Hmmm "spin this to a discussion of the Catholic mass"???

Is Jesus a real "wooden door" (John 10)? nope. Figure of speech.
Did faithful disciples in John 6 "bite Christ"?? nope. Figure of speech being used there as well.

John 6 - eating literal flesh is worthless it is my WORDS that have Spirit and LIFE
63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.”

When being at war against the Bible - those who choose it usually are so far out in the open that the flaw in their doctrine is "obvious" as in cases I highlighted.

Start a thread on that subject if you like - no need to derail this one.

Oh and by the way thinks for demonstrating irrational "pick-and-choose" in your yep-yep-nope list instead on "consistent Bible reading" (because that is the very point I was trying to make)


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

Hmmm "spin this to a discussion of the Catholic mass"???

Nope, and I'm not Roman Catholic.

Two points we agree on .

Nice.

Now back to the topic

 

[BobRyan]

Are you a literal "virgin-birth-ist"?
a literal "bodily resurrection-ist"?
a literal "ascension into heaven-ist"?
a literal "7 day creation-ist"?

or do you say that since none of that is reproduced by tiny mankind - in the lab -- then none of it happened "in real history"? .

to which you say "yep yep yep nope"

Making you appear arbitrary in your deny-all against the Bible teaching on creation.

Was this the point where you were intending to explain your answer?

 

[Jipsah]

Explain it? No need, I don't think Creation took six 24 hour days, and even if it did, I don't see that it's relevant to anything. 2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." You're apparently denying that, and saying "No! Our dogma demands that Creation took six 24 hour days!" A fig for your dogma.

On the other hand, your dogma also demands that we must deny our Lord's own Word that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are His Body and Blood. Not only inconsistent, not only arbitrary, but diametrically opposed to what our Lord actually said!

If I'm wrong on Genesis, my bad, no harm done. If you're wrong on the Eucharist, well, that's setting at naught the very Words of our Lord Christ.

 

[Ken Behrens]

So then.. do.. or do not accept the "virgin birth" -- the bodily resurrection of Christ, the bodily ascension of Christ?

Or do we need "another Bible" to explain the Bible no matter how easy to read - the Bible is?

Of course I do. The sources of those have been saved enough to where there can be no question of double meanings.

I'm referring more to things like six days of creation, the flood, the staff of the pharoah's magicians, etc. On all these things, you have dozens of explanations for something that might have been misinterpreted as these things. Many say they are euphemisms. And the sources that would tell us were probably destroyed in the Library of Alexandria.

When you get to the virgin birth, people only deny it by saying it's made up based on other legends, or that Mary and Joseph were lying. No one suggests that it is a euphemism for anything. And you have the Gospel of Luke, almost certainly researched while Mary was still alive to tell the story.

With the resurrection it is the same. The only other option offered is that it was faked in some way. No one ever advances that it is just a spiritual symbol of some kind. And here you have even a better proof. Jesus lives in all of us. This could not happen if He did not ascend, which in turn could not have happened if He did not resurrect.

All of Scripture is true. We just don't understand all the language in the original. It is not all easy to read. I bet without a dictionary, most people reading this couldn't tell a "bereshit bara" from an "en arche en ho logos", or for that matter an aleph from a lambda, let alone the linguistic context of a deluge vs. a flood.

 

[BobRyan]

The Bible gives us God's POV for real historical occurrences. For the most part, we do not understand how these people thought about the world, or even about themselves. So what God is commenting on is a report we have never seen, and in a language and culture we wouldn't understand if we did. Try to imagine a person from 1600AD hearing you say that we can immunize against the plague or that we can talk to anyone anywhere in the world instantly. Or that we can cook without fire (microwave). Of velcro. Or try to imagine what they would say if they found a cellphone with recorded videos on it. These issues are an invitation to learn more about God and how He processes the world. It's sad the Library of Alexandria was destroyed (in part by Christians), so we do not have the reports we need, and we must work from sketchy archeological finds.

So then.. do.. or do not accept the "virgin birth" -- the bodily resurrection of Christ, the bodily ascension of Christ?

Or do we need "another Bible" to explain the Bible no matter how easy to read - the Bible is?

Of course I do. The sources of those have been saved enough to where there can be no question of double meanings.

Is it the underlying "source text" that is "saved enough" to eliminate "double meaning"???

Where did you get that idea?

We have older manuscripts for the OT than the NT - does that make them "more reliable" or more "filled with double meaning" ??

"Do not take the name of the Lord your God in vain" - Ex 20:7 --

Double meaning?

hard to read?

not to be trusted??

old?

I'm referring more to things like six days of creation, the flood, the staff of the pharoah's magicians, etc. On all these things, you have dozens of explanations for something that might have been misinterpreted as these things.