Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[Hans Blaster]

IT is a test. That is specifically prohibited.

1. How is it "tempting god" for a believer to pray for a miraculous feat?
2. If I apply a test to someone's claim, I don't care about any prohibition. I have no lord or god.

Prayer is a personal dialogue with God.

One way.

 

[River Jordan]

I was suggesting that since the Bible's claim specifies what the outcome will be ahead of time, we can test to see what actually happens is the same as the predicted outcome.

That's how the scientific method works. Use the hypothesis to make a prediction about what will happen, and then see if that's what happens in reality.

Number one, I feel like you're taking what's very likely an idiom way too literally, like if someone says "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse". Surely you wouldn't say if they don't eat an entire horse they're therefore not hungry, would you?

Number two, I'm not sure I expressed my point clearly enough in my last post to you. You were focused on one possible outcome (an entire mountain lifting up and moving), but what if, as far as you can tell, nothing happens? Does that mean the supernatural or God therefore doesn't exist? Of course not. The very most you'd be able to conclude is that the specific prayer that was conducted didn't result in a discernible change in the mountain you monitored. But you wouldn't be able to draw any conclusions about the supernatural or God.

Plus there's what I said before, that there is no potential outcome that is inconsistent with or that would negate the existence of the supernatural or God. That means they are absolutely 100% unfalsifiable, which typically removes something from the category of scientifically testable.

 

[AV1611VET]

1. How is it "tempting god" for a believer to pray for a miraculous feat?

Read Matthew 4 for the answer.

2. If I apply a test to someone's claim, I don't care about any prohibition. I have no lord or god.

What if the outcome of that "test" could be:

1. immediate
2. delayed
3. denied
4. done piecemeal style

 

[QvQ]

One way.

Prayers are answered
That is part of the personal dialogue.

Matthew 5: 8 Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God

That means a genuine and sincere intention toward God
With an open mind and a heart free of motive other than to know God

 

[dlamberth]

Read Matthew 4 for the answer.



What if the outcome of that "test" could be:

1. immediate
2. delayed
3. denied
4. done piecemeal style

5. not at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

What if the outcome of that "test" could be:

3. denied

5. not at all.

How would you differentiate between NOT AT ALL and DENIED?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It was your choice to use "exegetics" and "hermanetics" (or however they are spelled), instead of "textual analysis" (or something similar) that was "jargony". I've seen those words before, but their meaning is not apparent to me (without a dictionary). As for the departments that use them, I don't even know where they are on the campuses I have most recently spent some time one. THe last such department I knew where it was was the English Dept. at my graduate university, and that was only because I taught a class in their building.

Did I actually write "exegetics"? Darn it. I thought I had gone back and corrected that before I posted. ............ oh well. My apologies.

If I thought "Hermitian matrices" were necessary to mention in a CF post I would define and explain it. If I needed to use one in a journal article I would not explain it.

And if you had mentioned it, I'm the sort who would simply take 10 seconds to google it and scan the first reasonable entry I would find on it, at the very least: Hermitian matrix - Wikipedia

Interesting stuff, really. Like formal Logic, I wish I could easily understand it all. ..... maybe some day.

I find theology an invalid field of study, as I do its sub-field of apologetics. But we're doing a textual analysis not theology, right?

Right....................but, "doing" textual analysis can often immediately pour right into theology. If we know that isn't intended to literally move mountains, then we've established at least a limit to the semantic range of connotations that the said theological concept "faith" can be applied to, and we've done ourselves an educational favor so we don't go the rest of our lives "soured" over the fact that our faith isn't pushing every physical obstacle we encounter out of the way.

Unless you are holding something back, nothing about our discussion has involved the definition or usage of words. None of the words in these passages are extraordinary or odd. Pretty regular words. I have no idea why you even brought up a concordence. If we are going to go into the meaning and translation of specific words, then I will withdraw.

You've repeated yourself here more than once about suspecting that I'm "holding something back." I'm not even sure what your inferring. I'm not holding anything back; rather, I don't like to give anything in full until sincerely invited to do so. So, no, I'm not holding back.

I simply brought up the concordance because it makes looking up the certain tropes in the Bible all the more easy and (potentially) comprehensively. I suggested it since you obviously missed one or two passages that contained the "faith moving mountains" phrase now under our discussion.

Mostly I don't recall. The only thing even close I can think of is Ehrman's "How Jesus became God", but that's (as I recall) about early Christian understanding of the nature of Jesus, and not largely about the texts themselves. I don't recall reading any other books. I've read some articles and watched some lectures, debates, discussions, and documentaries, which ones I don't recall.

Ok. Thanks for sharing that.

I did use, but did not name the Razor. I do think it is more likely that Matthew added the "mountain moving" metaphor to the story of the epileptic boy than Mark removed it from some prior source and Matthew put it back, because that would imply that both had the same written source, which I see no reason to presume exists.

Yes, Matthew does seem to have added "mountain moving" into his narrative as compared to Mark. I agree. The thing is, if we're thinking historically, we really don't know why he constructed his narrative with that additional connective flourish. We can speculate, but sometimes there is too little evidence to establish firm relation, causality, or motive.

I have no idea what they thought and it is difficult for me to imagine what they thought since I grew up in the technologically sophisticated and scientifically advanced late 20th century when the age of the Earth, plate tectonics, and the formation of planetary systems from the debris of prior generations of dead stars was already firmly established. Even the notion that epilepsy was "caused" by demon posession would have seemed barbaric to the youthful me that learned how to respond to a seizure.

Then if we have no idea about what they thought in the 1st century, it's probably best not to assume too much either way, even in the case of an apparent connection between demonic possession and epilepsy. By the way, you seem to imply something about epilepsy in a more personal way. I'm hoping that doesn't mean your, yourself, have to deal with that condition.

No, I just didn't know if it was certain the metaphor was Jewish. Mark and Matthew were Greek speakers (and writers) so it could be a Greek metaphor. If you know difinatively, I am curious, if you don't that is fine.

From the sources I have and the sources I then gleaned yesterday, it seems that from what little historical information exists on this topic, the nature of the "removing mountains" metaphor is a Jewish one rather than a Greecian one.

I don't like to be pushed (who does) and I'm not trying to fool you.

Exactly. I was merely implying that I think I understand. No one likes to be pushed.

I really am not well versed in the NT and even less so in the OT. I once decided about a decade ago to read the Bible from stem to stern, but after only skipping some geneologies and descriptions of the scrafices, tabernacle, priestly garb in Genesis and Exodus, stopped part way through the third book because it was just to unintersting. (I also don't like pre-20th century literary styles in English, so translations of ancient texts weren't really a great read.) Later I tried the gospels, I started with Mark and got all the way through, but somewhere in the next one (Matthew) it got repetative and I stopped again. I think I've read a few of the epistles but don't remember which ones, except that when I tried to to read Romans I got too disgusted after the first chapter and stopped. All of that was after deconversion, before it the amount I'd read on my own was proabably less than the text on this page of this thread.

The trick is to realize that to understand the Bible, one can't really just read the Bible alone, especially in English. And that's the case for any ancient, foreign religious book in any religion, really. It's just the factually limited and epistemic situation we're caught in with the Bible, and it's why there's a need for the application of various strands of academic consideration form within the field of Hermeneutics.

I mostly read post-WWII written non-fiction, especially histories, and religious texts from religions I don't follow are not something I can bring myself to read. Most of the stuff I read is the first time I've seen it and a lot doesn't stick.

Oh? Which books on post-WW2 non-fiction or history have you found to be the most interesting?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Did I actually write "exegetics"? Darn it. I thought I had gone back and corrected that before I posted. ............ oh well. My apologies.

I don't know what you wrote, I didn't open up an extra copy of the thread in a new window so I could go back. (This format of the replies can be very annoying on this board.) You likely spelled it correctly, I just don't remember how to spell or pronounce it.

And if you had mentioned it, I'm the sort who would simply take 10 seconds to google it and scan the first reasonable entry I would find on it, at the very least: Hermitian matrix - Wikipedia

Interesting stuff, really.

That was my point, jargon is great as a short cut when writing to those who know it, but not so great elsewhere. This is CF, so I don't expect definitions of the various "millenialism"s (which I *always* have to look up and then they still don't make a lot of sense) or trinity or resurrection. Sometimes even the proper, techinical definitions aren't of any use (let's breifly remember, then shelf the recent "issues" with the difference between "physical" and "natural" for which the reference definition were not helpful and the poster was not actually using. Ugh.)

Like formal Logic, I wish I could easily understand it all. ..... maybe some day.

Which looks like gibberish whenever I see it. There is a vague resemblance to math, but it looks like the typesetting broke into the old DOS characters for drawing windows in text.

Right....................but, "doing" textual analysis can often immediately pour right into theology. If we know that isn't intended to literally move mountains, then we've established at least a limit to the semantic range of connotations that the said theological concept "faith" can be applied to, and we've done ourselves an educational favor so we don't go the rest of our lives "soured" over the fact that our faith isn't pushing every physical obstacle we encounter out of the way.

I've heard the mountain moving metaphor many a time (and the related aphorism "ye of little faith") and the admonishment of Jesus. At least one of those three passages (and perhaps all) are in the 3-year cycle of gospel readings. It was also clear for a long time that others thought faith and prayer were more effective in the real world than I did. If someone wants to make a claim about that power, I am interested in tests of it. (Though someone else thinks that violates the rules some how. SMH.)

You've repeated yourself here more than once about suspecting that I'm "holding something back." I'm not even sure what your inferring. I'm not holding anything back; rather, I don't like to give anything in full until sincerely invited to do so. So, no, I'm not holding back.

It was just your odd seeming insistence that a "concordence" would be of use, and since I didn't know they also had an index of tropes, I couldn't figure out why. I didn't think you were holding back, but I couldn't figure out why you thought it was useful i this case.

I simply brought up the concordance because it makes looking up the certain tropes in the Bible all the more easy and (potentially) comprehensively. I suggested it since you obviously missed one or two passages that contained the "faith moving mountains" phrase now under our discussion.

Since I am hanging out in the science section (as I usually do + politics) I wasn't expecting (or wanting) any non-creation related theology or bible studies to break out.

Ok. Thanks for sharing that.

Yes, Matthew does seem to have added "mountain moving" into his narrative as compared to Mark. I agree. The thing is, if we're thinking historically, we really don't know why he constructed his narrative with that additional connective flourish. We can speculate, but sometimes there is too little evidence to establish firm relation, causality, or motive.

I only dared try this analysis because it was so simple (and I knew the order of authorshiop).

Then if we have no idea about what they thought in the 1st century, it's probably best not to assume to much either way, even in the case of an apparent connection between demonic possession and epilepsy. By the way, you seem to imply something about epilepsy in a more personal way. I'm hoping that doesn't mean your, yourself, have to deal with that condition.

No not personally, but when I was writing yesterday I did recall getting some training about how to deal with seizures in gym class in junior high one day. If my memory has not failed me completely, I think someone with epilepsy was coming into the school and they wanted as many of us as possible to know what to do (or more importantly what not to do). (Frankly the whole disease by demon possession thing and faith healing generally all rub me the wrong away and have for a very long time. I saw Peter Popper get busted on TV in the 80s, and it gave me that "Erich Weiss" feeling. [Deep reference test. ] )

From the sources I have and the sources I then gleaned yesterday, it seems that from what little historical information exists on this topic, the nature of the "removing mountains" metaphor is a Jewish one rather than a Greecian one.

OK, interesting. Not ultimately important, but interesting nonetheless. With so much cultural transmission going on, it could have been Luwian for all I know.

Exactly. I was merely implying that I think I understand. No one likes to be pushed.


The trick is to realize that to understand the Bible, one can't really just read the Bible alone, especially in English. And that's the case for any ancient, foreign religious book in any religion really. That's just the factual situation and why there's a need for Hermeneutics.

No doubt (and I come from the biblical tradition of "we'll read it for you and then tell you what it means") and this is a big part of why reading it myself doesn't hold any particular interest.

Oh? Which books on post-WW2 non-fiction or history have you found to be the most interesting?

Before I answer, it was "post-WW2 books" that is those written in the second half of the 20th century or later, not just the history of the world post-WW2.

The first book that popped into my head (and it may have been my avatar speaking) was "Nothing But Victory" about the Army of the Tennessee. I haven't read nearly as many books in the last 5 years, too much time online. I have read some general overview histories of India, ancient Egypt, and the Roman Republic. (Given the amount of stuff on the Bronze Age in tthe ANE I viewed 5 years ago, I should find a few books on that.) I found Caro's 3/4 biography of LBJ fascinating. (I didn't really know a whole lot about LBJ specifically, but afterwards I find his personality extremely off-putting.) Off to the stacks to spot a few things of interest that I read years ago...

Citizens (Simon Sharma) on the French Revolution
1491 and 1493 (Charles Mann) on the Columbian interchange
American Colonies (Alan Taylor)
Albion's Seed (Fischer)
King Leopold's Ghost (Hochschild)
Radialism of the American Revolution (Gordon Wood)
Nature's God (Matthew Steward) on Ethan Alan and his philosophy book
The rise of American democracy (Wilentz)
Dark Horse (Ackerman) the election and assassination of James Garfield
The making of the Atomic Bomb (Rhodes)
All the President's Men (Woodward/Bernstein)
Guests of the Ayatollah (Bowden) the first historical event I remember
Command and Control (Eric Scholsser) on the early 80s ICBM silo accident in Arkansas and realted issues
Going Clear (Wright) Hubbard and Scientology
America's Constitution (Amar) a legal and historical analysis of the Constitution.

A few biographies:

Pops (Teachout) on Louis "pronounced Lewis" Armstrong
Godess of the Market (Burns) on Ayn Rand
By His Own Rules (Graham) on Rumsfeld
The Heart of everything that there is (Drury and Clavin) on Red Cloud

A few recent history/memoirs books that have relevance to curent events:

The Family (Sharlett)
Democracy in Chains (Namcy MacLean)
The Great Influenza (John Barry)

 

[QvQ]

The trick is to realize that to understand the Bible, one can't really just read the Bible alone, especially in English. And that's the case for any ancient, foreign religious book in any religion, really. It's just the factually limited and epistemic situation we're caught in with the Bible, and it's why there's a need for the application of various strands of academic consideration form within the field of Hermeneutics.

I was raised stone cold atheist by educated atheist who dismissed the entire subject as irrelevant fairy tales.
I was curious, with an open mind and good intent.

I can agree with @Hans Blaster about all the terms, jargon as he calls it. I really do not know what epistemic and hermeneutics are and not particularly interested. I certainly don't need any of that to understand the Bible.

I did read the Bible alone. Still do. I prefer the King James as I like Elizabethean English.

If someone wants to make a claim about that power, I am interested in tests of it. (Though someone else thinks that violates the rules some how. SMH.)

You can test it for yourself.
It is a personal dialogue between you and God
With an open mind and an honest desire to see God
Ask God

 

[Aaron112]

I was raised stone cold atheist by educated atheist who dismissed the entire subject as irrelevant fairy tales.
I was curious, with an open mind and good intent.

I can agree with @Hans Blaster about all the terms, jargon as he calls it. I really do not know what epistemic and hermeneutics are and not particularly interested. I certainly don't need any of that to understand the Bible.

I did read the Bible alone. Still do. I prefer the King James as I like Elizabethean English.

By reading the Bible alone, in a relationship living with God,
you may 'easily' avoid all of the errors introduced by other men or posters who read other stuff that is opposed to Jesus, and which Jesus Himself opposes.

You can test it for yourself.
It is a personal dialogue between you and God
With an open mind and an honest desire to see God
Ask God

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't know what you wrote, I didn't open up an extra copy of the thread in a new window so I could go back. (This format of the replies can be very annoying on this board.) You likely spelled it correctly, I just don't remember how to spell or pronounce it.

Lol. ok.

That was my point, jargon is great as a short cut when writing to those who know it, but not so great elsewhere. This is CF, so I don't expect definitions of the various "millenialism"s (which I *always* have to look up and then they still don't make a lot of sense) or trinity or resurrection. Sometimes even the proper, techinical definitions aren't of any use (let's breifly remember, then shelf the recent "issues" with the difference between "physical" and "natural" for which the reference definition were not helpful and the poster was not actually using. Ugh.)

I'll try to keep that in mind, even though the observance that many other people have for disregard the learning of additional vocabulary causes me to break out in a rash.

I've heard the mountain moving metaphor many a time (and the related aphorism "ye of little faith") and the admonishment of Jesus. At least one of those three passages (and perhaps all) are in the 3-year cycle of gospel readings. It was also clear for a long time that others thought faith and prayer were more effective in the real world than I did. If someone wants to make a claim about that power, I am interested in tests of it. (Though someone else thinks that violates the rules some how. SMH.)

That's reasonable, really, and there really isn't (or shouldn't be) a rule against. The only thing is, one has to fully "know" what the nature of the referenced phenomena is in order to authentically test the said claim, and it is the ignoring of this point that I think causes me to raise the red flags of critical thinking when others instead rev up their "experimental engines" because they think they see a checkered flag wafting in the wind..................................

Since I am hanging out in the science section (as I usually do + politics) I wasn't expecting (or wanting) any non-creation related theology or bible studies to break out.

......yeah, I know. But this is how things transverse with someone from Starfleet insists on testing out their design for a new warp drive.

I only dared try this analysis because it was so simple (and I knew the order of authorshiop).

Well, needless to say that on a cursory level, you did a decent job of discerning oddities between the texts.

No not personally, but when I was writing yesterday I did recall getting some training about how to deal with seizures in gym class in junior high one day. If my memory has not failed me completely, I think someone with epilepsy was coming into the school and they wanted as many of us as possible to know what to do (or more importantly what not to do). (Frankly the whole disease by demon possession thing and faith healing generally all rub me the wrong away and have for a very long time. I saw Peter Popper get busted on TV in the 80s, and it gave me that "Erich Weiss" feeling. [Deep reference test. ] )

Reference tests are great, but just remember a rose by any other name still drowns just the same. (I know. That sounds awful.)

As for the epilepsy scenario in your junior high, I can readily understand why the school admins would train students. That's beats what might happen in a handful of churches today------ "everyone, let's huddle around this person and pray their epileptic demon away!!!"

Still, where the Gospel accounts are concerned, I think there are interpretive issues that get ignored and it's not necessarily enough to insist that ancient Jews, through and through, couldn't always tell the difference between a demonic possession and an epileptic seizure (or any other sickness for that matter).

OK, interesting. Not ultimately important, but interesting nonetheless. With so much cultural transmission going on, it could have been Luwian for all I know.

Lol. I suppose it's not out of the question ... gods and mountains have always seemed to go together.

No doubt (and I come from the biblical tradition of "we'll read it for you and then tell you what it means") and this is a big part of why reading it myself doesn't hold any particular interest.

The thing is, they were doing the same thing in the Southern Baptist church I attended when I first engaged Christianity seriously, and from the get go they said the same thing. It didn't go over well with me, even to my newly minted Christian ears.

Before I answer, it was "post-WW2 books" that is those written in the second half of the 20th century or later, not just the history of the world post-WW2.

No, I understood your meaning.

The first book that popped into my head (and it may have been my avatar speaking) was "Nothing But Victory" about the Army of the Tennessee. I haven't read nearly as many books in the last 5 years, too much time online. I have read some general overview histories of India, ancient Egypt, and the Roman Republic. (Given the amount of stuff on the Bronze Age in tthe ANE I viewed 5 years ago, I should find a few books on that.) I found Caro's 3/4 biography of LBJ fascinating. (I didn't really know a whole lot about LBJ specifically, but afterwards I find his personality extremely off-putting.) Off to the stacks to spot a few things of interest that I read years ago...

Citizens (Simon Sharma) on the French Revolution
1491 and 1493 (Charles Mann) on the Columbian interchange
American Colonies (Alan Taylor)
Albion's Seed (Fischer)
King Leopold's Ghost (Hochschild)
Radialism of the American Revolution (Gordon Wood)
Nature's God (Matthew Steward) on Ethan Alan and his philosophy book
The rise of American democracy (Wilentz)
Dark Horse (Ackerman) the election and assassination of James Garfield
The making of the Atomic Bomb (Rhodes)
All the President's Men (Woodward/Bernstein)
Guests of the Ayatollah (Bowden) the first historical event I remember
Command and Control (Eric Scholsser) on the early 80s ICBM silo accident in Arkansas and realted issues
Going Clear (Wright) Hubbard and Scientology
America's Constitution (Amar) a legal and historical analysis of the Constitution.

A few biographies:

Pops (Teachout) on Louis "pronounced Lewis" Armstrong
Godess of the Market (Burns) on Ayn Rand
By His Own Rules (Graham) on Rumsfeld
The Heart of everything that there is (Drury and Clavin) on Red Cloud

A few recent history/memoirs books that have relevance to curent events:

The Family (Sharlett)
Democracy in Chains (Namcy MacLean)
The Great Influenza (John Barry)

Honestly, I've never read any of those specific books, but I do see some loose overlap of the sorts of historical topics you and I are interested in respectively.

Your interests seem to be more specific and focused, but there is some commonality of note that we've engaged [highlighted in red], whether it's Mesopotamian, Canaanite, or Egyptian history, or even a quick study regarding LBJ's political directives (but in my case, it was mostly about his views on expanding education in the U.S.).

 

[AV1611VET]

I can agree with @Hans Blaster about all the terms, jargon as he calls it. I really do not know what epistemic and hermeneutics are and not particularly interested. I certainly don't need any of that to understand the Bible.

As the song goes:

I need no other argument,
I need no other plea.
It is enough that Jesus died,
And that He died for me.

 

[BCP1928]

As the song goes:

I need no other argument,
I need no other plea.
It is enough that Jesus died,
And that He died for me.

Then why do you care so much about the literal inerrancy of Genesis?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I was raised stone cold atheist by educated atheist who dismissed the entire subject as irrelevant fairy tales.

That's a sad thing to hear. My parents were theists, but of a more nominal Christian sort. We never read the Bible at home and we very, very infrequently went to church. When we did, it wasn't fundamentalist. So, I grew up thinking on my own that the Bible was mostly irrelevant fables from the past.

I was curious, with an open mind and good intent.

I wasn't curious since comic books and Sci-Fi filled that nitch. It was only when I read the New Testament for the first time in my later teens that the Bible began to take on some relevance as a "living document."

I can agree with @Hans Blaster about all the terms, jargon as he calls it. I really do not know what epistemic and hermeneutics are and not particularly interested. I certainly don't need any of that to understand the Bible.

Sure. On some level, no one really 'needs' to study epistemology and hermeneutics. But if they don't, then I reserve the right to face-palm anyone who makes a claim of "fact" about much of anything, especially when they insist that I kow-tow to someone's biblical interpretation or bow to the latest mandate for "compliance."

............. the whole notion of "Because I said so" has always been a sticking point with me ever since my dad used it for the 14th time.

More importantly, Epistemology and Hermeneutics have helped me to be more able to realize when someone is attempting to sell me an empty box of chocolates.

 

[QvQ]

By reading the Bible alone, in a relationship living with God,
you may 'easily' avoid all of the errors introduced by other men or posters who read other stuff that is opposed to Jesus, and which Jesus Himself opposes.

That is the heart of the Reformation, "reading the Bible in a relationship living with God"

 

[QvQ]

It was only when I read the New Testament for the first time in my later teens that the Bible began to take on some relevance as a "living document."

I backed into it. It is impossible to avoid references in English Literature. I would research quotes and read the relevant chapter and verse.
I read Milton Paradise Lost as poetry. Caliban upon Setebos, which is Gnostic.
The first book I read in the Bible was Job, then Eccleciastes
Then I read the Gospels and read the Gospels again...like, What is This?

I am glad in a way that I was raised so atheist. I had a clean slate so it was entirely new.
I can see how Christianity spread so rapidly as it is astonishing. People who are in the religion and the culture get the feeling they "know" already. My folks did. They went to Church as children, Sunday School and religious classes. They had been told all about it, know all That and so what? was their attitude.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I backed into it. It is impossible to avoid references in English Literature. I would research quotes and read the relevant chapter and verse.
I read Milton Paradise Lost as poetry. Caliban upon Setebos, which is Gnostic.
The first book I read in the Bible was Job, then Eccleciastes
Then I read the Gospels and read the Gospels again...like, What is This?

Oh, that's interesting. And here's the thing that catches my attention with what you're sharing: from what you describe about the process of thought you went through in coming to God's Word, you were doing a form of Hermeneutics and didn't realize it.

I am glad in a way that I was raised so atheist. I had a clean slate so it was entirely new.
I can see how Christianity spread so rapidly as it is astonishing. People who are in the religion and the culture get the feeling they "know" already. My folks did. They went to Church as children, Sunday School and religious classes. They had been told all about it, knew all That and so what? was their attitude.

Yeah. I hear you. My experience wasn't too dissimilar from yours it sounds like. I'm glad you responded to the Lord's call.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then why do you care so much about the literal inerrancy of Genesis?

Here's the song:

My Faith Has Found A Resting Place

My faith has found a resting place,
Not in device or creed;
I trust the ever living One,
His wounds for me shall plead.
I need no other argument,
I need no other plea,
It is enough that Jesus died,
And that He died for me.
Enough for me that Jesus saves,
This ends my fear and doubt;
A sinful soul I come to Him,
He'll never cast me out.
My heart is leaning on the Word,
The living Word of God,
Salvation by my Savior's Name,
Salvation through His blood.
My great Physician heals the sick,
The lost He came to save;
For me His precious blood He shed,
For me His life He gave.

I put emphasis on the answer to your question.

 

[BCP1928]

Here's the song:

My Faith Has Found A Resting Place

My faith has found a resting place,
Not in device or creed;
I trust the ever living One,
His wounds for me shall plead.
I need no other argument,
I need no other plea,
It is enough that Jesus died,
And that He died for me.
Enough for me that Jesus saves,
This ends my fear and doubt;
A sinful soul I come to Him,
He'll never cast me out.
My heart is leaning on the Word,
The living Word of God,
Salvation by my Savior's Name,
Salvation through His blood.
My great Physician heals the sick,
The lost He came to save;
For me His precious blood He shed,
For me His life He gave.

I put emphasis on the answer to your question.

Given that the Word referenced is the Bible and not the Word of John 1:1 (which is an assumption in itself) it still doesn't answer the question.

 

[Aaron112]

As the song goes:

I need no other argument,
I need no other plea.
It is enough that Jesus died,
And that He died for me.

Amen. The previoius post to this one, arguing about word vs word, is null and void.
Likewise, most of the forum is mute.