Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I have some of Hugh Ross books. He is one of the better creationists. The introduction and first chapter of the book is available to read. So we could have a discussion about that if people are interested. For example, in the intro they say: "Personal attacks destroy the possibility for dialogue. They erect barriers".Has anyone read Who Was Adam? by Hugh Ross:
Surprised?So has no one read this book?
We have a book about interpretation of the Bible. And you're asking people reading and posting in a scientific forum. Don't expect many will answer. And, by the way, Christians have so many theories YEC, OEC, whatever, that even you can't tell which one has to be true. I am not surprised however, because these theories are not scientific, i.e. they cannot be tested objectively. Without test there's no control. Everything is being printed. Why should we read it? There are better fantasy books.[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Respected physicist and professor Dr. David Snoke argues that the Bible does tell us about the scientific history of our world, but it does not teach that the world was created recently[/FONT].
Not every book written by a scientist is necessary science book, so who is the guy who wrote it doesn't matter. The purpose of the book is to provide new interpretation of Genesis. If you're still unable to interpret only one book of the Bible and need new interpretations, what about the other books?The book Who Was Adam? was written by a biochemist and an astrophysicist. It at least attempts to provide a testable scientific explanation of human origins.
There is plenty of empirical scientific evidence that shows the Bible is accurate and true.Not every book written by a scientist is necessary science book
You maybe are speaking about confirmation of some parts of the Bible, not conformations of the Bible as a whole.There is plenty of empirical scientific evidence that shows the Bible is accurate and true.
Why not?You can not produce ANY empirical scientific evidence to show the Bible is not accurate and a true account of historical people, places and events.
They read the Bible as spiritual guide, not as scientific textbook. So, ask yourself a question: "Does God sent us scientific information to help us to save our soul?".
There are things we still accept on faith. But our generation has more scientific evidence for the Bible then any generation before us. So we have more reason today to believe the Bible is accurate and true.You maybe are speaking about confirmation of some parts of the Bible, not conformations of the Bible as a whole.
Then the result of the book will be to change interpretation of the Bible. Still my point from post #7 stands.The desire of Hugh Ross is to demonstrate the compatability of Scripture and scientific fact, and to show that the veracity of Scripture is actually helped rather than harmed by scientific discovery.
Yeah, I knew we'll reach the "argument of faith" at some point. And, by the way, if you truly belive that the Bible is accurate and true, then no matter how much evidence you have, you can't possibly start to believe more. Do you really truly believe in the Bible or, as I suspect from your words, you're searching form more evidence to expel your doubts?There are things we still accept on faith. But our generation has more scientific evidence for the Bible then any generation before us. So we have more reason today to believe the Bible is accurate and true.
Then the result of the book will be to change interpretation of the Bible. Still my point from post #7 stands.
A theory can have nigh-on all the supporting evidence in the world, but just one instance of contradictory evidence, and the theory is disproved. Never proved, but potentially disproved. The same happens with the Bible: you can support it all you want, but just one count of contradiction, and the Bible cannot be entirely true (as John and, I assume, you advoke). So, onto the contradictions with science:You've still missed the point. The result of this book, if successful, would be to present scientific evidence in favor of the Bible.
You can not produce ANY empirical scientific evidence to show the Bible is not accurate and a true account of historical people, places and events.
We are simply debunking (or 'busting', as my friend dad says) John's erroneous claims. Nothing more.Can we please stay on point.
I haven't read it, but I when I went on the site you linked in the OP (here), I couldn't find the book. Am I having a blonde moment, dispite my brown hair?Has anyone read this book or at least know what it's about?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?