Evolution-A Religion or Not?

It takes a lot of faith to believe it

Published on June 22, 2006 By KFC Kickin For Christ In Religion

Today the local newspaper printed an editorial response by my son David and I thought I'd share it. It was pretty good and many people around town alerted him to the fact it was in there as well as my husband while out and about. It was a response to an earlier article about evolution. Anyhow here it is.

Theory of Evolution

Evolution is fact? The evolution “theory” that is taught in classrooms today is nothing more then that- a theory. There are more holes in evolution then twelve Swiss cheese sandwiches! I would love for Mr. Sares to show me the scientific law that proves life can come from non-life, the very staple of evolution. That, however, is impossible because no such law exists; there are only theories of how this may occur. Look outside. Especially here in the Mountains we should be able to see with our own eyes the complexity of our earth in its beauty with the mountains and the gorgeous sunsets.

Look at yourself. The human body is the most complex thing on earth. This wasn’t an accident. Scientists say that although the chances of evolution are impossible, given enough time this impossibility becomes a possibility. They say that if I randomly picked a card from a deck of 52 cards enough times it’s possible that I could pick the ace of spades 100 times in a row, given enough time. But what are the chances of that ace of spades growing a head, a brain, legs and arms and starting up a conversation with me? That Mr. Sares is the possibility of the “theory” of evolution.

One Creationist, Kent Hovind, stated he would give $10,000 to anyone who could prove evolution scientifically. No one has come forward yet since he made this challenge- in 1990. Mr. Sares, I challenge you to take up this task and prove to all your readers that evolution is true science. In the meantime, why don’t we continue to teach our children that they are here by mistake, with no purpose in life and let’s continue wondering why they lack self-esteem.

David

One has to wonder why, in the absense of physical substance or actual evidence (the missing link) ,is evolution not somewhat faith-based? Perhaps it is because having faith in the theory of a missing link is more acceptable than having faith in an intelligent designer?

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrew 11:1

Let's face it.....evolution is indeed a religion."

Comments (Page 8)

106

bakerstreet

on Jun 30, 2006

"t doesn't matter exactly what a man's credentials are. What does matter is what he is saying. Is he correct or not?"

As you know, what he is saying is unprovable assumption. You can believe the assumptions of people with credentials, or you can believe the assumptions of people without. Up to you. Ham does put a lot of work into his theories and tries to stick as close to science as he can, I'll give you that.

Hovind, in my opinion, is a con artist, though, and I can't see how anyone would see him otherwise at this point.

"We don't need fossils to prove the existence of species today. Do the species of today really exist?"

It isn't about today, it is about pre-history. You make the claim that modern species were there with no proof, yet when people make assumptions about extinction you say that either they produce a fossil or the creature wasn't there. So, knock yourself out. Where are the million or so fossils we are lacking for today's creatures?

The fact that most of the creatures in the 250,000-species fossil record are now exinct should tell you that either it is a coincidence that it ended up that way, or that the overall makeup of the world's species was vastly different then. You would have us believe that it's just an accident that animals from other eras that ended up fossilized are so different than ours now.

Ham quoted from a source with respectable scientific credentials. Are your credentials better than the authors at New Scientist Magazine?

Did that author attest to creationism? Nope. Only the overall interpretation of the fossil record. Emily Sohn is a freelance writer on about every science subject there is, often for kids magazines. I found articles about the math skills of animals, dog behavior, etc.

I can't find anything that lists her as a creationist, can you? I did find her reporting on DNA studies that relate to primitive humans 150,000 years ago, so I'm thinking she's no young-earth creationist.

"you know my answer here. You are asking leading questions based on bias."

Well, you make the claim that archeological evidence proves the Bible's inerrency to you. The Ilead is filled with archeological truths. No one even believed the city of Troy was a real place until they dug it up. Should we all be worshipping Apollo and Athena now that the archeological proof has backed up Homer?

"Moses, and you know that. I already told you Jesus verified this over and over."

Again, no. I, nor anyone else knows who wrote Genesis, and not even biblical scholars can decide. Moses is an assumption, like inerrancy, that not even the Bible makes any claims about. It's my understanding that most biblical scholars see Genesis as being written by several authors based upon the words used to describe God, etc.

"You will see very interestingly that Adam lived almost up to the birth of Noah. Was that by accident? See you didn't even see this. This was done all by providence of God."

Oh, I've been through the begats many times, thanks. Word of mouth is a good thing, but in terms of inerrancy I'm not thinking it is the way to go. We're talking about eyewitness accounts, right?

It CERTAINLY doesn't stand up to Ham's "Were you there?" question, now does it? Ham would look whoever wrote Genesis and exclaim "Were you there?" and they'd have to say no just like scientists do about evolution...

"Yes, I would think he was the Anti Christ cuz that's exactly what the anti christ is going to do. The spirit of AC is already here. "

But do you see the implication of that? You are now putting paper and ink, and worse, your INTERPRETATION of paper and ink, over God Himself. Isn't that EXACTLY what the Pharisees did when THEY dealt with Jesus?

The idea that people would, out of the blue, declare the Bible inerrant with no reason whatsoever, and then say if Jesus himself disagreed they'd deny him? Wow. Now that's some serious idolatry there.

107

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jun 30, 2006

The idea that people would, out of the blue, declare the Bible inerrant with no reason whatsoever, and then say if Jesus himself disagreed they'd deny him? Wow. Now that's some serious idolatry there.

no what I'm saying is Jesus never contradicts himself. He always defended the scriptures. Why wouldn't he? He wrote them. The Pharisees would not believe Jesus because they wanted their own beliefs to be held high. They were jealous of him. He had a knowledge that surpassed all understanding....and gasp! He didn't have any credentials as far as they were concerned like they all did. Christ's credenials (and he did have them) were from God. He proved himself in his miracles and such. .

They added to his words and made up their own theology based on Moses but with many additions to it. Not unlike what we see today in all the religions out there. Satan does this all the time. He adds or takes away from the written word. Everytime we see Satan quoted he doesn't quite stay faithful to what God originally said . He is quite good at the twisting game.

And Baker, it's not out of the blue. I'm thinking maybe I'll write on just that topic soon....ok? The bible does not have a mythical literay style as compared with other ancient literature. So it's not comparable to a good historical fictional read like the Iliad. Nice try tho.

I trust the bible becaue the bible has been proven trustworthy and I'll write on that later. But faith plays a part as well.

Oh, I've been through the begats many times, thanks. Word of mouth is a good thing, but in terms of inerrancy I'm not thinking it is the way to go. We're talking about eyewitness accounts, right?

oh, so what you're saying is you don't want to check the numbers out? Let's not look too closely? This doesn't sound like you Baker unless you still want to hang onto your bias. One thing again you're not accounting for and that is the HS role in all this as far as getting his word across so that we today can read it with confidence that it did indeed happen. God always uses man to accomplish his work. He doesn't need man to do so, he includes man in his work.

I have an eyeopening chart I'd love to see if I can cut and paste here for you to show you something involving the first humans and their names. I never saw it before until I put them all down in two columns...the godly line and the other line. You can see how Satan in a backward kind of way copied and mimicked the godly line with his own. I may get back to you later on this.

Hovind, in my opinion, is a con artist, though

Why do you think so?

Emily Sohn is a freelance writer on about every science subject there is, often for kids magazines. I found articles about the math skills of animals, dog behavior, etc. I can't find anything that lists her as a creationist, can you? I did find her reporting on DNA studies that relate to primitive humans 150,000 years ago, so I'm thinking she's no young-earth creationist.

No, that's my point. She's totally an evolutionist and from your side of the argument yet she doesn't agree with your 99.9% that you spoke of earlier. So here she would agree with Ham in saying that the % is far lower than thought or we just don't have enough data. This goes back to my questioning the high % many answers ago that you and Cacto mentioned. I also talked to my son who is a Scientist and he said the same thing. We have no idea because we really don't know how many speicies we do have to begin with finding new ones all the time.

108

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 30, 2006

*screams*
*pulls out hunks of hair*

The model you are talking about wouldn't even predict that fruit flies would change. There would need to be factors that cause speciation to be WARRANTED, and a LOT of change in between. Sharks aren't a whole lot different than they were millions of years ago, because they haven't faced much to cause them to need

You can scream and pull out hunks of hair all you want, Baker. Your histrionics don't change the FACT of what I've had to say. I will not say, and will probably never say that we've explained away the possibility of evolution, as you and others define it (you call it Macroevolution). But I will ALSO not say that you or any of your contemporaries have explained evolution in that context in any way towards my satisfaction, or that of others.

Follow this thread back, Baker. I did not introduce the lab research as a proof against evolution, but rather the adaptations that have been observed in lab environments were introduced on this thread as a proof of evolution, by demanding that macroevolution was simply a logical extension of the observed results. It is not a logical extension, and THAT was, and IS, my point. The fossil record does not prove macroevolution, either, even though it might strongly suggest the possibility.

The fact is, there are more flaws in the theory of evolution absent creation (try starting with the fact that basic physical laws must have been violated for life to even BEGIN if you discount a Creator entirely), than there are in the theory of creation sbent evolution. While I will admit that evolution offers several plausible explanations about how we got from Genesis to today, I will NOT concede that it offers a SINGLE plausible explanation of how we got to Genesis. KFC's thesis was that it takes as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in creation, and, while I hardly agree with KFC on everything, this is a point I will readily concede.

109

bakerstreet

on Jun 30, 2006

"While I will admit that evolution offers several plausible explanations about how we got from Genesis to today, I will NOT concede that it offers a SINGLE plausible explanation of how we got to Genesis. "

As has been said, time and time and time again, evolution does not describe the beginning of life itself, i.e. 'how we got to Genesis'. Go argue with physicists and chemists if you want, I suck at math. You said that no one has ever seen a fruit fly turn into a wasp, and I was asserting with the fact that science never claimed it would, so the expectation is facetious.

The reason 'believe' doesn't work here is because they are two different kinds of belief. When KFC talks about the Bible, she isn't saying that her beliefs are a working hypothesis until new data arises. SHe's stated outright that if Jesus himself came down and told her she was wrong about biblical inerrancy, she'd side with the data she already has.

KFC seems to be insisting that all the answers be known now. Well, science admits it doesn't have all the answers. Religion claims to have them all, but offers no proof of it. Worse, KFC isn't deciding on her creation story based upon evidence. She and other young-earth creationists are gathering evidence to shore up her belief in biblical inerrancy.

You know as well as I do that such is putting the cart before the horse. The data should lead you to a conclusion, not a conclusion leading you to data. Young-earth creationists aren't interested in science, they're interested in proving the Bible to be inerrant.

"no what I'm saying is Jesus never contradicts himself. He always defended the scriptures. Why wouldn't he? He wrote them. The Pharisees would not believe Jesus because they wanted their own beliefs to be held high."

But what if you were wrong? You want your beliefs held so high that not even God could question them, or it would disqualify Him as God. That to me seems to be exactly what the pharisees were doing when they held up Jesus to their standard and found him lacking.

That stolid, untouchable belief is what disqualifies people with that attitude from science. It wouldn't matter to you what data appears, you wouldn't believe it. That isn't unbiased science any more than the secularist bigots that persecute creationists. Why bother dealing with science at all then?

"oh, so what you're saying is you don't want to check the numbers out? Let's not look too closely? This doesn't sound like you Baker unless you still want to hang onto your bias. "

No, I admitted that according to the numbers people lived a long time then, and Adam and Moses weren't all that far apart. You also admit that the person who wrote Genesis was not present at the creation.

Therefore, the author does not stand up to Ham's "Were you there" challenge, and therefore can't really say what happened. You also dodge the fact that you can't even point to a single fact anywhere that tells you who wrote Genesis.

Feel free to show me where you got the idea that Moses wrote Genesis. The Bible says he wrote down the covenant, and the law, etc., but I don't know of anywhere it states he wrote the Genesis we have now. And, like you say, if he did, he's writing second hand knowledge of a creation he didn't witness.

"I also talked to my son who is a Scientist and he said the same thing. We have no idea because we really don't know how many speicies we do have to begin with finding new ones all the time. "

Does your son believe that we can't assume that any species we don't find fossils for was around then? If so, then wouldn't your son admit that most of the species living today can't be assumed to have been around during pre-history?

It is a double edged sword. If you insist on a fossil for every creature that was alive then, you have to admit that your assertion that all the animals we have today were alive then is pretty weak.

I notice you keep dodgint the Iliad question. Your assertion is that the Bible is more believable to you than evolution because the archeological facts have proved true.

That said, many, many historical facts have proved true from the Iliad, and from a lot of greek and roman mythology. Does the presence of archeological facts in those books cause you to believe that they are inerrant? If so, shouldn't we be sacrificing to Athena?

110

suniart

on Jun 30, 2006

Evolution is not a religion at all, in my opinion. Sorry. Evolution is a belief, the belief that creatures could have possibly formed by other creatures, which was somewhat proven by Mr. Charles Darwin. The other idea is intelligent design, the BELIEF that all life was created by one single force. There's an article about your topic at this link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy

P.S: I'm kinda new here

111

suniart

on Jun 30, 2006

Link

That's the link, sorry!

112

Tova7

on Jun 30, 2006

Yeah, I am LOVING this.

113

bakerstreet

on Jun 30, 2006

This is getting too murky and splintered to even follow. Here's a bullet point list of my stance at this point in the conversation...

Archaeological evidence is posed as proof of the Bible's inerrancy. Homer's Iliad was thought to be a work of mythology until a large amount of archaeological evidence was unearthed, including the city of Troy. Does that mean the Iliad is inerrant, and therefore we should be worshipping Athena?

Science has never, ever made the assertion that a fly would turn into a wasp or a tomato would turn into a watermelon. Over millions of years speciation can occur if environmental factors provoke it, but the species won't be a wasp or a tomato, it will be a new variation on the original. Otherwise, creatures stay mostly as they are. There's no reason to expect speciation in fruit flies in a lab.

Science holds to a hypothesis until new, reliable data arises. Creationists reject any data that disproves their beliefs. If Jesus came back and told literalists the Bible wasn't inerrant, they'd call him the antichrist. That's why any scientific discussion of creationism is moot with literalists, because anything they find that defeats their hypothesis is discarded outright.

Ham's question for scientists regarding evolution is "Were you there?". Given that even if it could be proved that Moses wrote the Genesis account of creation, it would mean he fails that test.

If the fossil record of 250,000 species we have doesn't contain many of the over one million species we have now, does that mean we just assume they were there? If so, how do you explain that it was almost always the extinct ones that ended up fossilized? Is it just a coincidence, or are most creatures from that era now extinct? Why are creationists allowed to presume the presence of a creature in a time period with no fossil evidence but science isn't?

There is no claim in the Bible of biblical inerrancy. Stating the scriptures are 'good' or worthwhile or suitable for a given task does not mean they are inerrant. In addition no one can attest to the perfection of a book that hadn't been compiled/translated yet.

That's all I can think of at the moment. The whole conversation is getting fuzzed up with alternate tangents. As far as the original assertion of evolution being a religion, no. A religion is something that you hold to with or without data to prove it, and most often if data comes out that disproves it you keep right on believing. Evolution is a science that changes depending on the data that we find.

That's why one belongs in school, and the other doesn't. There's nothing scientific about a belief that can never, ever be foiled no matter how conclusive the data is. That isn't what scientific predictions are about. Creationists don't test their beliefs, they simply refuse to accept anything that questions them.

114

Dr Guy

on Jun 30, 2006

Archaeological evidence is posed as proof of the Bible's inerrancy. Homer's Iliad was thought to be a work of mythology until a large amount of archaeological evidence was unearthed, including the city of Troy. Does that mean the Iliad is inerrant, and therefore we should be worshipping Athena?

I will say that IMHO, archaeological evidence lends proof to the events in the bible occuring, but not the whole bible being 100% true. My problem is with the people that dismiss the bible out of hand as fairy tales. Some may be, but as we have seen, much of it, at least the first hand accounts (whether written by the alleged author or a disciple) seem to be true. They could very well be just naturally occuring events that man attributed to God to explain them lacking any basis in Science to determine the actual source.

But they are not fairy tales.

115

bakerstreet

on Jun 30, 2006

I don't think they are fairy tales either, but I have to accept that my belief isn't based on anything more than the people who claim they are fairy tales. There are a lot of instances like the Iliad where you have mythology built around historical events, but I don't believe that Homer wrote anything inerrant.

It may well be that there was a david and goliath and israel and phillistines and all the other circumstances described, but those facts don't prove that the religion built around them is any more factual than Homer's tales of the greek gods. To me, that's what separates the science from the religion, and therefore the religion from evolution.

116

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jun 30, 2006

I notice you keep dodgint the Iliad question. Your assertion is that the Bible is more believable to you than evolution because the archeological facts have proved true.

nooooo I said this above: The bible does not have a mythical literay style as compared with other ancient literature. So it's not comparable to a good historical fictional read like the Iliad. Nice try tho.

Are you reading what I'm saying?

KFC seems to be insisting that all the answers be known now.

No, not really but I do think the bible has more holes plugged than evolution does. I'm thinking swiss cheese here like David said.

Well, science admits it doesn't have all the answers. Religion claims to have them all, but offers no proof of it.

I don't claim to have all the answers via the bible either when it comes down to the biology of it all but I do think it makes more sense than evolution. The HS may have something to do with this belief I would say. Please don't ask me to prove that.....
And I do think there is much proof backing up what scripture says. I agree we can't prove creation tho. I'm not a believer in blind faith. I don't believe I'm operating in that mode.

Feel free to show me where you got the idea that Moses wrote Genesis. The Bible says he wrote down the covenant, and the law, etc., but I don't know of anywhere it states he wrote the Genesis we have now. And, like you say, if he did, he's writing second hand knowledge of a creation he didn't witness.

One is tradition which I know won't float your boat (it wouldn't mine either). Most likely Moses had both written and oral record of early history which he used under the guidance of the HS. Genesis is the first book of the Penateuch and the Penateuch itself affirms Moses as it's author. I can give you lots of scripture on that. Other OT books testify to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and I can give you lots on that as well. The NT affirms the same and I've already give you some on that. Also eyewitness details point to a participant being the author, not an editor who lived centuries later and I can give you much on that. But I'll just give you this:

The author's info about Egyptian names, words, customs and geography would have been difficult for an author or editor to have received centuries after Moses in Canaan. And I'll give you this scripture found in Acts 7:22

And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was mighty in words and in deeds. He was clearly educated very nicely in the Pharoah's court, the best education one could get back then. All part of God's providence.

As far as specifically Genesis which is considered part of the Pentateuch I'd have to think about it and do some digging. Thanks for making me think here. I love that.

Yeah, I am LOVING this

I'm glad!! No thoughts tho?

P.S: I'm kinda new here

Welcome aboard. Hope we don't scare you off tho.

Evolution is not a religion at all, in my opinion. Sorry. Evolution is a belief,

well what is a belief?

117

Dr Guy

on Jun 30, 2006

It may well be that there was a david and goliath and israel and phillistines and all the other circumstances described, but those facts don't prove that the religion built around them

I agree. And stated as much. My beef is the ones that refuse to accept the facts of the bible even when presented with hard evidence. As I said, it could have been just superstition that related those events to God. That is what cannot and will never be proven.

118

bakerstreet

on Jun 30, 2006

"The bible does not have a mythical literay style as compared with other ancient literature. So it's not comparable to a good historical fictional read like the Iliad. Nice try tho."

Eh, I'm not buying that. If that is the case then you aren't really basing this on the archaeological fact, but the literary style. Again, it looks more like a dodge to me. What about the Bible screams out inerrancy to you that you'd even deny God if He differed? Writing style? Pretty tough call there.

"Other OT books testify to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and I can give you lots on that as well."

Please do. I think you will find him referenced to the covenent and the law, but I don't think you'll find him credited in the Bible with the creation story. Granted, you can post a lot of opinion by people who have surmised it was him, but in the end that's just more opinion.

I've read the answersingenesis version, and I don't find it convincing. I think all you really have there is oral tradition, and in the end if it is true it still leaves him writing about what he didn't witness. He'd have to answer Ham's "Were you there" question with no like all the rest of us.

119

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jul 01, 2006

What about the Bible screams out inerrancy to you that you'd even deny God if He differed? Writing style? Pretty tough call there.

First off, I'd never deny God. Your prior question was a hyperthethical one and I answered it in the same way. You have not answered my question ......What is the Word of God? What is it? Repeatedly in scripture the Word of God is mentioned. Did you read Psalm 119?

I do not separate Christ from his word. He spoke it, he explained it, he verified it as such. There are 4 variant accounts of his life. Are they all wrong? There's more to this than I can put here on paper. Not only does it prove itself thru the various means we have today like Science, Historical records and archeology, but he's proven it to me personally day in and day out in little ways and sometimes not so little ways. After a while, you have to say.......this can't be a coincidence. My children (now grown) have seen this as well and have taken it with them. So the HS presence is my life is another way of verification. Of course that can't be proved especailly since you do not see it or me over JU and I try to stay away from that only because unless you've been there, you can't understand it......like Nicodemus when he came to Christ (in the night) in John 3. There have been people in our lives that have said to our family at various times that they want what we have. What are they seeing?

He'd have to answer Ham's "Were you there" question with no like all the rest of us.

The nearest we can come to this I think is the fact that God showed that Adam lived up until almost the flood. I think he was given us a very good probability that the creation account would be preserved and reliable. Now I also think he did that for us because God whispering in Moses ear would have been enough but he knew we'd need more than that.

One of my favorite sermons on this topic is by John MacArthur in CA. Here's an excerpt from it with a link following. I especially would like to see you read the end of it ....the part about Alexander the Great and his raid on Tyre, the Phoenician stronghold and the complete accuracy of what the scripture had said would happen way before it did.

"The Bible is accurate on everything it talks about. It says He hangeth the earth on nothing. The Koran says the earth is on the back of elephants who produce earthquakes when they shake. Foolish statement. Whether you're talking about geology, geodesy, meteorology, physiology, biology, anthropology, astronomy, hydrology, I don't care what you're talking about, when the Bible speaks it's accurate."

Also: Listen, when the Bible talks about science, when the Bible talks about history, when the Bible talks about mathematics, whatever it is the Bible talks about, it is the Word of God. And God is infallible and His Word is equally infallible. Critics want to mock the Scripture and yet the Bible is scientifically accurate, contains the basic principles of science. You could take science, for example, in its most basic element, the most basic elements of science, time, force, action, space, matter. Those five things, Herbert Spencer, 1903 he died. He reduced everything that is to those categories...time, force, action, space, matter. He said everything in the universe fits into those. That is the matrix of existence. In 1903 he died having been hailed as a great brilliant man because he discovered that. And what he didn't realize, it's in the first verse of the Bible. In the beginning--that's time--, God--that's force--, created--that's action--, the heavens-- that's space--, the earth--that's matter. The matrix of existence was in the first verse. The universe is a continuum of time, force, action, space, matter. And one can't exist without the other therefore the entire continuum must have existed simultaneously from the beginning. It all had to begin together. Science has to be in that matrix. No one element of that matrix can be missing or you can't have what we have in existence today. And once the universe had been created, its processes were designed to operate in an orderly fashion, all of energy and matter was sustained by their interplay so that no further creation was needed.

Link

120

bakerstreet

on Jul 01, 2006

"The Bible is accurate on everything it talks about. It says He hangeth the earth on nothing. The Koran says the earth is on the back of elephants who produce earthquakes when they shake. Foolish statement. Whether you're talking about geology, geodesy, meteorology, physiology, biology, anthropology, astronomy, hydrology, I don't care what you're talking about, when the Bible speaks it's accurate."

I am no scholar of the Koran, but I don't believe the Koran says that. I have read it in parts over the years, and I have checked two searchable versions online, and there is only one mention of elephants in the Koran that I can find, and it isn't what is stated here. Most of our science was superstition when Islamic scientists were teaching us the number '0', navigation, etc.

Interestingly enough though, the Bible says:

"Job 9:6. "Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble."

I Samuel 2:8. "..for the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he hath set the world upon them."

The (flat) earth in the Bible is set upon pillars. It also says the stars fall from the heavens here and there, and we all know that stars don't fall from the heavens. You'll no doubt say that I am being facetious and that this was figurative, but then had the previous cited lie about elephants in the Koran been true, you wouldn't have allowed much figurative speech there, either.

If you can find for me where it says that about elephants and earthquakes in the Koran, I'll offer you a sincere apology for calling the man you cite a liar. Until you do, that's what he is, in my opinion.

"First off, I'd never deny God. Your prior question was a hyperthethical one and I answered it in the same way. You have not answered my question ......What is the Word of God? What is it? Repeatedly in scripture the Word of God is mentioned. Did you read Psalm 119?"

You said yourself that if God appeared and said the Bible was not inerrant that you wouldn't believe He was God. Jesus told the Pharisees things that didn't agree with their beliefs, and I'd venture to say they studied the scriptures a lot more than you or I. That seems to be a dodgy perspective considering how it played out in the past.

"I do not separate Christ from his word. He spoke it, he explained it, he verified it as such. There are 4 variant accounts of his life. Are they all wrong? There's more to this than I can put here on paper."

Do you think anyone, in any of the religions on Earth that has a holy book of some sort doesn't believe that it is the definitive word of their God or gods? They'd no doubt look at you and point to several parts of their book that agree and ask you if they are all wrong as well.

Again, you are reading what someone SAYS Jesus said. Actually, you are reading what someone else says that someone said that Jesus said. I'm not doubting Jesus when I doubt the Bible, I'm just not placing my soul in the hands of all the people in between.

I'm not doubting your faith in God, I'm just saying that my faith first leans on the HS you talk about, and then a book written about it by men. Perhaps it IS perfect. Perhaps it IS inerrant. That would be fine with me, but I'll not revere anything as perfect besides God himself.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!