(September 25, 2011 at 5:46 am)ElDinero Wrote: But the Bible makes claims that are directly at odds with what we are able to scientifically demonstrate.

I don't agree. A correct exegesis of the text reveals no scientific claim. God revealed nothing beyond the understanding of the physical world at the time.

(September 25, 2011 at 5:46 am)ElDinero Wrote: Salty believes things that are completely unscientific AS A DIRECT RESULT of what is written in that book, and her refusal to acknowledge that it could be wrong.

Agreed.

(September 25, 2011 at 5:46 am)ElDinero Wrote: If you don't get your science from scripture, I applaud you. But a lot of people do, which is what we are challenging. How else could we do that without showing how scientifically inaccurate it is?

No problem at all with that, and I would support you.

(September 25, 2011 at 5:59 am)Stimbo Wrote: So is your bible an accurate and/or reliable source of information or not? In other words, is there anything in it which is meant to be taken literally?

It is an accurate source of information about God. Take it all literally on those grounds by all means.

(September 25, 2011 at 5:59 am)Stimbo Wrote: Please don't misrepresent my position: I see almost as much science in religious texts as I do in Jack and the Beanstalk.

I would agree.

(September 25, 2011 at 5:59 am)Stimbo Wrote: Salty expressed his her acceptance of the shape of the world, a physical fact which is at odds with the picture presented in the bible that Salty holds to be "historical and divine". Clearly it is neither, at least on this point.

Historically debateable I'd agree.

Ok answer me this, because the several thousand different 'interpretations' of the Bible are one of the things that gets my goat the most. Who determines what a 'correct' reading of the Bible is, and how is that conclusion arrived at?

Yes interpretation seems wide open. You could see that as a good thing too! There are limits.. the universal church does draw lines and would exclude those who step outside. In Catholicism the Pope will make a statement of position for that church. I like to keep an open mind, even after I've drawn a conclusion, so I'm interested in what Salty has to say. The bible has to be interpreted for each generation.. as language and references, for example, change. Maybe some stories meanings are hidden to us... and it's only with constant exploration that the best understanding can be worked out. I've never found it frustrating as a Christian.. more an opportunity for better understanding.

That didn't answer my question really. I'll be more specific: The Bible says God created the Earth and everything in it in six days. I think I'm right in saying you don't believe that literally, but other people do. On what authority do you claim your reading to be correct? Is it just a case of because science has now shown that to be impossible, you don't take that literally any more? In which case, if it could be conclusively proven that the resurrection never took place, would that change what the 'correct' reading is?

I was just using that as an example. If any part of the Bible gets disproved, does that change what a correct reading entails?

I honestly do not understand this. So now we're into a regression. What is the author of this book using to interpret the Bible in this way? What does he point to besides the Bible to explain the correct way to read the Bible? It appears to me that the Bible is being retrofitted to catch up with contemporary science. Why did nobody a thousand years ago interpret the Bible this way?

People thousands of years ago did interpret it this way, that's the point. And all John Walton uses for source is the bible, and related texts of the time to try to ascertain precisely the meaning in context.

Disproved how? I presume that you are talking about scientific proof?

(September 25, 2011 at 5:12 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Just because there cannot be scientifically verifiable proof of God does not mean that there cannot be solid reasoning for belief in him.

Yes it does, it means precisely that.

Any theory that cannot be scientifically verified is probably wrong.

Your reasons for believing in god cannot be solid precisely because of the lack of evidence.

You believe in god because you want there to be a god and that is all.

I would prefer there not to be a god and I am in the fortunate position of all the evidence supporting that view.