Why does science always upstage God?

[ayost]

Ok, lets see if this quote thing works. Thank you for that.

I won't presume to speak for Vulcan, but do indulge us on how do you think the Bible came to be the collection of books that we see today?
Perhaps therein lies your lack of information that then informs all your subsequent beliefs.

Hold on, I think I see what you're saying. When you asked me this question I was like well they started off as letters written by apostles, sent to churches or people, read to those groups or individuals, and then copied and circulated to other churches and people. Slowly, over time, these writings were gathered together and put into collections and those collections were passed around and then.....wait a minute....historical accident....I get it. Hahaha. Touche.

Ok, I am going to expound a little to give you some context. I'm not denying faith. When I say faith I use the definition given to us in Hebrews 11:1: Now faith is being sure of what we expect and convicted of what we do not see.
Not just blind faith. For example, I look at the Bible: the manuscript evidence for the accuracy of the transmission of the Bible is so overwhelming when compared to other works of antiquity the idea that we don't know what the authors originally is a tough sell. I know there are scholars that would disagree with that. I'm saying having looked at both opinions, I find the secular Biblical scholar position to be lacking. Are there textual variants? Yes. Are they a secret? No. Do they change any fundamental theology? No. We address them as best we can. It's like we have a 1000 piece puzzle not build, but we have 1100 pieces.

So I go ok, it's reasonable to believe that what was originally written is what I'm reading. Then I read the 4 gospels telling me the same story form different points of view. And I say to myself this is what theses first century men wrote, they are all four telling the same story, what evidence do I have that contradicts what they are saying? Shoot, there's no evidence against what they're saying except skepticism. Maybe people resurrecting from the dead is enough to make you say this is a myth, fair enough. So what other evidence do I have that they were telling me the truth? Oh, wow, they were all violently killed instead of recanting because the were so sold out to what they believed? This seems to have truth to it.

Now have people in history made stuff up and lied and and dies for what they believed, yes. Do I assume you're a liar because my brother lied to me? No. We can evaluate other claims the same way I just explained this.

However, I admit faith is part of it. Just not blind faith. I know you didn't ask for all of that, but I felt compelled to tell you to explain 'not blind faith".

There was a post of mine, some time ago (perhaps on another thread? can't remember) where I made a distinction between the Old Testament and the New Testament, with the caveat that many Christians mean New Testament when they say Bible. So... when you claim that the Bible is the inerrant word of god, which of these do you mean? Old, New or both?

If you include the Old Testament, does that make you a Young Earth Creationist?

Yes I believe in the Old and New Testament.

Yes I'm a Young Earth Creationist. On the sliding scale between faith and empirical evidence this one is almost all the way slid over to faith. Hahaha But I can still talk about it, I just know my limitations and eventually I will appeal to faith.

---

A crtique isn't really played out until it's refuted, IMHO. 'I'm tired of hearing it' isn't the same thing as 'played out'.

I'm not tired of hearing it. I love the conversation. I do wish we could move the ball forward sometimes.