Im gonna remember that and use it at every opportunity
And wouldee im dissapointed u havent brought up our exchange on the satanism thread like u said u would!

oh don't even get me started on satan......every evil of this world is of him....thats all there is to it....

the point is u dont have an explanation for fossils!
GOTCHA GOTCHA GOTCHA

LIZARD !!!
I gave that up...didn't you get the memo?


Here's a reprint :

Feral,

I just didn't know how to address all the apologetics drama of the last post you wrote me, and I thought, let's try and put some order in the whole messy situation here.

Let's get back to basics I thought.

I don't have anything, personally, against Feral. How could I got to relate to her better, short of agreeing with everything she says, I asked myself?

... And this is what I came up with:

A little ‘fundamentalism 101’ to help build bridges of understanding with all our fundamentalist friends.

So here we go,

Lesson #1

FUNDAMENTALISM
Fundamentalism is a term with differing meanings and definitions some of which are CONTROVERSIAL TO GROUPS WITH CERTAIN VESTED INTERESTS.

The original usage was used to describe a NARROWLY DEFINED SET OF BELIEFS that developed into a movement within the US protestant community in the early part of the 20th century.

These religious principles were in OPPOSITION TO THE MODERNIST MOVEMENT within the Presbyterian church and espouse the strict adherence and faith in religious fundamentals.

This movement has been characterized as
PASSIONATE AND UNERRING IN ITS COMMITMENT TO CORE FUNDAMENTAL CHRISTIAN TEACHINGS,
BIBLICAL INERRANCY and often by ,
INTOLERANCE OF OTHER VIEWS and
OPPOSITION TO SECULARISM (essentially the separation of Church and State as guaranteed by the US Constitution).

(In ‘lesson #2, we will cover ‘bible inerrancy’)

You need to get to know me........stop being so narrow minded and thinking you know all that makes me tick....cuz you don't....

nighty night

this has become a nightly ritual for me....

So please keep your cration to yourself, or my mashed potatoes will get angry...and you won't like them when they are angry

Lesson #2

BIBLE INERRANCY

Biblical inerrancy is the doctrinal position that in its original form, the Bible is totally without error, and free from all contradiction; "referring to the complete accuracy of Scripture, including the historical and scientific parts". [2] Inerrancy is distinguished from Biblical infallibility (or limited inerrancy), which holds that the Bible is inerrant on issues of faith and practice but not history or science.

The accidental origins of 'biblical inerrancy'.

The doctrine of biblical inerrancy has been a historical substitute for papal infallibility. "When Martin Luther countered the authority of the infallible pope, he did so in the name of his new authority, the infallible Scriptures. This point of view was generally embraced by all of the Reformation churches (Protestantism). The Bible thus became the paper pope of Protestantism."

The 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

The Statement reasserts the authenticity of the Bible in toto as the word of God.
Advocates of the Chicago Statement are worried that accepting one error in the Bible leads one down a slippery slope that ends in rejecting that the Bible has any value greater than some other book.
"The authority of Scripture is INESCAPABLY IMPAIRED IF THIS TOTAL DIVINE INERRANCY IS IN ANY WAY LIMITED OR DISREGARDED, OR MADE RELATIVE TO A VIEW OF TRUTH CONTRARY TO THE BIBLE'S OWN; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the church."

Bible inerrancy: circular reasoning.

Bible inerrancy has been criticized as circular reasoning, because these statements only have to be accepted as true if the Bible is already thought to be inerrant. None of these texts say that because a text is inspired, it is therefore always correct in its historical or moral statements. (Criticisms of biblical inerrancy, Falsifiability)

Biblical inerrancy: falsifiable.

Inerrancy is argued to be a falsifiable proposition: if the Bible is found to contain any mistakes or contradictions, the proposition has been refuted. Opinion is divided over which parts of the Bible are trustworthy in the light of these considerations.
Radical theologians answer that the Bible contains at least two divergent views of the nature of God: a bloody tribal deity[24] or a loving father.[25] The choice of which material to value can be based on that which is found to be intellectually coherent and morally challenging, and this is given priority over other teaching found in books of the Bible.[26] (Criticisms of biblical inerrancy, Falsifiability)

The Catholic Church

The Catholic Church holds that the authority to declare correct interpretation rests ultimately with the church through its magisterium, as opposed to one's individual experience with God, and interpretation of the scriptures, in the Reformation churches (Prostestantism).

(Lesson #3, LOOK FOR: The beginning of fundamentalism)

I don't have a particular label for you - though I would put a check beside "non-christian" if I were quized about it. I have just noticed that your post's were getting rather round about, and lost in some of the sarcasm you were displaying - and to be honest with you... I just couldn't find the spirit. The post that I took this quote from is more of what I look forward to seeing from you. Straight forward - and logical. Let's just say that I prefer this kind of post to the "fundie alert" posts.
But since this too has passed, let us simply look forward and nottry to redescribe the past of our posts. Consider it reconsidered.

Voile;

Me-thinks that your Fundamentalism, and Bible-inerrancy posts are going to get lost in the Evolution thread. I would think that these would make an excellant thread of their own.

looks around....doesn't see any new posts......reads a few more.........leaves quietly

Get back in her mr.....wouldee....lol W


Voile well now here we go....now we can debate in a rational I hope manner. Now I could do two things...I could come up with information to show my side that the Bible is what God intended and is not what you are saying....But I will pray on it and see what happens.....I don't want to just bombard with proof of it being the infallible word of God....Lets see if I can come up with other forms of proof...

Ok here you go.......I let this wait and then prayed and here is what the Lord led me too.


Letter to the New York Sun

For some months preceding Sunday, November 19, 1899 the New York Sun had been devoting the better part of a page of its Sunday edition to the discussion of the truth of Christianity. On that date it printed a letter from one W.R.L., in which he denounced Christianity, using the old oft-refuted "arguments," and challenged "some champion of orthodoxy to come into the arena of the Sun," and give its readers some "facts" in defence of the Christian religion.

The writer had not seen the N.Y. Sun for years; but on his way from South Framingham to Grafton, Massachusetts, a copy of the Sun of that date, left on a vacant seat in the train, 'fell into his hands.' The following letter met that challenge.

The letter was reprinted by the writer himself in a pamphlet of some fifty pages with the Greek text of Matthew i, 1-17 and the vocabularies thereto, enabling the scholarly reader to verify his statements for himself.

Sir: - In today's Sun Mr. W.R.L. calls for a "champion of orthodoxy" to "step into the arena of the Sun;' and give him some "facts." Here are some facts:

The first 17 verses of the New Testament contain the genealogy of the Christ. It consists of two main parts: Verses 1-11 cover the period from Abraham, the father of the chosen people, to the Captivity, when they ceased as an independent people.

Verses 12-17 cover the period from the Captivity to the promised Deliverer, the Christ.

Let us examine the first part of this genealogy.


It's vocabulary has 49 words, or 7 x 7. This number is itself seven (Feature 1) sevens (Feature 2), and the sum of its factors is 2 sevens (Feature 3).

Of these 49 words 28, or 4 sevens, begin with a vowel; and 21, or 3 sevens, begin with a consonant (Feature 4).

Again: these 49 words of the vocabulary have 266 letters, or 7 x 2 x 19; this number is itself 38 sevens (Feature 5), and the sum of its factors is 28, or 4 sevens (Feature 6), while the sum of its figures is 14, or 2 sevens (Feature 7). Of these 266 letters, moreover, 140, or 20 sevens, are vowels, and 126, or 18 sevens, are consonants (Feature 8).

That is to say: Just as the number of words in the vocabulary is a multiple of seven, so is the number of its letters a multiple of seven; just as the sum of the factors of the number of the words is a multiple of seven, so is the sum of the factors of the number of their letters a multiple of seven.

And just as the number of words is divided between vowel words and consonant words by sevens, so is their number of letters divided between vowels and consonants by sevens.

Again: Of these 49 words 35, or 5 sevens, occur more than once in the passage; and 14, or 2 sevens, occur but once (Feature 9); seven occur in more than one form, and 42, or 6 sevens, occur in only one form (Feature 10).

And among the parts of speech the 49 words are thus divided: 42, or 6 sevens, are nouns, seven are not nouns (Feature 12). Of the nouns 35 or 5 sevens, are Proper names, seven are common nouns (Feature 12). Of the Proper names 28 are male ancestors of the Christ, and seven are not (Feature 13).

Moreover, these 49 words are distributed alphabetically thus: Words under A-E are 21 in number, or 3 sevens; Z-K 14, or 2 sevens; M-X also 14. No other groups of sevens stopping at the end of a letter are made by these 49 words, the groups of sevens stop with these letters and no others. But the letters A, E, Z, K, M, X, are letters 1, 5, 6, 10, 12, 22, of the Greek alphabet, and the sum of these numbers (called their Place Values) is 56, or 8 sevens (Feature 14).

This enumeration of the numeric phenomena of these 11 verses does not begin to be exhaustive, but enough has been shown to make it clear that this part of the genealogy is constructed on an elaborate design of sevens.

Let us now turn to the genealogy as a whole. I will not weary your readers with recounting all the numeric phenomena thereof: pages alone would exhaust them. I will point out only one feature: The New Testament is written in Greek. The Greeks had no separate symbols for expressing numbers, corresponding to our Arabic figures, but used instead the letters of their alphabet: just as the Hebrews, in whose language the Old Testament is written, made use for the same purpose of theirs.

Accordingly, the 24 Greek letters stand for the following numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800. Every Greek word is thus a sum in arithmetic obtained by adding the numbers for which its letters stand, or their numeric values. Now the vocabulary to the entire genealogy has 72 words.

If we write its numeric value over each of these 72 words, and add them, we get for their sum 42,364, or 6,052 sevens, distributed into the following alphabetical groups only: A-B, have 9.821, or 1,403 sevens: G-D, 1904, or 272 sevens; 3,703, or 529 sevens; TH-R, 19,264, or 2,752 sevens; A-X 7,672, or 1,096 sevens. But the numeric value of the 10 letters used for making these groups is 931, or 7 x 7 x 19, a multiple not only of seven but of seven sevens.

Let Mr. W.R.L. try to write some 300 words intelligently like this genealogy, and reproduce some numeric phenomena of like designs. If he does it in 6 months, he will indeed do a wonder. Let us assume that Matthew accomplished this feat in one month.

2. The second part of this chapter, verses 18-25, relates the birth of Christ. It consists of 161 words, or 23 sevens; occurring in 105 forms, or 15 sevens, with a vocabulary of 77 words or 11 sevens.

Joseph is spoken to here by the angel. Accordingly, of the 77 words the angel uses 28, or 4 sevens; of the 105 forms he uses 35, or 5 sevens; the numeric value of the vocabulary is 52,605, or 7,515 sevens; of the forms, 65,429, or 9,347 sevens.

This enumeration only begins as it were to barely scratch the surface of the numerics of this passage. But what is specially noteworthy here is the fact that the angel's speech has also a scheme of sevens making it a kind of ring within a ring, a wheel within a wheel.

If Mr. L. can write a similar passage of 161 words with the same scheme of sevens alone (though there are several others here) in some three years, he would accomplish a still greater wonder. Let us assume Matthew accomplished this feat in only 6 months.

3. The second chapter of Matthew tells of the childhood of the Christ. Its vocabulary has 161 words, or 23 sevens, with 896 letters, or 128 sevens, and 238 forms, or 34 sevens; the numeric value of the vocabulary is 123,529, or 17,647 sevens; of the forms, 166,985, or 23,855 sevens; and so on through pages of enumeration.

This chapter has at least four logical divisions, and each division shows alone the same phenomena found in the chapter as a whole. Thus the first six verses have a vocabulary of 56 words, or 8 sevens, etc. There are some speeches here: Herod speaks, the Magi speak, the angel speaks.

But so pronounced are the numeric phenomena here, that though there are as it were numerous rings within rings, and wheels within wheels, each is perfect in itself, though forming all the while only part of the rest.

If Mr. L. can write a chapter like this as naturally as Matthew writes, but containing in some 500 words so many intertwined yet harmonious numeric features, in say the rest of his days - whatever his age now, or the one to which he is to attain: if he thus accomplish it at all, it will indeed be marvel of marvels. Let us assume that Matthew accomplished this feat in only 3 years.

4. There is not, however, a single paragraph of the scores in Matthew that is not constructed in exactly the same manner. Only with each additional paragraph the difficulty of constructing it increases not in arithmetical but in geometrical progression. For he contrives to write numeric relations to what goes before and after. Thus in his last chapter he contrives to use just 7 words not used by him before.

It would thus be easy to show that Mr. L. would require some centuries to write a book like Matthew's.

How long it took Matthew the writer does not know. But how he contrived to do it between the Crucifixion, A.D.30 (and his Gospel could not have been written earlier), and the destruction of Jerusalem, A.D.70 (and the Gospel could not have been written later), let Mr. L. and his like-minded explain.

Anyhow Matthew did it, and we thus have a miracle - an unheard-of literary, mathematical artist, unequaled, hardly even conceivable. This is the first fact for Mr. L. to contemplate.

A second fact is yet more important: In his very first section, the genealogy discussed above, the words found nowhere else in the New Testament, occur 42 times, 7 x 6; and have 126 letters, 7 x 6 x 3, each number a multiple not only of seven, but of 6 sevens, to name only two of the many numeric features of these words.

But how did Matthew know, when designing this scheme for these words (whose sole characteristic is that they are found nowhere else in the New Testament) that they would not be found in the other 26 books--that they would not be used by the other 7 New Testament writers?

Unless we assume the impossible hypothesis that he had an agreement with them to that effect, he must have had the rest of the New Testament before him when he wrote his book. The Gospel of Matthew, then, was written last.

5. It so happens, however, that the Gospel of Mark shows the very same phenomena. Thus the very passage called so triumphantly in today's Sun a "forgery," the Last Twelve Verses of Mark, presents among some sixty features of sevens the following phenomena:

It has 175 words, or 95 sevens; a vocabulary of 98 words, or 2 sevens of sevens with 553 letters, or 79 sevens; 133 forms, or 19 sevens, and so on to the minutest detail.

Mark, then, is another miracle, another unparalleled literary genius. And in the same way in which it was shown that Matthew wrote last it is also shown that Mark, too, wrote last. Thus to take an example from this very passage: It has just one word found nowhere else in the New Testament, 'deadly'.

This fact is signaled by no less than seven features of sevens thus: Its numeric value is 581, or 83 sevens, with the sum of its figures 14, or 2 sevens, of which the letters 3, 5, 7, from both the BEGINNING and END of the word have 490, or 7 x 7 x 5 x 2: a multiple of seven sevens, with the sum of its factors 21, or 3 sevens.

In the vocabulary it is preceded by 42 words, 7 x 6; in the passage itself by 126 words, or 7 x 6 x 3, both numbers multiples not only of seven, but of 6 sevens. We have thus established before us this third fact for Mr. L. to contemplate: Matthew surely wrote after Mark, and Mark just as surely wrote after Matthew.

6. It happens, however, to be a fourth fact, that Luke presents the same phenomena as Matthew and Mark; and so does John, and James, and Peter, and Jude, and Paul. And we have thus no longer two great unheard-of mathematical literati, but eight of them and each wrote after the other.

7. And not only this: As Luke and Peter wrote each 2 books, John 5, and Paul 14, it can in the same way be shown that each of the 27 New Testament books was written last. In fact, not a page of the over 500 in Westcott and Hort's Greek edition (which the writer has used throughout) but it can be demonstrated thus to have been written last.

The phenomena are there and there is no human way of explaining them. Eight men cannot each write last, 97 books, some 500 pages cannot each be written first. But once assume that one Mind directed the whole, and the problem is solved simply enough; but this is Verbal Inspiration - of every jot and tittle of the New Testament.

There remains only to be added that by precisely the same kind of evidence the Hebrew Old Testament is proved to be equally inspired. Thus the very first verse of Genesis has seven words, 28 letters, or 4 sevens: to name only two out of the dozens of numeric features of this one verse of only seven words. - N.Y. Sun, Nov. 21, 1899 - Corrected.

To this letter several replies appeared in the Sun, but not a single answer. For in only three ways can it be refuted.

(a) By showing that the facts are not as here given.

(b) By showing that it is possible for 8 men to write each after the other 7; for 27 books, for some 500 pages to be each in its turn written last.

(c) By showing that even if the facts be true, the arithmetic faultless, and the collocation of the numerics honest, it does not follow that mere men could not have written this without Inspiration from above.

Accordingly, as many as nine noted rationalists (of whom Drs. Lyman Abbot and Charles W. Eliot are still living) [now in 1927 also gone to where they may know] were respectfully but publicly invited to refute the writer. One was not "interested" in the writer's "arithmetical" doings; two "regretted" that they "had no time" to give heed thereto. Another "did not mean to be unkind," but ... The rest were silent.

For the special benefit of these the writer printed the original data with numerous details, enabling them in the easiest manner to verify every statement made by him, if they wished. And to the best of his ability he has for years seen to it that no scholar whom surely these things specially concern remain in ignorance of the facts here recounted and of like cogency.

A notable exception to the above is a lawyer of standing [now also dead], whose books on Law are deemed as of authority. He had intelligence enough and candor withal to confess that the case for the Bible as made out by the writer is impregnable, that the Bible is thus proved to be an "absolutely unique book."

This much the case itself exhorts from the but too well equipped writer on - EVIDENCE; and accordingly he henceforth reads the writer's Numerics with intense appreciation. And then, fresh from this confession, he betakes himself once more to the circulation of his anti-Christian books in the writing of which he joys to spend his leisure hours.

In the second letter to the N. Y. Sun the author, in discussing some irrelevant "answers" to his first letter, recited the three ways of refuting him and then continued:

No sane man will try to refute me by the second method. To refute me by the first method I herewith respectfully invite any or all of the following to prove that my facts are not facts: namely Messrs: Lyman Abbott, Washington Gladden, Heber Newton, Minot J. Savage, Presidents Eliot of Harvard, White of Cornell, Professors J. Henry Thayer of Harvard, and Dr. Briggs, and any other prominent higher critic so called. They may associate with themselves, if they choose, all the contributors of the ninth edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica who wrote its articles on Biblical subjects together with a dozen mathematicians of the calibre of Professor Simon Newcomb.

The heavier the calibre of either scholar or mathematician, the more satisfactory to me. They will find that my facts are facts. And since they are facts, I am ready to take them to any three prominent lawyers, or, better still, to any judge of a superior or supreme court, and abide by his decision as to whether the conclusion is not necessary that Inspiration alone can account for the facts, if they are facts.

Eljay,

Are you suggesting that this is a thread on 'evolution', and that ‘fundamentalism is ‘off topic’ ???

I invite you to read from the beginning Eljay. Evolution is a fallacious pretext to forward a fundamentalist apologetics ‘battle’ of predilection: the defense of ‘bible inerrancy’ against ‘perceived’ contradictions touching the origins of humnans.

This thread, like the many others that are popping up like clockwork, has NOTHING to do with evolution, and has everything to do with the hidden agenda of fundamentalist apologetics 'bible inerrancy soldiers'.

Saying the truth about the real agenda of the thread is totally pertinent, and providing information to support that claim, even more so.

We need to know where 'fundamentalist apologetics' comes from, in order to understand some of the claims that would otherwise appear totally unreasonable.

Without understanding the 'life and death' contract, which fundies have regarding the defense of 'word for word' bible inerrancy, most people would simply discount the claims, and those supporting them, as pure lunacy, and lunatics.

Only when one understands the life threatening sentiment a fundamentalist fears; should a single word of the bible be revealed to him as a lie, can one put the claims in their proper context.
In the mind of the pure fundamentalist, his faith rests entirely on the error and contradiction free nature of the bible.

Understanding fundamentalism, and understanding the apologetics rhetoric to SUPPRESS all possible contradictions, in the form of different opinions, is essential.
It is essential in understanding that this thread has nothing to do with 'evolution', and everything to do with militant fundamentalism. Militant in the form of 'fundies-in-training' practicing 'apologetics' circular logic and other tactics, to keep believing that the bible is contradictions and error free.

There could very well be a separate thread on 'fundamentalism'. But it wouldn't change the core issue in this 'false' debate. Evolution/Creation is a gross pretext.

The raison d'être of this 'fundamentalist fabrication, isn't to discuss evolution, but to defend 'bible inerrancy', by suppressing everything and everyone whom is perceived as contradicting or falsifying, in the opinion of fundamentalists, the word for word absolute TRUTH of the bible.

'We're under attack!!!', is the rallying cry of the fundamentalist radical apologetics.

Fundamentalists’ only 'raison d'être', is the suppression of all attacks, all opposition, all contradicting opinions towards the very cornerstone of their faith: 'bible inerrancy'.

This radical apologetics mentality of 'under attack', and correlate conduct of 'suppression of all opposition and contradicting opinions', is plain and simple fascism. The ‘defacto’ 'Gestapo' of the fundamentalist movement.

You suggest quite rightly so, Eljay, that while you may defend 'bible inerrancy' for yourself, you don’t militantly impose it on the rest of the world.
As you put it yourself to me earlier :
‘…With a heavy sigh I must concur (to my suggestion that for most Christians, there is nothing less Christian than the ‘US fundamentalist’ movement.). It often spills over to those of us who are simple believers of scripture without the mission of converting everything that has blood flowing through it's veins…’
Well trust me when I say to you that you are not confused in the ‘fundies’. I respect your belief, in ‘bible inerrancy’. I don’t subscribe to it myself, you don’t seem to hold it as a condition for to respect each other and interact in an open and free manner. And that is all good.

Some people on these forums seem to be oblivious to this simple distinction in having beliefs, and ‘respecting’ the beliefs of others.

People whom adopt and practice the declared and avowed mission (on all fundamentalist apologetics web site), to suppress all opposition and contradicting views to their own ‘edict’, have no respect for others (yet DEMAND respect from others), no respect for democracy, and no respect for the most elementary principles of ‘free speech’.
They will ‘correct’ with fallacies first, ‘confront’ with confusion second, ‘ridicule and discredit’ with calumnious statement third, all with the sole intent of suppressing opponents, whom THEY consider, have unacceptable contradictory VIEWS and OPINIONS which threatens ‘bible inerrancy’.



That Eljay, is fascism. And fascism is to be denounced in all its forms. Fundamentalists can and will keep playing their manipulative tactics on forums such as these, I have no doubt about that. That is democracy. Denouncing the incoherencies of their manipulative tactics, is highly democratic also.

Denouncing is not silencing, on the contrary. It is simply reveals for all, the hidden agendas that some try and slip insidiously through in otherwise ‘frank and open’ debates between people representing themselves in good faith..

I hope, Eljay, this helps clarify the pertinence of the ‘fundamentalism-bible inerrancy-apologetics’ as the foundation and heart behind the fallacious front of ‘evolution’.

Wouldee



It’s true Wouldee that we are denying our children the very best education. If we were to begin, in the early years, to provide the tools required for a questioning and open mind we would do better. If every child were taught how to think critically, how to evaluate, how to communicate effectively and accurately, perhaps more people would trust the capabilities of their children to make the decisions that will affect their lives. Instead, we have adults who fear their children are being brainwashed into believing false truths. The sad thing is the number of adults who counter this fear by enforcing their own brainwashing tactics. How can the authority of a parent compete with the authority of the knowledge that is available for the taking, and how do we ever break down the walls that limit the capabilities of so many beautiful minds?



For some there is only lunch, or there is ‘hell’ to pay at home.


CreativeSoul


Wouldee


We do not all know the same things. We do, however, “express that which lives within us”, as CS said. There is a difference between what we know, and who we are. Feral has stated this in her own defense many times. “YOU DON’T KNOW ME”. I find this to be true, because what Feral expresses from thread to thread often shows some conflict between what the says she ‘knows’ and what she feels. I think many are like that, especially those who find they are confined by what they think they ‘know’. Sometimes, I believe, we need to pay more attention to our feelings and less to what we think we ‘know’. A belief system can even limit our ability to acknowledge, without guilt, our own autonomous emotions.


Feral


Now I must wonder; do you, Feral, believe that this ‘theory’ is now part of your knowledge?
Do you know this, or are you just postulating, based on the only information you feel has enough credence and authority to guide your mind?

If you were a scientist, how would you go about ‘proving’ this theory?

Feral


No one know ‘everything’ that is considered to be ‘knowledge’. That is why there is ignorance. Ignorance is not a bad word, we all want to strive to become less ignorant. If I live to be 120, I don’t believe I will ever understand the intricacies of DNA or be able to perform brain surgery. In fact the vast amount of knowledge I will not have, will certainly greatly exceed what I will ‘know’.

For this reason we are all subject to forming our knowledge base on the information provided by others. We would all be wise to choose what we base our knowledge on carefully. Personally, I generally accept “knowledge” by researching and finding that which has the most supportive evidence. That knowledge is subject to change as new, verifiable, information is provided.

Knowledge, is not a neat little package that fits into each brain in the same way. To believe that all information can only be knowledge if it conforms to the specification of a neat little package that answers all of life’s questions, it to limit what knowledge can be attained in a lifetime.

Many, like Feral, believe that no knowledge can exist if there is a possibility that it conflicts with, ‘previous’ knowledge that comes only from a single source, the Bible. Hence the label “fundamentalist”. Information, data, can not be fundamentally valid or considered to be knowledge if that information conflicts or does support anything Biblical.

Yet – it is the fundamentalist that requires proof from others that the Bible is not the 'be all and end all' of knowledge. But there can never be such proof, because that proof, conflicts with their only basis of truth and knowledge.

Farel


For you, Farel, there is no proof to be had. But you are not alone, for many Chistians and Islams and Muslims, believe just as you do. The saddest thing of all, is it will be the battles between these factions that will continue “reinforcing it on young children's minds while Congress spends our kids futures and hands the world an empty bag of worthless debt and alienation” as Wouldee has been so inclined to notice.


Wouldee


Wouldee, if one were to look outside Biblical reference, one might see that the human species did not coincide with the dinosaurs. Why would the Bible mention these creatures; it did not mention many creatures that existed at the time. In fact it did not even mention, by label, all the other human populations that existed outside the realm of the lives of whom it was affecting as it was being handed down from generation to generation.

Take a close look at a historical timeline of what was happening in the WORLD at the time of the Jews, of Jesus – why were none of those populations mentioned? They existed, the dinosaurs did not.

One example: In Ezekiel, Chapter 38, the author mentions Magog (Modern day Russia). The accuracy is amazing, in that the verse says "Meshech and Tubal", naming the Hebrew name for Moscow and Tobol hundreds of years before the cities even existed.

redy:

Here is what I know.......That science is theory....Have you ever heard anyone refer to God, Jesus, and the Bible as theory no....... Some stuff to ponder.........or not read of course your choice.

In addition, we find certain places where the fossils themselves are drastically out of order. At Chief Mountain in Montana you can see part of the Lewis Overthrust. This Mountain is a block of so called Pre-Cambrian rock that is supposed to be over 500 million years old, sitting on top of Cretaceous strata from the supposed age of the dinosaurs, alleged to be 70 million years old. That is a real problem. It means that 430 million years of the geologic column are nonexistent and missing. But the evolutionist has an answer to that. He says there was an overthrust. He claims 500 million years of strata were lying there in the proper order, young rocks on top, old rocks on the bottom. Then compressional forces ruptured the strata and pushed or thrust the rocks on the west toward the east, up and over the rocks on the east. This resulted finally in the lower layers of very old Pre-Cambrian rocks from the west lying on top of the much younger Cretaceous rocks that were originally the surface on the east side of the thrust area. Subsequently in this imaginary scenario erosion supposedly wore away the original upper young Cretaceous layers of the western block clear down to the Pre-Cambrian layers of the western block. Thus it explained the fact of the Pre-Cambrian layers of the western block. Thus is explained the fact of the Pre-Cambrian Chief Mountain sitting on top of supposedly much younger Cretaceous rock.

Is this a plausible explanation? Overthrusts have occurred, without question, but did the Lewis Overthrust actually take place? Let us consider the evidence. Whenever an overthrust occurs and rock layers slide over each other, the two moving layers grind up much rock and leave a thick layer of material called fault breccia. Whenever such huge masses of rock move, there should be left behind the evidence of that movement. Here the evolutionist is telling us that 350,000 billion tons of rock moved over a 35 mile area and dropped into place without a trace of rock movement. That is magic, not science.

Why does he say that? Because the dinosaur fossils are found on the bottom and the Pre-Cambrian early forms of life, fossil algae, etc. are found on top.

The same problem is true in the Swiss Alps. The fossils are out of order so geologists say the Alps were once in Africa and slid magically into Europe without a trace of physical evidence. Fossil placement becomes a problem.

How is it explained? Those who accept what the Bible says simply take it at face value: the rock on the bottom was laid down before the rock on top. The fossils have nothing to do with age. In Montana 430 million years of the geologic column are missing. Why are they missing? Because they never existed. Chief Mountain becomes a serious problem for the evolutionist but not for the one who believes the Bible. We should expect fossils to be formed because all of the animals were buried by the waters of a worldwide flood. It is reasonable to find their fossil remains laid in sediments.

In addition, we find certain places where the fossils themselves are drastically out of order. At Chief Mountain in Montana you can see part of the Lewis Overthrust. This Mountain is a block of so called Pre-Cambrian rock that is supposed to be over 500 million years old, sitting on top of Cretaceous strata from the supposed age of the dinosaurs, alleged to be 70 million years old. That is a real problem. It means that 430 million years of the geologic column are nonexistent and missing. But the evolutionist has an answer to that. He says there was an overthrust. He claims 500 million years of strata were lying there in the proper order, young rocks on top, old rocks on the bottom. Then compressional forces ruptured the strata and pushed or thrust the rocks on the west toward the east, up and over the rocks on the east. This resulted finally in the lower layers of very old Pre-Cambrian rocks from the west lying on top of the much younger Cretaceous rocks that were originally the surface on the east side of the thrust area. Subsequently in this imaginary scenario erosion supposedly wore away the original upper young Cretaceous layers of the western block clear down to the Pre-Cambrian layers of the western block. Thus it explained the fact of the Pre-Cambrian layers of the western block. Thus is explained the fact of the Pre-Cambrian Chief Mountain sitting on top of supposedly much younger Cretaceous rock.

Is this a plausible explanation? Overthrusts have occurred, without question, but did the Lewis Overthrust actually take place? Let us consider the evidence. Whenever an overthrust occurs and rock layers slide over each other, the two moving layers grind up much rock and leave a thick layer of material called fault breccia. Whenever such huge masses of rock move, there should be left behind the evidence of that movement. Here the evolutionist is telling us that 350,000 billion tons of rock moved over a 35 mile area and dropped into place without a trace of rock movement. That is magic, not science.

Why does he say that? Because the dinosaur fossils are found on the bottom and the Pre-Cambrian early forms of life, fossil algae, etc. are found on top.

The same problem is true in the Swiss Alps. The fossils are out of order so geologists say the Alps were once in Africa and slid magically into Europe without a trace of physical evidence. Fossil placement becomes a problem.

How is it explained? Those who accept what the Bible says simply take it at face value: the rock on the bottom was laid down before the rock on top. The fossils have nothing to do with age. In Montana 430 million years of the geologic column are missing. Why are they missing? Because they never existed. Chief Mountain becomes a serious problem for the evolutionist but not for the one who believes the Bible. We should expect fossils to be formed because all of the animals were buried by the waters of a worldwide flood. It is reasonable to find their fossil remains laid in sediments.

Redy said:

no one know ‘everything’ that is considered to be ‘knowledge’. That is why there is ignorance. Ignorance is not a bad word, we all want to strive to become less ignorant. If I live to be 120, I don’t believe I will ever understand the intricacies DNA or be able to perform brain surgery. In fact the vast amount of knowledge I will not have, will certainly greatly exceed what I will ‘know’.

Answer: I don't remember ever claiming to know all...or anything for that matter...just like you redy I take what is out their examine it....read it....and draw my own conclusions. Also a key for me is the Bible.......hate, that I don't care but every answer to every question man could possibly have is there.....Now truly even you would have to say that is remarkable....Even for abra...I posted on another one of the threads the mathematics behind the bible.....pretty facinating stuff.....And honestly all is based on fact of what is here to examine and draw conclusions on.

Redy wrote:

Many, like Feral, believe that no knowledge can exist if there is a possibility that it conflicts with, ‘previous’ knowledge that comes only from a single source, the Bible. Hence the label “fundamentalist”. Information, data, can not be fundamentally valid or considered to be knowledge if that information conflicts or does support anything Biblical.

Answer: Once again your wrong...I do look at other material redy...But yes I would have to say this fundamentalist pretty much looks at the best source for her......BIBLE.

Redy wrote:

For you, Farel, there is no proof to be had. But you are not alone, for many Chistians and Islams and Muslims, believe just as you do. The saddest thing of all, is it will be the battles between these factions that will continue to “ reinforcing it on young children's minds while Congress spends our kids futures and hands the world an empty bag of worthless debt and alienation” as Wouldee has been so inclined to notice.

Answer: I would love to see proof.....I would totally have an open mind if one of you would just show me something......that solidly backs you up.

Redy,

Leviathan is one reference. definition and interpretation is open.

The populations of others is mentioned in Genesis, pre-flood.

And post- flood, implied in reference to the Kenites. But, this is not the place to go into that, quite simply because it would tire me to establish that well enough to be coherent to you and that is not the topic before us. Assume it to exist as mentioned in scripture. Yes, ambiguous and evasive and assumptive and dodged but noted.

Yes, Redy, parents must be accountible for the personal responsibility that is incumbent upon all to inform the next generation of what time it is. That is an arduous task today, unlike earlier in man's history when knowledge was limited and easily deseminated orally. One must be selective and prudent in what to share and when. We fall short in that. Agreed.

Deviled ham is excellent on rye.


Gotta love it!!!!

Gotta love deviled ham on rye and the cutiful wouldee

AN OPEN FUN FACT as a subsequence to Feral's post.....


C...A...R...E...F...U...L
=======7====== there, that should center this in edit

This is structure with regards to early Hebrew.

All consonents and no vowels in the written vocabulary. The consonent depicted the complete word being expressed and the word was occasionally actually a phrase in many cases. Knowledge of the combination of consonents dictates the phrasiology of the thought being expressed.

No punctuation nor grammar as we know it.

All letters have a numeric value similar to Greek's concept of expression.

A numerically equivalent consonent would be placed as I have demonstrated to define the beginning and end of an expression [mid-sentence] to display the quantity of characters in the thought being expressed.

It was easier to have a odd quantity of characters for ease of reading. And the character describing the quantity could easily be distinguished as central to the thought being expressed.

The beauty and significance of this distinctive characteristic of ancient Hebrew is absolutely unique and intriguing.

Later Hebrew contained vowels.

Examples of early Hebrew have been found in the southern U.S. at gravesites in the gulf states that have been carbon dated to the 1st century A.D. and references to this discovery can be acquired from ASOP in San Diego, Ca. [ note : the discovery contained the letter 'q' which is an 'r' sound, phonetically, and the character epressed is 'resh' and significant in that it is the used as a descriptive of 'the lion of the tribe of Juda' that is scholastically agreed to be the 'messiah' of scripture.]

Also notewothy about the discovery is the metallurgy of the bracelets found in the skeletal remains. It defines the alloy is one of ancient smelting and discontinued as an alloy pre-christ in origin.


food for thought.

The odds of sevens is no less astounding.


Gotta love it!!!!

Feral,

Just before I spend time to underline and comment on the numerous inconsistencies, and serious contradictions in your replies to 'redy', I figured I would keep it simple, and sum it up by asking you the following question:

- Are your personnal beliefs as a Chistian founded, among other elements, on the doctrine of 'bible inerrancy' (no error, nor contradiction in the litterate word of the bible)???

To keep it simple on your side, a straight YES, or NO, is all that would be required.