Replies

CofA after quoting 12 selected lines: "These are some examples of your posts to people on this thread.
The tone of your remarks is consistently patronizing and condescending."

Of the 12 lines you quoted, two are directed at albionin, a self-professed atheist "objectivist".

One quoted line is a simple factual statement directed at editor-surveyor -- editor-surveyor is confused by certain scientific terms.

Six quoted lines are directed at jda, whose own posts epitomize, in your description: "consistently patronizing and condescending."

Three quoted lines are directed at you, CofA, and they are accurate, specific and appropriate to your posts.

By contrast, the lines I quoted from you lack content, specificity and appropriateness, in addition to being disrespectful.

So let me suggest there's a difference between being blunt and just insulting.
I've occasionally been the former, and you more frequently the latter, FRiend. ;-)

CofA: "You are hardly in a position to play the scold."

I have not "scolded" anyone for anything, merely pointed out some errors in their or your posts.

CofA: "Do you know of a way that humans can eat animals without shedding their blood and killing them?"

Sorry for pointing this out, but yet again, you sound confused.
Remember, it is you who suggests there was "no death" of any kind before Adam's sin.
It is you who claims this implies that even animals and plants did not naturally eat or were eaten.
I merely point out that such extraordinary claims are not, in fact, made anywhere in the Bible, and that they are necessarily a matter of your unique interpretations -- interpretations that many believers do not necessarily agree with.

Indeed, Genesis 1 specifically says God gave mankind "dominion" to "subdue" animals and plants for food.
So your suggestion there was "no death" before Adam's sin is a bit far-fetched, I'd say.

CofA: "You DID have to look up "beginning?" Really?"

Again, sorry, but you sound confused.
First you argued that I somehow don't understand the word "beginning", and suggested I look it up.
So when I proved to you that it means exactly what I said it means, and not what you think, your response here is, well, incomprehensible.

CofA: "If your friend sends you an email which says, "Can you drive me to work tomorrow?", what do you assume it means?
Well, just what it says."

Or not, depending on unspecified details, it could mean a variety of things -- details like: what time, what vehicle, what route, which passengers, what pick-up point, which work site, etc.?
Since, in your hypothetical example, these are not specified, the email must be analyzed and interpreted according to some criteria -- interpretations which are naturally subject to human error.

And that, again, is my point on this subject: regardless of how divinely inspired the Bible is, it's words were first translated through Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin to Old or Modern English -- a process in which much could be lost.
Indeed, how many dozens of different translations are available today, each claiming to be more accurate than the others?
And what objective criteria can a layman use to decide which is the "best" translation?

Second, again, even after you (or your church) decide on the "best" translation, you must still interpret the words according to your best understandings of what they might mean.

CofA: "The only thing that matters to me is what Scripture says.
Anything which can be shown to contradict it, such as evolution, is by definition false."

The facts of science (not just evolution theory) contradict your interpretations of what Scripture means.
That does not necessarily mean Scripture is wrong, it could instead mean your interpretations are wrong, or, it even might mean God created scientific facts at odds with scripture in order to challenge and provoke us into thinking more deeply about what we see in the Universe.