As I do yours. Isn't this better than a flame war?
These provable truths only reinforce the confidence that we do have a reasonable faith that is not purely nebulous.
I understand much better now, though I would maintain that the proofs of these prophecies is more tenuous than you suggest. Historical theories are even more difficult to prove than scientific ones, since we can find hard evidence for the former, but must rely on written documents and oral traditions for accounts of specific events. Still, this is reaching the point where I doubt I would be able to dissuade you, nor would I really wish to. This is the basis of your faith, which is a distinctly personal subject that I would never try to attack.
It seems that many liberal academic Seminaries tend to take the position that the text of the scriptures should be forced to fit the evidence that secular academia presents. Therefore they must cast off many passages of scripture as mythological or a nice story with no factual truth. ...
A reasonable faith, that is based on a message to us that has been provided by God in their original documents, is what I believe and will gladly defend with intellectual honesty intact.
I think you underestimate the importance of a good story, but I see your point. Once you start religating certain parts of the Bible to less than absolute factual, it seems that you have to decide where to draw the line, which seems awfully arbitrary. Who are you to make that decision? Again, this is a point we are going to have to disagree on. I would maintain that even taking the Bible as literally true is arbitrary since the meaning and original wording is subject to change throughout centuries of copying and translation. The original choice of which books would be included in the New Testament can be seen as a tad bit arbitrary. The usual objection to the point I just raised is that those who copied and translated and compiled the Bible were inspired and directed by God. This is a VERY old argument, which I doubt we will resolve on this thread. Still, your decision to accept the Bible as literally true is nothing I should object to. It's entirely a personal decision.
...attempt to compare scientific evidence that has Scriptual significance, to the truths revealed in the Bible.
Here's where I start to have problems. Up until now, you've given probably the best defence o Creationism that I've seen so far. I can't argue with your faith. You have the right to decide your religious views for yourself, and if those beliefs require that you set aside science as a way of perceiving and understanding the world, then so be it. The problem arises when in comparing scientific evidence to scripture, you try to reformulate the evidence or the theory to back up the scripture. In the process, you cease to use religion as your basis for disagreeing with the scientific community, and instead try to use science. It can't be done. By the time you have twisted the evidence and theories around to fully support the literal Biblical story of creation and view of the universe, then you have lost any semblance of scientific rigor. THAT'S what gets us scientists so miffed. It's not the objection based on religion which we can disagree with and move on with our research. It's the attempt to pass off such objections as science. This has the effect of eroding the very principles upon which the efforts of scientists are based. (See recent posts on Karl Popper by longshadow and balrog.) The mixture of scientific and religious reasoning inevitably leads to pseudo-science, because the two fields, while not mutually exclusive, do NOT ask the same fundamental questions about the world we live in. When one encroaches on the other's 'turf', bad things happen.
The mixture of scientific and religious reasoning inevitably leads to pseudo-science, because the two fields, while not mutually exclusive, do NOT ask the same fundamental questions about the world we live in. When one encroaches on the other's 'turf', bad things happen.
Allow me to provide some links that may provide you with credentialed analysis of some of these "turf wars". I would be interested in your comments regarding these perspectives.
Please listen to some of Dr. Missler's realaudio presentations. Chuck communicates very sophisticated information in a more cogent fashion than most scientists. Dr. Missler is a genius of the caliber of Norman Schwarzkopf, Dr. Edward Teller and Dr. William Bennet.