[StJacques]

"That is not true. Reports circulated in the day that his body was stolen. There are NO secular reports that confirm his resurrection. What facts we know of the resurrection we know from the Bible alone. . . ."

I'm not giving you a secular report. I'm speaking to the mystery of faith. I truly do believe Christ rose bodily from the dead and that the biblical texts -- this is the Gospel of John -- make that clear.

". . . You have MADE my point for me. Scripture negates the primacy of scientific reasoning in life. . . ."

I have not made your point for you at all. You present Scripture within a rational scientific argument, a tactic I abhor. I present Scripture within a religious, i.e. "metaphysical," argument justifying the primacy of the will (faith) in human existence. Your argument blurs the lines between science and metaphysics, my argument states that science must be dealt with on its own terms and, whatever those terms may be, they will not explain the primacy of the human will.

"Where in the biblical text is the conflict between the spiritual and material histories regarding Genesis?"

It's all over the place. To say otherwise is to deny that allegory is used in biblical texts and I won't even bother to argue with one who denies that.

[PetroniusMaximus]

***I truly do believe Christ rose bodily from the dead and that the biblical texts -- this is the Gospel of John -- make that clear.***

Based on the Bible alone - right? Because the secular histories contradict that belief. Josephus, The Mishna, Pliny the Elder all contradict the Biblical account. If you can trust the Biblical witness for the resurrection then why can't you trust Jesus' witness as to the historicla nature of Genesis?



***You present Scripture within a rational scientific argument, a tactic I abhor.***

Someting is either rational or irrational.


***Your argument blurs the lines between science and metaphysics, ***

If the Bible is wrong in it's historical facts then there is not reason to trust it's "metaphorical, spiritual" pronouncements.


*** It's all over the place.****

Any examples?



*** To say otherwise is to deny that allegory is used in biblical.I won't even bother to argue with one who denies that.***

The Bible contains the literal and the allegorical, the historic and the poetic. But it is also fairly clear in distinguishing when what type of form is being used. Hebrew poetry has distinct literary characteristics. The NT makes it clear when Jesus is presenting a parable.

Genesis is presented as a historical fact.

[cornelis]

From your explanation it is clear that "descent of man" needs to be clarified to show that man is a dual nature and that only one part shares biological descent. But scientific naturalism doesn't want to take this step. It prefers to only consider one side, the animal. The same goes for the science of nature in general.