Replies

I take it as axiomatic that the biblical texts were authored by the Creator as a means to communicate the bigger picture of where all things come from and where they are headed. They are not mystical or esoteric texts, nor do they invite superstition. In fact they are quite the opposite, declaring these things in ordinary language even a child can understand. The biblical texts, like God Himself, are natural.

Contained the the command to fill the earth and subdue it is the injunction to undertake science. The texts themselves are sufficient evidence of God's existence and intentions, just as your own words testify to some extent not only of your existence but also your intentions. Am I assuming my conclusion when I conclude from your words that you exist and have intentions?

But you are not convinced the biblical texts were authored by anyone other than a collection of human authors, who themselves were inspired by nothing other than their own imaginations as they reacted to the physical world about them. Actually, those kinds of authors are the ones who fabricate Darwinism with all its esoteric spillage. You're not alone in this assessment. For personal reasons you've chosen to reject what the biblical texts say, and what they say of themselves.

Why did ordinary human authors arrive at a creation taking six days? An almighty God could just poof everything into existence in an instant. That makes for stronger drama, and is more consistent with an Almighty being. At any rate, the texts say of themselves they were authored by the Creator Himself. I'll take their word for it. It is reasonable enough, just like intelligent design is reasonable enough and not mystical or superstitious.

I take it as axiomatic that the biblical texts were authored by the Creator as a means to communicate the bigger picture of where all things come from and where they are headed.

Why do you make this assumption?

In fact they are quite the opposite, declaring these things in ordinary language even a child can understand.

This is not evidence of accuracy.

The biblical texts, like God Himself, are natural.

You again are assuming your conclusion.

The texts themselves are sufficient evidence of God's existence and intentions, just as your own words testify to some extent not only of your existence but also your intentions.

Circular reasoning. You are using the assumption that God wrote the Bible as evidence that God wrote the Bible.

Am I assuming my conclusion when I conclude from your words that you exist and have intentions?

Actually, yes. You demonstrate this assumption when referring to them as "my words".

But you are not convinced the biblical texts were authored by anyone other than a collection of human authors, who themselves were inspired by nothing other than their own imaginations as they reacted to the physical world about them.

Do you have reason that I should believe otherwise about the "biblical texts" and not any other religious text?

Actually, those kinds of authors are the ones who fabricate Darwinism with all its esoteric spillage. You're not alone in this assessment.

Please support this claim with evidence. Show that "Darwinism" is a "fabrication".

For personal reasons you've chosen to reject what the biblical texts say, and what they say of themselves.

The "personal reasons" to which you refer are the lack of evidence for the validity of the claims of the biblical texts.

Why did ordinary human authors arrive at a creation taking six days?

As has been previously explained to you, there exist multiple creation stories and "six days" is not a universal theme. The "six days" accounts that do exist were likely influenced by culture; a possibility is that a seven-day work week was already convention and the creation account written based upon that. An almighty God could just poof everything into existence in an instant. That makes for stronger drama, and is more consistent with an Almighty being.

I do not see how this supports your claims. At any rate, the texts say of themselves they were authored by the Creator Himself. I'll take their word for it.

Why do you accept such a claim of the "biblical texts" but not such a claim from any other religious text?

Addendum to my previous post, arising from re-checking this thread.

Your assertion in this post about the nature of 'biblical texts' does in fact compel you , if you wish to have any credibility, to specify what you personally regard as canonical among 'biblical texts'; as it stands, your post here accepts all 'biblical texts' as canonical, and I doubt that is actually your meaning. Bear in mind that, under your defintion, 'biblical texts' could include the Nag Hammadi codices and -- for some denominations -- more recent 'revelations', such as those claimed for the 'Book of Mormon' by John Smith or, indeed, the Q'uranic verses of Islam. I very much doubt that is your meaning; what you intended to indicate is altogether opaque, in the absence of your clarification here.

I take it as axiomatic that the biblical texts were authored by the Creator as a means to communicate the bigger picture of where all things come from and where they are headed.

Then you are admitting that you are assuming your conclusion and that the basis for your claims is no better than the basis of the claims of followers of other religions.

They are not mystical or esoteric texts, nor do they invite superstition. In fact they are quite the opposite, declaring these things in ordinary language even a child can understand.

Even if this is true, it is in no way evidence of divine authorship or accuracy. The biblical texts, like God Himself, are natural.

How have you determined that "God Himself" is natural? Please be specific.

Contained the the command to fill the earth and subdue it is the injunction to undertake science. The texts themselves are sufficient evidence of God's existence and intentions, just as your own words testify to some extent not only of your existence but also your intentions.

You are again assuming your conclusion to support your conclusion.

Am I assuming my conclusion when I conclude from your words that you exist and have intentions?

How have you determined that they are "my words"? What else can you determine about me? If I claimed to be a non-human entity who created the universe and all in it, would you believe me? Why or why not?

But you are not convinced the biblical texts were authored by anyone other than a collection of human authors, who themselves were inspired by nothing other than their own imaginations as they reacted to the physical world about them.

I come to this conclusion about all religious texts. Do you have reason than I should treat the "biblical texts" any differently?

Actually, those kinds of authors are the ones who fabricate Darwinism with all its esoteric spillage.

Please support this claim with evidence.

Why did ordinary human authors arrive at a creation taking six days?

Not all human cultures imagined a six-day creation period with a day of rest. The six-day account may have been devised to fit a pre-established seven-day week in convention at the time.

An almighty God could just poof everything into existence in an instant. That makes for stronger drama, and is more consistent with an Almighty being.

How have you determined what is consistent with an "Almighty being"?

At any rate, the texts say of themselves they were authored by the Creator Himself. I'll take their word for it. It is reasonable enough, just like intelligent design is reasonable enough and not mystical or superstitious.

Why is it reasonable to conclude divine authorship and intelligent design?