I think you have comprehension issues. The question asked was "if one truly understands science, is God then a delusion", and his answer was "no." Dr. Collins, who is a believer, said pretty much the same thing.
Dawkins argues philosophically against the probability of God's existence, and never states with absolute certainty that God doesn't exist, just that the l;likelihood, logically, seems small that he does.
In the other example Dawkins states "I think God is a similar delusion.” (my emphasis). That is an opinion not science. Show me where Dawkins uses scientific proof that God doesn't exist.
Clearly, Dawkins never did. Nor does he assert that God is a delusion based on any scienctific proof.
If you (or the NIV) wish to substitute “only” for “but,” then you have to explain the deletion of “not.” It’s a translation thing.
Your comprehension is obviously an issue. But let's see what the original language says (I hope you have Greek fonts):
ουκ [not was] απεσταλην [I sent] ει μη [except] εις [to] τα [the] προβατα [sheep] τα [the] απολωλοτα [lost] οικου [house of] ισραηλ [Israel]
IOW, he was sent to no one else except the sheep to the lost hosue of Israel. He was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Not to the Gentiles, not to you or me. To the Jewish people who were dispersed from the northern Kingdom of Israel. Another YHAOS misconception bites the dust.
So when you deny that the OT refers forward to the NT, you mean it doesn’t refer forward only when it fits your argument?
Give me an example and I will show you that the only way the OT points towards the NT is backwards, after the fact, through the NT.
Again begging for the last word.
Me begging for the last word? LOL! Never. Please continue, by all means!
No scientist ever states anything with “absolute certainty” (purportedly). Yet, in this instance Dawkins seems quite unequivocal:
“The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no.”
Yet, the above is the only Dawkins quote I cited to which you do not address, choosing instead to apply his response “no” (to the question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God) to an entirely different proposition in a different setting and from a different time.
You may twist and turn at your pleasure. Dawkins states that the “question” of whether there exists a supernatural creator is “scientific” and that his answer is “no.” He does not qualify his response as his “opinion.” He makes his statement as an unqualified assertion, knowing full well it enjoys the notoriety of his reputation as an evolutionary biologist and author (for whatever that is worth).
[Christ] “was sent to no one else except the sheep to the lost house of Israel. He was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
So, according to the gospel of kosta, the “but” in the KJV passage is to be read as “except,” rather than any of the other terms you’ve been slinging around. Very well, then.
Drawn out of context, this passage at a glance would indeed seem to say that Christ was sent only to the “lost sheep” of Israel. yet this reading arouses more questions than answers. Why, then, did Christ depart to Sidon and Tyre, well outside of Israel? Why was He seen so often teaching and speaking in the company of publicans and other persons of lowly status? Why did Christ not send away the woman of Canaan (said by Mark to be a Greek and a Syrophenician), choosing instead to engage her in a conversation philosophic? A conversation to which the woman apparently gave sufficient reply to move Christ to accede to her plea.
An answer may be found in Mark 7:27 where Christ’s response to the Woman of Canaan is given somewhat more fulsomely: “Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the Children’s bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.”
Should you find this passage unpalatable, perhaps you can dismiss it as the work of corrupt, conniving bishops. Therefore, tell us learned master, what is your translation of the same passage in the Greek Orthodox Church NT; ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῇ· Ἄφες πρῶτον χορτασθῆναι τὰ τέκνα· οὐ γάρ ἐστι καλὸν λαβεῖν τὸν ἄρτον τῶν τέκνων καὶ τοῖς κυναρίοις βαλεῖν?
What of the other Greek testaments? The Tischendorf 8th Ed. with Diacritics? Or, the Greek NT: Stephanus Textus Receptus (1550, with accents)? The Greek NT: Westcott/Hort with Diacritics? The Greek NT: Byzantine/Majority Text (2000)? (How many Greek NT texts are there, anyway?) Are they all the product of conniving priests? Or, at least, incompetent boobs?