Richard,
You simply do not seem to understand the meaning of the word "proof". What is in question here is *precisely* that the bible in not a reliable source of truth (scientific or otherwise). Just because the bible flatly says something is insufficient reason for me to accept and allow any nonsense it says.
:
: >Secondly, I am rather amused that you consider evolution to be a
: >theory, as opposed to FACT.
:
: I am rather amused that you still believe it! Especially when well known
: professors (who aren't Christians) are abandoning straight evolution. If
: you'd like further information regarding the refutation of Evolution, visit
: my home page and follow the link by that name. I will also attach some
: documents for you.
:
Could you give me the names of those "well-known professors" who are "abandoning straight evolution", whatever "straight" means. And please do not tell me that Duane Gish is a reputable scientist (although he may be "well-known", but then so is Charles Manson). I want PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLES in CURRENT REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS.
Ditto for your non sequiturs about carbon-14 dating.
:
: I don't know if we can get past the Miracles thing. Miracles really should
: not even come into play in a Scientific fact debate. Miracles are only the
: suspension of the natural order. They do not deal with what the laws state,
: only that they were suspended. Does that make sense? What I mean is, we are
: not debating whether or not the natural laws can be suspended...we are
: debating whether or not the Bible states principally,methodically,or
: factually something contrary to proven laws. For instance...The Bible could
: (but doesn't) state that the pull of gravity is 16ft per second per second,
: and then separately speak to something floating in mid air. The floating
: does not contradict the FACT of the pull of gravity, but simply states a
: time when that law was suspended. It would be a contradiction if the Bible
: said that an object falls at 100ft/second/second for we know that is not
: correct. It is not like the Big Bang and Evolution which contain
: Contradiction/Denial of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. (see attachments)
: So if this is acceptable let me know. If its complexity is too fine of a
: line to walk for debate purposes...I understand.
:
I will let those statements about the Big Bang, evolution, and the second law of thermodynamics pass because I you don't seem to know what any of those three words really mean. However I will accept your hypothetical example about the acceleration due to the Earth's gravity as a test.
:
: The KJV is an "accurate" *translation* of the Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic
: Scripture. But further original language study is needed to uncover the
: unavoidable effects of the English filter.
:
In that case, please list the complete list of all books, translations, and other documents which you will use to figure out the correct translation of a passage in the bible. What this means is that you will not later bring out yet another document with yet another translation of an obscure passage in the bible.
And did you notice that you contradicted an earlier statement of yours that you made to Farrell Till when you said that the bible is the most enduring and unchanging document known to humans. Indeed, especially if you have your own doubts about what the "best" translation is.
--Krishna