If you did, you'd have to chop of your hand if it caused you to sin. You'd also have to wear clothing made of only one material (amongst many other things). Parts of the Bible are written as history, others as laws, some as poems and letters, others as apocalyptic symbolism. Context is key.

Yes, exactly . Context is everything. As the Good Doc and I have discussed in the past, one can sometimes Over-Interpret many passages in an effort to make them fit one's own Point of View.

When examined in context it's clear that some sections are more open to interpretation than others. Some passages are clearly laws designed for a different era than our own as you point out. The fact is modern science, agriculture, medicine, and technology is far more advanced (with some exceptions).

With this in mind, laws, such as admonishments against the eating of Pork, made perfect sense in the past but not necessarily the present, without any need for interpreting them from a "Spiritual" or allegorical perspective. While passages like Genesis are timeless but more open to reinterpretation due not only to a better understanding of Scientific laws, but also the fact that it does have some very relevant Spiritual Truths that reveal our relationship both to Nature and to the Transcendent.

The question then, that always remains, is whether or not we are all willing to respect each others' interpretations without calling everything we don't agree with "Satanic".

Peace and Long Life

Gandalf's Beard

I’m going to pop back to a previous topic for a little. I’m going to try really hard to keep my comments short. Draugrín mentioned the problems of double standards between male and females in education. I’ve also seen the problem with girls getting away with more than boys. Personally, I have always had a tender spot for little boys who are just being little boys. (i.e. can’t sit still). Part of the problem I think is that in education they are too big on labeling who is not doing as well (girls, boys, minorities, etc.). In college, I had this type of thing rammed down my throat. Why can’t we just look at them as students? We were told never to call on a boy to correct a girl. Obviously the reasoning was that that would make the girl feel inferior. Personally I think it doesn’t matter who one calls on next; the first student could still feel inferior.

Draugrín also mentioned sex education and boys being made out to be the bad guys. I don’t think my class was like that. At least not the first time I took it. The materials my class used were either put out by or supported by Focus on the Family if I remember correctly. I’m sure they wouldn’t present things that way. Also, my second time through it they included a part on different methods of protection. What should be taught is that males and females should be careful not to get into situations where they will be tempted to do something they shouldn’t. I think this example from my health class can show both sides of the issue. We were to think about what it would be like if we found out we were pregnant (for the girls) or that our girlfriend was pregnant (for the boys). The general opinion of the boys was that they wanted their girlfriends with them when they told their parents, but did not want to go with the girl to tell her parents. The girls in the class didn’t think that was very fair. (I think this was in tenth grade). Our teacher pointed out what it might be like if they approached each set of parents as a couple. The girl’s father would look at the boy and say something like “You got my baby pregnant” (putting the blame on the boy). The boy’s mother would say something like “you are the girl who tempted my son.” (putting the blame on the girl). In many cases, there probably is blame on both sides.

There is a tendency to point out the negative. I know I was hit hard with the evils of alcohol, especially as it relates to drunk driving. It really is amazing I will even get into a car. The schools try to use the scare tactic which ends up practically paralyzing the students who wouldn’t have done that kind of thing anyway and hardly fazes the students who are much more likely to. I remember in second grade (at least I think it was second grade, I know it was in elementary school) learning that “drinking and driving” was bad. I think it had to do with M.A.D.D. Anyway, I could not figure out why one couldn’t drink something like water while driving. Also in elementary school (3 or 4 grade maybe?), we were told about not taking drugs and stuff. Then and other times the teachers mentioned that taking steroids was bad / had negative side effects. I ended up coming home and crying because I didn’t realize that the steroids the doctor prescribed for my asthma were not what they were talking about.
I don't think I ranted too much about problems in education.

The problem with this is that as soon as the adults say "This is bad" we all want to do whatever it is they've just said not to do. We humans are an exasperating bunch!

I would say that using “all” is a bit of an extreme. I will go so far as to say that at some time or another everyone has wanted to do something they were told was bad / not to do. That goes back to the fall. Adam and Eve were told not to do one thing, and that is the very thing they both ended up doing. I couldn’t agree more with your last statement.

I don't believe Joseph Campbell, whoever he is, is alone in his ideas. C.S.Lewis, whose works are at the heart of this whole Internet site, also spoke frequently of a 'true myth'. As for the bible, a lot depends on which version of the Bible you read how much you can take at face value and how much not, in the Old Testament, in contrast to the New Testament.

I’m not 100% sure but I think Lewis refered to Christianity as the one true myth. I remember reading somewhere that Lewis thought that all other religions past and present were people’s attempts to get to God but they didn’t quite get there. Thus their religions and stories contained some truths but not the whole truth.
I agree that the different versions of the Bible do seem to complicate matters. The original Luther Bible included the apocrypha books “they were given the well-known title: "Apocrypha: These Books Are Not Held Equal to the Scriptures, but Are Useful and Good to Read” From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible Although they are not in most of the Bibles we use, occasionally we use readings from them in church. Here is a little more information:

The term "apocrypha" was coined by the fifth-century biblical scholar St. Jerome and refers to the biblical books included as part of the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament), but not included in the Hebrew Bible. Several works ranging from the fourth century B.C.E. to New Testament times are considered apocryphal--including Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, First and Second Maccabees, the two Books of Esdras, various additions to the Book of Esther (10:4-10), the Book of Daniel (3:24-90;13;14), and the Prayer of Manasseh. The apocrypha have been variously included and omitted from bibles over the course of the centuries. Protestant churches generally exclude the apocrypha (though the King James version of 1611 included them). The Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches include all of the apocrypha (except for the books of Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh), but refer to them as "deuterocanonical" books. In this context, the term "apocrypha" generally refers to writings entirely outside of the biblical canon and not considered inspired (such as the Gospel of Thomas). These same books are referred to by Protestants as the "pseudoepigrapha." http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/apocrypha_exp.html

Different translations of the Bible make things complicated too. I have a parallel Bible and sometimes 2 of the 4 versions agree and the other 2 say completely the opposite! So far it is something relatively unimportant such who was the oldest, youngest, and middle son of Noah.
I understand where the different sides are coming from as to how to read the Bible. I lean more towards the view chrisTian220 expresses, but there are difficulties. For example, which ending for Mark is the right one? There are two if not three versions. The accounts in the Gospels of Jesus’ death and resurrection do not seem to agree with each other.

Somehow in reading the Hebrew version of Genesis, I find it far more believable and not at all contradictory of Evolutionary theory. Unless you take the idea of 7 24 hour days literally. And since the Book of Jubilees seems to find something mystical about the number 7, rather than the days, the days are of poetic rather than literal significance.

1 Corinthians 15 "Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual." What's the point? Natural foreshadows spiritual. Natural / literal is the foundation -- ALWAYS. Afterward, we can talk about spiritual, poetic, metaphorical, etc. Nowhere in Genesis 1-3 does God use metaphorical language! It's all literal, i.e. natural. God created the earth in 6 [not 7, cause on the 7th day He rested] literal 24-hour days. I already noted in an N&C thread that the Hebrew word for "day" [yom] when used with a number always means a 24-hour day. Guess what? Genesis is no exception. It also says "the evening and the morning were the X day" [Gen 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31]. How plain is that?

I'm curious. What other parts of the Bible do you not take literally? Have you always believed in (theistic) evolution? Have you ever believed in creation? Have you ever taken Genesis literally? I'm just wondering what is hindering you from doing so. What's the stumbling-block?

I don't view the Bible as God's Infallible Word. Rather I see it as compilation of ancient texts written by fallible Humans (who sometimes contradict each other)

You may not, but God does. Yes, He used fallible humans to write an infallible book. What you're missing is the role of the Holy Spirit, the 3rd Person of the Trinity. God's Word is pure [lit. refined = 2 Samuel 22:31, Psalm 12:6, 18:30, 119:140; Proverbs 30:5] and holy. It is "God-breathed." Spirit = Heb. ruach = breath / wind.

2 Samuel 23:2: "The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and His word was in my tongue."
2 Timothy 3:15-16: "And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God [theopneustos], and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
2 Peter 1:20-21: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

Therefore I see it as containing many Truths, but not the Only Truth.

The Word IS truth, GB -- the only truth [John 17:17, 2 Timothy 2:15]. And Jesus Christ, THE Truth, is the living Word [John 14]. You can believe what is true or you can believe what is false. And just because you believe something doesn't make it true.

What should be taught is that males and females should be careful not to get into situations where they will be tempted to do something they shouldn’t.

Agreed. Interesting education, PP! Let's see, I first had sex ed [of sorts] in 5th grade. But it was more detailed in 7th and 8th. Alcohol: middle school? high school? Drugs: 5th or 6th grade, I think. Why would anyone introduce a student to stuff like that that early?

Part of the problem I think is that in education they are too big on labeling who is not doing as well (girls, boys, minorities, etc.). In college, I had this type of thing rammed down my throat. Why can’t we just look at them as students?

Agreed. Ignore the race, class, gender. Aim for equality. Once you single someone out, whether or not they're a minority [ethnicity, gender, etc], you're passing over someone else. You're guilty of reverse discrimination. When are we going to really take to heart what MLK, Jr. said? "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

220christian,

Pretty much everything you're saying is technically true, but I'm not sure you're using the wisest arguments for the situation. While you and I believe the Bible to be the truth, if the person you're talking to doesn't, there is little effect in quoting the Bible as proof. You might try discussing one of the textual proofs that shows that the Bible is as reliable or more so than other ancient texts.

220Christian, because the sad reality is that some children are doing drugs and having sex at those early ages.

I believe that Genesis is a historical account (the writing style lends to that belief) but that the order of creation wasn't necessarily written in detail because the Hebrew people were more concerned with God having created the world and not how or what order he did it in.

Just to play Devil's Advocate, 220, I could very easily write a book and write in that book that the book was inspired by the Holy Spirit, that what was written down in my book was "God-breathed", but does that mean that it really, actually is?

You can believe what is true or you can believe what is false. And just because you believe something doesn't make it true.

This doesn't do much to prove or disprove the infallibility of the Bible. As Elvenhelm pointed out, you and GB are coming at this from two very different base camps. You (220) believe the Bible is literally true, therefore it is your basis for the concept of "truth". GB does not believe the Bible to be literally true. It could just as easily be said that just because 220 believes the Bible to be true, that does not make it so. The argument is quite reversable because ultimately the notion of what is and is not true is entirely subjective to the individual.

Another issue I find subjective is the notion of poetic vs. literal in Biblical passages. Some view Genesis as literal, others as poetic, and no one can come to any kind of consensus. Is there some method for deciding which passages are literal and which are poetic, or is it another issue that is up to "discernment"? In that case, arguing over whether 6 days is 6 24 hour periods or whether 6 days is a metaphorical image doesn't matter much because it all comes down to the individual reconciliation of the text, whether we realize it or not.

220Christian, because the sad reality is that some children are doing drugs and having sex at those early ages.

Sadly true. Personally, I think the idea of sheltering children from the things we consider to be "taboo" is detrimental. I'm not advocating explaining sex and drugs to first graders, I just think the cultural notion that our children (of 13-17) are "too young and impressionable" to be told the realities concerning sex and drugs is a MAJOR contributor to the issues we have concerning them. Has anyone ever read the play Spring Awakening? (The original German play, not the modern musical). In it, a young girl begs her mother to explain "where babies come from". The mother refuses because she doesn't want to "taint her innocence". Desperate for experience and answers, the girl ends up being raped by a classmate and not understanding what has happened. When she discovers that she is pregnant, she is very confused and thinks she is going to die of some sickness. Her mother forces her to have an abortion in order to save the family honor and salvage her daughter's innocence, which leads to the girl's death.

Critics have claimed that this play is all about how sexual impulses cause death and are evil, but in actuality it was a condemnation of the times, where these impulses were so villified and repressed that they caused this kind of strife.

It's easier to deny that "unsavory" things like sex and drug use are going on in middle and high schools than it is to actually own up to it. In the US, most sex-ed classes start in 4th or 5th grade with a gender segregated discussion on what happens during puberty. 6th grade is more of the same plus drugs and alcohol. 7th grade is about sex and birth and more drugs and alcohol. 8th grade is STDs. High school is all of that together. The school system I came from in particular had its head way in the sand. Our principal publicly denied that our high school had a drug problem, and yet when we changed principals, the new principal had the police search every locker and student car. There were 7 arrests for possession and intent to sell in two weeks. The former principal refused comprehensive sex-ed classes because "what we have is working just fine, and our kids don't do that kind of thing". Not only did "our" kids definitely do that kind of thing, it was discovered to be going on inside the school bathrooms. "What we had" was NOT working just fine, as many of my classmates actually believed that they could only get pregnant if they "did it" in water, that standing on your head or eating peanut butter after sex prevented pregnancy, and that if guys didn't "get some" when they asked for it certain body parts could explode. No joke.

If we want the sex and drug problem to get better, the adults in charge need to pull their heads out of the sand and realize that they are responsible for educating the next generation accurately and responsibly, and the evidence suggests that the current system is failing horrendously. It's not introducing kids to it young that's causing the problems, it's the glossing over of the facts and tendency to blame the problems on "degraded moral values" as opposed to taking responsibility that causes them.

13-17 year olds too young and impressionable? The reality is there are some 10 year olds who are having sex! We live in a dark world.
Not only do young people need to be educated as to what's right behaviour etc. but they should be pointed to a hope and truth greater than themselves. There is so much hopelessness in this world. You can smell it's stench and almost feel it. People need hope.

I believe that Genesis is a historical account (the writing style lends to that belief) but that the order of creation wasn't necessarily written in detail because the Hebrew people were more concerned with God having created the world and not how or what order he did it in.

Too right! W4J. The social conditions of Ancient Israel, especially after Solomon, and the division of Israel into Israel and Judah left them only too liable to be invaded by other stronger nations in the area, such as Egypt in the South, Assyria, Babylon and later on, Alexander of Macedon. Even smaller polytheistic people such as the Syrians, Moabites, Edomites and Philistines at various times had issues with the Monotheistic Hebrews. And each conqueror would try to enforce his religious ideas on everyone else, the sole exception being the later Persians, who permitted the Hebrews' return to Jerusalem and who appointed the grandson of Jehoiachin, Zerubbabel, to be the area's governor.

Kings like Jeroboam II who did not heed the warnings of the Biblical prophets about the sort of neighbours they had, and who failed to adhere to Hebrew beliefs were liable to invite in disaster. The Bible makes clear that the ten tribes of Israel did not so much as 'vanish', though religious people often like to think otherwise. After the Assyrian deportation they merely melted in among the people where they were, having lost their identities, their souls and the distinctive beliefs which kept Israel a cohesive nation.

If any of you ever happen to visit London, it is well worth your while to take a look at some of the Assyrian and Egyptian exhibits in the British Museum. The Black Stone showing Jehu paying obeisance to the Assyrian king, Shalmaneser is there. So are frescoes outlining the military campaigns of Tiglath-Pileser III and Sennacherib, and giant winged lions which once framed a gateway in Nineveh. A giant statue of Rameses II has a facial expression and eyes that follow you around the room it presides over. Unless you go to the special displays at the British Museum, it doesn't even cost you anything to view these ancient marvels.

Of course it was and still is important that the Ancient Hebrews asserted that it was God, and God alone who made the world, not these other allegedly divine beings. And I've no doubt that Genesis did relate a family's history which later became the history of a nation. There is a real Cave of Machpelah, in Hebron, you know. It is even a tourist attraction, jointly administered and revered by Islam, Christianity and Judaism.

And you are right to say how important context is. Take that verse from 1 Timothy, asserting that 'I suffer women not to teach', and much of what preceded and followed St Paul's dictum, including his specifications for a suitable person to do the teaching. Dr Ransom would like both 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Timothy 3 to take equal weight in our considerations. But I hardly think that St Paul meant that dictum to stand for all time, in all circumstances, regardless of the supply of men available to do the job, especially as he did not say that women shouldn't manage their own households or instruct their own children. And he positively said that women should lead by example.

But I was trying to point out, in the words of our Junior Minister, that men have so taken advantage of 1 Timothy 2 that St Paul's very sensible arrangements for women's protection and those of children, in a time of oppression in which the early Church started, were taken to stand for all time, in all circumstances, no matter what, even when there are few or even no men around, to keep 'the monstrous regiment of women' silent, to keep women from any position of authority, including the Monarchy, and to deprive women of any say at all anywhere, not only in the church, so that unsuitable men could expect to be chosen for employment in preference to the most suitably qualified women, and men could network in clubs and elsewhere to keep the status quo.

But that was and still is the way that dictum is taken. I suppose that taking that saying too literally could mean that I've no business on this site, that the many female contributors should butt out, not just me, the site should be closed down, that all the female teachers who keep education going should be summarily dismissed and that girls should not attend school. (Now do I know a place where such things happen? Let me think.... onder:!)

Mind you, the lack of suitable women allowed to participate would not matter so much if St Paul's excellent job description had been continuously kept in mind when finding suitable male church leaders, regardless of denomination. But when the Prime Minister has to apologise for how 'the Stolen Children' or how 'the Forgotten Australians' were treated, it doesn't seem that any church whose clergy were involved in these scenarios, regardless of denomination, were selected for the job carefully enough, regardless of how well-intentioned such schemes were at the time. By the way, St Paul's job description still meets modern recruitment expectations and is still relevant today.

Incidentally, I'm sorry that I mistook who was calling me Kiddo, Dr Elwin Ransom, having been in a bit of a hurry at the time. And I accept Shadowlander's gracious apologies, as he is the contemporary of my eldest child. TOM rightfully agreed that we have a different culture here in Oz. I agree that it wasn't until 1984 that we had the sort of Anti-discrimination legislation in place to allow women equal rights to those of men, to permit them access to employment and to facilitate equal pay claims and maternity leave. However, such arrangements should not have disadvantaged men who still predominate in trades like engineering, geology and in sport.

The area in which feminism has had the most unfair effect has been in divorce proceedings, since bitter women also 'take advantage' to get their own way vindictively against estranged husbands. I agree with Erin Pizzey that some women can be just as violent as men, and that it is unfair to label all men as bad because of bad male behaviour elsewhere, whilst ignoring what wrongs women commit.

I'm not convinced that Draugrin's example of the differing treatment meted out to a boy and girl of 13 years who said they had to go to some drama activity is a good example of inequality. You see, although the boy's parents could claim about how unfairly he was treated, neither he nor the girl should have been permitted to leave that classroom without a suitable note from parents, guardians or from the teacher co-ordinating the activity they were supposed to attend.

I don't even think that the girl is an example of feminism gone horribly wrong, because chances are, all that 13 year old girl expects to do with her life is to marry a rich husband and expect him to keep her in the style she has become used to. Until he gets wise and their marriage collapses, or something. And she then might rue her neglect of her own education which people fought so hard to give her. We heard lots about such girls who 'take advantage' of what they can get away with, not only when I was young but even as my more motivated youngest daughter struggled against the disruptiveness of some of her female schoolmates. Probably the teacher was glad to see the back of that 13 year old girl.

You are right to say that I wouldn't want to teach myself. Just look at Draugrin's example. We had girls like that 13 year old who were kept home at the drop of a hat even when my grandmother was a girl. Why do you think school attendance was made compulsory for every child in the 1920's here?

We have a different system here and I can't say I understand how the American one works. Children start school as early as 4 1/2, which relieves the need for expensive day-care for busy mothers. Primary school finishes at the end of the calendar year in Year 6, and secondary school begins the next calendar year, with Year 7 at a high school. Ideally Senior High School stops in Year 12 after successful completion of one's HSC, after which students can go to work, go into vocational training at a suitable college, or go to University or even combine all three.

There are all sorts of degrees and post-graduate qualifications one can undertake at University. But unlike the American universities, the successful completion of an undergraduate Bachelor degree is the lowest qualification one can have before admission to study in a post-graduate Master's degree, the minimum requirement to have one's professional qualifications recognised anywhere in the world. By the time I finished my Master's degree I felt that anyone who suggested I should undertake a Doctorate as well, would be needing a Doctor, themselves, before I finished with them. So congratulations on your achievements, 220CT. Even though you might not have to pass inspection at Oxford or Cambridge to get your doctorate, I'm sure your qualifications represent a lot of grinding work.

I don't know how students can play up at College the way that has been described here, without some sort of repercussion in the Press. We do have those sort of live-in Colleges at some universities, but they are expensive, accommodation in them is hard to get and it isn't dormitory style. In pre-Internet times I have attended Residentials whilst staying in such colleges, in single rooms, but these 4 or 6 day sessions are usually crammed full of lectures and tutorials. The only ruckus I remember is the nuns who complained about shared unisex bathrooms, and the only parties I ever attended were the Student Union-funded Welcome parties which were also the Farewell parties.

I only know of two private or religious Universities in the whole of the country, though there is more choice in lower education. These are the Catholic University and the Bond university. Though the Catholics, the Anglicans and others have their own schools, religious schools aren't always greeted with enthusiasm, and I don't know how much people's attitudes and their concern for what the curriculum might contain are affected by the teachings and beliefs at Ngruki and the alleged links this pesantren might have had with the recent Jakarta bombings in the Ritz Carlton and the Marriott hotels.

One of the biggest challenges to evangelism from a Biblical standpoint is talking about absolutes in a culture that does not believe or accept absolutes ("are you absolutely sure about that? ) 220, I have to agree with Draugin here that while I personally believe your points are valid from my perspective, they won't help anyone who doesn't hold that perspective. This is one of the advantages to apologetics. I can go on about how from a scientific and historical context that the events in the Bible are true as is depicted (I also hold a literal 24-hour, 6 day creation to be true). It's not proof per-say, because using science requires repeatable events. But what we know about science and taking a literal account of Genesis will never contradict each other. I've yet to see a contradiction-free take on evolution or even theistic evolution. And as much as some of you don't like Kent Hovind, he stil has a quarter million dollar donation to the one that can scientifically prove evolution to be true. No one's claimed it.

But how do you talk to someone that doesn't hold the same standards as you do? It is really not that different that talking to someone in a different language. You need to either speak their language or have a translator. Please note that I am not by any means talking about compromises here. I'm talking about finding common ground that both of you can agree upon through which you can share about your beleifs. Apologetics is just one method. If you are talking to someone who has no absolute standards, perhaps they need to see where that leads. Have them think about what a lack of standards entails. The list can go on.

Now GB has stated more than once that he (I think you are a he), believe there is more than one way to heaven, and that Jesus is just one part of it. 220, myself, and many others here, believe that Jesus is the only way. So how do we find common ground? We can quote Scripture all day, but if someone such as GB doesn't hold the Bible as the utmost authority on the issue, merely quoting Scripture won't do much good. You start out by pointing out the similarities. That can break the ice and let the conversation get deeper. But then we need to point out how Jesus is different than the rest. Christianity is the only belief system out that is "saved by grace and not by works"; it is the only one where the center figure had a Ressurrection, it is also my understanding that it is the only belief system with a triune diety. We also have the issue that Jesus himself begged his Father three times to not have to go through the Crucifixion. If there was any other way, what does that do to Christianity?

RE: sex-ed, drugs, education. I am the sort that tends to think that sheltering in itself is not necessarily a wise thing, but it shouldn't be completely shunned. One day, kids are going to out in the real world, and they are going to be confronted with these issues one way or another. If you send your kid to a public school, you have to simply accept the fact that thier peers talk about this stuff, are exposed to it, and hear about it on a pretty regular basis. If you send you kid to a private school, even a Christian one, don't think it won't happen there. I was in a small Christian private school growing up and the Jr High and High School were about 95% public school rejects. Drugs, language, sex, and all of it were pretty prevalent, in spite of the relatively strict rules.

But I am also of the type that believes it is not the school responsibility to teach about these things. Nor is it the church or church youth group's responsibility. Should they teach about it? Yes, but it is the parents' responsibility to instruct their kids in what is right and wrong with this stuff. The church youth pastor will spend about 2 hours (sometimes 3) a week with the kids. There are 168 hours a week. Teachers, depending on school format, so I will use a 3-credit hour class per teacher for example will spend 3 hours per week with the students. Of course multiply that by 7 or 8 classes in high school and you get 24 hours a week. Who do kids spend the rest of their time with? Thier peers and thier family. And unless the parents do a good job at training thier kids to make wise decisions, at the least who thier friends are, these kids will make many choices based on what thier friends do. The thing called peer pressure is more powerful than anything else a child will encounter outside their home. And pretty much the only way a child will be able to make the right decisions is by having parents that instruct them in that manner. I know there are exceptions on both sides (not having good parents and making good decisions, and having good parents and not making good decisions), but so often parents want thier kids' teachers or youth pastor to fix their kids, when it is their resposibility. The latter can help, but the parents have to be involved or a child will be in grave danger of going down the wrong path.

This doesn't do much to prove or disprove the infallibility of the Bible. As Elvenhelm pointed out, you and GB are coming at this from two very different base camps. You (220) believe the Bible is literally true, therefore it is your basis for the concept of "truth". GB does not believe the Bible to be literally true. It could just as easily be said that just because 220 believes the Bible to be true, that does not make it so. The argument is quite reversable because ultimately the notion of what is and is not true is entirely subjective to the individual.

I'm inclined to agree with Draugrin here. Think of it this way: GB doesn't deny the possibility of a Higher Power, but he feels that this entity has left his mark in multiple ways, not just the Bible, whereas you, 220, believe that God has left His mark primarily in the Bible. All other religions have elements of truth in them (for instance, most major religions have a "flood story" in which a Great Flood took place in the past), but Christians believe that the Bible is the One True Myth, as CS Lewis referred to it. GB is as fair and open-minded as he possibly can be (and I do sincerely mean this as a compliment to GB as there are many non-Christians who automatically start shrieking the second you drop the name "Christ" into the conversation) and he's applying a particular methodology to see if their are grains of truth to each of these religions, not really unlike what CS Lewis himself did.

GB and you are speaking two totally different languages to each other. What he's saying tends to sound like New Agey mumbo-jumbo speak to you, 220, and he tends to hear your words as well-intended but largely overzealous committment to one religious text which he considers perhaps a beautiful piece of artistic literature with some reliable historical events contained therein, but ultimately flawed because he believes it was written by simple men with minimal (if any) oversight by a Supreme Being. Until this gap is bridged he will never see from our perspective...even if he tried as hard as he could to imagine it he still couldn't fully grasp what we are readily able to see. This is why throwing verses at him alone is likely to not work by itself. This will require God's direct intervention to "open his eyes", as it were, to the Truth. If GB is truly seeking the Answer, and I sincerely believe he is, he will find it, but only with God's direct help.

And GB, my friend, I sincerely hope this happens. I cannot fathom spending eternity without you there to discuss food and action movies with. It just wouldn't be as complete.

Kent Hovind has a lot of passion but he's not a scientist. Ken Ham on the other hand has a lot of passion and was (maybe still is?) a scientist and his group know their stuff.

And Charles Darwin was only the first to write a book and stage the Press Conference. His work merely confirmed the work of others, such as the geologist, Adam Miller from Cromarty, in Scotland, Humboldt and Alfred Russel Wallace, after whom the Wallace line is called.

The Wallace line explains why the flora and fauna are markedly different on the Australian side of it from the Asiatic side. And it also helps to explain the devastating effects world wide of such disasters as the 1815Mt Tomboro explosion, the Krakatoa explosion later that century, and the ongoing seismic unrest which plagues Indonesia. Of course you can blame us sinful Aussies, instead, if it makes you feel better. And cheer when we are melting in hellishly hot temperatures. But I'd rather you didn't.

I've been reading articles that say that Darwin was an excellent writer but a lousy scientist.

I'd rather we Aussies didn't get blamed.

220CT:
And just because you believe something doesn't make it true.

I agree . That's my point precisely .

And thank you to Shadowlander, Fencer, Draugrin, and Wagga for your gracious remarks regarding my views (if I've left anyone out I apologize).

GB