cobber..sorry/about the..caps/they occasionally/start..blinking on off..at random..that means i need/stop..every few lines..and/loose track..of the..in-flow.

thus..often i just ignore..it..[or watch-Out..for the green-light saying its shifted]..but it divides..that/WHICH..im trying to say..[i feeL..IM MORE just a channel..that gets ignored..thus freeing me to channel/NOT spell check..[i been banned..over it a few times]...

anyhow it is/as it is..[im notpaid to post..to anyone's agenda/but..gods.

like..author/chris..SAID/quote..

<<..all point..to the wonder..of a God..who is..the author/of life,>>

but he is..clearly incorrect/scientificly-speaking
ie..[VISIT..an evolutionist forum..IN THEIR .rules*..it states
words to/the affect..saying..god did it..isnt science...say/it and you will/be deleted.

for the science evolving/illusionists..its..definitivly..*not god
even..aliens..is preferred/to god/..you cant serve two masters

evolution=satan/=death
THEY..study stones/bones..NOT DNA

*ALL DO NOt..point..
to god..yet all life points..to his work

ie/him..<<..whose..infinite-creativity..defies any..mortal/material understanding,..and..who bestows..the great gift of..*freedom[OF MIND/WILL]..UPon the universe.>>

HE/DOTH-not seek..to enslave/bind/BLINDER..it/
like my science..linKs affirm
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6248&page=0

CHRIS..<<..Evolution,..however,..becomes a threat..to some Christians because..*it..threatens their basic/understanding..of their relationship..with God,>>

thats wrong..you cant serve..two masters..

[jesus talked of it.on the lamb island thREAD..[ONce you see]..a chair..the second you see something..as being chair like..your thinking stops..

once we take away..god..then what?

i love evoLUTIONbiology/SCIEnce..etc..it..points
to how god..did it..regardless..OF WHAT THE TRUTH IS.

thaTS HOW..GOD DUN IT

WE SEE ERROR/..EVERY WHERE/..AS only god/is perfect

..<<..a relationship shaped by a fundamentalist..understanding
of the Bible..as literally God's word.>>..CAN BE TRUE..ONLY..IN
ONE way..[if god iN-pired many men]..[INDEED/ALL..MEN.]*AND..As he inspires all living]..THUS..sure then..*yep god/dun it..[or rather facilitated..the living hand/mind..that did..gift/it]..its living..

but not/any..but-BY..their will/choic/word/work/or deed..]..

yes/god..but*..by many hands/many minds
thus/many errors..Got compounded...by many messengeRS..NOW WE SIMPLY SORT/gods-TRUE..FROM..inhumane-ERROR.

<<..Christians share*..a more complex..understanding of the Bible,..as a library..of books..with varying literary forms..that need to be interpreted..according to those forms...>>

AS MEN UNDERStood..in their time/..place/race/context..etc
a..progressive Revelation..if you will.

thus doth chris..<<..get frustrated..at the attitude..still held by some/that the Bible must be..literally true..or otherwise everything is called..in doubt.>>

ANY..THINKING MAN/person..knows..
we stand..upon the shoulders..of many..great minds..
all inspired BY..BOTH ANGELS AS MUCH AS JINN..each receiving/as they gave/or asked..recieve...[OR WILLTO PERCEIVE]..

THUS GREW..the wisdom..of men..
much/later..it became science/but..by then
demons invaded..the holy/of holy..[god as creator]..which..is sAcrosanct..NOT/ONLY..TO THOSE OF CHRIST.

Before we wander too far from the thread, it is worthwhile realising that the canon [contents] of the Bible has been a controversial topic over the centuries. Many of the early Councils of the Church argued quite heatedly over which Old Testament books were ‘in’ and which books were ‘out’. This is shown by the existence of the Apocrypha, books which are neither in nor out but which are kept for enlightenment but not the development of dogma.
The New Testament also reveals this discussion. There are a number of Gospels known other than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John which the early Church decided not to include primarily because it was possible to derive from them unacceptable doctrine. Among the other books of the NT is my favourite, James, which Martin Luther argued should be excluded because, he believed, it gave too much weight to the idea of salvation through good works and not enough to salvation by grace alone.
If we narrow our focus a little, we have to ask which translation of the various books we should use. Biblical scholarship is constantly redefining the contents of many of the books of the Bible in the light of new discoveries [Dead Sea scrolls] and new translations, or shifting meanings, of crucial words. Parthenos, the Greek word for what we would call an ‘intact virgin’, has been used to replace both ‘alma’ and ‘bethulah’ from the Hebrew: the problem is that one means ‘a single girl, no offspring’ and the other means ‘intact virgin’ [I can’t remember which]. If you translate from the Hebrew you have a choice of two meanings while translating from the Greek original gives only one option.
Many branches of Christianity have rejected Popes or Bishops and have adopted the Bible as their reference, their ‘authority’. In doing so, they have given away flexibility of derivation of dogma in favour of biblical derivation. Many of the branches have compounded what others see as errors by using the King James Version: a book of stirring, evocative and striking language redolent of translation or transcription errors.

To even suggest that the evolution fantasy is not based on faith is totally irrational. Chris obviously walks around with his eyes shut or has been totally deluded. How the evolutionist must hate that true science includes observation instead of their delusions. Thankfully more and more people are able to think as shown by the masses who now know that gw was a scam.

Chris,

a great article. I appreciate you mentioning Michael Heller, the Polish priest and mathematical physicist, who made me understand how noncommutative geometry can be made relevant in speculations about the very nature of physical reality.

The article is about faith - which is about (spiritual) reality as seen through the Bible - and science - which is about physical reality that in its very nature is investigated through mathematical physics. Judging from the reactions you got, how is it that people boast about their naive understanding of exegesis, but would probably be ashamed to display their naive understanding of mathematical physics?

The other day I watched online the Brisbane debate “Life, the Universe and Nothing: Has science buried God?” between Lawrence Krauss and William Lane Craig on 7/8/2013. It was rather entertaining, even funny, watching how the physicist’s ignorance of what religion, exegesis and contemporary theology were all about was matched only by the philosopher’s ignorance of how mathematical physics works and what contemporary cosmological theories are all about.

Galileo (or was it Bacon?) spoke of the two books written by God, the Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature. I do not think He would have written two books had He intended to have one of them used to explain or dismiss parts of what was written in the other (:-)).

There is one thing probably worse than religion masquerading as science: science masquerading as religion (scientism).

Hi George,

As a self-appointed authority on Divine intentions, can you enlighten us as to which of God's two 'books' he intends to be taken seriously when the two of them flatly contradict each other? Because that is, after all, the problem.

A unique Understanding of the nature of physical and Quantum reality
http://www.dabase.org/Reality_Itself_Is_Not_In_The_Middle.htm

And how/why conventional religionists have no understanding of esoteric Spiritual religion - which applies to everyone who subscribes to the childish mommy-daddy idea of a "creator"-god - which is precisely the world-view that William Lane Craig promotes.
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/nirvanasara/chapter1.html