Hi Jon J,

>>when the two of them flatly contradict each other? Because that is, after all, the problem.<<

Sorry, I cannot help you with your problem which arises only when one has a naive - or flat, if you like - understanding of biblical exegesis or philosophy of science (or both). Like, for instance, if you see a “flat contradiction” between what is true about a topological space and a free space you are looking for in a car park, it is because you are confusing the two meanings of the word “space” and for what purposes they are used.

,,..Jon/quote..<<..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.>>

JON
[i hate to waste even a post..just to post..this

BUT..could you please be specific

the one book
is numbered/by auther..just so you can point*..to the SPECIFIC error

IE..any CHANCE..of specifically..saying who/whaT/..where?

and
if your referring to the unwritten/law/book..[life/poli-tricks/whatever..or evcen say evolutION]

could you please supply chapter
and verse..ie a real life application.

THINK OF IT
LIKE YOUR Playing a hand OF POKER

im calling..all in

show ya hand.
there has been too much bluffing..already
http://216.240.133.177/archives32/Rivero/2014/02/Rivero_2_021914_140000.mp3

The first chapter of Genesis along with the first 3 verses of the second, were intended as a hymn in praise of the Sabbath.

Whoever the author, they never even imagined that one day people would understand it as a description of the physical world, or what we now call "science", because at the time no notion of science existed or was considered necessary (in the West it were probably the Greeks who first desired to understand the origin and workings of the physical world). It's only modern people who assume that the ancients, like themselves, had nothing on their mind but to attempt to describe the origins of the physical world.

Science and religion do indeed clash - but over values, not over the facts.

The facts belong the realm of science and should not be disputed by religion. What religion does (or should) challenge, is why people bother themselves with the facts and what value is there in curiosity about their details.

From a religious perspective, looking out to the world, is a distraction of one's attention and allowing this rare attainment of a human body to be wasted on exploring its fleeting existence, is such a pity. Religion tells us that while we are currently IN this world, we are not OF this world. Religion tells us that one should instead use this rare opportunity to seek God, for who knows when another such opportunity will be available and how much we will need to suffer before it presents itself again.

COULDNT FIND..the hyme of the sabbath
but it maes sense..that it includes/the path..days..of creation
that lead to his ongoing sabbath..thus he needs begin..with the deep

THE FIRST TABLET

When in the height..of the last eon..the new heaven was not named,
And the earth beneath..did not yet bear a name,

And the primeval Apsu,..[sun]..who begat them,
And chaos, Tiamut, [the holy living omnipresent..spirit]..the mother of them both

thus Their waters were mingled together,
And no field was formed, no marsh was to be seen;

When of the gods..[suns].none had yet been called into being,
And none bore a name, and no destinies were ordained;
Then were created the gods in the midst of heaven,
Lahmu and Lahamu were called into being...with the simple words

*LET THERE BE LIGHT*

NOW DE;LIGHT/REJOICE

Ages increased,...ctd
http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/stc/index.htm

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=+TRANSLATION+OF+ENUMA+ELISH&

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=ZfstnHO_AmgC&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=sabbath+hymn+of+praise&source=bl&ots=dt7eKa9sgL&sig=j25TUIp6Zt4L-2c27Le_xSeDHYs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XmQFU97wLIGYrAftuoCIDA&ved=0CEkQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=sabbath%20hymn%20of%20praise&f=false

http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/enuma.htm

I am as always in deep awe, George, at the way you manage to portray religion, as if it were something impenetrably complex and subtly layered.

>>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.<<

By placing these in juxtaposition, you are presenting "religion, exegesis and contemporary theology" as somehow equally accessible spheres of learning as "mathematical physics [and] contemporary cosmological theories". When in fact, they start from an entirely different premise.

The principle feature of theology is that it requires an a priori belief in the existence of a deity. Exegesis - I assume you mean here biblical exegesis - can only be reached through religion, whereas neither mathematics nor cosmology requires such a commitment.

The other throwaway line you employ is that William Lane Craig is a philosopher. Which of course, he is not. He is a theologian.

None of which qualifies you to sneer, by the way.

>>Sorry, I cannot help you with your problem which arises only when one has a naive - or flat, if you like - understanding of biblical exegesis or philosophy of science (or both).<<

That's not very nice, you know.

OH DEAR..i know how the pope felt
http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2014/02/20/1226832/784579-7de8dc7e-99ce-11e3-9a97-2ed07c1403ff.jpg

I DONT WAnt to look either
anyhow shame..on him..for taking pericules side

i just know what benidict is saying to him..[much the same i been saying to you]..if god..god is creator..not THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION/THAT AT BEST CAN ONLY POINT..OUT THE CLUES.*AS TO HOW *HE DID IT..WE HAVE NO RUGHT TO JUDGE THOSE WITH OUT FACTS..just take their works..not naming names/mean/ways..this evolution achieves it SANS GOD.

I KNOW ITS BUT A SMALL POINT
but i wish Benedict..would say the word.
for demons who teach..what to think..rather than how to think
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/19/the-pope-francis-little-book-of-insults/comment-page-2/

LOTSA OTHER PHOTOS..they reveal a tale
re the latest test...AS GODS NATURE SPIRITS..INDicate a failing..of a test.

http://www.news.com.au/world/pope-francis-struggles-with-his-windblown-garments-in-st-peters-square/story-fndir2ev-1226832784635