R0bert wrote:

"The bible is not an historically or scientifically accurate book. Trying to think that it is could really tie you up in knots."

Of course, you are right, but because it does not conform to modern standards of historical or scientific accuracy the easy mistake to make is to dismiss it (and other similar ancient documents) as having zero historical or scientific value.

As an example, take the story of the great flood, in which a man is told by an authoritative source to prepare a boat in which to preserve those elements of the biosphere upon which his livelihood depended from the coming devastation. There are two versions of this story in Genesis, the Jehovistic and the Priestly. Then there is the version discovered in the British Museum in 1872 in the Epic of Gilgamesh. There are now at least eleven related Ancient Near Eastern versions of the story, including the two in Genesis. If that was not enough to suggest that there might be some factual basis to the story, there is another version coming from ancient India. The story of Manu and the seven sages who built a boat in which they preserved the seeds they needed to continue life. There are many similar folk legends preserved by tribes in India and Southeast Asia.

[continued]

[continuation]

These stories, although differing widely in detail, are pieces of a jigsaw that when fitted together presents a picture of a cataclysm so awe-inspiring that it could never be forgotten. They all seem to have their basis in an oral tradition that predated the arts of writing, and so must be very ancient. It has been suggested they may even date back to the sudden rise in sea level at the end of the last glaciation, about 8,000 years ago.

So, despite the improbable details in some version, there is still a kernel of historical and scientific value to be found in these ancient documents. This does not mean that they are evidence for the existence of gods, after all Manu was warned by a fish! But it does suggest that more research is needed about the state of the civilization that existed on the continental shelves of Mesopotamia, India and Southeast Asia during the millennia preceding the end of the last Ice Age. How much knowledge was lost when the sea rose, and how much was saved that is preserved in these legends?

I think all will agree we have yet to see any evidence of humans having baby apes. Therefore Genesis account is factual although I don't know if anyone knew about DNA back then or even Darwin or he may have been to embarased to stand up and public admit to being a fool.
I believe all will agree we still have seven days in a week, how very strange after all this time and many attempts to change it. Therefore the Genesis account is factual.
All will agree that it is man and not animals that are ruling the world. Therefore Genesis is factual.
believe we all would agree there are many languages in the world.
Therefore the Genesis account is factual.
And so the simple list goes on... the waters seperated from the waters; the atmosphere. The great huge animals still in the sea but the ones on the land wiped out... That God set man over in the middle east first... That man would have to work and till the ground... That we love God and one another is still the basis of our laws, not you can kill and steal and rob as survival of the fitest.
We are fearfully and wonderfully made... how amazing is the body under the microscope, how amazing is a simple seed that it has the God given life to reproduce...
just a few evidence I can think of off hand

HUMAN INTEREST....asks

<<"Did anyone have actual proof of the cancer prior to the 'healing'? Medical records etc?">>

I pose a different question. "If they did have those records... would you believe"? :) aaaah..now THAT is the crux of the question.

I suggest that even if they did....you would still find a way of rationalizing it.

C.J... the HUGE (as in, the size of the broad side of a barn) thing you miss in your selfrighteous speck finding :) is that as I pointed out, much of what you rant about (re me) is of your own imagination, or.. is couched in such offensive and abusive terminology "You are a liar" kind of thing, that you don't leave much room for discussion.

The classic example is your little avoidance on 'You don't believe in natural selection'.. why should I even bother to try to 'fix' you on such things when you simply want to find fault for it's own sake?

After all..I COULD have made a song and dance about YOU...and like a dog with a bone siezed on that (and many others) and run around the back yard growling "you're a liar" over and over, with them in my mouth, but to take such a beligerant attitude does nothing for the more important goal of working together after truth.

Re Pastor Ake Green...the story was about a pastor, who was convicted under hate laws for offending homosexuals. The story I read SAID he was convicted. But then.. Pericles comes up with another source indicating that he did not serve time, but his conviction was overturned on appeal to some distant EU court of human rights.

So..rather than point this out in a constructive way..nope.. just the usual "You lied"..when I did not.. I used a story which did not include the overturning of the conviction....and left it at that.
Then... (no surprise here) I'm accused of "Aaah..but you KNEW of that story and DELIBERATELY did not include it.. seee ur STILL a 'liar'...

Well..that's called a 'no -win' situation..so I rarely bother to defend myself from your mean spirited attacks:)

Poly/Boaz: “.so I rarely bother to defend myself from your mean spirited attacks..”

Au contraire. Mean spirited? Pot and kettle Poly/Boaz.

Unkind, unwarranted (and nonsensical) attack on Celivia:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2236&page=0#48574

Claims that another poster steps in doodoo – mean? Very. Disrespectful? Absolutely. Nor does Poly/Boaz attempt to verify claim:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2237&page=0#48461

Judgemental and condescending “Dear CJ.. we are getting there.. step by painful step... in the end, you might even understand”:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2242&page=0#48649

What is truly sad is that I did not have to spend much of my valuable time to discover these little gems of hypocrisy. I am sure a deeper exploration of Poly/Boaz would reveal many succinct examples, than these few recent ones.

As they say: “he likes to dish it out, but can’t take it.”

How does this apply to Poly/Boaz's claim of the Genesis story as absolute truth? Well would you buy a used car from this man?

Gibo,

You views on the Harry Potter books are shared by a lot of Christians but not all. I am aware that you have seen some of the movies, but I don't know if you actually read the books.

I have read the first five books and very much enjoyed them. Many Christians I know who criticise me for reading these books have never read them themselves. One Christian accepted the challage I put to him to read the books and he then told me that they were quite enjoyable, and the witchcraft used in these novels is purely fantasy that has its place only in stories.

Likewise I know Christians who are opposed to the old TV show Bewitched with Elizabeth Montgomery. Agnes Morehead who played Endorra in this show was in fact a devout Christian, and wouldn't have starred in this show if it had been about the occult. (She read Bible stories to the children between filming sessions). The main theme of this show is that a witch is trying to live a life without witchcraft, but is trouble by temptations, her witch background and witch associates. Sounds similar to trying to live the Christian life.

I respect your feeling on this matter Gibo, this is where we need to apply the principles of Romans 14. While I enjoy the Harry Potter series, I would not support the movies being shown in my Church, or if I was a librarian in a Christian School I would not have the books in the library simply because I would not want to offend fellow believers.