Agreed: but I would argue (and have in the new thread created this morning) that overly literalistic reading of scripture - essentially, reading 8th century or so BC manuscripts with 21st century AD eyes and minds - is itself spurious.

Bravus, what then are we to do with scripture, seeing as we CANNOT eviscerate "21st century AD eyes and minds" from being core components of our beings?

On a side note: the missing links just keep on coming ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4900946.stm

We approach the Scriptures with some humility, looking to learn from them rather than to teach them, and we listen to those who have devoted their lives to attempting to understand something of 8th century BC minds and what the texts would have meant to those minds, rather than dismissing them as heretics tampering with (our entrenched assumptions about) the Scriptures.

In other words, to respect the Bible is to question our naive assumptions about it, and try to improve them, rather than to defend them at all costs from all comers.

Geez, and to think I once got mad at "literalist" Adventists for "taking all the mystery out of the universe" so that it wasn't any fun anymore.

This is even worse.

No eternal life; no real God there to have a relationship with through a living, dynamic Word (just an intellectual exercise); what's next?

No compelling reason not to cast my lot with delusions that make me happier, since apparently no one else is going to offer anything better than my own mind can conjure.

*crash*

Nonononononono - please, (a) don't take it that way and (b) don't lay that responsibility on me!

I did forget and neglect to add 'prayerfully' to that description above, and also to state that this does not in any way invalidate our own study of the Word and the understandings we can create as we read and study and the Spirit educates us.

This conversation totally comes out of a situation where people are getting the Bible to do things it was not made for - make scientific proclamations. The Bible is intended for exactly the kind of learning about God, spiritual growth and relationship you're talking about it. And using it as it was intended puts a whole lot of these questions on the back burner.

Does the Bible teach us how to know God and love Him and those aorund us? Yes, absolutely. Can every beleiever learn those lessons from the Bible just by reading it? Yes, absolutely.

Does the Bible tell us in scientific terms exactly how God created the universe? You've said yourself that no, what it tells us is that those processes are inaccessible to us. If that's so, then why would we have to strongly defend a particular set of assumptions? If the processes are inaccessible, then they're inaccessible and there's no point arguing about them.

Does the Bible tell us to protest at military funerals and say that God killed those soldiers because America tolerates homosexuals? Jim Phelps believes it does. A very literal reading of the text might even back him up. *That's* another case where the text is disrespected by being so literalistic and turning it to our own purposes.

Sorry, I missed commenting on this from the first page of this thread. Robert quoted:

Quote:

---

"Both evolution and creation are faith based systems. One holds that Man is in control and sets the rules, the other God is in control and sets the rules."

---

Nope, sorry. In atheistic evolution, no-one controls or sets the rules (except possibly natural laws). In theistic evolution, God still controls and sets the rules. Humans *never* control...

Quote:

---

reading 8th century or so BC manuscripts with 21st century AD eyes and minds - is itself spurious.

---

I believe the Dead Sea Scrolls all date back to BC.

I played around yesterday and found it....I briefly looked again today, but I couldn't find it.

Anyway, I found this link to a forum where evolution and creation were being debated from the web address you posted.

Graeme actually found it and pointed to it for me, thanks Robert.