Vertigo: The Bible

[Joel Schama]

This is getting to be a serious pain, since underneath each of your posts there is no way for me to reply. Therefore to address one of your points. You claim the Bible must be true because of a,b,c, etc. But the things you list are all subjective, not empircial evidence. You claim it must be true because of the way it was written. Again, people did write fiction at that time. And even if they didn't simply because the methodology of one particular piece of writing seems "real" does not necessarily make it factual. You claim it should be true because of how many people believe it or in your terms "its impact". While Islam and Hinduism, etc, have many followers and each has made quite a large impact and this does not make any of those religions true. You need to address the contradictions: Why are all the gospels very different, one has Jesus appearing to 12, one to 11, one to 10. One has Jesus telling them to go to Galilee, in the other Jesus tells them to stay and not go anywhere. These are serious discrepancies within the Gospels.

Steping out of the mythology for a moment. The Bible's version of creation, etc. Does not account for the fact of evolution and the geologic column with invertebrates on the bottom and Homo Sapiens on the top. Creation story is utterly diametrically opposed to these facts.

[Joel Schama]

Or, you can respect that there are educated people of other fields. This is the kind of arrogance that science has that gets up people's noses. Science isn't the only field that can be authoritative

There are absolutely other fields of research and discussion that are outside the realm of science that are respectable if carried forth in a reasonable, logical manner. Philosophy is one, but even philosophy now incorporates elements of the empirical sciences; especially the neurosciences. But that doesn’t mean that all fields outside the realm of science should be respected. Astrology, and so-called psychic phenomenon, for example, come to mind immediately. This is NOT arrogance it is reality. These things aren’t real.

All literal things are truthful, but not all truthful things need to be literal.

Please explain the difference and enlighten me. I will open my mind to anything you can claim is truthful but not literal, for I cannot think of an example off hand. If I truthfully confess to something, I’ve literally confessed to it. If I’ve truthfully done X then I’ve literally done X. If Y is true, it is literally true.

The separation of day and night do indeed equal the earth rotating on its axis. But the arrival of light is something different.

This comment needs further elucidation. You agree that the separation of day and night is the Earth’s rotation, I am not talking about the arrival of light. Of course that is different, there are many sources of light after the Big Bang, but none so close as to effect the Earth in a separation of light and dark. This “one day” must necessarily be considered a turning of the Earth on its axis. Hence the six day advent.

That isn't what I said. The seperation of light and dark, yes is descriptive of day and night. But the periods of time are not described in the same way. I have provided evidence to that effect.

How are they described differently? One morning, one evening, one day. Any attempt to interpret this as other than a twenty-four hour period is why religion is dangerous. It dismisses a reasonable view of proper interpretation and logic for misguided faith. Yes, the Bible uses the word “day” to mean different things in various passages, but there is just no getting around the fact that the people of the time who wrote the words were referring to a twenty-four hour period of the Earth’s rotation from darkness to light. The apologetic interpretation is a failed attempt to use slight of hand to refer to other ways in which the word could have been used. But given the account of Genesis it can only be interpreted (pretending it is real) in one specific way. The people of that time had no concept of eons of time, but did know fully well of the change from darkness to light from night to morning and thus they wrote it so.

I claim not to know the entirety of the mind of God. I claim to know enough to be saved

Therefore, it is admittedly a claim of faith. You cannot really know if the Muslim or Jewish interpretation is actually the correct one because you have already above claimed you do not know the entirety of the mind of God and you could therefore be mistaken. Since each religious person believes HE is correct and has the correct interpretation backed with the same amount of “evidence” you claim to have, it is all based on faith not evidence or logic and therefore fallible.

Prove it. The Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants may be divided over biblical interpretation

“All religions have their accepted dogma, or articles of belief, that followers must accept without question. This can lead to inflexibility and intolerance in the face of other beliefs. After all, if it is the word of God, how can one compromise it? At the same time, scripture and dogma are often vague and open to interpretation. Therefore, conflict can arise over whose interpretation is the correct one, a conflict that ultimately cannot be solved because there is no arbiter. The winner generally is the interpretation that attracts the most followers”-http://www.beyondintractability.org/bi-essay/religion-and-conflict

and: http://www.gotquestions.org/denominations-Christian.html

It is all based on interpretation!

Because people are sometimes flawed. The Bible talks a lot about false teachers

Yet, oddly you never consider the fact that they are all false, or the belief that you have is false and Buddhism is correct. Very interesting. The only reason you believe what you do is because you believe it to be true. That is not very logical. And no, there are no logical reasons to believe one religion over another especially since they are all man-made.

Also, this is not emperical evidence. You cannot do experiments on history

I’m not going to comment on Caesar anymore because I’ve already made my point over and over again. Likewise I have provided early that YOU CAN DO EXPERIMENTS ON HISTORY. See above debate about finding amino acids in million year old meteors--THAT IS EMPRICAL EVIDENCE!

And given that they rigorously use academic sources which have been peer reviewed, you really cannot fault their research

Again, I ask you if you were to read a book about atheism would you become an atheist. No. Because you are too entrenched in Biblical dogma to think otherwise even if it was logical, based on evidence, peer reviewed and proven. So no, people “finding evidence” would not simply become Christians because they’ve read or seen something. That is a false hypothesis. If anything it may give them pause, but not convince them if they are truly open minded skeptics and logical thinkers. Moreover, peer review by other people who already presuppose the Bible is true does not make for good science. (See the scientific method). You know there is no evidence. It is not like arguing over whether neutrinos can travel faster than light, then finding there was an error in the calculation. The Bible cannot be examined in any real way. It has been tried and found, when people tried to teach creationism in schools to be utterly un-scientific and erroneous by real scientists.

None of those things are history. They are pre history

Biggest mistake ever. Do you mean pre-recorded history?? Because if they happened millions of years ago they ARE from history by definition!

And those disprove the Bible in what way?

These are proofs of empirical evidence of History. That was the point. But if you are now saying that God created the Big Bang, at least we agree that the Big Bang happened.

No, it isn't. Relativity is a theoretical interpretation

I’m sorry you know nothing of the evidence of relativity as seen during the solar eclipse when the star's light shifted because of the gravitational pull of the Sun. Read Relativity.

Much the same way that only a very small number of people saw Jesus first hand, and that a very small number have had the kind of direct and personal experiances of God that people like Brother Yun have

That’s odd, you’ve previous said that many people had seen Jesus walking around now it’s down to a few. Interesting change in tactics. Moreover, you cannot compare a subjective experience to an objective proof that lies within the math of relativity!

It has been theorized to be an algae that does well in pig feces, and doesn't do water supplies much good.

We’ve been over this. Pig remains were found around Canaan that they know were eaten. You’ve even admitted it wasn’t completely unhealthy to eat pigs. But I don’t get your point. Why are the pigs defecating in the water supply?? And how do YOU know they did at that time?

And before you ask me to prove you said it, here is your direct quote: “No, Pigs were not unhealthy to eat by the standards of those cultures. Obviously, God was holding the Isralites to a higher standar”

No, pigs were unhealthy, they just weren't so unhealthy that others didn't want to eat them.

See how you flip-flop consistently. “No, pigs were unhealthy” you just said but your early quote was as follows: “ No, Pigs were not unhealthy to eat by the standards of those culture.” You keep making things up ad hoc to cover what you know is sadly mistaken.

It was a homophone, of a fairly serious type

I’m sorry you found it so serious. But again should I start pointing out all the spelling errors you make of an extremely serious type or should I rise above your level and let it go as I have throughout this entire debate? Of course it’s not here-say, that doesn’t even make any sense. It was a typing error as I tend to type faster than the message I wish to convey. But if you wish to be petty about it that is your way.

My head is above the ground too. Where the ground starts, the air stops.

If you say so. Of course the air never touches the ground. That is too funny. Really it is. A fundamental mistake that I can’t help but laugh at.

I am saying that the detail is there to show us the truth, to give us something to check against

To check against what. There are no other independent examples of Jesus’ life. And certainly NOT his divinity. So He renamed Simon, now you know He’s real? No you don’t. And even if this did provide some type of “evidence” it certainly does not speak to any divinity or even that it was Jesus. If you don’t think Caesar was on the coins of that time what makes you so sure that Jesus even existed? Perhaps it was someone else entirely, a man like Siddhartha Gautama many years earlier who had a message of peace and harmony much like the one Jesus’ supposedly preached. Not that he was Siddhartha but just a man like him teaching peace.

　

　

　

　

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

There are absolutely other fields of research and discussion that are outside the realm of science that are respectable if carried forth in a reasonable, logical manner. Philosophy is one, but even philosophy now incorporates elements of the empirical sciences; especially the neurosciences. But that doesn’t mean that all fields outside the realm of science should be respected. Astrology, and so-called psychic phenomenon, for example, come to mind immediately. This is NOT arrogance it is reality. These things aren’t real.

Yes and if we were talking about psycics, you'd have a point. But we arn't. We're talking about Biblical scholars.

Please explain the difference and enlighten me. I will open my mind to anything you can claim is truthful but not literal, for I cannot think of an example off hand. If I truthfully confess to something, I’ve literally confessed to it. If I’ve truthfully done X then I’ve literally done X. If Y is true, it is literally true.

Metaphors. Metaphors contain truth but are not literal.

This comment needs further elucidation. You agree that the separation of day and night is the Earth’s rotation, I am not talking about the arrival of light. Of course that is different, there are many sources of light after the Big Bang, but none so close as to effect the Earth in a separation of light and dark. This “one day” must necessarily be considered a turning of the Earth on its axis. Hence the six day advent.

The arrival of light isn't the creation of the sun. Rather it is the arrival of light through the atmosphere, according to some theorists who I find myself in agreement with. Also, the evening/morning are not literal, as I have said. The descriptors are used elsewhere in the same way, and biblical scholars have pointed out that were they intended to be literal, the words would have been used differently, as I have presented evidence to show you.

How are they described differently? One morning, one evening, one day. Any attempt to interpret this as other than a twenty-four hour period is why religion is dangerous. It dismisses a reasonable view of proper interpretation and logic for misguided faith. Yes, the Bible uses the word “day” to mean different things in various passages, but there is just no getting around the fact that the people of the time who wrote the words were referring to a twenty-four hour period of the Earth’s rotation from darkness to light.

See the linguistics evidence I provided. If it was literal, it would be expected to be something very different. The fact that it isn't, and the fact that it conforms far more to other passages which are known to be not literal, suggests that this is not a literal account.

Therefore, it is admittedly a claim of faith. You cannot really know if the Muslim or Jewish interpretation is actually the correct one because you have already above claimed you do not know the entirety of the mind of God and you could therefore be mistaken. Since each religious person believes HE is correct and has the correct interpretation backed with the same amount of “evidence” you claim to have, it is all based on faith not evidence or logic and therefore fallible.

I do not claim to know the entirity of the mind of God, but I, unlike the other world religions, can claim that it was God specifically who said these things. Jesus was God. This is a very different claim to every other world religion. No other religion claim that God reached out to them, rather that they, in reaching out to God, were responded too. As a result, we have a very different and far more complete picture.

It is all based on interpretation!

All you've quoted there is the existance of dogma. You have not proven that most of the world's church splits are over dogmatic issues.

Yet, oddly you never consider the fact that they are all false, or the belief that you have is false and Buddhism is correct. Very interesting. The only reason you believe what you do is because you believe it to be true. That is not very logical. And no, there are no logical reasons to believe one religion over another especially since they are all man-made.

No, the reason I give is the evidence. I see supernatural indications in fufilled prophecies, in the accounts, in all kinds of aspects of the Bible. I do not base my beliefs on what I want to be true, but rather what I see to be true.

I’m not going to comment on Caesar anymore because I’ve already made my point over and over again. Likewise I have provided early that YOU CAN DO EXPERIMENTS ON HISTORY. See above debate about finding amino acids in million year old meteors--THAT IS EMPRICAL EVIDENCE!

Yes, but it is not history. It is pre-history. There is a reason the distinction exists.

Again, I ask you if you were to read a book about atheism would you become an atheist. No. Because you are too entrenched in Biblical dogma to think otherwise even if it was logical, based on evidence, peer reviewed and proven. So no, people “finding evidence” would not simply become Christians because they’ve read or seen something. That is a false hypothesis.

It would if the evidence was compelling. Furthermore, your athiesm argument is invalid. Athiests do not claim to have any evidence to support the non existence of God. Christians by contrast do have evidence. Therefore, finding that evidence, and being convinced by it, is a possibility. All athiests could do is make you question.

Moreover, peer review by other people who already presuppose the Bible is true does not make for good science.

That would work, were the Peer reviewers all of the same mind. But they are not. Hence why it is peer review.

Biggest mistake ever. Do you mean pre-recorded history?? Because if they happened millions of years ago they ARE from history by definition!

No, they are pre-history. History, by definition, is recorded.

I’m sorry you know nothing of the evidence of relativity as seen during the solar eclipse when the star's light shifted because of the gravitational pull of the Sun. Read Relativity.

Reletivity is one theory that explains those events. No one is disputing the events, rather they are disputing the causal network. IE lets say I see a dead body on the ground with a pool of blood around his head. I could conclude he fell out of the building next to me. There are shards of glass nearby that could be from a window. Others could say that the shards of glass were already there, and that he simply tripped on the kerb and fell. Others could say that neither were true and that he was pushed, etc etc. The point is that no one disagrees that he is on the floor and dead, just the same way that no one disagrees with those elements you describe. What they do disagree on is the cause, and how each of these things links, or indeed if they do link.

That’s odd, you’ve previous said that many people had seen Jesus walking around now it’s down to a few. Interesting change in tactics. Moreover, you cannot compare a subjective experience to an objective proof that lies within the math of relativity!

Please look at the context. It is a small number reletive to the huge number of Christians since. In the same way that the people who have done tests on reletivity are small in number compared to the people who believe reletivity.

We’ve been over this. Pig remains were found around Canaan that they know were eaten. You’ve even admitted it wasn’t completely unhealthy to eat pigs. But I don’t get your point. Why are the pigs defecating in the water supply?? And how do YOU know they did at that time?

It is a theory based on the evidence we know about the pigs and why they might not be wanted for nomadic travellers. We know they were eaten by others, but they may have had health problems. Its just that those people did not care.

If you say so. Of course the air never touches the ground. That is too funny. Really it is. A fundamental mistake that I can’t help but laugh at.

Of course air touches the ground. What stops it? I see wind causing the water in the river near my house to ripple? Are you suggesting that there is some kind of buffer there that prevents the air touching the ground?

To check against what. There are no other independent examples of Jesus’ life. And certainly NOT his divinity. So He renamed Simon, now you know He’s real? No you don’t. And even if this did provide some type of “evidence” it certainly does not speak to any divinity or even that it was Jesus.

It checks one gospel against the others. And by itself it does not prove his divinity, but as a fact proving the accuracy of the gospels, it does.

If you don’t think Caesar was on the coins of that time what makes you so sure that Jesus even existed?

Because those coins are pictures. Jesus's life is based entirely on contempoary written accounts.

[Joel Schama]

Reply to latest post:

 

Yes and if we were talking about psycics, you'd have a point. But we arn't. We're talking about Biblical scholars.

The point still remains valid. Whether it be astrologers, psychics or the Bible, it is all man-made and self referential. Why do you think psychics have never passed any scientific tests of there merit? Because it is patently false. In the same way, the Bible may have the occasional historical reference within it, but other than that all other claims are not able to up to the test of science. The reason is very simple. If the Bible contained testable material, or falsifiable “evidence” it would be dismissed out of hand as a fraud. But by claiming these things are beyond science, religion enters the realm of astrology and psychics by claiming an erroneous claim that is it beyond reproach and beyond the scope of evidence thereby making sure it CAN NOT be falsified using reason and logic because it is faith-based, not evidence based.

Metaphors. Metaphors contain truth but are not literal.

Interesting tact but metaphors by definition ARE NOT truth. If the truth was being referenced it would not be a metaphor. For example, the movie X was a metaphor for World War II, but it wasn’t truthfully World War II just a representation and representations cannot by definition be truth. Therefore the example fails. Again there is nothing that is not truthful and literal.

The arrival of light isn't the creation of the sun. Rather it is the arrival of light through the atmosphere, according to some theorists who I find myself in agreement with. Also, the evening/morning are not literal, as I have said. The descriptors are used elsewhere in the same way, and biblical scholars have pointed out that were they intended to be literal, the words would have been used differently, as I have presented evidence to show you

What you have provided me was most certainly NOT evidence. It was conjecture. There is a large difference. And yet again you are changing your story more often than I can keep up with. First you posit “light” was through the atmosphere, then it was the Sun light as the Earth turned, now you are back to “through the atmosphere” again. Please make up your mind. Your quote “The seperation of light and dark, yes is descriptive of day and night”

See the linguistics evidence I provided. If it was literal, it would be expected to be something very different. The fact that it isn't, and the fact that it conforms far more to other passages which are known to be not literal, suggests that this is not a literal account.

Again you are providing nothing more than conjecture. If the Bible is either written by God, or His divine word (however you wish to interpret it) why would God not say “one evening, one morning, one billion years.” Because the people of the time had no understanding about just how old the universe really was. But as God, he should have known if He created it. Moreover, if the term “day” is used poetically in various places in the Bible (of this I do not argue) why is it being used metaphorically and not literally in what can only be described as the most important part of Biblical faith--the creation of the world? Simply because it is man-made. Ockham’s razor most certainly applies here.

I do not claim to know the entirity of the mind of God, but I, unlike the other world religions, can claim that it was God specifically who said these things. Jesus was God. This is a very different claim to every other world religion. No other religion claim that God reached out to them, rather that they, in reaching out to God, were responded too. As a result, we have a very different and far more complete picture.

No. You have a belief system based on faith that what was written in the Biblical story is true. It is only your belief. The idea that in one religion you reach to God or God(s) reach to you makes no difference to it’s truth value, it is still a faith-based belief and nothing more. Moreover, according to the mythos God created the mess, i.e., we are born in sin (I don’t know any baby that has sinned, but nevertheless), and He came to Earth and gave us a “choice”: either worship me or suffer the eternity of Hell. That does not seem right to me. Something is definitely wrong here. You’ve claimed before that God cannot tolerate imperfection so we must accept Christ, be washed of our sins and only then can we enter heaven. If that is true then you must admit that God does not have anything to do with the universe anymore or with us since there are still sinners on the Earth and He cannot tolerate imperfection, he must have to, according to your rules, stay away from the Earth altogether.

More on that point. The claim of the perfection of God is patently false. The universe is NOT perfect in any manner at all. And the Earth was certainly NOT created for us in mind. 75% of the Earth is covered in water in which humans cannot survive. Likewise there are strains of bacteria that have been around for billions of years that kill humans. There are inhospitable areas that are either too cold or too hot for humans. Yet people think the Earth was created with us in mind. It was most definitely NOT!

All you've quoted there is the existance of dogma. You have not proven that most of the world's church splits are over dogmatic issues.

All of the Christian religions have a core dogma they adhere to, but what else would they differ over if not interpretation as I’ve already stated. It must be interpretation. And since each has a different interpretation it follows that if there is only one correct one, each has it’s own claim to being that “right” one. Or more reasonably, they are all mistaken. If the Bible was written in such a way as to not cause separations between factions of the same religion it would have benefitted God much better. But it is just more proof that it is man-made.

No, the reason I give is the evidence. I see supernatural indications in fufilled prophecies, in the accounts, in all kinds of aspects of the Bible. I do not base my beliefs on what I want to be true, but rather what I see to be true.

I have not seen any evidence as of yet, only opinion and conjecture. Moreover, there have never been any fulfilled prophecies that have not been written within the same text as fulfilled. Of course if you are trying to overtake a major religion such as Judaism you are going to write about prophecies being fulfilled so that you can attempt to convert the Jews into Christians, that does not prove that they really happened by any means. “What you see to be true.” Can you give me one contemporary (within our lifetime) example of “seeing” that God exists or that Jesus exists, or that heaven is waiting, or that a soul is real?

Yes, but it is not history. It is pre-history. There is a reason the distinction exists

You claimed that before but still did not make clear what you mean by “pre-history”. It happened in the past, in the history of Earth. Moreover, if we have empirical evidence of billion year old meteors carrying amino acids, and partial DNA codes, why can we not have empirical evidence of Biblical occurrences? You keep telling me that one cannot view the Bible empirically because you cannot empirically examine history. Sorry, but if you can empirically examine pre-history, than you can likewise examine history.

It would if the evidence was compelling. Furthermore, your athiesm argument is invalid. Athiests do not claim to have any evidence to support the non existence of God. Christians by contrast do have evidence. Therefore, finding that evidence, and being convinced by it, is a possibility. All athiests could do is make you question.

You would like to think it would. But it wouldn’t. You are incorrect about the atheism argument. Atheists do have evidence of at least a possible way in which the universe began without a man-made God to create it (see Stephen Hawking). Moreover, Christians do not have evidence. If they did, as you claim, everyone would be a Christian. There would be no atheists, no Muslims, no Jews or Buddhists or Hindus, etc.. Yes Hawking’s views are not totally accepted by all atheists, but he has made a logically valid point as to how the universe came to be without the aid of a magical deity.

That would work, were the Peer reviewers all of the same mind. But they are not. Hence why it is peer review

Please send me a link to a subject of the Bible for example about the resurrection that has been peer reviewed by people who do not already presuppose its occurrence, like an atheist. What is meant by peer if not people working in the same field of study? A biologist is not going to peer review a physics paper.

No, they are pre-history. History, by definition, is recorded.

History: the study of past events, particularly in human affairs

Though not necessarily human affairs. It is the study of PAST EVENTS.

If you did X yesterday, is it part of history? Of course it is. Was it recorded? Probably not.

What they do disagree on is the cause, and how each of these things links, or indeed if they do link

There are very few people who disavow relativity theory. You’d be lucky to find a few in a thousand scientists. His vision was proven out by observation not faith.

Its just that those people did not care

Those people didn’t care that they were getting sick? And this makes sense how?

Of course air touches the ground. What stops it? I see wind causing the water in the river near my house to ripple? Are you suggesting that there is some kind of buffer there that prevents the air touching the ground?

I was being sarcastic because you wrote, and I quote: “Where the ground starts, the air stops”

That is exactly what you wrote verbatim. That is why I was laughing because there is no barrier though you claim the dew “falls”. And again I must correct you, the dew doesn’t fall it forms upon the item because air is everywhere. Though not according to your previous post it isn’t.

It was a fundamental mistake you just wont own up to.

Because those coins are pictures. Jesus's life is based entirely on contempoary written accounts.

I’m sorry but that is very bad reasoning. You believe a picture is worth less than words written on paper several thousand years ago? The coins at least provide a semblance of evidentiary “proof”, a likeness. Whereas written words provide nothing but a story. A man-made account of what allowed Christians to seize power over people and in the Catholic form, to enslave nations and torment disbelievers and so-called heretics. That is all it amounts to.

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

In the same way, the Bible may have the occasional historical reference within it, but other than that all other claims are not able to up to the test of science. The reason is very simple. If the Bible contained testable material, or falsifiable “evidence” it would be dismissed out of hand as a fraud. But by claiming these things are beyond science, religion enters the realm of astrology and psychics by claiming an erroneous claim that is it beyond reproach and beyond the scope of evidence thereby making sure it CAN NOT be falsified using reason and logic because it is faith-based, not evidence based.

Erm...no. The reason it cannot be tested is nothing to do with its validity, but its nature. You cannot test history. You can examine it.

Interesting tact but metaphors by definition ARE NOT truth. If the truth was being referenced it would not be a metaphor.

I said metaphors can contain truth. I did not say they were truth.

What you have provided me was most certainly NOT evidence. It was conjecture. There is a large difference.

It is conjecture founded upon interpretation. IE the Hebrew word used is not "create" but "let there be", implying something different.

What you have provided me was most certainly NOT evidence. It was conjecture. There is a large difference. And yet again you are changing your story more often than I can keep up with. First you posit “light” was through the atmosphere, then it was the Sun light as the Earth turned, now you are back to “through the atmosphere” again. Please make up your mind. Your quote “The seperation of light and dark, yes is descriptive of day and night”

I'll be as clear as I can. The arrival of the light was it coming through the clouds, the separation of the light from the dark is day and night (IE the rotation of the planet) and the evening and morning were metaphorical for the ending of a phase, in conjunction with their use elsewhere. IE the Bible describes the process of day and night, but the days themselves (the first day etc) are described differently.

Again you are providing nothing more than conjecture. If the Bible is either written by God, or His divine word (however you wish to interpret it) why would God not say “one evening, one morning, one billion years.” Because the people of the time had no understanding about just how old the universe really was. But as God, he should have known if He created it.

The fact that it is not literal would suggest that the literal nature is not important to our salvation. How God made the world isn't as important as the fact that he did.

Moreover, if the term “day” is used poetically in various places in the Bible (of this I do not argue) why is it being used metaphorically and not literally in what can only be described as the most important part of Biblical faith--the creation of the world? Simply because it is man-made. Ockham’s razor most certainly applies here.

What gave you the idea that the creation of the world is somehow the most important part of the Christian Faith? You'll find actually the most important part is Jesus's life, death and resurection. After all, that is what pretty much the whole of the OT points towards and the NT either points at or back to.

No. You have a belief system based on faith that what was written in the Biblical story is true. It is only your belief. The idea that in one religion you reach to God or God(s) reach to you makes no difference to it’s truth value, it is still a faith-based belief and nothing more.

Untrue. We can test the gospels for their historical accuracy to see if they have the authority to claim that what they saw was true.

Moreover, according to the mythos God created the mess, i.e., we are born in sin (I don’t know any baby that has sinned, but nevertheless), and He came to Earth and gave us a “choice”: either worship me or suffer the eternity of Hell. That does not seem right to me. Something is definitely wrong here. You’ve claimed before that God cannot tolerate imperfection so we must accept Christ, be washed of our sins and only then can we enter heaven. If that is true then you must admit that God does not have anything to do with the universe anymore or with us since there are still sinners on the Earth and He cannot tolerate imperfection, he must have to, according to your rules, stay away from the Earth altogether.

Firstly, God did not create the mess. We did. We sinned. It was 100% our choice. Secondly, I did not say God could not tollerate imperfection/sin to the point of not being with us. I said he could not tollerate it in heaven and could not be in our presence in the same way he was prior to the fall in Eden. He can still have his presence here, but it is not as it was. It is not the totality of his presence in the way it was in Eden.

All of the Christian religions have a core dogma they adhere to, but what else would they differ over if not interpretation as I’ve already stated.

And as I've stated, plenty of much more petty things. It is well recorded that churches have split because of personal disagreements and differences, as well as simple differing areas of focus.

It must be interpretation. And since each has a different interpretation it follows that if there is only one correct one, each has it’s own claim to being that “right” one.

Again, no. Many Churches simply disagree on style. IE they may worship in a different manner. Or they may focus in a different way. Pentecostal churches focus on gifts of the spirit more, where as evangelicals are more about direct outreach. Methodists focus primarily on practical mission, yet none of these three would disagree about the nature of salvation. They just focus on different areas. None of them would say that any of them are unsaved. They might say that they disagree with the level of nessecity placed on their focus, but even that is rare. They just say "That's their focus, this is ours". Very few churches of a different denomination would actually say that the other is unsaved.

Moreover, there have never been any fulfilled prophecies that have not been written within the same text as fulfilled.

The Psalms. Unless you are seriously going to suggest that the Psalms were written after the gospels. If so, this conversation is going to end because you clearly have no regard for history.

Moreover, if we have empirical evidence of billion year old meteors carrying amino acids, and partial DNA codes, why can we not have empirical evidence of Biblical occurrences?

For the same reason that we do not have empirical evidence of Caesar. We have historical evidence of him, not scientific empirical evidence. What he did did not have scientific consequences. It had historical consequences. Empiricism does not study written history. It's just that simple.

Sorry, but if you can empirically examine pre-history, than you can likewise examine history.

The distinction between history and pre history is that pre-history is not based upon that which is written down. Here's something to try. Try proving Caesar's existance without refering to a single written word. Not one. It's impossible. You can talk about statues, but you wouldn't be able to prove they are all the same person. You wouldn't be able to date them or even tell who they were of (to do that, you'd need to read). History is based upon written accounts. It would be impossible to prove Casar's existance, or WW2 happening without access to written texts. You could give some vague outlines, but you could not prove it.

“What you see to be true.” Can you give me one contemporary (within our lifetime) example of “seeing” that God exists or that Jesus exists, or that heaven is waiting, or that a soul is real?

90 minutes in heaven, 23 minutes in hell, A12 to heaven, the experiences of Brother Yun. Three off the top of my head, but I'm sure I could find more with proper research.

Atheists do have evidence of at least a possible way in which the universe began without a man-made God to create it (see Stephen Hawking).

No they don't. See infinite regress and the fundimental misunderstanding that Hawking makes about agency and design

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-w...

Moreover, Christians do not have evidence. If they did, as you claim, everyone would be a Christian. There would be no atheists, no Muslims, no Jews or Buddhists or Hindus, etc.. Yes Hawking’s views are not totally accepted by all atheists, but he has made a logically valid point as to how the universe came to be without the aid of a magical deity

There is evidence, but many people refuse to accept it because they demand higher standards of evidence. But there is enough.

Please send me a link to a subject of the Bible for example about the resurrection that has been peer reviewed by people who do not already presuppose its occurrence, like an atheist. What is meant by peer if not people working in the same field of study? A biologist is not going to peer review a physics paper.

There are many non believers who are none the less Biblical academics.

History: the study of past events, particularly in human affairs

Though not necessarily human affairs. It is the study of PAST EVENTS.

If you did X yesterday, is it part of history? Of course it is. Was it recorded? Probably not.

You are using a colloquial definition. The accademic definition is written. If it was not, then why do we refer to the "Prehistoric era" etc. History is not merely the past. It is the recorded past. Colloquially, yes it is the past, but not in an accademic sense.

That is exactly what you wrote verbatim. That is why I was laughing because there is no barrier though you claim the dew “falls”. And again I must correct you, the dew doesn’t fall it forms upon the item because air is everywhere. Though not according to your previous post it isn’t.

The air is not everywhere. The ground is not air. If you were to measure from the Earths core how high up "air" was, compared to where ground is, the air would be higher.

Those people didn’t care that they were getting sick? And this makes sense how?

They may have expected shorter lifespans. It may have been the cultural norm. They may have had a level of resistance to the illnesses, but they still lived less anyway. Much like the way people today eat unhealthily.

You believe a picture is worth less than words written on paper several thousand years ago? The coins at least provide a semblance of evidentiary “proof”, a likeness.

And how do you know it is a likeness? Because they wrote that it was. Without the writing, you would have no idea who that person is. It would just be a face. An important face perhaps, but a face only. You wouldn't even know if it was real. It may have been a symbol of a mythical figure etc. Without written context, the picture means nothing. Once again, you are thoroughly reliant on writing.

A man-made account of what allowed Christians to seize power over people and in the Catholic form, to enslave nations and torment disbelievers and so-called heretics. That is all it amounts to.

While Catholics may have in the past used it to attack heretics, I see no evidence to suggest that that is what it was intended for

[A.J. Stewart]

True, the bible can't really be proven. But I believe it, the same way you can't really prove that the center of the earth is solid but we believe it.
The bible is based on faith, the entire christion religion is nothing without faith. 
If you would please point out the specific verses that you think contradict each other I would be thrilled to go through them and discuss them with you all.

[Joel Schama]

1) I've already been through a lot of the contradictions in the Bible whether in verse form or just generally what does not comport with true empirical science and don't wish to go through them all over again. However, that is the main problem with religion is that it is faith-based, therefore lack of evidence based. If you claim you have evidence that God exists than you don't need faith, therefore the entire religion is based upon an asumption and not empirical evidence, where science is based on empirical evidence and if and when it is proven incorrect on a point it corrects itself, unlike religion which claims to have the only and absolute truth. I would never trust a idea that claims to be the absolute truth and which is NOT self-correcting.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Science has its own sacred cows. Areas which are not self correcting. The main one being, the method. Scientists argue that the method is either self evident or not open for discussion. Here though is my problem with that. The method is founded upon logical absolutes, absolutes which do not physically exist, and which cannot be proven to physically exist, and yet allow for the examination of all that does physically exist. I would say then, that since scientists, in every femto-second of their work, rely upon that which they cannot show to physically exist in order to function, should therefore be less critical of religious people. Especially since that which they rely upon can be demonstrated to support the proof of a God (see the Transcendental argument)

[Joel Schama]

It's ashame you feel that way since there is no demonstrable evidence to support what could even remotely be considered a "proof" of God's existence. And of course if you did have proof you wouldn't need faith. The scientific method has taken us from a primative, pagan, superstitous culture to our current abilities and discoveries. There is nothing wrong with the scientific method and has proven useful throughout it's history by dint of actual empirical evidence.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

It is useful, but you cannot rely upon it as the proof of all that is. Also...

There is nothing wrong with the scientific method and has proven useful throughout it's history by dint of actual empirical evidence.

Ok, you are going to justify the universal value of the scientific method using...the scientific method. Does that not seem circular to you.