tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post4257115978551840599..comments2024-01-04T11:40:48.827-06:00Comments on Dr Michael G Strauss: A New Particle Discovered at CERNMichael G Strausshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-64850863348702593852017-08-21T20:16:38.339-05:002017-08-21T20:16:38.339-05:00I have critiqued Krauss's Universe from Nothin...I have critiqued Krauss's Universe from Nothing. This paper makes the same assumptions with the same fatal flaw. Can you find it?Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-57240039850717424522017-08-20T15:19:55.867-05:002017-08-20T15:19:55.867-05:00I'd be curious if you have looked at and revie...I'd be curious if you have looked at and reviewed the research of Chinese scientists in 2014 regarding evidence that indicates that it is possible that the universe developing out of nothing:<br /><br />https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.1207Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-21214848859985345202017-08-16T13:03:10.990-05:002017-08-16T13:03:10.990-05:00I wrote out my story on my blog, indicating to my ...I wrote out my story on my blog, indicating to my readers that you might engage me in conversation there. Some of my readers may ask you questions or leave responses, but you are not obligated to respond to them. I realize that you are a busy man. I do not moderate or edit comments, so your comments will post immediately.<br /><br />I look forward to continuing our discussion, hopefully, here:<br /><br />https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2017/08/16/my-deconversion-story/Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-50531628670932290942017-08-16T10:13:45.686-05:002017-08-16T10:13:45.686-05:00Thank you for your response, Michael. I am impres...Thank you for your response, Michael. I am impressed that you took the time to read these two men's stories. I think it is important that both sides of this issue read the information from "the other side".<br /><br />I would be happy to continue our discussion but I prefer doing it on a public forum. If you prefer not to do it on your blog, come to my blog and we can discuss this issue at length there. Here is the web address:<br /><br />www.LutherWasNotBornAgain.comGaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-6568991007225896212017-08-16T08:21:19.788-05:002017-08-16T08:21:19.788-05:00Gary,
I have read the information on the two web ...Gary,<br /><br />I have read the information on the two web sites you sent me to. I don’t know what you are expecting me to see that I haven’t encountered before. I’ve been critically studying the evidence for and against Christianity for over 30 years. I have read the higher critics many times and those who say the Bible is not true. The arguments and statements made by Kenneth Daniels and Bruce Gerenscer are not new. They’ve been around for more than a century at least, and have been adequately answered by many Christian scholars and historians.<br /><br />I know there are some Christians who have never been exposed to some of these critiques before so they are startled to hear some of these ideas. But these ideas have all been discussed by Christian apologists and scholars who have answered them over the decades. For example Daniels makes a big deal about the post resurrection appearances not aligning with each other, but he assumes that Matthew is talking about the first appearance of Jesus, while John makes it clear that the appearances in Galilee were not the first. After all, the disciples were all in Jerusalem so, of course, the first appearances are there. I’ve already talked with you in some of my other comments about the difference between logical contradictions and different perspectives. It is pretty obvious this is a case of different perspectives with different emphasis. It is definitely NOT a logical contradiction. This resurrection “problem” is just one example I picked out from Daniels' book, but he does have many other criticisms that I just find lacking. So much of the dialogue on these web sites is rehashing old arguments that have reasonable solutions. Because I have some formal training in logic and reasoning it is easy for me to see the logical fallacies in so many of these arguments. They just aren’t persuasive, and they aren’t new or revolutionary.<br /><br />I don’t think it is worthwhile to have a long dialogue about each of the specific points made by these two people on this blog. That’s not the point of the blog. But I would be happy to dialogue with you when I have time by email if you want to email me. I would really like to hear more of your story about how Gerenscer’s arguments caused you to not believe the truth of the Bible or the resurrection of Jesus. I would appreciate hearing your story in the context of what has happened more broadly in your life. Maybe if you want to share some of your story you can email me instead of having such a conversation on this blog since, again, that would deviate far from the point of the blog.Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-24229199706269709462017-08-15T01:23:22.963-05:002017-08-15T01:23:22.963-05:00Here is an excerpt from former pastor Bruce Gerenc...Here is an excerpt from former pastor Bruce Gerencser's story:<br /><br />In the fall of 1972, Evangelist Al Lacy came to our church, Trinity Baptist Church, Findlay, Ohio, to hold a revival meeting. On Sunday Morning, during Lacy’s sermon, the spirit of God came over me, telling me that I was a sinner in need of Christ. When it came time for the public invitation, I quickly stepped out of the pew, came down the aisle, and knelt at the altar. There, a church deacon took me through the plan of salvation and I asked Jesus to forgive me of my sins and come into my heart. I was fifteen. I was baptized that night, and a week or so later I went forward during the altar call and let the church know that God was calling me to be a preacher. Two weeks later, I preached my first sermon.<br /><br />As a first grader in San Diego, I told people that when I grew up I was going to be a preacher, and now, as a fifteen year old boy, I was telling the world that God was calling me to be what I wanted to be my entire life. From this point forward, most of the preachers I came in contact with worked with me and steered me towards fulfilling my calling. It came as a shock to no one that I enrolled at Midwestern Baptist College in Pontiac, Michigan in 1976 to study for the ministry.<br /><br />All told, I preached for thirty-two years, spending twenty-five of those years pastoring seven churches in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. I preached over four thousand sermons and taught countless Sunday school classes. For many years, I also preached on the street and at the local nursing home.<br />Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-60724530551420181122017-08-14T17:08:49.948-05:002017-08-14T17:08:49.948-05:00The second name I am going to give you is Bruce Ge...The second name I am going to give you is Bruce Gerencser. He is a former evangelical/fundamentalist Baptist pastor. He looked at the evidence and became an atheist. Here is a link to his story:<br /><br />https://brucegerencser.net/series/from-evangelicalism-to-atheism/<br /><br />I encountered Mr. Gerencser one day while surfing the internet while I was still a Christian. I was horrified that an evangelical Christian pastor was spreading his "blasphemy" against God on the internet. I therefore attempted to bring this sinner back to Jesus Christ. I believed that his man had obviously not experienced "true Christianity".<br /><br />Instead, four months later, it was I who DE-CONVERTED; I had become an agnostic. He is very knowledgeable. He was an evangelical pastor for many years. He would be happy to discuss the evidence against the veracity of Christianity with you I am sure.Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-69735020977264231962017-08-14T16:38:16.709-05:002017-08-14T16:38:16.709-05:00Here is a link to this evangelical missionary'...Here is a link to this evangelical missionary's testimony about the evidence which caused him to deconvert from Christianity. His testimony provides a lot of detailed analysis of the evidence.<br /><br />https://infidels.org/library/modern/ken_daniels/why.html<br /><br />Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-34915969119684867032017-08-14T16:36:34.669-05:002017-08-14T16:36:34.669-05:00Ok, I will then give you the names of a couple of ...Ok, I will then give you the names of a couple of evangelical pastors/missionaries who did leave Christianity based on the evidence. Here is one:<br /><br />"Kenneth W. Daniels has produced a powerful work that will give Christian readers much to think about. 'Why I Believed: Reflections of a Former Missionary' is an important book that should be widely read. The author's approach is gentle and honest while still managing to be unflinching and thorough. As a former fundamentalist Christian missionary who devoted far more time and energy than most to serving that religion, he obviously remembers what it feels like to be fully immersed in belief. Fortunately, Daniels has retained plenty of sympathy for those who cannot yet see that the supernatural claims of Christianity cannot stand up to honest scrutiny.<br /><br />This brilliant book is not a vicious attack on Christians. It is a strong but polite plea for them to see and hear new ideas, to consider the possibility that their belief system might be a mistake. Daniels maintains a humble tone throughout the book. He does not blast believers with arrogant claims of intellectual superiority on the question of faith. He simply shares thoughts and questions about his journey through Christianity and escape from it. This is a powerful story and Daniels has many piercing ideas that are likely to carry considerable weight with believers because of his difficult work as a missionary in Africa. Daniels earned his stripes as a committed Christian. He went way beyond the easy life of a casual Christian sitting in a pew on Sunday mornings. He lived his Christianity; he made serious commitments and followed through with sacrifices for his religion. For someone like him to walk away from it, with great reluctance, humility, and no rage says a lot. It gives Daniels tremendous credibility."<br /><br /><br />Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-3121069291792999622017-08-14T12:57:53.764-05:002017-08-14T12:57:53.764-05:00This is the second time you mentioned the Clergy P...This is the second time you mentioned the Clergy Project. Last time you mentioned it I had gone to the web site and read all 29 "stories" of these people who left their faith. Their stories really influenced me for they confirmed exactly what I believe. Despite your claim that this site would give me "evidence that the Bible is NOT the word of the Creator" it did just the opposite. Of the 29 stories maybe 3 even mentioned that they actually investigated the historicity of the Bible as part of their rejection. Of those few I found the details of their arguments lacking and what they did share quite telling. One person even mentioned the role that Dawkins' The God Delusion played in their deconversion. That showed me how minimal this person's understanding of theology and God must have been, for the God Delusion is full of logical fallacies, straw man arguments, arguments based on poor authority, a total misunderstanding of the Christian idea of God, etc. Most of the people left Christianity because they were disappointed with God, or just "couldn't believe" anymore. One person in particular admitted that they never really believed in God. Some were from belief systems I would call cults. I understand that anyone who chooses to follow God will, at times, be disappointed in how God seems to be treating them, and at times have to re-evaluate their beliefs, etc. That is part of maturing in any relationship or belief system. Philip Yancy's book Disappointment with God is a great book on that subject. Anyway, I encourage everyone who believes in the Christian God to read the Clergy Project. It is a great snapshot of the many reasons people leave their "religion" and little of it has to do with a balanced historical investigation of the truth of the Bible.Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-20400212399511116322017-08-13T00:04:40.514-05:002017-08-13T00:04:40.514-05:00And I can give you a very long list of former Chri...And I can give you a very long list of former Christian pastors, including evangelical Christian pastors, who have left Christianity due to the mounting evidence that the Bible is NOT the word of the Creator, but the writings of ancient peoples trying to make sense of a world they did not understand. <br /><br />You can google the "Clergy Project" for the names of these pastors.Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-56457986210797879512017-08-12T23:35:36.195-05:002017-08-12T23:35:36.195-05:00Here is a very interesting Jewish article on the t...Here is a very interesting Jewish article on the topic of "the firmament" mentioned in Genesis.<br /><br />http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2011/01/what-firmament-really-is.html<br /><br />It seems even in Judaism there are those who believe that the Hebrew Bible must be congruent with modern science and those who believe that God spoke to humans using terms they would understand. This later group points out that if we look at the sky, it looks as if it has a ceiling (dome). So these more "moderate/liberal" Jews believe that is how God spoke to scientifically ignorant peoples in Antiquity.<br /><br />I suggest that both Christians and Jews should consider another option: an omniscient God had nothing to do with the writing of the book of Genesis. The Book of Genesis was written by scientifically ignorant people attempting to make sense of their dangerous, scary world.<br /><br />THAT is why the "creator" in the first book of Genesis creates a solid "dome" over the earth, an entity we know today does not exist. It is a mistake.<br /><br />The author made a mistake based on his lack of scientific knowledge.<br /><br />You said: "So the more I study, the more it seems my view is supported by good Hebrew scholars despite the cultural view of the time and that your view seems to be shaped more by your presuppositions than a good reading of the text. You seem so convinced that the Bible is full of errors that you don't seem to be open to viable readings of the passage that don't contradict known facts."<br /><br />Gary: No, my view is supported by the overwhelming majority of scholars, including Jews, Christians, and non-believers. Your position is supported by a small minority of scholars, such as Mr. Sailhamer, almost all of whom happen to be fundamentalist/evangelical Christians or orthodox Jews.<br /><br />I suggest, Mike, that you seriously consider exactly WHO in this discussion is biased.Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-35056619069976727042017-08-12T10:32:19.067-05:002017-08-12T10:32:19.067-05:00How many Jewish scholars have you read on this sub...How many Jewish scholars have you read on this subject?Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-13459196951280678342017-08-12T09:07:06.753-05:002017-08-12T09:07:06.753-05:00I've been reading some of the best scholars of...I've been reading some of the best scholars of ancient Hebrew and finding more and more of them who do not believe the author of Genesis is describing the dome which was the common near east belief of the time. For instance, John Sailhamer, an eminent Old Testament scholar has written, "Is there a single word or idea that would accommodate such uses of the term “expanse”? Cosmological terms such as “ceiling,” “vault,” or “global ocean,” which are often used for “expanse” in chapter 1, do not suit the use of the term in v.20. Such explanations, though drawn from analogies of ancient Near Eastern cosmologies, appear too specific for the present context. Thus it would be unlikely that the narrative would have in view here a “solid partition or vault that separates the earth from the waters above” (Westermann, p. 116). It appears more likely that the narrative has in view something within the everyday experience of the natural world, in a general way, that place where the birds fly and where God placed the lights of heaven (cf. v.14). In English the word “sky” appears to cover this sense well.<br /> The “waters above” the sky is likely a reference to the clouds. That is at least the view that appears to come from the reflections on this passage in later biblical texts. For example, in the author’s account of the Flood in chapter 7, reference is made to the “floodgates of the heavens [hashshamayim],” which, when opened, pour forth rain (vv.11-12; cf. 2 Kings 7:2; Pss 104:3; 147:8; 148:4). The writer of Proverbs 8:28 has read the term “expanse” in Genesis 1 as a reference to the “clouds” (shehaqim)." So the more I study, the more it seems my view is supported by good Hebrew scholars despite the cultural view of the time and that your view seems to be shaped more by your presuppositions than a good reading of the text. You seem so convinced that the Bible is full of errors that you don't seem to be open to viable readings of the passage that don't contradict known facts.<br />Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-59747506973340915692017-07-24T19:57:00.272-05:002017-07-24T19:57:00.272-05:00I never claimed your position cannot be true, Mike...I never claimed your position cannot be true, Mike. Re-read my above comment. What I am saying is that since ALL ancient Jews and even early Christians believed that the Bible taught that there was a solid, upside down bowl hanging over the earth, your position is very improbable.<br /><br />Once again, I challenge you to print out this thread and give it to a non-Christian theist professor at your university and ask him or her to give you an honest opinion regarding who is being more rational in our conversations.Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-14718398188283723102017-07-24T16:25:01.172-05:002017-07-24T16:25:01.172-05:00...and if Jesus really did rise from the dead, the......and if Jesus really did rise from the dead, then all of your assertions above look pretty foolish. We have already established that the ONE claim on which Christianity rises or falls is the resurrection of Jesus. So we're back to that subject. Rather than continue to argue with you about why I think an actual resurrection is the only option that explains all the facts, I'll just refer you to the many authors I have pointed to who tried to disprove the resurrection based on the evidence but became Christians instead. The list included General Lee Wallace author of Ben Hur, Albert Henry Ross author of Who Moved the Stone (using pseudonym Frank Morison), Josh McDowell author of More than a Carpenter, J. Warner Wallace author of Cold Case Christianity, Malcom Muggeridge author of Jesus Rediscovered and Chronicles of Wasted Time, and Lee Strobel author of The Case for Christ. You can argue with them for a while if you want.Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-46492101843461515982017-07-24T16:14:58.649-05:002017-07-24T16:14:58.649-05:00Gary, you ask me what I think but then you claim i...Gary, you ask me what I think but then you claim it can't be true. I really think that the firmament is more likely the sky than the solid dome you claim. I point you to a website that defends that as a viable option, but you reject it. I then say that even if it does refer to a dome, that would be an appropriate point of view description within the culture of the time, but you reject that as viable. It seems that you really don't care what I think or what I say because your position is already determined, entrenched, and unchangeable. So why ask what I believe?<br /><br />Actually given what God reveals of himself in the Bible, my view that God would use language understandable to the culture, is not only possible or more probable, but the only view consistent with the description of God given in the Bible. Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-37671393954282251562017-07-24T14:04:52.430-05:002017-07-24T14:04:52.430-05:00Is it possible that an invisible, omniscient being...Is it possible that an invisible, omniscient being spoke to ancient humans in terms that they could easily understand, based on their simplistic, scientifically incorrect understanding of the universe? Of course! Anything is possible. If you are determined to maintain your belief in the supernatural claims of the Bible there is ALWAYS a harmonization to hold it all together. Mormons, Muslims, and Hindus do the very same for claims in their holy books which conflict with modern scientific evidence.<br /><br />The question Christians must ask themselves is this: Why wouldn't an omniscient God have used his Word to enlighten humans with the true structure of the universe; with proper agricultural instructions; proper medical treatments, etc.? Why leave us floundering in our ignorance for some many millennia?<br /><br />Yes, your worldview is possible, but is it the most probable explanation for the evidence available? I suggest that a much more probable explanation is that the Bible was written by well-intentioned, but scientifically ignorant people. Period. A "god" had nothing to do with it.Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-54354711793523023112017-07-24T13:41:32.332-05:002017-07-24T13:41:32.332-05:00Do you really believe that the author of Genesis k...Do you really believe that the author of Genesis knew the true facts of the structure and organization of the universe and was only using the term "raqia" in the same manner that we today would say "the sun rose this morning at 5:30 AM" knowing full well that the sun does not "rise"?<br /><br />Come on, Mike.<br /><br />The statement in Genesis of a "firmament" above the earth is an ERROR. It is an error of scientifically ignorant people who did NOT have the assistance (inspiration) of an invisible, omniscient being to tell them the real truth. You are making ad hoc harmonizations to maintain your supernatural belief system instead of accepting the obvious: The human authors of the Bible made a mistake.Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-55660974286311808052017-07-24T13:11:18.078-05:002017-07-24T13:11:18.078-05:00I think your claim is very poor reasoning since th...I think your claim is very poor reasoning since the creation story is given to a certain people and a certain culture. The message from my "omniscient God" must be conveyed in an understandable language and culture. Even if it is not Adam looking up and marveling, it is God describing the creation possibly to a person who thinks of the heavens like that. So, first, I don't think the word must mean an "upside-down bowl" and, second, even if it must mean that it would be perfectly acceptable if the culture thinks of the heavens like that to explain the created heavens in that point-of-view way. I wouldn't go to a pre-historic culture and explain modern weaponry, for instance, in terms they don't comprehend, but in relatable and understandable language. So even if I know that aircraft can exceed the speed of sound due to jet engines, that language would be useless to a pre-historic culture. In fact, it would be very unlike the God described in the Bible to deal with a culture in a way that ignores their particular time and place in history. Like many critics I deal with, you are imposing your idea of what God is like and should do and say on to the God described in the Bible, whose methods, purposes, and thoughts do not align with yours.Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-25276931198492416732017-07-24T11:52:07.904-05:002017-07-24T11:52:07.904-05:00Mike,
Of course the author/authors of Genesis use...Mike,<br /><br />Of course the author/authors of Genesis used "raqia" as a "point-of-view description". I agree with you 100%. However, the problem comes when humans assert that this book is part of the "Word of God".<br /><br />Who was there when this "raqia" was created in the Genesis story? According to the first chapter of Genesis at least, no human existed at that time. So the statement is not coming from a human, such as, "And Adam looked up in the sky and marveled at the 'raqia'. " No, it was your GOD who stated this.<br /><br />THAT is the problem. You cannot assert that the Bible is the inerrant Word of your perfect, omniscient god and have him claiming to have created a non-existent upside-down bowl hanging over the earth unless you twist yourself into a pretzel making harmonizations.<br /><br />The claim that Yahweh said he created a firmament is proof that the Bible was written by humans without the assistance (inspiration) of an omniscient deity.Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-44222371282944798332017-07-24T08:55:37.415-05:002017-07-24T08:55:37.415-05:00I have just reviewed an introductory textbook wher...I have just reviewed an introductory textbook where the author says that it is not incorrect to say the sun revolves around the earth. He says that you can believe your eyes and the sun does, indeed, circle the earth every 24 hours from our perspective. He is arguing that there is no absolute point of reference and the point-of-view descriptions are valid. If they are valid in the 21st century then surely they were valid more than 3 millennia ago. From a perspective on the earth the heavens look like an orbiting sphere. It is this type of criticism of the language in the Bible that makes me think skeptics are not genuine in their investigation. A point-of-view description does not invalidate anything and is perfectly acceptable.Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-73869434897217602262017-07-24T07:00:46.986-05:002017-07-24T07:00:46.986-05:00I will investigate this further, but in my last pa...I will investigate this further, but in my last paragraph I'm saying it is irrelevant whether the firmament was or was not considered a solid sphere because point-of-view descriptions are perfectly acceptable and do not imply an incorrect or unscientific idea. I'm disappointed that you would take such a point-of-view description as an indication that something is wrong in the narrative. If so, I better not ever hear you say that you saw a sunset.Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-59763641706672186512017-07-23T23:37:11.634-05:002017-07-23T23:37:11.634-05:00Mike,
Do you have any evidence that any Jew or Ch...Mike,<br /><br />Do you have any evidence that any Jew or Christian prior to, let's say, 1,000 CE, believed that the Hebrew word "raqia" as used in the first two chapters of Genesis meant anything other than a solid object? If so, would you please share the source?<br /><br />Just because the word "raqia" COULD be translated as an "expanse" means nothing if that is not how Jews and early Christians understood it to mean...unless you are stating that God "inspired" the author to use a word that he, all other Hebrews of his time, and, all Jews and Christians prior to the Reformation, did not comprehend. That's a pretty fundamentalist viewpoint, Mike. Is that what you are saying??Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-26245217523225618112017-07-23T16:08:18.432-05:002017-07-23T16:08:18.432-05:00I do know biologs well and agree with some of thei...I do know biologs well and agree with some of their positions and disagree with others. Of course looking through the internet for articles that agree with your preconceived positions is easy to do. I can do the same to show that the firmament is not a solid disk and so I guess that proves I'm right. For instance, see http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=194<br /><br />Suppose for this discussion we could show that the writer of Genesis did mean a solid disk. That would still not be a problem since the sky does look like a solid disk from our point of view. Clearly you don't understand how language is used if you are nitpicking at something like this. I'm a little shocked. I guess then that you and I in the 21st century are ignorant people because we say the sun rises and sets. I guess if Yahweh were to call it a "sunset" we would know he is simply the invention of an ignorant ancient culture since the sun doesn't really set but the earth rotates.. Please Gary, don't just write comments to be argumentative. Using language in a point-of-view sense is common and accepted and doesn't denote anything about the science behind it. Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.com