I never said anything against or about trying to find God's true meaning in the Bible. My statements go to the point that claiming to dismiss what we learn using science on the basis that they are merely man's words seems hypocritical and contrary, when all interpretations of the Bible are merely man's words.
What I know from the evidence is that numerous men wrote the Bible over centuries of time. What I believe is that these writings were inspired by God and not simply dictation. Inspired is an arguable term that means different things to different people.
All the different Abrahamic religions, denominations, branches, sects, etc., claim to have the one true interpretation or something to that effect. These groups are all made up of people. So it is people that are making the claims. Your position to deny the words of man is ultimately a blanket denial of even the words that you follow, since they are the words (interpretation) of man. That seems to be a rabbit hole in my opinion.
Are you saying that there is no room for some previous author to impart his personal bias or errors into the Bible? The Old Testament is made up of books that are often oral tradition transcribed by man. Someone decided which tradition. In some cases it is a blending of more than one story. Some of the writings are after the fact and by third parties in some cases. Someone decided what of a vast amount of material should be included in the Bible and how it was to be presented there. The Christian Bible was originally written piecemeal in different languages. It has been transcribed and translated numerous times throughout the last 2,000 years.
So not one possibility for error in any of that?
And then some parts of the Bible come up against the facts that man can and does observe and uses to draw rational conclusions. I see this as using the gifts God gave us to understand His creation. There is nothing wrong with that idea and there is nothing wrong with using those natural scriptures to learn from. But the creationist answer is to ignore all that and wave it away as merely the words of man that has no validity because they are the words of man. And it is not a consistent dismissal. For instance, gravity is not waved away, though it has less evidence in support of theory than evolution does.
Pardon me if I have doubts about that strategy and concerns that it is allowing the bias of a few to be the dictator of all.
When the facts of reality contradict the literal interpretation of the Bible, then the most reasonable conclusion is that we do not understand what the Bible is saying and/or we are interpreting wrongly.
You are telling me why you believe in an event that has no viable evidence supporting it as an actual event. I appreciate that, but it only goes to explain why you persist in your quest. It is not evidence for the object of your quest. In my view, seeing it as allegory has no negative impact on my belief in God and acceptance of Christ.
You post claims that you see as facts. You also post facts that have thin, dubious and questionable application as evidence for an event that should be a slam dunk to reveal if it did happen.
Your evidence of the fact of ancient remains existing in the permafrost is just citing something and making your own claims about it. Claims you must further substantiate, but have not.
So even you see how dubious and unreliable these particular facts are as evidence for the flood.
I am fond of mantids, but my favorite group is the beetles. Particularly members of the superfamily Scarabaeoidea, but also other families and groups within that order.
It is not God's Hand in creation that I question. It is the interpretation that some men claim is the only interpretation that I question.
Questioning the validity of Genesis as an indisputable, accurate, historical account of the origin and diversity of life is not a denial of God.
No. There is no unwritten rule demanding that God be kept out of science.
Research based on untestable claims is not research. It is belief. If you want research that supports God, you will have to provide the evidence for God and the evidence of His actions in whatever is being researched.
I know of no global conspiracy of science against God. I have no evidence that such a conspiracy exists now or has ever existed. I have never seen anyone claiming such a thing to succeed in their arguments that one exists.
I believe you.
I would enjoy a beer.
I don't have any animosity about what or how you believe. That is your own personal business and I cannot say that you haven't found a way to commune with God that works for you. My challenge with anyone here is what they claim in the public square and what they demand from those claims. Even my own claims require scrutiny, skepticism and evaluation. I am open to new information that might change my mind on things. I have been wrong about some things or forgotten some key piece of information that someone else points out. Sometimes, in these discussions and debates, I even have the rare epiphany that leads to greater clarity and understanding from a source I did not expect.
