Ah, I see that you try and offend me by calling the Bible babble? I'm curious why you decided that name for it.

Now let me look through this again. I usually skim through to get the main theme of what one is saying then read through again and try to take it point by point, if it isn't too much a bother to you.

Okay, so your first problem with what I said is my example of the literal/figurative creation week problem? I know I've read on this somewhere, but I cannot quite remember which books. And a lot of my books are at home. Let me check my Bible and see what the annotations say really quick, ok? Okay, I got it. There's an article in here entitled "Are the Days of Genesis to Be Interpeted Literally?" by a Jed Cabal. It short, it talks about how the problem is mostly for old/young earth creationists. It really doesn't bother theistic evolutionists, which was why I was hoping this wouldn't spark an arguement but merely serve as an example. Anyway, the biggest problem for the literal week of creation is that the Hebrew word that gets translated into "day" here (yom) gets used in a bunch of different ways throughout Genesis. We're not retrofitting (there are still plenty of people who believe in the literal week, and I'm mostly indifferent. I mean, we're here, right? That's the biggest thing to me.). It's just a matter of interpetation for each individual.

Let's see, what's your next problem? Scientific facts in the Bible? Well, sorry to say, there doesn't seem to be much solely dedicated to science (though here's an interesting link [link]), otherwise I would've ferreted them out on my own by now. I am training in the medical field after all and am fascinated by the sciences. The Bible is more of a histroy book, a love letter, and, most obviously, a life manual for believers. How do you mean flawed? There is more and more proof that there was a man named Jesus who believed himself to be the Son of God, there are archeological findings that prove that the Bible is historically accurate, giving it a strong foundation, and the morales and lessons in the Bible (if you so desire to just ingore Jesus entirely, which I assume you do), are ways that improve the standard of living for yourself and others. In none of these ways is the Bible flawed. As for extending man's knowledge of the world around him? I must ask you, what is your basis in science? The root of it all? For me, the basis is a loving creator who enacted rules for the universe for us to discover and give thanks to Him for. Without him, life would be a meaningless chaotic, if life existed at all (and of course, I believe it wouldn't).

Your next problem is his ancestory? Well, now I'm a little amused. Mostly cause I've heard this multiple times. Let me find this scholar who states it better than me...crap, that book is too big to find quickly. I'll go back to my Bible then. You're referring to the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, right? Well, there are multiple reasons for the differences. One focuses on bloodline, one focuses on royalty. Matthew gave the legal line of descent, while Luke focused on a more physical line. And both go through Joseph of course, as he was the man. Jesus was his descendent legally through adoption. In either case, the important thing was that he came from the blood of David, to fulfill God's promise that the Messiah would be a descendent of David. I think you could do a bit of research on how geneologies were organized then. Josephus would be a good place to start. He was really into political strife.

You're third complaint is my distinction of micro and macroevolution. I must say, I've heard this before. When you show me how mutations of the same DNA, not changing in complexity at all and possibly even simplfying it further can create a totally new, more complex species within the span of a few life cycles so some of the changes don't kill the offspring before it can reproduce, then I'll consider it. Show me your missing links as well, and I might consider it. But this doesn't affect the Bible at all, as God could easily work through evolution to create what he desires.

My beliefs may not convince you, and I'm certainly not going to throw my Bible at you--I like it too much you see--but I must ask you this: how is it that out of all the religions going on at the time, all the important kings and rulers of that era, that Jesus's name stands out above all others. I mean, have you heard of Josephus before I mentioned him? How about Appollonius?
As for the God's own chosen people, my heart aches for them, especially those who still wait for the Messiah. They didn't accept Jesus because he wasn't what they expected. They wanted a conqueror, a hero! Not a servant, a simple carpetner. And many were too settled into their ways to change. But many weren't as well.

Faith like a child does not mean that you must behave like a child. I don't. I study for medical school, I read many books by many people, from all walks of faith, and I don't mind getting my foot put in my mouth at times if I learn from the experience. I'm nowhere near perfect of course. No one is. We're human after all. But I take some offense to being told I have childlike sheeplike behavoir. Is Issac Newton a sheep? And yet he said that there must be a divine being. And this guy figured out gravity!

--
My icon was a point commission from *Darqx.
"I'm a supporter of date extensions regardless of context." ~classmate