Friday fun: Kangaroos, ‘historical science’ and bears — oh my!

Original photo by Quartl, via Wikimedia Commons.

Hey friends. It’s Friday, TG! You’ve survived another week. Time for some fun with God of Evolution.

First, a couple of posts from fellow — albeit much more accomplished and much smarter — Christian bloggers who accept the vast evidence for evolution and the age of the earth. They also don’t read the Genesis creation accounts literally, which, as far as I’m concerned, means they take them more seriously than those who insist they can’t be understood any other way.

Anyway. Definitely don’t miss “Dear Ken Ham: About Those Kangaroo Fossils…” on Age of Rocks, which tackles one of Ken Ham’s more scientifically inept displays (which is a pretty high threshold, believe me) during his infamous debate with Bill Nye last year.

If you don’t remember, it was the part where Nye brought up the very good point that we’ve never found a single fossil of the intrepid kangaroos that supposedly voyaged to Australia from where Noah’s Ark touched down, and Ol’ Hambone responded, “Uh, nuh uh, because … Bible!” (Personally, I think the more persuasive evidence against the young-earth viewpoint here is not the dearth of fossilized Kangaroo remains outside Australasia, but the fact that Richard Adams never wrote a book about the epic journey. But that’s just me.)

So now you (hopefully) understand the lead art for today’s post. If you can, you’ll also want to check out Joel Duff’s excellent lecture responding to what was no doubt Ham’s favorite argument from that debate. There are links within that landing page to several excellent articles by Duff on the same topic if you’re pressed for time.

All of this ties into our latest meme:

Apollo17WorldReversed

Please feel free to share it far and wide.

And finally, just because it’s hilarious, and also I needed it to make my headline work, here’s a video of Christian music artist Aaron Shust performing, perhaps, the first and only worship song about a strange little story in 2 Kings in which the prophet Elijah sics bears on a group of boys who were making fun of his baldness (being a junior member of the Follically Challenged community myself, I understand his pain).

They replayed this segment on “The Wally Show” this morning, and I thought it’d make you smile. If you hate it, blame Way-FM.

Tyler Francke is founder of God of Evolution and author of Reoriented. He can be reached at tyler@godofevolution.com.

  • Seth

    While it is old news, I liked one other article on Ages of Rocks: http://ageofrocks.org/2011/03/27/ken-ham-and-the-homeschoolers-the-moral-of-the-story-is/
    Anyone know what the current relationship between Ham and the home schoolers? All the references I found are very dated.

    • Yeah, I’m not sure about that, Seth. The most recent-ish thing I found was this blog post. It made a small splash back in 2013, but it’s basically just a former home schooler sharing her (negative) experience with the Ham empire.

  • archaeologist

    The use of the natural world and its supposed message are the ones saying something God did not say. That message is read into nature by those who have rejected the truth of Genesis 1 and the rest of the Bible.

    There is no evidence for evolution as evolution does not exist and never has

    • The “message” is read from nature by those who look at the evidence and make objective conclusions based on what it says. “No evidence.” What a joke.

      • archaeologist

        really yet there is no biblical instruction to do just that. where did you get that inspiration from?

        • How about Job 12:7-8:

          “But ask the animals, and they will teach you,
          or the birds in the sky, and they will tell you;
          or speak to the earth, and it will teach you,
          or let the fish in the sea inform you.”

          Sounds like biology and geology to me. Or do you interpret this hyper-literally as well, which would have believers literally talking to rocks and hamsters like insane people?

          There’s also astronomy in Psalm 19, which talks about the night skies “pouring forth speech” and “revealing knowledge.”

          Maybe not overwhelming, but pretty impressive for writings that predate anything resembling modern science by several thousand years.

          • archaeologist

            Not overwhelming as those passages are not giving permission to us to use secular science to overturn Genesis 1.

            Under your logic, those slave owners who used the Bible to justify owning another human being were correct and following Jesus.

          • Not overwhelming as those passages are not giving permission to us to use secular science to overturn Genesis 1.

            If by “secular science,” you mean “objective science,” then yes, that’s what I’m talking about. God created the natural world, so an objective look at the evidence it contains will yield truth. “Objective science,” of course, could be contrasted with “science with blinders on,” which is the type of science preferred by young-earth creationism proponents.

            And no one is “overturning” Genesis 1. We just disagree with your modern, hyper-literalist interpretation of Genesis 1.

            Under your logic, those slave owners who used the Bible to justify owning another human being were correct and following Jesus.

            Um…how? Or is this just some creative modification of Godwin’s law?

          • archaeologist

            “If by “secular science,” you mean “objective science,” then yes, that’s what I’m talking about.”

            In his book Did God Have A Wife, both in his introduction and on about page 83 or so, William Dever pointed out that there is no such thing as ‘objectivity’.

            God taught it first though, when he said, you are either for me or against me (Mt. 12:30)

            There is no such thing as ‘objective science’ for science is not immune to evil’s influence, corruption or sin and if the people involved in that field have not repented of their sins then they are not of God or following his ways thus you only have evil science producing what evil wants.

            YEC may have its faults but it i snot science with blinders on because they follow God an dare on his side.

            Your disagreeance with God’s word means you are not going with the truth but seek the lies evil produces.

            “Um…how?”

            You take out of context passages of scripture and use them to support your sinful desires, in this case it would be pursuit of secular science and its alternative ideas.

            God said to ‘hear MY words’ he did not say ‘hear the words of secular science’

          • Objectivity is possible because God is a rational, logical being who gifted us with rational, logical minds. If you really believed the corruption of sin is so far-reaching and pervasive, you would have no reason to trust that those who have translated the Bible for you have done so correctly, or that your own imperfect, evil mind is interpreting it the way God intended.

            And I guess I’ve got news for you, but your interpretation of scripture is just that: an interpretation. Not an obvious “plain-reading” of the Bible, but an attempt by man to understand the words of God. And not an altogether good attempt, I might add: http://www.godofevolution.com/10-theological-questions-no-young-earth-creationist-can-answer/

          • archaeologist

            You forget that God promised to preserve his word, thus he can protect biblical translators whereas secular scientists have no such protection as they do not even believe God exists.

            Which begs the question, why are you following the words of those who deny the very existence of the God you claim to believe in and worship?

            I do not follow interpretation, I follow the HS to the truth while you make God acfter your image in order to justify your disobedience his instructions and revelation

          • Right. So you’ve stopped engaging inin any sort of real discussiondiscussion, and have commenced ad hominem attacks about me, my motivations and my faith, which are based on nothing but your own self-righteous assurances that you are right and cannot possibly be wrong, therefore, everyone else who disagrees with you is wrong.

            When you can explain the starlight problem, and convincingly respond to the theological questions in the link presented in my previous post, maybe we’ll talk.

          • archaeologist

            So you cannot handle questions which make you confront your position directly.

            There is no starlight problem that is a fabrication of secular science and why would you assume that unbelievers are more correct than God?

          • archaeologist

            Oh and I will go through your 10 questions, you just need to be patient

          • Can’t wait!

          • archaeologist

            I may do them on microsoft first to see how long my response will be.

          • archaeologist

            Just to have this upfront, I will give you answers but if you do not accept them then you cannot say you did not get answers.

            Being an answer doesn’t depend upon your acceptance or approval.

            Right now I am in the process of reading your words to see what you already know and how you view the topics you

            are asking about

          • That’s an excellent way to start. And I’m pretty sure I have the right to say whether I think an answer is valid or not. I am the one asking the questions, after all.

          • archaeologist

            the problem with that type of thinking is that the person will give you an answer but you do not like it so you claim it wasn’t answered. that is unfair and unjust.

            I am not going to give you invalid answers after all I understand the Bible and you do not. I have the HS helping me to the truth and you do not.

            Your bias also comes into play as well so I hope you will be honest when you read the answers

          • Well, garsh, it sure is hard to argue wwith someone who has so much going for them, and is so open-minded to boot. I must have missed that passage where Jesus said it is not all believers who receive the Holy Spirit, but only the ones who read Genesis literally (except the parts about the firmament, and the moon being a light, and also ignore all the contradictions the literal reading creates between Genesis 1 and 2).

          • Well, that’s one way to respond to the problem, I guess: Just straight up deny reality. Dude, even young earthers admit that the problem exists. That’s why groups like Answers in Genesis and ICR have tried (and failed) to answer it. Denying it isn’t there is not being faithful, it’s insanity.

          • archaeologist

            there is no denial, I am waiting for the right words to explain how it is done. SO far I do not have them

            The real problem comes with secular scientists who do not understand the difference between creating something and how it operates.

          • I said, “Explain the starlight problem,” and you said, “There is no starlight problem.” That’s sort of textbook denial, bro.

            I think the real problem is young-earth leaning would-be theologians who don’t think it’s inconsistent for a rational, orderly God (1 Cor. 14:33), who desires for mankind to know him, to create a fundamentally inconsistent, irrational, unknowable universe, the evidence of which cannot be looked at objectively without being led astray.

          • archaeologist

            Right, God didn’t author confusion about starlight, the secular scientists have done that with the help of evil.

            You continue to think that unbelieving and deceived people get it right over God.

            if i do not respond for awhile it is because i am working on your 10 questions

          • K, well, again, all the leading young-earth groups must be evil secularists as well, since they all acknowledge the starlight problem.

          • archaeologist

            maybe they are just not listening to God at the moment, or looking in the wrong places for the answer or they haven’t been taught the answer yet. who knows.

            the issue here is that secular scientists do not understand the difference between how something is created and put into place and how it is created to function and subsequently operates.

            I have finished my answers to your 10 questions and placed them at the following link. Feel free to place a post responding to my answers here or you are welcome to do so at my website. I will not edit unless you insult etc. I think I kept my answers very pure from any attacks etc.

            https://theologyarchaeology.wordpress.com/2015/07/01/10-theological-questions-no-young-earth-creationist-can-answer/

          • Hey, thanks for all the work and time you obviously put into this, but yeah, most of your answers aren’t valid. I’ll explain.

            1. “I do not know” is not a real answer. This is a glaring weakness in the young-earth, hyper-literalist interpretation of this passage, and simply saying, “I don’t know, but I’m sure God had a reason” does not make it go away.

            2. You don’t really address the question. I understand that animals are different from human (although the idea that animals aren’t morally culpable but are punished anyway only makes the YEC theology more repugnant), but that doesn’t address the fundamental incosistency of what scripture teaches: sin brings death, those who die in sin are saved by Christ. If animals are among those whose deaths were brought about by sin, then, accoridng to scripture, they should be among those who are saved by Christ. You simply dodged the question.

            3. OK, that’s a great sentiment, but again, doesn’t even come remotely close to addressing my question or my supporting arguments.

            4. Doesn’t address the question. It’s not just a question of why Adam picked the name he did, but why he would choose a name derived from the Hebrew word for life, immediately after she had supposedly just brought about a curse that poisoned the entire universe with death.

            5. Some nice extrabiblical conjecture here, but your opinion of what God “probably did” outside of what is discussed in the text, is not a strong enough hook to hang any kind of theological hat on. The fact is, God said the punishment for disobedience was death, and Adam clearly understood what he was talking about.

            We have two possible explanations. Mine, that he knew what God was talking about because he was living in the same universe we are, one in which death exists, and yours, that he was living in a universe in which death was a completely foreign concept, but he still knew what it was because he was born with special knowledge that no other person since him has ever been born with, or maybe God explained it but the author of Genesis didn’t see fit to include it (because the Bible obviously was not that concerned about preserving God’s words).

            Occam’s razor and simple logic would say my explanation is far more likely.

            6. Apparently we don’t have a disagreement on this point. You should know, however, that most of your fellow YECs strongly believe this warning was about physical death, and this was the point that physical death entered the universe for all living things.

            7. I think you misunderstand the thrust of my argument here, but I must respond to your assertion that Genesis is literal because “God does not lie.” Jesus told many stories, called parables, which were not meant to be taken literally. Does that mean every one of his stories were lies? Psalms and Proverbs and Job and all the books of the prophets are packed with metaphors that are not meant to be taken literally. Does that mean all of these books are full of lies? Because if so, I think we just lost half the Bible.

            I believe Genesis is the infallible, inspired, completely true word of God. I just don’t believe the creation accounts were meant to be read literally.

            8. Doesn’t address the question or the arguments presented. You simply assert that the contradictions don’t exist. Only, they do exist, and you can’t make them go away by pretending they aren’t there.

            9. Doesn’t address the arguments presented. I understand the counter-argument that incest was made wrong later. I specifically respond to it in my original post, and I explain why it doesn’t fit scripture or the character of God. By the same token, Cain’s slaying of his brother also predated God’s explicit prohibition of murder on Mount Sinai, but that was obviously wrong.

            Sexual harrassement laws are a poor analogy. God is not a human government; he is a timeless, spiritual being, who does not change and is the same yesterday, today and forever.

            10. This is hilarious, because John 5 is actually one of the times where Jesus explicitly rejected a literal and long-understood component of the creation accounts. The whole passage is about the Sabbath, which the Pharisees understood to be a literal day of rest, because God literally rested. But what does Jesus say? “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working” (verse 17). Which angered the Pharisees so much that they endeavored all the more to try and kill him for his blasphemy (verse 18).

            So did Jesus not believe Moses because he rejected the literal interpretation? Of course not. Like I already said above, believing something is true is not the same as interpreting it literally. I believe Moses, just as Jesus modeled. But I do not take it all literally (nor do you, for that matter), and the passage you present in no way implies that I should.

          • archaeologist

            I have put my response to your response here:

            https://theologyarchaeology.wordpress.com/2015/07/02/10-theological-questions-no-yecer-can-answer-the-response/

            it is too long to place here.

          • K. You have attempted to answer my questions, I have explained in great detail exactly where and why most of your answers fail to actually address the questions, and you have asserted that your non-answers (most of which boil down to “I don’t know” or “It just is that way, deal with it”) are perfectly valid and completely demolish my silly “alternative belief” system.

            Great fun. Can we be done talking now?

          • archaeologist

            i made no assertions, I did not say ‘i don’t know’ or ‘that is the way it is’ all the time.

            The question is why do you ignore the answers when you are given them.

            no one is twisting your arm but I would view your departure in a negative light.

          • i made no assertions,

            Dude, your theology is nothing but assertions. Your posts cease to exist if you take out all of the assertions.

            I did not say ‘i don’t know’ or ‘that is the way it is’ all the time.

            Very true. It was not all the time, it was most of the time. That’s why I said that in my previous comment.

            The question is why do you ignore the answers when you are given them.

            You’d have to actually give me some answers before I would be capable of ignoring them.

            no one is twisting your arm but I would view your departure in a negative light.

            Gee, I guess that’s a risk I’ll just have to take.

            If you ever decide you’d like to really engage with the issues raised in the original post, feel free to try again.

          • archaeologist

            Now you know why I opened my post the way I did. You fall exactly into that behavior I described.

            You got the answers now it is up to you to accept or reject them but you cannot say no one has answered them.

            https://theologyarchaeology.wordpress.com/2015/07/02/10-theological-questions-no-yecer-can-answer-next-round/

            my final addressing of your arguments. Oh and I do not dance to your tune. You are the one in error and blind not me.

          • You got the answers now it is up to you to accept or reject them but you cannot say no one has answered them.

            Right, in your personal version of bizarro-land, where groundless assertions, extrabiblical conjecture, “I don’t know” and “Just deal with it” count as valid responses, you have indeed answered all my questions and fully addressed my arguments. Congratulations.

          • archaeologist

            uhm… before you celebrate and claim victory you should be aware of one fact– I noticed that you could not answer the questions or provide anything that you want from me.

            I answered the questions, something you failed to do, so do not attack me because you do not like the answers

          • It must be great fun to be so delusional you can re-create reality any way you wish. You should make yourself president one day, just to see what it is like.

          • archaeologist

            no, i wouldn’t know as the only delusional person i see is you. If you think that the questions were not answered then you have the problem and you do have the problem for you try to rewrite Genesis to fit your alternative fantasy.

            If you are so attached to your supremacy, why couldn’t you do your own research and come up with the answers yourself?

          • I think you might have missed the point of the exercise. I asked the questions because I believe they demonstrate serious weaknesses in the young-earth view of the Genesis creation accounts and young-earth theology in general. If I were to answer the questions, every one of my answers would be the same: Because the young-earth interpretation is deeply flawed and ultimately incorrect.

          • archaeologist

            “because I believe they demonstrate serious weaknesses in the young-earth
            view of the Genesis creation accounts and young-earth theology in
            genera”

            but they don’t. they show a complete lack of understanding what is germane to the issue or important on your part.

            you are looking at different passages without understanding both God and his word; nor do you make allowances for his power, foresight, wisdom, intelligence and so on.

            also, your questions and explanations imply that all YEC people must meet your standard of knowledge and perfection. You generalize and apply the failures of some YEC arguments to all YEC people.

            You also are dishonest as ‘I do not know’ is a valid answer because sometimes people just do not know or the information has not been given yet.

          • but they don’t. they show a complete lack of understanding what is germane to the issue or important on your part.

            Well, that’s fair. I guess all my questions addressed were how the YEC affects the interpretation of Genesis, the interpretation of scripture in general, the presentation of the gospel and other core tenets of the Christian faith. So yeah, nothing really relevant to Christianity there.

            you are looking at different passages without understanding both God and his word; nor do you make allowances for his power, foresight, wisdom, intelligence and so on.

            I have as much faith and trust in God’s power, foresight, wisdom and intelligence as you do. I just don’t believe God is a liar and deceiver, which is what young-earth creationism necessitates.

            also, your questions and explanations imply that all YEC people must meet your standard of knowledge and perfection.

            Well, I do expect their beliefs, which they insist I must accept to be a true Christian like they are, to be comprehensible enough to withstand basic scrutiny without completely falling apart. I think that’s fair.

            You generalize and apply the failures of some YEC arguments to all YEC people.

            False. If a YEC’s particular beliefs deviate from the standard fare, then my arguments wouldn’t necessarily apply. This has been addressed several times in the comments on the original piece.

            You also are dishonest as ‘I do not know’ is a valid answer because sometimes people just do not know or the information has not been given yet.

            Yeah? Have your kids try that on one of their tests at school sometime. Let me know how it works out for them when you explain to their teachers that it’s a perfectly valid answer.

          • archaeologist

            ” I guess all my questions addressed were how the YEC affects the interpretation of Genesis,”

            it is not about ‘interpretation’ it is about the truth There is no passage of scripture supporting an evolutionary type model. Or an old earth.

            “I just don’t believe God is a liar and deceiver, which is what young-earth creationism necessitates.”

            No, because 1. God said he created in 6 24 hour days not only in Genesis but in Exodus as well & 2. No one said starlight, fossils, geology and so on were criteria to use to determine how God created. Heb. 11 said by FAITH. Which means we either believe God’s word or we disbelieve it.

            “Have your kids try that on one of their tests at school sometime.”

            moot and immaterial. A public school test i snot the same as not knowing the answer to a question in a informal or even formal discussion or debate.

            As I have stated previously, we do not always know the answer because God has not told us it yet.

          • it is not about ‘interpretation’ it is about the truth There is no passage of scripture supporting an evolutionary type model. Or an old earth.

            It is all about interpretation. There is no passage of scripture supporting the young-earth model unless you interpret a handful of Bible passages incorrectly.

            No, because 1. God said he created in 6 24 hour days not only in Genesis but in Exodus as well

            God also said in the same places that he created a hard outer shell around the earth called the firmament, but I imagine you don’t take that part literally.

            2. No one said starlight, fossils, geology and so on were criteria to use to determine how God created.

            Actually, God said it. By making all those things, he offers them as testimony of his creative work and power — Romans 1:20.

            Heb. 11 said by FAITH. Which means we either believe God’s word or we disbelieve it.

            Pretty sure Hebrews 11:3 doesn’t specify a date or time frame, bro, so it offers no support for your argument. It simply says God created the universe, not when or how.

            moot and immaterial. A public school test i snot the same as not knowing the answer to a question in a informal or even formal discussion or debate.

            It’s not at all moot or immaterial. The purpose of a question is to acquire knowledge (or in my example, to measure knowledge) and find truth. “I don’t know” offers nothing. It is, therefore, a non-answer, and invalid.

          • archaeologist

            “It is all about interpretation”

            If you keep at interpretation then you are telling me you want to keep this at a human level whereby you can avoid the truth and continue to practice your anti-creation (24 hour 7 day) views and pursue following and listening to secularists, something God said not to do.

            if you claim to believe God, why do you ignore his instructions?

            “God also said in the same places that he created a hard outer shell
            around the earth called the firmament, but I imagine you don’t take that part literally.”

            chapter, verse and version please. The thing about those who do not believe God is that they are very literal when they want to be, especially when it means they can attack those who believe God and disagree with you.

            “Actually, God said it. By making all those things, he offers them as testimony of his creative work and power”

            No he didn’t. You and secularists read that into his work. Nothing in the bible says to use those items to determine when creation took place. There is no command telling everyone to go and find the age of the earth.

            “so it offers no support for your argument. It simply says God created the universe, not when or how.”

            it also does not say to use secular science to figure it out either now does it?

            “The purpose of a question is to acquire knowledge (or in my example, to
            measure knowledge) and find truth. “I don’t know” offers nothing. It is,
            therefore, a non-answer, and invalid.”

            Only according to you.We are not answering questions on a test here, if a person doesn’t know then they do not know.

            If I ask you a question, ‘which animals were on the ark?’ how will you respond? With an ‘i don’t know.’ because you do not know. it is a very valid answer

          • If you keep at interpretation then you are telling me you want to keep this at a human level whereby you can avoid the truth and continue to practice your anti-creation (24 hour 7 day) views and pursue following and listening to secularists, something God said not to do.

            You sound insane. It is at a human level, because you and I are both humans (as far as I know). Neither one of us is God. We are, I presume, both doing our best to understand him through the record and testimony he has offered to us.

            But interpretation is not an option, as you seem to suggest. It’s not “interpret or not interpret,” it is simply, “interpret this way or interpret that way.” Suggesting you can read and understand the Bible without interpreting the Bible is like saying you can live without breathing.

            if you claim to believe God, why do you ignore his instructions?

            If you claim to believe God, why do you ignore his teachings about the firmament?

            chapter, verse and version please.

            Genesis 1:6-8, NKJV. Hebrew “raqia,” derived from the Hebrew “raqa” — to beat, stamp and spread out (like a canvas or tablecloth), which are typically things one does to solid substances, and not gaseous ones.

            The thing about those who do not believe God is that they are very literal when they want to be, especially when it means they can attack those who believe God and disagree with you.

            Right, it’s all my fault. Even though you are the one claiming the entire passage is literal history, and this is just one of the issues that arises as a direct consequence of interpreting the passage as literal history.

            No he didn’t. You and secularists read that into his work.

            No, we don’t. As I showed you before in Job, Psalms and even Romans 1, God explicitly opens his creation up for exploration to the world, and testifies that it bears truth of the One who created it.

            There is no command telling everyone to go and find the age of the earth.

            That is both correct and irrelevant. There is no command telling people to drive cars or use cellphones or speak English or wear blue jeans or eat French fries or any other one of million things you probably do on a daily basis in our modern world. If we are to be limited to activities that are explicitly described and condoned in the Bible, I suggest you get off the Internet and destroy your computer immediately.

            it also does not say to use secular science to figure it out either now does it?

            There is no such thing as secular science, there is only science, which is the study of the world God made, and therefore, will yield truth when done objectively.

            Only according to you.We are not answering questions on a test here, if a person doesn’t know then they do not know.

            We are not discussing the purpose of a test, we are discussing the purpose of a question. I understand that if a person does not know, they do not know. What you don’t seem to get is that there is a rather large difference between knowing the answer to a question and … not knowing the answer to a question. They really, truly are not the same thing.

            If I ask you a question, ‘which animals were on the ark?’ how will you respond? With an ‘i don’t know.’ because you do not know. it is a very valid answer

            That is not at all how I would answer that question, but if I did respond, “I don’t know,” I would accept that I had not answered the question in any meaningful way.

            Now that all that is out of the way, I’m wrapping this up. This conversation has become quite time consuming and it’s obviously doing no one any good. If you like, you can have one last comment, and that’s it.

            Move on, pal, either to a different article or a different site altogether. That part is up to you.

          • archaeologist

            “You sound insane”

            it is difficult to have a discussion when the other person feels he can insult freely the very person he is in a discussion with.

            The next little while I will be considering if I will respond to you or not

          • Says a person who has repeatedly insulted my intelligence, my integrity and my faith in this very thread. Grow up. Or better yet, if it really bothers you, try saying less irrational-sounding, nonsensical things.

          • archaeologist

            i looked over my posts and do not see where i out and out did what you claim. I know i missed a word and responded using the same words you used at me but I would not go as far as to say I have insulted you like you did me.

            i am not the one who needs to grow up as I am not the one who insults or disobeys God by saying he lied and is incapable of telling his followers how he created. I also am not the one insulting God’s people by saying that God didn’t rust them enough with the truth but gave it to those who do not believe in him, do not acknowledge his existence or those who opt for secular ideas over their choice of believing the Bible.

            as for your rant about interpretation, I guess your words and insult apply to Jesus as well as he never instructed anyone to use interpretation. HE told us all that we will know the truth.

            If you think you are greater than Jesus well then there is no hope for you.

          • i looked over my posts and do not see where i out and out did what you claim. I know i missed a word and responded using the same words you used at me but I would not go as far as to say I have insulted you like you did me.

            A lot of qualifiers in there… Look, we both know what you said. And it’s no big deal. I forgive you. Trust me, people have said a lot worse. It’s only disingenuous when you whine about getting a small taste of your own medicine.

            i am not the one who needs to grow up as I am not the one who insults or disobeys God by saying he lied and is incapable of telling his followers how he created. I also am not the one insulting God’s people by saying that God didn’t rust them enough with the truth but gave it to those who do not believe in him, do not acknowledge his existence or those who opt for secular ideas over their choice of believing the Bible.

            I have never said, nor do I believe, anything remotely like any of that.

            as for your rant about interpretation, I guess your words and insult apply to Jesus as well as he never instructed anyone to use interpretation. HE told us all that we will know the truth.

            Right, Jesus never said anything that was open to interpretation…except, you know, his main teaching tool — parables — which require specifically non-literal interpretation to understand his meaning.

            If you think you are greater than Jesus well then there is no hope for you.

            Well, I don’t think that, so, phew.