So let us look at Leviticus 2:13 13 Every grain offering of yours, moreover, you shall season with salt, so that the salt of the covenant of your God shall not be lacking from your grain offering; with all your offerings you shall offer salt. are more than just compatible with modern germ theory, they're frequently on par with modern best practices for hygiene and sanitation. Do you really believe this? Talk about spin!
Klingu is in an earlier creation story. Why did they say he took clay and spittle and created man? It's just an earlier version of the Biblical man being created from the earth. And I repeat much of the Biblical stories are simply adapted from earlier stories. This compilation will obviously include ideas already in these earlier versions - as with Klingu. I have a book which is the compilation of historic events in ancient Mesopotamia from external data - stele, artifacts etc. These are proved by archaeology etc. and concur with the Bible. You cannot accept that the early parts of the Bible, when it was written, are just another in the line of books on the subject of creation and religion.
All you did was repeat your claims and completely ignored my response. Here it is again: Don't you realize that this defense would work on any ridiculous claim by any religion? If my religion requires that all members pick their noses seven times a day I can defend this teaching by saying that because you don't understand something doesn't negate it. I can defend scientific theories like evolution, the big bang, global warming, abiogenesis etc from any attack you make by saying that because you don't fully understand all the science then maybe your convincing arguments agains them could just be a result of misunderstanding. I can defend political theories like gun control and abortion by saying that you don't know everything so there could be a reason for them you just don't know.
Science is the process wherein doubt is removed by testing. Religion is the process wherein doubt is suppressed by resistance to testing. There is an indispensable distinction, even when there is no difference, between what is implied in, and what we infer from, the bible. "Because the bible says", amounts to nothing more or less than 'because I infer'. "Because the bible says", can only be employed by those who have not outgrown their first impression of what the bible says. The bible is made in such a way that more contradictory inferences have been taken from it than any other source in human history. The Word of God is necessary; it is what it is necessarily. The Word of God is implied in the Bible; it is an implication. Our inferences are subjective, they are not necessarily the same as what is implied. To us, it's not so much that ideas, even ideas inferred from the bible, are so much proved to us as it is that all of the other ideas that we have considered have been disproved. What remains is what we are left to believe. Then, that's tested, and so on, and so on. There is another sort of a 'certainty'. It is a shallow and fragile 'certainty' wherein new ideas are not considered. Proponents of this 'certainty' often claim necessary knowledge. They claim to "know because they know". Belief that transcends understanding is superstition. Faith involves the entire person: intellect, emotion and volition. Faith is a complex of understanding, trust and identity. The intellectual component of faith is understanding, the emotional component is trust and the volitional component of faith is identity. To the extent that one understands a thing, trusts the thing and freely identifies with the thing; that one has faith in that thing. It requires a vanishingly insignificant measure of faith in Jesus' sacrifice for your sin to be saved from the penalty for sin. However, since we are all conceived already spiritually dead, we cannot even come up with that insignificant measure of faith. Even that tiny bit of faith in Jesus Christ is an act of grace, an unmerited favor, a gift from God. I a place my faith in Jesus Christ because I am left to believe that that is what is in my own best interest. I am a Christian for supremely selfish reasons. I follow Jesus Christ for the glory and the joy I find in Him. Any 'sacrifice' in that course is as rubbish when compared to unsurpassable glory of God. Jesus did not go to the cross to save us. He made it very clear that He went to the cross because He was left to believe that obedience to the Father was what was best FOR HIM, even obedience to death, even death on a cross. Jesus made it abundantly clear that He went to the cross for the "glory and the joy set before Him". Of course, Jesus acknowledged that, if He did not go to the cross, we would remain dead in our sin, but His primary intention was to fulfill the will of the Father because He believed that was best for Him. The Father sent the Son so that those who He gave faith in Jesus would be saved from the penalty for sin, but even this the Father did because it was what was best for Him. He created because this creation was what is best for Him. This creation is first and foremost what is best for God's purposes. There is nothing more Godly, or Christ-like, than to act in your own best self interest to the benefit of others. That written, we are most likely to be dead wrong about what is actually in our best self interest. Personally, I follow Jesus' example and just obey the Father while I'm here because I am left to believe that is what is best for me.
He didn't. It's just a adaptation of earlier creation stories where there was a multiplicity of gods.
Science, as a religion resists change to the cannon. Established theories trump any new evidence. Just one example is all the archaeology dug up in the last hundred years, puts a huge hole in the evolution of man. The Anunnaki in Sumeria, Gobekli Tepe, Baalbek, and Puma Punku all show that technology was far more advanced back then than now. Google them. They were all built by aliens. Enoch and Elijah were both taken up to heaven in UFO's. Your "bible" was put together by priests of Constantine, that were more interested in giving power to the church and to Constantine, than to God. There was more scripture left out of the bible, than put in. Dwarka 32,000 year old city found under the sea. To know the truth, you must give up your "beliefs". Seek the truth and you will find it, and the truth will set you free.
Next you're gonna tell me that you were around, "when Jesus Christ had his moment of doubt and pain....hope you guessed my name!"
Of course. I was the donkey on which the preacher rode into Jerusalem. And boy, was the crowd noisy. This time I was reincarnated as a human. My reward for what I did.
Science resists change without evidence. There isn't evidence of alien involvement and there isn't evidence of humans coming into existence by means other than evolution. If by evolution you mean the specific progression of humans including regions, culture, etc., then yes that is an active field of investigation. But, I don't see any unusual resistance to ideas concerning such exact progressions. In fact, there are multiple schools of thought on the exact progression and those are changing as evidence becomes available. Your reference to religion is just weird. Religion doesn't change based on evidence. And, evidence is central to science, which is a method of using evidence to eliminate erroneous ideas.
Saying there isn't any evidence of alien involvement, is like evangelicals saying there is no evidence of the world being more than 6,000 years old. You just put on blinders like they do. Puma Punku was built out of Diorite stone, harder than granite. It takes diamond cutting tools to cut it. There were no diamond cutting tools 12,000 years ago. Even modern stone cutters today say that it would take them a 100 years to cut one of these stones.
When you make statements like this you should verify first. I mean, what are folks supposed to think when they read stuff from you?
Acts 17 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. Remember how human dispersion was described in the narrative the Tower of Babel? Here, to refresh your memory. https://www.gotquestions.org/Tower-of-Babel.html According to the Scriptures, We're all of ONE BLOOD, trevor. Remember that. Everyone on Earth is related to everyone else, DNA shows http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/07/science/la-sci-european-dna-20130508 https://www.livescience.com/38613-genetic-adam-and-eve-uncovered.html Did it ever occur to you that human heritage could go all the way back, thus it explains why there's common accounts of history within the stories of various peoples and cultures?
Neither is putting blinders on. There are so many eye witnesses to aliens, that are credible accounts from jet fighter pilots, to navy crews, to Columbus, and on and on. Ignoring them proves my point that science resists changes to their cannon. I've been within a hundred feet of a UFO. And I've seen them out in space at night, doing things that are impossible for our technology. Try watching the stars on a clear night for a while.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-family-tree http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-family-tree
UFO means "unidentified flying object". I believe you saw an unidentified flying object. However, you don't have sufficient evidence to jump from there to suggesting the object is the aircraft of a sentient being from someplace outside our planet.
