Fiery Red said:

El Stevereno,
Perhapes there is a tad bit of "cooling" in my last post, it is not due to anything specific you've said, it's simply that from the general thrust of your posts I'm seeing much conjecture, and very little factual information. A lot of "what if's" if you will.
I see a lot of "I feel" and "I believe". Personal interpretations and subjective belief based upon a feeling I've no real interest in debating, as such is entierly based upon a personal world view.<>

I reply: I don't agree with your assessment, however I do respect your right to think so. I do feel that I have been quite candid with what I have submitted to this board...and have used neutral criteria to defend my position a number of times, as well as using Scripture. Now...I also offer my opinion on things, after all, who on this board does not?? Can you think of one? I am the one talking here as I type, not anyone else, so to keep my views out of this...is asking a bit much. Don't you think?

I am sorry that what I submit does not meet your approval and I am equally sorry you felt like I was less than sincere, apparently.


Fiery Red went on to say: You stated in one of your posts that you could provide evidence of the existiance of the divine, yet all that has been presented is personal interpretations. I've no trouble with that, I simply fail to see why I should debate such with anyone.<>

Fiery, in all fairness, I do not believe I said that...at least not like that, anyway. First of all...any perceived evidence I provide on the validity of the Bible...is merely pointed to. It would be the reader deciding on whether it is evidence or not. To me...it is, but then, evidence, or its standard, is NOT the same for everyone.

There are people who are absolutely misleading about the Bible, who claim to believe it. There is evidence of some fraud in science, to make things appear as they are not. In both cases, people have believed in evidence, that was NOT so. My point is...evidence is subjective and relative to its critics. You might agree with that to a point. I am sure we are both aware that innocent people have been arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced on evidence...that appeared a certain way, if not was not contrived. Circumstantial evidence is accepted as *real* evidence in many courts, just as professional or expert opinions are. Yet, I find it amazing that these experts often testify contrary to each other, which I freely admit...is also done concerning the Bible.

Ok, having said that...another piece of evidence I shall offer at this time actually concerns natural science, as we know it today. Back when the Bible was written, there was little known by man concerning the natural water cycle. How the sea evaporates...turns to clouds which condensate then precipitate their moisture to earth...which in turn, flows back to the sea via streams and rivers...was basically a mystery. Yet, the author of the Bible (meaning God)...seems to have understood the process well.

"All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again." Ecclesiastes 1:7 (NIV)

Now if this does not describe saltwater becoming freshwater again, in your mind, fine. But it does to me.
Again, what you accept as evidence...is not necessarily what I accept and vice-vesa and that poses a problem in understanding...unless our minds are more open than most.

As far as you not wanting to debate me, that is fine. I am not really here for debate...anyway, at least not in a strict sense of the word. I enjoyed conversing with you for my part though...as long as it lasted.


Fiery Read goes on: You also write that you don't feel the Bible is to be taken litterally, yet in your current post you state;


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not a literalist...like say, what you might call a fundie. I do not believe that everything is meant to be taken as literal either, but there are certain things that seem to be true to me, because they make since in what I know about God, and it ain't much, believe me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems to me then that you can pick and choose which stories are fact, and which are not, again, this strikes myself as a purely personal interpretation, and one that I've no real interest in debating, as I've found such positions to be rather changeable from moment to moment.<>

ES response: Well, I think I severely muffed my true position, or at least in explaining it to you. I'll have to accept that. However, I would like to add at this time...that I believe almost all of the Bible (say 99.9%) and do look at it as a history book, as well as the foremost guideline for living and getting the most out of life, even though I can't seem to live up to its standards completely.

The parts of the Bible I don't take literally are some apparent generalized time periods...like the Creative day periods I spoke about earlier, along with parables, illustrations, dreams and such...which often represent something more than the actual descriptions. I won't get into how a person can tell...for it really doesn't matter at this point. I certainly don't float around the Biblical text...taking this as true and not that, simply for the conevience in trying to make points.<>

Fiery Red concludes: As to your question on the Japanese and Chinese languages, the Japanese are conciderably seperated from the Chinese mainland by a large body of water, and the langueges evolved among very different lines. In other words, for a few thousand years, the Japanese were culturaly isolated on thier island, very little, if any contact was made with other cultures, exepting the Ainu.
The written forms were a concious effort on the part of the Japanese who, when they encountered the Chinese were rather in awe of the Chinese culture, and deliberatly adopted many things from them, including the written language.<>

Hmmm. I wonder if you notice how the two proceeding paragraphs contradict each other? Either they were in touch and borrowing from each other...or they were not. You can't have it both ways. So...in my view, the two differences in what you present here cancel out each other.

** Originally, I responded to your post last night, but the post has disappeared or never showed up...so I hope this attempt to post has a bit more success.

Anywho (smile)...if this is our last exchange, I wish you all the best in all you do Fiery. Thanks for your time.

Touche',
El Stevereno