You are correct. It was not my intent to imply that the Bible is a science book, but rather the notion that it supplies ultimate answers such as the "Who" and "what" origin question answered in Genesis 1:1, a starting point rejected by some secular scientists and scholars. Based on that answer however, many have moved forward seeking answers to the more specific questions such as the "when" and "how" of it all.It's odd that you speak of people "predisposed to the idea that Bible has nothing to offer science" given that you yourself have stated that "the Bible is not a book of science." And I agree with you on that point.
Analogy or mythology? How can you distinguish between the two? This Book has not been entirely deciphered yet and you speak as one predisposed to its discordance as offering anything relevant.The problem is that the Bible contains mythology that is indistinguishable from the common mythology of the time it was written. So if you interpret, for example, the idea of "stretching the heavens like a tent" as insight into modern cosmology, then you are attributing that idea to the common mythology of the time when the phrase was commonly used by other cultures.
It is you who have erroneously lumped them all together, not I. Do you not know even one arrogant and proud researcher who acts and writes in such a way as to demonstrate their superior knowledge at the expense of the unlearned?And I don't think it is accurate to suggest that scientists are "proud" - on the contrary, scientists are the most humble in as much as they defer to reality and evidence rather than their own opinion (which is the hallmark of dogmatists).
Do I sound like one who has a traditional dogmatic approach to the Bible? If so, I have misspoken. I am humbled by its ability to lift me up with inspiration in one passage, and then utterly debase me in another. It is so rich in symbolism and prophesy that it continues to challenge even the most enlightened scholars who are greatly familiar with its content. If I am dogmatic, it is in this way, I am confident in God's extraordinary and supernatural ability to ultimately unify Biblical Truth with Reason. To me, that is a reasonable Biblical dogma.I don't see how this kind of evidence could ever support the traditional dogmatic interpretation of the Bible.
You are simply exercising that a wonderful gift of liberty bestowed upon you by your creator.I accept the evidence of the Bible Wheel, but I do not accept that it implies traditional Christianity is true.
Of course you do, it's called "Fatih" or "Trust" if you prefer.It's a very strange paradox, but I have no choice.
Thanks Richard for always making me feel welcome here.Great chatting, as always,