|Click here to visit the website that has Steve bewildered|
Let me get this straight...So this God created people dumb enough that they wouldn't have understood the real story of how the universe was made, and then had to "dumb down" the story he told them by borrowing from earlier myths and tweaking them in such a way that it sounded exactly like the views that the writers already held. Makes perfect sense...
He *could* (because he's God) have given them a simple-to-understand yet factually correct version of the creation of the earth and its history up to that point, but instead he chose to go with the flawed view that humans had already come up with.
Never mind that he (being God) knew full well that millions of people would believe that these myths were literally true (including Jesus) and many would be killed by the church because of it.Essentially the EC's / TE's want us to believe that God wrote the bible but didn't put into it any knowledge that the writers didn't already have at the time. In other words, God wrote it but made it look like humans had written it.There's a much simpler explanation:Humans wrote it.I'll leave you with occam's razor and let you figure out which one is more likely...
Let's try another one:EC view:Jesus knew that diseases were not caused by evil spirits and demons but accommodated the views of his audience so as not to confuse them.He even went as far as killing a herd of pigs in order to keep the truth secret.To put it another way, Jesus really knew the truth about everything but only pretended not to.(By the way - if you're saying that Jesus really knew the truth but told people something else, that's called LYING, and lying is a sin)
Alternative view:Jesus did not know that germs cause disease, but instead he simply believed that it was demons and evil spirits, the same as everyone else did in his day.See, the problem with EC, is they forget that in order for EC to be the correct view, they don't just need to show that God "could" have accommodated the views of the writers/audience. They also need to show evidence. I don't care much for what is possible or plausible. I care about what is true. And for that we need evidence. Without evidence, we are agnostic at best.If you're insisting that God had a role in evolution, I want to see evidence for that claim.
If you're insisting that the universe could not have happened without God (specifically the biblical God), I want to see evidence for that claim. And to be clear, saying that I have no evidence to the contrary does not make your claim true. Otherwise I will claim that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) poofed the universe into existence, and if you cannot prove he did not, then it must be true.
If you're insisting that the Bible must have been written by God, I want to see evidence of that claim. This kind of requires that you come up with evidence of God first...otherwise we're still left with the question of "which God?". Perhaps it was really the FSM playing games and wanting us to believe in the wrong god just for a laugh.
I think you get the idea. I can handle the claim that there are human words in the Bible. What I'm sceptical of is the view that there are anything BUT human words in the Bible.http://christadelphianevolution.blogspot.com.au/