Maybe its just me, but I see the Bible as an understanding for "Children" and a problem for many others which is why I would support Noetic. That said, the arguments by MyJoe and Krayola also make sense - the Bible might make "better sense" to a Christian but those who are not christian have their own day and are not totally out of it. They see it from a legalistic and more critical, less trusting point of view which IMHO, makes sense. Christians are exhorted to test every spirit and if we believe the Bible lives and is relevant, by all means test it, prove it and put it through the fire - If Gold, it will emerge pure and if dross, better we know now, ehn?

We have example of  the apostle going through the scriptures with an Ethiopian eunuch who, from what the Bible says, got the message. So its not like the pages are totally dimmed when an unbeliever reads honestly searching for information about itself or for knowledge. Where problems may arise is where I open it for the express purpose of finding fault. At this point, when it says "Sunrise", that becomes an issue even if/though National Geographic uses the term regularly.

We Christians though ought be careful, to not insult God, by lying for Him and forcing in things that are not there. If I force things into the Bible which I feel "support" God, do I have a moral justification to protest when anyone forces "contrary" things into the Bible? I never did see God trying to twist His way out of any mess anyway and unfortunately, phrases like "keep lying for Jesus" are our fault, not Jesus' fault and end up reflecting on Christianity rather than the individual involved.

Pastor AIO:

How clever!! You know that I'm not gonna bother myself to take up point for point. I've seen others try and fail and I know that I don't have the stomach. There is nothing that will not succumb to your agenda. Even the english language will crumble as you twist and mangle it. What is an assumption/presumption? Can you show where the assumptions was made. EVen the bible itself will be crushed under the weight of your idiotic doctrine.

You know you can't take it up point for point why then start what you can't finish? 

Pastor AIO:

My AGenda is to declare the Truth however and wherever it may present itself.

Jesus is the Truth that you need and He is not a concept but a Person.

toneyb:

Doctrine of equivocation, saying what the bible does not even try to say and lying that the universe is 6000 years old. Well done Olaadegbu.

Equivocation did you say? I thought that was the preserve of the atheists' evolutionists or is that a case of a pot calling the kettle black? For you to know what the truth is you have to be able to recognise it when you are confronted with it.

JeSoul:

I took some time to surf a few articles on that link - I have seen those arguments before and there is nothing new. And frankly most of it is much ado about nothing. I don't want to go off on another tangent so I'll just leave it at that.

It depends on what you are looking for in those articles, arguments or the truth that will set you free?

nuclearboy:

We Christians though ought be careful, to not insult God, by lying for Him and forcing in things that are not there. If I force things into the Bible which I feel "support" God, do I have a moral justification to protest when anyone forces "contrary" things into the Bible? I never did see God trying to twist His way out of any mess anyway and unfortunately, phrases like "keep lying for Jesus" are our fault, not Jesus' fault and end up reflecting on Christianity rather than the individual involved.

I will appreciate it if you can come out clearly and point out who and what you don't agree with or what has been said instead of generalising.  Who is insulting God, who is 'lying for Him' or 'forcing things that are not there'?  If you don't agree with the answers given to the questions asked by these skeptics why don't you point them out and address them? I believe that will be a much better witness to the truth instead of putting words under your tongue.

Inerrancy According to Christ

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18)

Here is the commentary of the Lord Jesus on the doctrine of plenary verbal inspiration.  Not only were the words of the Bible divinely inspired, but even the very letters!  The "jot" was the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet (yod, the tenth letter).  The[i] "tittle"[/i] was a small horn-like appendage which transformed one Hebrew letter into another.  Thus, a stronger statement of absolute verbal inspiration than this could hardly be imagined.

Further, the phrase "in no wise" is actually a double negative in Greek.  In New Testament Greek it was used for strong emphasis.  According to none other than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, every word--even every letter--of the "law" must be fulfilled.  This certainly includes the books of the Pentateuch--including even the often-maligned and distorted opening chapters of Genesis!

He applied the same principle to other parts of Scripture as well.  "The scripture cannot be broken," He said (John 10:35) in the course of an exposition of Psalm 82:6, based on one single word used in the verse, supporting the vital doctrine of His own deity.

It is clear that Christ taught the doctrine of full, verbal inspiration of the Holy Scriptures.  It is sad and inexcusable that so many today who call themselves Christians repudiate this vital teaching of the Lord Jesus by rejecting, diluting, or "interpreting" the plain statements of the Word of God.  And, lest anyone equivocate by suggesting that, since the original writings have all been lost, we no longer can know what the divinely given words may have been, we should remember Christ's promise: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matthew 24:35).  HMM.

OLAADEGBU:

I will appreciate it if you can come out clearly and point out who and what you don't agree with or what has been said instead of generalising.  Who is insulting God, who is 'lying for Him' or 'forcing things that are not there'?  If you don't agree with the answers given to the questions asked by these skeptics why don't you point them out and address them? I believe that will be a much better witness to the truth instead of putting words under your tongue.

We say fanatical sons of Muslims die for their God whist God's Son died for us leaning towards a belief that we DO NOT fight for God but He fights for us - well, Sir, you are fighting for God here. Satan is known for the use of 5% lies mixed in 95% truth. The true portion mostly covers the lie and a show of braggadocio and noise usually carries the day. But discernment brings ridicule like in the cases below -

OLAADEGBU:

Modern Science in an Ancient Book

The infinite extent of the stellar heavens, contradicting the ancient pagan notion of a vaulted sky with stars affixed to a sort of hemispherical dome, is suggested in 22:12. "Is not God in the height of heaven? and behold the height of the stars, how high they are!" (see also Isaiah 55:9, etc.).

"Suggested"? ? ? You wish to become Abuzola's mentor, suggesting for God?    Weren't the TRUE points enough since adding this makes it all suddenly look stretched? 

Then there is your "it will be night here and day there" and general militancy towards people who God loves as equally as He loves you, as though owning the keys to the Kingdom. "can't recognise truth", "can't finish what they started" etc. I prefer not to comment on these 

Look, it is good that you are Christian, bless God for that, but you do not serve His purpose by using "faith" to ADD to His Words. We've all been guilty of this in the past and it is a sign of maturity to accept that none of us can give excuse for the Almighty who point blank refuses to excuse Himself when He says "I AM THAT I AM" - Totally sovereign and not answerable to any!

Tell your audience that one jot from God's Word will not fail - finish! If they will accept the truth, ok, else its them and God. Adding to God's Word, though, does not serve Him. "God's Word is not for any private interpretation".

JeSoul:

Forget Sierra Mist, this is so refreshing, infact it should be bottled up, labelled in the dopest font available, the nutrition contents should read "100% Awesome", then shipped out all around to world to both religious and non-religious alike. And if you think I am flattering you, think in reverse. "I don't know" is the one phrase we all should use most often.

JeSoul:
I have one issue with the above and it is highlighted.

I understand your objection, but for the people I have been opportune to observe at close quarters, I am yet to find one exception.

JeSoul:
  That is a perfectly logical way of approaching the issue, perfectly logical. However, I must defer to Nuclearboy's position, it wouldn't matter if it were discovered tomorrow that the bible was written in a cave, underneath a well, buried in a mountain by Swedish-Yoruba-Asians who were descendants of American Indians from Yaba in California. It wouldn't matter.

Yeah, but this is not in issue.

JeSoul:
Because to a christian, its authenticity is not based on tangible proof that can be acquired and verified by independent sources, but rather its the actual words themselves, it is the text itself, the power in the words therein, they have jumped off the pages and become real in our lives - that is our logical proof for accepting it independent of historical evidence - [b]whether they compliment or stand in opposition to it. [/b]And the man who chooses not to accept it because he hasn't experienced that power is also acting logically himself.

I have problems with this which I have already expressed - not the faith concept, but accepting something on faith in the face of evidence to its contrary. I guess that is where we disagree most fundamentally. 

JeSoul:
I pretty much agree with you here. I can only assume Noetic mis-spoke or meant to assert otherwise? Noetic forgive me if you've already cleared this up in subsequent posts.

You are the first Christian to spot the problem with this, so far. I was beginning to ask myself what the brave Christians who have been jailed, beaten or murdered trying to get Bibles to “unsaved” people in “unsaved” lands will make of this thread. Or how Dr Luke will feel, seeing as he spent good time writing his gospel so The Right Honourable Theophilus may read and become a Christian.

JeSoul:
Yes indeed it will be the honest thing - for those who first accepted it based on its correlation with archeaological findings. For someone like me (who happens to actually fancy archeaology) *shrugs her shoulders* it really makes no difference. And I hope you find that to be an honest position.

It is a position capable of leading one astray. Amiss. Afield. Awry.

JeSoul:
You know, I think you would be suprised, many of us would be, if we really knew how many christians have questioned and are questioning the bible. I am one. I come across verses and stories that leave me scratching my head, leave me sliding back and forth on the entire length of the emotional spectrum, ranging from confusion, to bewilderment, to fear, to disbelief and yes even anger sometimes.

Yeah. I am much more comfortable with Christians who, on being asked why God killed children who were just being children by making fun of Elisha, or struck Uzzah dead, simply say, "there are some things in the Bible I can't make sense of, but it doesn't affect my faith" than those who writhe, wriggle, stretch their cerebral veins to bursting points, and make nonsense of common sense, trying to justify these acts.

JeSoul:
  But there is this thing, an intangible, incommunicable element that reassures me (and I'm sure other believers) that inspite of the fact complete understanding escapes my limited faculties, I can still wholeheartedly trust it, and that what is hidden from us now, will be made manifest someday. I guess the element is faith, working in collaboration with the Holy Spirit.

There are other explanations - but that is where we disagree! 

JeSoul:
  I hope alla dat ^^^ makes some sense.

A whole lot of it!

OLAADEGBU:

Biblical Accuracy
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.

"If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?" (John 3:12).

Many who profess to be Christian intellectuals today are arguing that we should defer to the evolutionists in matters of science and history, since the real message of the Bible is spiritual.  The Genesis account, for example, is not meant to give us details of the events of creation, for scientists can give us this information.  It merely assures us that God is somehow behind it all.  But if this were all that God meant to tell us, its very first verse is enough for that!  What is the need to describe all the days and acts of creation at all if the record has no real relevance to history or science?

As the Lord Jesus told Nicodemus in our text verse, if we cannot trust God's Word when it relates "earthly things," how can we possibly rely on its testimony of "heavenly things"?  To some extent we can check for ourselves whether or not it is accurate when it records facts of history and processes of nature, but we have no means at all of determining whether it speaks the truth when it deals with heaven and hell, with salvation and eternal life, or with God's purpose for the world in the ages to come.

The fact is that the Bible is accurate in all matters with which it deals, scientific and historical as well as spiritual and theological.  It is a dangerous thing to listen to these modern "pied pipers" of evangelicalism whose self-serving compromises with evolutionary scientism have already led multitudes of young people astray in our Christian colleges and seminaries.

We yet may not have all the answers to alleged problems in the Bible, but we can be absolutely sure of God's Word.  When the answers are found, they will merely confirm what He has said all along.  He is able and willing to speak the truth, and He means what He says! HMM

The part I have highlighted in blue is the meat of this write-up, but unfortunately it is clear the writer does not believe it, himself.

I also agree with him on the Nicodemus bit in red. If the Bible is found to err in the earthly things, the least we can do is thread with care in the heavenly things it contains.

haha. I think I'm goin to follow Olaagbedu's lead and start to post my own propaganda! I have some videos of chats I had with a former prof of mine that relate to this thread. Camera is a lil off focus cause this is some hidden camera type stuff I was trying to pull off


[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=df8-FJP_P14&hl=en_US&fs=1&[/flash]


[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6-wOndG2tY&hl=en_US&fs=1&[/flash]

So you got the audio to work at last. Are you sure your lecturer is not going to find out as you have put it on youtube?

Anyway sha, thanks for that. More please. It is between you and Oladegbu now.

On the right corner in white looking lithe and sharp, dancing like a butterfly and promising to sting like a bee, we have . . . .
[size=16pt]Ola the Krayolaaaaaaaa.
[/size]
And on the left hand corner, oh dear . . . Armed with a pile of comic books and cartoons, looking heavy and rather clumsy we have . . .
[size=16pt]Olaadegbuuuuuuuu.[/size]

Pastor AIO:

So you got the audio to work at last.  Are you sure your lecturer is not going to find out as you have put it on youtube?

Anyway sha, thanks for that.  More please.  It is between you and Oladegbu now.

On the right corner in white looking lithe and sharp, dancing like a butterfly and promising to sting like a bee, we have  . . . .
[size=16pt]Ola the Krayolaaaaaaaa.
[/size]
And on the left hand corner, oh dear . . .  Armed with a pile of comic books and cartoons, looking heavy and rather clumsy we have   . . .
[size=16pt]Olaadegbuuuuuuuu.[/size]

haha. Don King in the building!!

Olaadegbu will thrash me based on volume alone. He has an endless supply of propaganda. No one can keep up. 

Yeah, i got some of them to work. The ones I really want to post are the lectures on Jesus, but they were 3 hr classes and converting them, then posting them is just an impossible mission. Itll mean first converting each class which would take about two hours, each. . .then cutting them into ten minute clips (for each class), then uploading each clip, etc etc. . . .   I was going to go thru them and just edit so I have the parts I think people will be interested in, but they are just soooo long and sooo much work, that I doubt I'll have time to do it all any time soon.

But I'll post some more later though. Glad u're interested. 

And if the lecturer finds out I'm in deep doo doo so I'll have to remove them soon. lol

Krayola:

haha. Don King in the building!!

Olaadegbu will thrash me based on volume alone. He has an endless supply of propaganda. No one can keep up. 

Yeah, i got some of them to work. The ones I really want to post are the lectures on Jesus, but they were 3 hr classes and converting them, then posting them is just an impossible mission. Itll mean first converting each class which would take about two hours, each. . .then cutting them into ten minute clips (for each class), then uploading each clip, etc etc. . . .   I was going to go thru them and just edit so I have the parts I think people will be interested in, but they are just soooo long and sooo much work, that I doubt I'll have time to do it all any time soon.

But I'll post some more later though. Glad u're interested. 

And if the lecturer finds out I'm in deep doo doo so I'll have to remove them soon. lol

You be real NSO. In fact how are we sure that you are not sent here to spy on us. Your name should be 'Bond, James Bond'.

Don't worry about Olaadegbu's volume. It is not about how wildly you can swing or thrash about but scoring points. Just be nimble, dance around and score those jabs to the head combined with the occasional body shot and you'll be alright.
Of course he won't give up. He'll be like one of those fighters that after the referee mercifully calls off the fight he'll jump up and keep protesting that he wants to continue, but you know that deep down he's thinking "phew, this bobo nearly kill me sha".

@MyJoe:

I doubt you got the gist of what Jesoul said else how you can disagree with it beats me. Basically, she says "it is logical for a Christian to read what he/she reads into the Bible". However and at the same time, it is also reasonable what an atheist/unbeliever sees in it. IMO, the idea is that both come with a different agenda and thus find different truths in the Word.

Sincerely (and I think many "so called" Christians will castigate me for this) I believe that being on "this" side compels that one considers the evidence with a bit of bias which helps justify much of what is in print. That however, is not a bad thing as each of us ALWAYS chooses themselves over others and seen from this point of view, we are not being dishonest, only trusting! Where the supposed "opponent" sees a half empty cup, we see a half full one! Which of us is wrong? I dare anyone to tell me I am wrong when they cannot "prove" they are right! If we had 100% proof of everything, all of you would be Christians, wouldn't you?

That is why we look at the Bible as a message that comes off the pages and becomes truth, a personal experience, a reality to be found "individually" rather than as a herd. God is mine and I am His, a father to me and that is what concerns me, not whether He is same to others, choosing His Anointed, loving them who follow and trust Him.

nuclearboy:

@MyJoe:

I doubt you got the gist of what Jesoul said else how you can disagree with it beats me. Basically, she says "it is logical for a Christian to read what he/she reads into the Bible". However and at the same time, it is also reasonable what an atheist/unbeliever sees in it. IMO, the idea is that both come with a different agenda and thus find different truths in the Word.

Sincerely (and I think many "so called" Christians will castigate me for this) I believe that being on "this" side compels that one considers the evidence with a bit of bias which helps justify much of what is in print. That however, is not a bad thing as each of us ALWAYS chooses themselves over others and seen from this point of view, we are not being dishonest, only trusting! Where the supposed "opponent" sees a half empty cup, we see a half full one! Which of us is wrong? I dare anyone to tell me I am wrong when they cannot "prove" they are right! If we had 100% proof of everything, all of you would be Christians, wouldn't you?

I agree completely with the two paragraphs above.

nuclearboy:
That is why we look at the Bible as a message that comes off the pages and becomes truth, a personal experience, a reality to be found "individually" rather than as a herd. God is mine and I am His, a father to me and that is what concerns me, not whether He is same to others, choosing His Anointed, loving them who follow and trust Him.

This is a statement of faith which I cannot dispute. But you will agree with me that people of different religions all say this and they can’t all be “right”. That is why every non-sharer of your faith does not simply take it from you when you tell her how real it is to you, having experienced it. I hope this helps explain my position to you.

What I understand JeSoul to be saying, the part I disagree with, is that whether the evidence proves the authenticity of the Bible or disproves it does not matter because the Christian does not rely on such terrestrial proofs. He relies on the power of the Bible in his life, that is, the words come alive as the individual Christian experiences their power… or something like that.

And my response is: I disagree that a book should be accepted on faith because we know that faith can be misleading, considering the fact that there are sincere people of faith in all the religions of the world and they can’t all be right. Therefore, when considering which holy book to rely on, or, as in this case, the extent to trust it, we cannot afford to discard material evidence (and common sense!). That is, the Christian will do well to pay attention to the evidence, which will help him to see if the Bible is (1) infallible, and (2) does contain everything. This is important because if the Bible is not inerrant and does not contain everything there are consequences – (1) there may be biblical doctrines that are not true, (2) there may be non-biblical doctrines that are true.

MyJoe:


And my response is: I disagree that a book should be accepted on faith because we know that faith can be misleading, considering the fact that there are sincere people of faith in all the religions of the world and they can’t all be right. Therefore, when considering which holy book to rely on, or, as in this case, the extent to trust it, we cannot afford to discard material evidence (and common sense!). That is, the Christian will do well to pay attention to the evidence, which will help him to see if the Bible is (1) infallible, and (2) does contain everything. This is important because if the Bible is not inerrant and does not contain everything there are consequences – (1) there may be biblical doctrines that are not true, (2) there may be non-biblical doctrines that are true.

who is we?

I get your point, MyJoe. I think where there is an issue is in the defining of the word "Faith".

So what is faith? Is it just belief in anything I feel like believing in? Or is it something realistic? Can my belief that you, MyJoe, are "God", be called faith? Grammatically, it is evidence of things not yet seen (WHICH THOUGH EXIST AND ARE TRUE!). The part in caps is the Christian part and our evidence is our problem - yet its real!

Now, my "faith" that you are "MyJoe", whatever that is, is true, BECAUSE YOU ARE! The problem arises when I try to prove that "faith" to anyone since it is not supported by tangible evidence. We find people having individual "personal" experiences which only they understand - so they believe such but those who have not had such experiences find them strange, ridiculous, funny etc. Its like Nostradamus seeing "ships" as floating iron cities or having visions of a mass murderer named "Hister". Today, it makes sense to us with benefit of hindsight. How did it look to those who listened to him then? Insane? Strange? Was he wrong? That is a "type" of our situation today i.e. those who know what they follow and are in it for truth rather than those who build a career off it or find the "semblance" covers their personal "issues", real or imagined.

When reality points to a statement/understanding/idea being obviously wrong but we find people believing in it, we know thats not faith but delusion. Show me delusion in the Bible by proving the opposite of its claims and bro, I'll  be on your side like white on ice!

BTW, I give you kudos, for in all your posts, I see intelligent sincerity rather than the easy but myopic ridicule most use to cover their ignorance or fear that maybe, they are wrong. I would give same to Krayola but the fact he hasn't allowed me drop kick him has me miffed at his black canadian bottom  

nuclearboy:

I get your point, MyJoe. I think where there is an issue is in the defining of the word "Faith".

<snip>

When reality points to a statement/understanding/idea being obviously wrong but we find people believing in it, we know thats not faith but delusion. Show me delusion in the Bible by proving the opposite of its claims and bro, I'll  be on your side like white on ice!

<snip>

I like this, nucelarboy, Good job!

Fantastic exchange fellas. Nuclear, we might as well be twins, you have responded as I would have.

Its friday. I wanna play devil's advocate:

nuclearboy:
When reality points to a statement/understanding/idea being obviously wrong but we find people believing in it, we know thats not faith but delusion. Show me delusion in the Bible by proving the opposite of its claims and bro, I'll  be on your side like white on ice!

What about the "Virgin Birth"? all of reality asserts that it is[b] impossible [/b] for a woman to get pregnant without having gotten busy. Unless they had artificial insemination back in the day . . .

JeSoul:

Fantastic exchange fellas. Nuclear, we might as well be twins, you have responded as I would have.

Its friday. I wanna play devil's advocate:
  What about the "Virgin Birth"? all of reality asserts that it is[b] impossible [/b] for a woman to get pregnant without having gotten busy. Unless they had artificial insemination back in the day . . .

With the knowledge that hermaphrodites are a natural instance, is it biologically impossible that maybe there was a pre-fertilized egg in Mary's womb? Or is it biologically impossible that there was another form of anomaly that led to a fertilization in the womb, whether spermatozoa were directly involved or not?

InesQor:

With the knowledge that hermaphrodites are a natural instance, is it biologically impossible that maybe there was a pre-fertilized egg in Mary's womb? Or is it biologically impossible that there was another form of anomaly that led to a fertilization in the womb, whether a spermatozoa was directly involved or not?

Yeah, there are anomalies all around us - biologically, geologically, scientifically etc . . .

I was trying to make a point that "reality" does not leave room for the miraculous, and the miraculous is a huge component of the bible.

JeSoul:

Yeah, there are anomalies all around us - biologically, geologically, scientifically etc . . .

I was trying to make a point that "reality" does not leave room for the miraculous, and the miraculous is a huge component of the bible.

Okay. I am not sure, however, that anomalies are not a part of reality. But I guess that depends on the definition of reality. Errr. . .

@Jesoul:

Friday, ehn? Lets help you perform your litigation - do your ablutions, face Mecca, kneel down and do every surat 7ce between now and tomorrow dawn - that'll show you devil.  

The Virgin birth is an anomaly just as creation and evolution are anomalies. Prove either of these "scientifically" i.e. wth evidence of it being repeatable and observable and I'll send you proof of the virgin birth.  

BTW, I never get experience reach to call myself your twin. As we say, no matter how fast the hells run, they'll always find the toes out in front. Salutee!

@JeSoul: what I'm trying to say is that I do not know of any concrete scientific research that fully declares the 100% impossibility (not the very high, say, 99% improbability) of the virgin birth.

nuclearboy:

@Jesoul:

<snip>

The Virgin birth is an anomaly just as creation and evolution are anomalies. Prove either of these "scientifically" i.e. wth evidence of it being repeatable and observable and I'll send you proof of the virgin birth.  

<snip>

@nuclearboy: Interesting example right there! I think the probability of ex nihilo creation and the probability of evolution were (still are) both so slim that they qualify to be called anomalies as well. Oh my, they're your reality today, as well as they are mine! 

nuclearboy:

@MyJoe:

That is why we look at the Bible as a message that comes off the pages and becomes truth, a personal experience, a reality to be found "individually" rather than as a herd. God is mine and I am His, a father to me and that is what concerns me, not whether He is same to others, choosing His Anointed, loving them who follow and trust Him.

The problem with this position is that you no longer have what one might call objective truths, but as many truths as there are people who believe that the bible is the true word of god. Thus, different interpretations of the same body of text. Surely, this individualism is the antithesis of what Christianity is supposed to be about. Either they are objective truths, or there are none.

InesQor:

Okay. I am not sure, however, that anomalies are not a part of reality. But I guess that depends on the definition of reality. Errr. . .

I will go one step further and say that they are!   but we (and the Word) don't call them or view them as anomalies - which are usually random occurences and usually without purpose or reason. Different from miracles imo. Purposed, designed, ordered, defined and executed onto a specific end and for a specific reason.

InesQor:

@JeSoul: what I'm trying to say is that I do not know of any concrete scientific research that fully declares the 100% impossibility (not the very high, say, 99% improbability) of the virgin birth.

hehe, neither do I. The shortcomings of "scientific research" are evidenced on the daily. Look no further than the adamant atheist who declares there is no God

InesQor:

With the knowledge that hermaphrodites are a natural instance, is it biologically impossible that maybe there was a pre-fertilized egg in Mary's womb? Or is it biologically impossible that there was another form of anomaly that led to a fertilization in the womb, whether spermatozoa were directly involved or not?

Hi InesQor.  It is impossible that a biological anomaly will create or rather form a zygote without fertilization. Fertilization can happen invivo  or in testubes. Fertilization can result from a fusion of egg and sperm or by fertilization of an ex-nucleated egg with a somatic "gamete" (cloning). I do not believe that Jesus was not procreated physically. Besides, I do not see any reason why Jesus has to be born without procreation, afterall, it is God that decreed procreation as a method for propagating the human species. Best wishes.

nuclearboy:

@Jesoul:

Friday, ehn? Lets help you perform your litigation - do your ablutions, face Mecca, kneel down and do every surat 7ce between now and tomorrow dawn - that'll show you devil.  

Hehe, yes oh, friday. This ablution self, too much wahala, can I just give alms?  

The Virgin birth is an anomaly just as creation and evolution are anomalies. Prove either of these "scientifically" i.e. wth evidence of it being repeatable and observable and I'll send you proof of the virgin birth.  

Hehe . . . this one na easy way out now. Sweat small . . . how can Jesus walk on water? the law of reality gravity states that it is impossible!  

BTW, I never get experience reach to call myself your twin. As we say, no matter how fast the hells run, they'll always find the toes out in front. Salutee!

Yeah right. The ones who are most gracious are usually guilty of greatness. I mean just look at InesQor!  

m_nwankwo:

Hi InesQor. It is impossible that a biological anomaly will create or rather form a zygote without fertilization. Fertilization can happen invivo or in testubes. Fertilization can result from a fusion of egg and spermatozoa or by fertilization of an ex-nucleated egg with a somatic "gamete" (cloning). I do not believe that Jesus was not procreated physically. Besides, I do not see any reason why Jesus has to be born without procreation, afterall, it is God that decreed procreation as a method for propagating the human species. Best wishes.

And a Scientist, a very good one at that, has spoken

JeSoul:

And a Scientist, a very good one at that, has spoken

Hahaha my sister. How are you? Stay blessed.

m_nwankwo:

Hi InesQor.  It is impossible that a biological anomaly will create or rather form a zygote without fertilization. Fertilization can happen invivo  or in testubes. Fertilization can result from a fusion of egg and spermatozoa or by fertilization of an ex-nucleated egg with a somatic "gamete" (cloning). I do not believe that Jesus was not procreated physically. Besides, I do not see any reason why Jesus has to be born without procreation, afterall, it is God that decreed procreation as a method for propagating the human species. Best wishes.  

Brilliant as usual, my Sir. I however have a problem with science confidently and absolutely defining all aspects of reality without leaving a case for other possibilities, because what is scientific fact right now may be discarded in two hours' time.

For instance, as far as public knowledge goes, science has not yet found other sentient beings in outer space. However, does this really mean we are alone in the universe? What of the possibility that our methods of detection are inferior to their state of existence (c.f. a 2-dimensional object attempting to apprehend a 3-d being)?

Science researches questions posed by scientific theories and hypotheses, and any abolute declaration in science means that there are no future discoveries that may be found in opposition to the established theories. I am not too sure about that. Science has failed much too often, it's only as reliable as the amount of information currently available.

[size=18pt]WHAT IF?[/size]

I prefer the honest statement "It is currently impossible or evidentially improbable" to the absolute statement "It is impossible", in any endeavour of man, be it scientific or otherwise!

---

JeSoul:

Yeah right. The ones who are most gracious are usually guilty of greatness. I mean just look at InesQor!  

Aunty yii, I know you really know better than what you said above 'cos you know my history since this NL world began for me