Re: ASA, ID, Blogs and my observations

>Not to ague with an astute a person as you, Glenn, but I see no reason to attribute Such magical qualities ti the OT
>writings.

Wally, when has that stopped you--besides many might not think me so astute after some of these recent posts. :-)

>Was it not adequate that early Christians acme to receive the Spirit w/o the Bible for their their teaching?

The problem with Christian apologetics is that its starting assumption is that Christianity is true and they then derive their arguments from that logical starting point. Thus, apologetics becomes a huge petitio principii (assuming the conclusion). If a true apologetic is to be developed it must start without that assumption.  The assumption I mentioned above is why people argue that one can start at the resurrection with their apologetic, or that one can start with faith, or just with the spirit.  Ultimately, while there is no proof of anything in this world, save mathematics, but one can't start an apologetic with the assumption that one's theology can't be wrong.  Yet that is what apologists on the left and the right do.  The YECs disparage science to save the Bible from being false; the left has the bible say absolutely nothing of tangible interest in order to have the Bible tell us truths. The sum toto of all this finagling is to make the Bible irrelevant to reality. No wonder we are beginning to move into a post-Christian era.

>I see no need for you demand that the Bible be scientifically accurate.

Then you see no need for the bible to address reality.  Interesting.

>Sounds like you were overly brainwash by YEC theology during that period. of time.

No, I am overly addicted to truth, logic and consistency.  It is this addiction to logic and consistency which has made me a good oil-finder and allowed me to rise to the level I have. I won't give that up easily.