Changes

Thanks for pointing out how others had mistaken comments I made.  You are correct with what I said about lying in the Bible, and Peter is a perfect example.  However, you and they are wrong to claim that I "cherry pick".  My position has always been that you can determine whether something is meant to be taken literally by the context and knowledge of the language, as Professor James Barr (not a creationist) did (see [[creation week]]).  And contrary to a claim made by someone of whom I'll have more to say in a moment (this is for their benefit) that [[creation week]] has no evidence, it in fact has (a) a number of supporting arguments about word use (admittedly unreferenced), (b) a referenced quote from an expert (Barr) who also says the other experts agree, and (c) a referenced summary of a formal study into the text.  Perhaps ''he'' is simply seeing (or not seeing) what he wants to (not) see.  Before I saw your comments, I was thinking of saying something anyway (such as on my user page).  That same accuser (Kels) also accused ''me'' and Creation Ministries International of lying, ("he won't hesitate to lie and twist at the slightest opportunity" and "He accepts every lie creationontheweb feeds him") yet offered no evidence of that whatsoever.  I accept that many people don't accept my views and think that I'm mistaken, deluded, or even stupid, but I don't go around saying things that I know to be untrue (and nor does CMI).  Accusations like that without solid supporting evidence are nothing short of libel (not that I could be bothered suing), and he is despicable for making the accusation, and should be censured by others there, but by their silence they are just as bad.  And they have the gall to criticise Conservapedia!  Finally, to answer a loaded question, I accept both parts of the creation account, because I see no conflict between them (just like most of the rest of the millions who have studied the Bible for centuries)  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:34, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for pointing out how others had mistaken comments I made.  You are correct with what I said about lying in the Bible, and Peter is a perfect example.  However, you and they are wrong to claim that I "cherry pick".  My position has always been that you can determine whether something is meant to be taken literally by the context and knowledge of the language, as Professor James Barr (not a creationist) did (see [[creation week]]).  And contrary to a claim made by someone of whom I'll have more to say in a moment (this is for their benefit) that [[creation week]] has no evidence, it in fact has (a) a number of supporting arguments about word use (admittedly unreferenced), (b) a referenced quote from an expert (Barr) who also says the other experts agree, and (c) a referenced summary of a formal study into the text.  Perhaps ''he'' is simply seeing (or not seeing) what he wants to (not) see.  Before I saw your comments, I was thinking of saying something anyway (such as on my user page).  That same accuser (Kels) also accused ''me'' and Creation Ministries International of lying, ("he won't hesitate to lie and twist at the slightest opportunity" and "He accepts every lie creationontheweb feeds him") yet offered no evidence of that whatsoever.  I accept that many people don't accept my views and think that I'm mistaken, deluded, or even stupid, but I don't go around saying things that I know to be untrue (and nor does CMI).  Accusations like that without solid supporting evidence are nothing short of libel (not that I could be bothered suing), and he is despicable for making the accusation, and should be censured by others there, but by their silence they are just as bad.  And they have the gall to criticise Conservapedia!  Finally, to answer a loaded question, I accept both parts of the creation account, because I see no conflict between them (just like most of the rest of the millions who have studied the Bible for centuries)  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:34, 28 October 2008 (EDT)