Tom,

You're not getting the point that is at the core of what I'm saying. I'm going to explain one more time in case there are others who aren't seeing it as well.

You said:



OK, what you're saying is this:

Fact: Because there are "so many flavors of Christianity",

Conclusion: The Bible is ambiguous.

I agree with your fact. Your conclusion, however, is just pain silly.

Let me demonstrate my point with a question:

Fact: Many dentists (probably the vast majority at this time) believe that mercury, once it is combined with the other substances in an amalgam filling, form a "stable alloy..similar to the way sodium and chlorine...combine to form table salt" (from ADA website Jan 15 2006). They also believe that "...a person would have to have almost 500 amalgam fillings in his mouth to see subtle symptoms even if he were the most mercury sensitive patient" (from ADA website, Jan 15 2006). However, a growing number of dentists believe that amalgam fillings can be and are harmful, so much so that they no longer use them in practice.

Your Conclusions: What would you conclude from this information given above? Would you conclude that the data about amalgam toxicity is ambiguous? Would you conclude that there just isn't any way to know?

A very small amount of mercury is toxic to all humans. This is well-known in the medical literature. Mercury vapor comes off amalgam fillngs 24/7. This is also well-known. Yet, these 2 groups of people have come to completely different conclusions. How? Why? What does this mean?

Based on the method you used to reach your previous conclusions, you would conclude that the base information about amalgam is ambiguous. However, this is simply not true. How do we know? Derived logic. Read on...

(1) FACT: Mercury is a well-known very dangerous toxin.

(2) FACT: Mercury escapes from amalgam fillings 24/7.

If we assume that at least some of the escaping mercury is inhaled or ingested (which is logical), we have to conclude the following derived fact:

(3) Amalgam fillings cause mercury toxicity.

It's much like saying:

IF
A = B
AND
B = C
THEN (we can conclude)
A = C.

It is the most simple form of derived logic.

When you see differing opinions like this, it always means that there is a break in the logical flow. In other words, someone is breaking the rules of coming to logical conclusions (replacing one of these "=" with one of these "~"). If we all came to logical conclusions, we would all come to the same conclusions and what a friendly world it would be.

So where is the break in logic in our mercury scenario? I'll cut to the chase.

The ADA profits from the manufacture of amalgam fillings. How? The ADA holds two related (profitable) patents which are exposed in a video we're soon going to sell on the Herb Allure website called Quecksilber. The ADA has been lying to dentists about the safety of amalgam fillings and the dentists have been assuming that the ADA has been telling them truth. This is the break in logic, the false assumption.

The break in logic in your conclusion about the Bible is that you are basing your opinion on the opinion of others who don't know the Bible. It's that simple. You are deriving information from a "bad" source.

I realize that it's a sad statement to say that most people who call themselves Christians haven't read the Bible—the definition of their belief system—for themselves. It is a sad statement indeed. Nevertheless, it's true. The fact is, the vast majority of Christians derive their information about the Bible from preachers and the vast majority of these preachers don't read the Bible to them cover-to-cover. They just preach their opinions on certain more "interesting" or "emotionally enticing" parts of the Bible (not every congregation has this problem, but the vast majority do). This is sad; Very sad.

You also have the problem that a lot of the newer translations of the Bible do not accurately translate the original language. Again, there are people with an anti-Bible agenda marketing their own Bible translations intended to slander the original work. This is why I recommend using the King James or New King James translations and getting an old Strong's as a reference (I've seen some of the newer Strong's that have been altered as well).

Ironically, the Bible itself foretold details about this time we live in. It says that they (the preachers) will become "ticklers of their (the congregation's) ears". In other words, teaching them only the emotionally enticing parts of the Bible and ignoring the deeper stuff. This is another break in logic.

So, here's the big picture.

Bible (information)
~~ break in logic from preachers personal emotional bends ~~
~~ break in logic from misunderstandings ~~
~~ break in logic from anti-Bible seminaries ~~
Congregation
~~ break in logic from poor communication skills ~~
~~ break in logic from personal emotional bends ~~
~~ break in logic from Bible slanderers ~~
Tom

You can see that there is plenty of room for breaks in logic between you and the book itself. This is the reason I keep urging you to look at the book for itself. That is the only way you're going to get a clear, direct picture of whether the book is ambiguous or not.

I watched Discovery Channel (owned by Discovery Networks which is one of the biggest Bible slandering corporations in the world) for a few minutes the other day and heard that the belief that crocodiles have supernatural spiritual significance is an "old Christian belief". Hmmm, news to me. I've read the Bible cover-to-cover at least 8 times now and I've never seen anything like that anywhere. How can something be a "Christian" belief if it does not appear in the defining Christian literature? Actually, I hear this kind of Bible slandering on TV all the time. Their goal is to keep you from discovering (another irony) the true nature of this amazing book by NEVER LOOKING AT IT.

It's no different then the video called "The Clinton Chronicles". The mainstream media slandered it so badly that my boss at the time would not even watch it when I offered to give it to him. Of couse, this is the whole idea because had he watched it, he would have discovered that it's one of the most compelling and shocking videos ever made about politics. It's incredible and will keep you glued to the screen every minute.

Tom, my hat's off to you for at least reading this conversation, however I am disappointed that you didn't address the fact the you know little or nothing first-hand about the book you hold such a strong opinion about.

I urge everyone to get their information directly from the source.

It's the logical thing to do <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />