Sure, let's talk about the Bible itself. Always a fun subject. My belief in the Bible and the events recorded there is not founded on circular reasoning, though after a while some circles come into it. My belief in the Bible is based on evidence of its veracity. Once I am absolutely convinced of its truth, then I accept other things written in there just because they're written in there, because I regard the document as trustworthy and reliable.

> There is no reason for me to suspend what I know about science, geology, anthropology, archaeology, etc.

I agree 100%. Nor do I suspend anything I know about science, geology, anthropology, archaeology, etc. as a believer. I subscribe to science, and I subscribe to Scripture, and find no contradiction between the two. I neither have to choose one over the other nor compromise one or the other.

> We now know that there was no exodus from Egypt in which there were a couple of million people wandering in the Sinai for 40 years.

The Exodus is a long topic of discussion. There probably isn't room for it here. I've studied it deeply, and I'll just summarize here (at the risk of leaving myself open for target practice).
- There weren't millions of people, but about 25,000. Rationale: the same consonants (original Hebrew had no vowels or vowel points) for "thousands" (lpn) is the same as "clans" (lpn). A simple translation changes 603,000 men to 603 clans. Vast difference.
- I wouldn't expect people wandering in a desert to leave much behind for archaeologists to find.
- Archaeologists dig in city mounds, not in random places around the desert.
- There is debate whether they wandered in Sinai or in Midian. We don't even know where Mt. Sinai even is. Tradition doesn't carry much weight.
- While there is no direct evidence of the Exodus, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
- The indirect evidence of the truthfulness of the exodus is overabundant. EVERYTHING about the story corresponds to the times, the geography and the cultures.

Can't treat it fully, but you absolutely CANNOT responsibly claim with certainty that "there was no exodus from Egypt".

> Camels

From Walton, Matthews, & Chavalas: "Although camel remains in Arabia date back to 2600 BC, domesticated camels were not common in Palestine until 1200 BC. The occasional references to them in Genesis are authenticated by evidence of domestication in an Old Babylonian text from Ugarit from the early second millennium. Evidence that the camel was used as a beast of burden in Arabia dates to the end of the 3rd millennium. The stages of domestication may be traced by the development of the saddles. They were extremely valuable animals capable of carrying heavy loads through hostile desert terrains. Thus they were seldom used for food and would have been a sign of wealth."

For the biblical narratives, there does not have to be widespread domestication. Furthermore, one cannot simply depend on camel remains found in archaeology to make the determination. Camels would have been more often used in nomadic situations and therefore we would not expect their remains to be found as often in settlements where archaeologists would excavate. Radio-carbon dating can only be done on remains that are found, so it is difficult to use that information to determine when camels were first domesticated or used. This information is substantiated also by the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Near East.

> Also modern theology admits the Gospels were anonymous and there were no "eye witnesses".

The Gospels were certain anonymous—that was the nature of the genre. That doesn't mean they're inauthentic. Most novels are anonymous also, except for the name on the cover and title page. All four of the gospels have a "name on the title page," and those names are without dispute in every copy and from the earliest days. There is no canonical gospel parchment without a name attached, and those names are always and without exception Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It's a much longer discussion. I have researched it deeply.

> No eyewitnesses

Au contraire. The gospel are full of details that only an eye-witness would know or bother to write about.

> The claim that there were eye witnesses is a false belief that people have held since the 4th century spread of Christianity.

This is simply untrue. We have documents far earlier than this giving us accurate readings. We can be 98% certain about the readings we have of the gospel documents themselves. This "4th century" accusation is spurious and untrue. We have, all tolled, 25,000 copies of the NT in whole or fragments, giving us tremendous reliability in the text. Thousands are from before the 4th century.

> It is a fact that the first identifiable reference to any Christian gospel was by Justin Martyr around 160 CE.

Actually, Paul refers to "the gospel" in 1 Cor. 15, a text that is almost universally said to be an extremely reliable and early reference. Again, a few of Paul's writings are universally accepted to be genuine writings of Paul's from the 50s AD, and they mention the gospel. It's true that the books of the NT was not assembled into a collection until later, but that says nothing about the reliability of the documents themselves.

> The New Testament is not a historical record nor is there any contemporary witness that verifies any of the bibles miraculous events.

You're right. The miracles are like pebbles dropped in a stream: they leave no evidence of having happened. Again, lack of corroborating historical evidence doesn't guarantee they didn't happen. There no historical evidence of what I had for supper one week ago, but I surely had supper.

Can we still believe the Bible? Sure.
- The copies of the Bible are no hopelessly corrupt, as is superficially accused. In reality our copy of the Bible is astoundingly accurate and remarkably close approximations of the autographs.
- Our multiple translations of the Bible bring out various nuances, not contradictions. Comparing the translations brings clarity. Realistically, disagreements are few and far between. This is a much larger discussion. I'd be curious what examples you have of what you're talking about.
- Nor do the miracles make the Bible mythical. Every scientists knows that the miraculous by definition lies outside of its parameters for experimental verification. Craig Keener, in a recent two-volume set, documented hundreds of miracles in recent years from every continent.

The historical and geographical accuracy of the Bible gives credibility to its reliability as a document of event accuracy. The only reason to doubt the miracles is if you have an unconfirmable presupposition that miracles are impossible.

> How did someone receive special knowledge from God?

Such came about by a variety of means: an audible voice, a miraculous occurrence, a prophetic interpretation of a historical event verified by a miraculous occurrence, dreams and visions, etc.

Let's talk more. I'm sure I haven't addressed everything you have questions about.

You have made some good points. I, on the other hand, seem to have sliced my ball out to the tree line, when, I really intended to lay it up in the short grass. Please allow me to take a mulligan. I’ll tee the ball up a little higher, I hope that it might make a difference. I don't know that this will change your overall position but it should better justify my position and clarify the point I was trying to make. This should get us moving along so others don’t try to play through.

> (3) the true difference between knowledge and belief is indistinguishable. At some point reason and presuppositions (beliefs) have to weigh in to everyone's epistemology where, to be able to proceed with any logic or to live in the "real" world, we have to default to presuppositional beliefs.

I think if we step way back, and I mean waaayyyy back, we would find agreement on the most fundamental level, would, ultimately be true when you say we can't really know anything, i.e., with absolute certainty. However the epistemological problem is not the obstacle in our path, the path is the obstacle. Fortunately, none of us need 100% certainty and knowledge. As a matter of fact, a great many of us in the world are able to get by and survive on starvation portions of common sense and rational thinking skills.

Concerning my views and my example using math is, " an exercise in using our senses ". My views do incorporate some of the principals contained within logical positivism, however, I am not basing the argument solely upon logical positivism. My arguments or view is more situated upon warrant and justification. I tend to hold the views of Carl Popper, who maintained opposition to logical positivism. He held that scientific theories talk about how the world really is, not, as positivists claim, about phenomena or observations experienced by scientists. Concerning my views and my example using math is,

" an exercise in using our senses ".

was that math is ultimately the tool we use logically and rationally organize our thoughts in correspondence to reality. The point is that what we get out of math is that it is a map of the world, a world that is tangible.

Earlier you said:

Again, I see things quite differently, from all my study. The more I study, the more I am absolutely convinced of the Bible's reliability and authority.

And then later:
When you read the Scriptures, and the experiences of Moses, Joshua, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, etc., revelation isn't just floating in the air, "Oh, I had a dream." In that case anyone can say what they want. But Moses said God spoke, and then the sea parted. Joshua said God was with them, and a part of the wall of Jericho fell down.

Here you are beginning to use some circular reasoning, using the bible to support the things you believe, which, came from the bible. I see no warrant to hold that the poetry and writings from many generations of an ancient civilization were anything more than stories and metaphor. There is no reason for me to suspend what I know about science, geology, anthropology, archaeology, etc. For example, we (including modern theology) know that the flood was not an event as described in the bible and you agreed that it was a regional event. However, there was much more to the Flood than just the water. It talked about gathering every animal from all over the world. It claims that the world began anew with eight people. It was about God rebooting creation, establishing a covenant or promise to the new creation. What should someone think really happened?

We now know that there was no exodus from Egypt in which there were a couple of million people wandering in the Sinai for 40 years. We know that when the bible talks about Abraham taking a caravan from Ur to the west that that didn't happen, like the bible claims. Camels were not domesticated until 1000 years later. Also modern theology admits the Gospels were anonymous and there were no "eye witnesses". The claim that there were eye witnesses is a false belief that people have held since the 4th century spread of Christianity. There are many reasons to question the claims of the bible and the claims of traditional Christianity, two very different stories.

> Are you kidding? We have a piece of John from about 125, and pieces of other gospels from early in the second century—nowhere NEAR the 250-300 years you claim. But that's another far-ranging topic for another discussion.

I apologize for my ambiguity here, when I was referring to manuscripts I was meaning the full writing of the book, not the scraps. It is a fact that the first identifiable reference to any Christian gospel was by Justin Martyr around 160 CE. The New Testament is not a historical record nor is there any contemporary witness that verifies any of the bible's miraculous events. What we have today is 160 English bible translations. When we consider the modern versions there is much disagreement and many major theological contradictions that disagree on the very nature of God.

At this point I think you have the burden to show justification for revelation, specifically, justification for how you or someone is supposed to receive new, special knowledge from God. Also in describing revelation it is important to be aware that an explanation is not a justification.

I look forward to your reply.

Fascinating thoughts. Thanks so much for the dialogue. It's intriguing that you've read Plantinga. Whenever I read him, he gives an awful lot of food for thought.

> Do you notice what is happening between the first and second sentence? The topic has changed from knowledge to belief.

Having studied epistemology, then you recognize that the true transition from knowledge to belief is not only smaller than you think, but nonexistent. As any philosopher will gladly tell you, the solution to the epistemic problem has never been truly solved, and when it comes right down to it: (1) We don't really know how we know what we claim to know, (2) all knowledge taken to its most fundamental levels is questionable, (3) the true difference between knowledge and belief is indistinguishable. At some point reason and presuppositions (beliefs) have to weigh in to everyone's epistemology where, to be able to proceed with any logic or to live in the "real" world, we have to default to presuppositional beliefs.

> Almost everything we come to know, comes to us by way of our senses. Even math is in a large part, an exercise in using our senses

I don't agree. Logical positivism (the only types of knowledge are analytic statements [by definition] and empirical statement [by sense experience and evidence]) is an erroneous world view. I also thinks it's inaccurate to say that even math is based on the senses because we do problems on paper. So many mathematicians do their reasoning in their minds; paper only enhances the memory of it (or the communication of it). You certainly know about inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, and adductive reasoning. The problem is that logical positivism is neither analytic nor empirical, and therefore is self-contradicting. W.V. Quine (logician and philosopher) argued that neither Logical Positivism's distinction between analytical and empirical statements, nor the supposition that individual empirical statements can be reduced to immediate experience were supportable. Ultimately, he concluded, "the totality of our so-called knowledge or beliefs is a man-made fabric that impinges on experience only along the edges."

> How reliable is [revelation]?

God's method of confirmation of revelation in the Bible is an interesting combination of metaphysical and natural. More often than not, God confirmed revelation with a physical sign to substantiate the validity of the revelation, removing it from the subjective sphere to one that is empirically validated, and therefore objective. When you read the Scriptures, and the experiences of Moses, Joshua, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, etc., revelation isn't just floating in the air, "Oh, I had a dream." In that case anyone can say what they want. But Moses said God spoke, and then the sea party. Joshua said God was with them, and a part of the wall of Jericho fell down. Elijah confronted the prophets of Baal, and fire from heaven consumed the wet bull. That's how it's distinguishable from cognitive bias.

> If it is only Christians that receive it ...

In the Bible, Pharaoh had dreams from the Lord. So also Nebuchadnezzar. I've heard many stories of Muslims (alive now) who have had visions of Jesus and have converted to Christianity.

> Therefore if you are going to use revelation as evidence in support of a particular belief then you can’t give your personal revelation any more weight than anyone else’s revelation.

Agreed. Lots of people claim revelation because they've had certain thoughts, or claimed to have heard a voice, or had a dream. All pretty subjective, isn't it? In the Bible God confirmed his revelations, as I said, with a physical sign of sorts. We too easily misinterpret our experiences and believe what we want to believe. Very dangerous to proceed on what you think God said to you. We easily self-deceive.

Thanks again for participating! I appreciate you sharing your views and thoughts. This is a partial response to your last reply.

> "There are certainly ways to know things other than by the scientific method, the most obvious being reasoning (which includes our knowledge of math). Christians would also believe that some of what we understand comes to us via revelation."

Yes, there are other valid paths to knowledge and the scientific method is not the only one. Certainly the knowledge of how to ride a bicycle does not require the scientific method. I have studied epistemology as an interested layman and am familiar with propositional knowledge and reformed epistemology. In regards to the latter, I have researched with particular interest Plantinga’s work in Properly Basic Beliefs, free will and his take on the problem of evil.

> "There are certainly ways to know things other than by the scientific method, the most obvious being reasoning (which includes our knowledge of math). Christians would also believe that some of what we understand comes to us via revelation."

Do you notice what is happening between the first and second sentence? The topic has changed from knowledge to belief. Then, when you proceed with your thought, “of what we understand” (what we perceive to know), you state that some of the set of things we come to “understand” is received through revelation. Knowing something, such as something in reality, does not necessarily come from revelation. Almost everything we come to know, comes to us by way of our senses. Even math is in a large part, an exercise in using our senses; writing the problem on paper, looking at it and using logical deduction to process it. Even math ties to reality that we detect and validate with our five senses. We know things by way of our senses and our intellect which is evidence based. A revelation would be the receipt of knowledge about something, through some manner of transference from (in your case) God. Surely you can see that even on a minute scale there is something being added into the universe; the physical manipulation of the neurons and synapses at the very least. Even if God miraculously triggers only one connection, then, you have the creation of energy. The law of conservation of energy would be suspended / broken in this hypothetical example, right? Smuggling revelation into the process and then wrapping it into a belief system is the metaphysical fork in our conversational road. We need to pull off onto the shoulder and get out the map.

> "in which we know what we know is by observation, reasoning, and revelation"

We need to look closely at what "revelation" really is, because it is a major source of information that you believe is divinely provided to you, and incidentally, is a source of information for which I have not had the privilege to receive. If people really receive revelation then I need to know how that works. How reliable is it? How does someone distinguish the difference from cognitive bias and a true revelation? Is it testable or falsifiable? Do Muslims receive it? If it is only Christians that receive it then most certainly the Mormons are in the front of the line because they have a living prophet. Same goes for the Catholics and Pope Francis.

Revelation, as I have been told, can be a vivid and powerful experience. With that in mind we must also recognize that many other people also experience revelation in their hearts and minds. Therefore if you are going to use revelation as evidence in support of a particular belief then you can’t give your personal revelation any more weight than anyone else’s revelation. If you are going to be rigorous and consistent about your beliefs, and if you're going to use your revelation and personal experience as evidence supporting your beliefs, you must then treat your experience no differently from anyone else's experience. In other words, you have to step back from your experience, and view it exactly as you'd view anyone's experience.

When it comes to personal revelation you must be vigilant and on guard to separate revelation from personal bias, intuition, and ordinary ideas that pop up in one’s mind.

As vivid as your own revelation and personal experience may feel to you, in all honesty, you can't give that revelation any more weight than you would anyone else's experiences. You must give equal weight and consideration to others who claim revelation. In order to be consistent, the rigor for fair mindedness and proper weight should extend across denominations and even different faiths.

I would think that all Christians would necessarily need advanced training and preparation in order to be able to distinguish interpersonal conflicts, to become skilled in the proper application of the correct weight to one’s revelation in light of revelation received by others. Christians would need technical coaching and training in order to be able to recognize and differentiate cognitive bias in one’s self as well as recognizing these difficulties in others.

What do you think?

> The path to understanding nature and the universe comes to us thru the discipline of the scientific method.

I agree to some extent. There are certainly ways to know things other than by the scientific method, the most obvious being reasoning (which includes our knowledge of math). Christians would also believe that some of what we understand comes to us via revelation. Epistemology is a continuing debate, even without the question of God. One possible position, including God, is what is known as "reformed epistemology," in which we know what we know is by observation, reasoning, and revelation. Some things are not completely evidentiary. Verificationism has its weaknesses, particularly at the outset, since verificationism postulates a premise that is not verifiable by scientific observation, viz. "The path to understanding nature and the universe comes to us thru the discipline of the scientific method." That's not a statement that can be understood and verified by the scientific method. None of what we have discovered in science rules out the possibility that nature is not a closed system and that there are metaphysical realities beyond what we can see, test, and verify by the scientific method. As a matter of fact, it's possible that much of what we learn in life is not by deductive reasoning at all.

> it is more than likely that all the Gospel writers are anonymous and the books as we read them today have been heavily edited.

The Gospels were anonymous by genre, but the historical fact is that the authorship of none of them was in doubt or debated or even disagreed upon for millennia, even from the earliest times. There is no attribution of authorship to anyone other than Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John even from the earliest sources. Though the debate rages, the case for traditional authorship is strong.

> The overall theme of the bible is of cultural conquest.

Wow. In all my years of study, I perceive things quite differently, interestingly enough. It is interesting to me that there is no command in the Bible to "make a difference," "change the world", or dominate culture. None. I'm quite convinced you are misperceiving. The Bible is a "legal" document in which God draws up the contract between himself and humanity, the part God will play in the contract, and what is expected of humans. In the process of the contract God reveals what he is truly like. The Bible then is full of examples of what God is like, as well as examples of what happens to humans when they comply with the contract and what happens to humans when they defy the contract.

> it seems dishonest, at least for me, to proclaim the bible as Authoritative or Inspired.

Again, I see things quite differently, from all my study. The more I study, the more I am absolutely convinced of the Bible's reliability and authority. Flood? It wasn't global, but massively regional. 40,000 denominations? There's nothing wrong with diversity. It's actually a strength. Just like different colleges giving more weight to a particular discipline. That doesn't mean they all aren't doing the same thing—providing undergraduate education to prepare people for life. The denominations help people grow in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord.

> no original manuscript to compare it to and who’s date precedes the earliest known by 250 to 300 years.

Are you kidding? We have a piece of John from about 125, and pieces of other gospels from early in the second century—nowhere NEAR the 250-300 years you claim. But that's another far-ranging topic for another discussion.

> The resurrection

The laws of physics broken? Not necessarily. But once again you're presuming a closed system, which science can't speak to. Newton himself claimed that the laws he observed were only valid if no outside force interfered with them, but he didn't rule out an outside force. Newton himself was a Christian. So also Galileo, Kepler, Pascal, and Copernicus. Nature knows resurrection in a seed. It dies, sometimes for thousands of years, and comes back to life. Simple analogy, yes, but there nonetheless. What is more likely: the existence of God is rationally plausible, scientifically possible, and conforms quite reasonably with the world as we see it. Aliens? Not so likely.

Thanks for your reply. This has been a great conversation. I've been giving your comments some thought. I selected what I thought were some of your key points. I am not trying to take them out of context, but my replies are generally focused on areas where I could pinpoint that our differences lie and explain why I think they are significant.

> "The conceptual nature of heaven being an otherworldly place that occupies space but is not matter the way we conceive it is not a difficult stretch."

The path to understanding nature and the universe comes to us thru the discipline of the scientific method. The path leading to a better understanding of heaven is growing narrower by the day. Today, one is left with the tools of imagination as the primary means for discovering the heavenly path. One's imagination is sharpened through a deeper understanding of the fundamental forces of nature, therefore, one's imagination is refined primarily by virtue of an ever expanding list of things and methods ruled out by scientific methods and discovery. Since the discovery of the Higgs boson, the Standard Model is for all practical purposes complete and anything that can occur in the universe now, through understanding the Standard Model, can effectively be explained. This is not saying we know everything—far from it. But we now have at least the basic (and complete) explanatory AND predictive power using the Standard Model.

> My point is that even the definition of reality is up for grabs at this point. We are remiss to too easily dismiss >concepts of heaven.

As stated above reality is better described today than ever. According to the Standard Model, there may be some tiny quantum dimension world yet discovered where some event takes place but anything happening in that realm cannot have or produce an effect in our world.

> "Now, granted, there was a significant cover-up going on in that situation, where the wandering saints was a public >event, but the point is the same: Singular reporting doesn't mean it's fictional material.

I whole heartedly agree that single reporting doesn’t mean it IS fictional. But in my 25 years of studying the biblical origins, comparative religions, Greco-Roman history, and more, it is more than likely that all the Gospel writers are anonymous and the books as we read them today have been heavily edited. There are historical facts that support this. How could I fairly grant non-fiction status to this single report, found in a collection of manuscripts 1700 years old, with no original manuscript to compare it to and who’s date precedes the earliest known by 250 to 300 years.

One of the first serious questions I had in my pursuit of truth was who wrote it and why, to what extent was the contents of the bible influenced by the context of culture? To that here is my current stance. The overall theme of the bible is of cultural conquest. This is the theme for stories within the bible and the context for which the contents of the bible survive. It was the conquest of the Hebrews over their neighbors, the Jews over the 10 tribes of Israel, and Christians over the Jews. In production of the biblical cannon we see the conquest continue with the Catholics over the Gnostics, Marcionites, Valentinians and Arianists, and so forth. Then we see the extreme diversity in which Christianity survives today. One can basically find his own Kingdom of Heaven. It may be here on earth, in heaven, or it may be something that comes in the future here or “up” in heaven. Either way, Christianity has evolved and it, just as its’ varied creeds have, can become as diverse as necessary.

To me it seems dishonest, at least for me, to proclaim the bible as Authoritative or Inspired. There are too many problems that the church lets go undiscussed and unresolved. These include are some of the simplest things that Christianity does not take a firm stance on such as; the mythical flood of Noah. If you think there was a flood, you can find thousands of churches that will help you support, rationalize and maintain that false belief. Today there are more than 40,000 denominations of Christianity, each with its own different statement of beliefs. In light of the facts, how can I believe Matthew when he says many people were resurrected? In the brilliant light of science, we now have probabilities and possibilities that were unreasonable and illogical only 50 years ago. For example: is it more likely that the laws of physics were broken and someone was resurrected from the dead or, aliens with a superior intellect did something 2000 years ago that amazed the illiterate, superstitious people of that time? Both are outrageous, but; which is more likely?

Thanks for a good discussion. My point in raising the science examples is to show (1) There is a lot we don't know about the nature and behavior of matter. We are learning more all the time. The conceptual nature of heaven being an otherworldly place that occupies space but is not matter the way we conceive it is not a difficult stretch. The more we learn in science, and particularly the radical places Quantum mechanics is forcing our brains to go (with its totally new understanding of reality), the more we can conceive with intellectual integrity the possibilities about heaven. The quantum picture accepts that there are some boundaries beyond which our reproducible knowledge fails in principle (not just for technical reasons). Science is caught in quite a pickle here, for instance, general relativity and quantum mechanics. Both are highly confirmed and enormously impressive; unfortunately, they can’t both be correct. My point is that even the definition of reality is up for grabs at this point. We are remiss to too easily dismiss concepts of heaven.

But you are falsely accusing me of arguing the God of the Gaps. I am not proposing that incomplete scientific knowledge is evidence or proof of God's existence, but instead that what we do know about science show cause us to hesitate before pronouncing judgment on theological concepts.

> None of us should without substantial and compelling evidence just grant "the existence of God".

I agree 100%. Absolutely agree with you. I find the evidence for the existence of God both substantial and compelling. I don't accept God merely a priori but on the basis of rational argument, natural evidence, and the credible testimony of reliable people.

> And came out of the graves ”after his resurrection”, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. I suppose one can read it both ways.

I agree with you that one would think such an event would cause quite a stir. It's not necessarily so that "Matthew seems to be the only person aware of this happening," but he is the only one to have recorded it. There's a difference. Woodward and Bernstein were the only ones reporting Nixon's complicity in the Watergate scandal, but that doesn't make their report fictional, as anyone can easily reason. Now, granted, there was a significant cover-up going on in that situation, where the wandering saints was a public event, but the point is the same: Singular reporting doesn't mean it's fictional material. We come back to all of the miracles connected with the life of Jesus. If there is a God, and if Jesus is God, such things are honestly possible. Paul's point in 1 Corinthians 15 is that if Jesus truly came back from the dead, it's a pretty easy step to the possibility of others coming back from the dead also.

Thank you for your time and response! I have some counter points:
> "Exhibit #1: We all know from physics class that there are some things that have more than one property, viz., light. It can be perceived as a wave, and it acts like a wave, but it can also be perceived as particles, and it acts like particles. So which is? It is yet to be resolved."

The wave/particle duality is a concept, a Model that is used to describe the quantum world. Similarly a map of the world is a graphic model of the geography of our planet. Theories on quantum electrodynamics (QED) are continuously being refined. And, while the wave/particle duality might seem “unresolved”, i.e., it’s got to be a particle or a wave it can’t be both, physicists would say this is the wrong way to think about photons. These models from QED do not themselves provide support for a hypothesis of some sort of non-material, material.

> "Exhibit #2: The stuff of fairy tales. Scientists have discovered that sub-atomic particles, at a quantum level, "don't have one fixed location" and are able to pass through barriers as if they weren't even there. (http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/06/ ... -barriers/)"

Jesus passing through walls is not impossible. This is sufficiently proven because there are physics experiments that have used a phenomenon known as “interaction-shifted tunneling resonance” in which high energy particles passed through a lattes of super cooled cesium up to 5 atoms thick. If I have represented your position correctly then I don’t agree.

> "Exhibit #3: Dark matter. Stuff that is there but isn't there. It accounts for most of the universe, but it's still hypothetical and has never been directly detected. It is hypothesized because of discrepancies."

This is not quite correct either. Scientists “infer” the existence of dark matter because it seems to exert gravitational effects on normal, visible matter. It was hypothesized in order to account for the discrepancies between the calculations of the mass of galaxies. Dark matter can’t be directly observed because it doesn’t absorb or emit light, hence its name.

> "Given the nature of these scientific observations, the teachings of the Bible are in good company. Heaven has some properties of being a physical place, but a different kind of physical place than the stuff of earth. Wave or particle?"

Unfortunately all you’ve given is a heaven (god) of the gaps argument.

> "Resurrected bodies of Matthew 27. If we grant the existence of God (which I don't know if you do or not), who has power over matter (which he created), there is nothing to cause us to doubt the possibility of what we read here. But you have some of the facts wrong. They appear at Jesus' death. There no assemblage and waiting around for a day and a half. When Jesus died, the text says there was a physical resurrection of some dead people (we don't know how many), who walked around the city for (we don't know short or long) a period of time on that day. Nor does the text say that nobody notices. Then they were gone, as far as we know. How possible is this? For those who believe Jesus rose from the dead, it's a no-brainer than he can also raise others. That's Paul's exact point in 1 Cor. 15.

None of us should without substantial and compelling evidence just grant “the existence of God”. There have been many Gods in the past and there are many Gods today. I don’t know what God can and can’t do and from what I gather neither can anyone else.

Next: When Jesus died the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose. And came out of the graves ”after his resurrection”, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. I suppose one can read it both ways. The saints could have been awoken the same day as Jesus resurrected but another point was that nobody noticing these saints returning to Jerusalem. My point was that if many people came back to life and were seen by many people, it must have created quite a stir (even if the corpses were in pretty good shape!). Yet Matthew seems to be the only person aware of this happening. No historians of that time or later reported anything of this, neither do the other gospel writers. This was maybe the greatest miracles of Jesus’ time.

Thanks. Glad to try to explain.

Exhibit #1: We all know from physics class that there are some things that have more than one property, viz., light. It can be perceived as a wave, and it acts like a wave, but it can also be perceived as particles, and it acts like particles. So which is? It is yet to be resolved.

Exhibit #2: The stuff of fairy tales. Scientists have discovered that sub-atomic particles, at a quantum level, "don't have one fixed location" and are able to pass through barriers as if they weren't even there. (http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/06/ ... -barriers/)

Exhibit #3: Dark matter. Stuff that is there but isn't there. It accounts for most of the universe, but it's still hypothetical and has never been directly detected. It is hypothesized because of discrepancies.

Given the nature of these scientific observations, the teachings of the Bible are in good company. Heaven has some properties of being a physical place, but a different kind of physical place than the stuff of earth. Wave or particle?

Resurrected bodies of Matthew 27. If we grant the existence of God (which I don't know if you do or not), who has power over matter (which he created), there is nothing to cause us to doubt the possibility of what we read here. But you have some of the facts wrong. They appear at Jesus' death. There no assemblage and waiting around for a day and a half. When Jesus died, the text says there was a physical resurrection of some dead people (we don't know how many), who walked around the city for (we don't know short or long) a period of time on that day. Nor does the text say that nobody notices. Then they were gone, as far as we know. How possible is this? For those who believe Jesus rose from the dead, it's a no-brainer than he can also raise others. That's Paul's exact point in 1 Cor. 15.

Jesus' resurrected body? If passing through solid objects is possible by subatomic particles at the quantum level, then the story of Jesus doing is becomes believable. If realities can pass through other realities given certain conditions, then it's not so nonsensical.

> Also I still see the same contradiction(s) originally presented.

There aren't any contradictions at all. We know there are different kinds of existence. The thoughts in my head exist in a very different way than the chair I'm sitting on, and yet they both truly exist. My memories exist in a very real way, but those are different too. Gravity exists, and it can even be measured, but its existence is different from the tree outside my window. Then there's always time. Time surely exists, but what a quasi-kind of thing that is. It's constant, but relative. And of course I've already mentioned light. You don't consider any of these things to be contradictions, but the exact same ideas in a religious context are nonsense to you. There are different kinds of reality, and different ways that things can exist. You admit that, but won't admit them in religious thought, which to me betrays a bias in you. The simplest answer is that if such things are possible in our physical world, then they are possible, period. And there's so much more we don't even understand, even about our physical world, not to mention the possibilities and characteristics of a super-physical one.

I'm glad you've been willing to share your thoughts and pursue this conversation with me a little further. I hope that my explanations have helped.

I'm trying to understand how a Christian is at ease with biblical claims that appear nonsensical. Of course Jesus talked about the Kingdom of Heaven as a metaphysical place but the bible also describes it as a physical place. A place where the stars are and will fall from; it has a tabernacle; it has door ways; it stages wars; it is the "location" of God and now Jesus; it houses treasures, treasure will be distributed from there and people store their treasure there.

Talking about Jesus' resurrected body brings to question the Saints bodies that were resurrected. Let's look at this closely. (Matt. 27:50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. 51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.) There is some "gobblely-gook" going on here with these resurrected bodies. The graves were opened, the saints "arose". They (a corpuscular re-assemblage of dust in the dirt into resurrected bodies) wait in their dirt filled graves or inside their tombs for a day and a half. They remain there through sun up Saturday, all night Saturday night and then on Sunday after Jesus' body is resurrected they go to town to be seen. Picture that, all those saints milling about in their opened graves and tombs for a day and a half and no one notices. There's been an earthquake, rocks were uplifted, tons of soil displaced, people pacing back and forth inside these open tombs and holes and no body notices. Then there is problem of Jesus resurrected body that walks through walls. Jesus ate and drank, how does that pass through the walls?

Also I still see the same contradiction(s) originally presented. You are describing a quasi-physical place, heaven, equipped with a quasi-material throne for a spirit (God) that doesn't sit. Also since God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost are One, there is the touchable physical body of Jesus and some saints (I don't have any idea what they're made of) and some patriarchs of the OT. Heaven does, or at least did, have real and physical, bread, and stones that God threw down from heaven. For me all the assumptions, apologetics and mental gymnastics that one has to string together only leads me toward parsimony and the simplest answer.