Does science make belief in God obsolete?

honestly speaking, humble is not a word I would use to describe you

"Dolphan7 wrote:

Ok Celt. You can believe what you want. Evolution denies the Genesis account of Creation. You believe in man made evolution theory verses the biblical creation account.

I agree God can defend Himself...in time......only it may not be in the manner one wishes.

Touche'

You say you are a believer.....do you ever think that maybe just maybe that the world order/world view is a deception to draw people away from God? Even a remote possibility?

Remember the scriptures.
Mt 7:13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.

Mt 7:14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

Eph 5:6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient.

Col 2:4 I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments....
Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
1Jn 5:19 We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one.

Most will follow the deciever.

Remember that Christ did not deny the OT. He fullfilled the OT promise of salvation. This means that He believes the Genesis account of creation. As just a broken and humbled Christian, who I am to not.

If you ask me to believe the Genesis account, you are asking me to believe that God intentionally deceived us as he was the one who placed all the misleading clues and I am not willing to believe that. Why would he make the earth to appear older than it is. Why would God lay down so many false clues? My God wouldn't do that!

Finally, for me, one of the most compelling reasons to accept evolution is because the process is do damned screwed up that there is no way that a flawless God would ever have been responsible for it. While exquisite in its design, every genome is filled with junk and it is in a constant battle between checkpoints and repair process to keep an organism alive.

Thanks anyway. My view of God makes a lot more sense to me.

And finally, you have said "You say you are a believer" to me one too many times for my liking. It sure seems to have a condescending ring to me and I know that you probably don't mean it that way. I would hope that is not the case.

"Celtkin wrote:

If you ask me to believe the Genesis account, you are asking me to believe that God intentionally deceived us as he was the one who placed all the misleading clues and I am not willing to believe that. Why would he make the earth to appear older than it is. Why would God lay down so many false clues? My God wouldn't do that!

Finally, for me, one of the most compelling reasons to accept evolution is because the process is do damned screwed up that there is no way that a flawless God would ever have been responsible for it. While exquisite in its design, every genome is filled with junk and it is in a constant battle between checkpoints and repair process to keep an organism alive.

Thanks anyway. My view of God makes a lot more sense to me.

i think ultimately this is what it boils down to. what is comfortable to the individual.

"DOLPHAN1 wrote:

i think ultimately this is what it boils down to. what is comfortable to the individual.

That is all it can come down to.

"Celtkin wrote:

If you ask me to believe the Genesis account, you are asking me to believe that God intentionally deceived us as he was the one who placed all the misleading clues and I am not willing to believe that. Why would he make the earth to appear older than it is. Why would God lay down so many false clues? My God wouldn't do that!

Finally, for me, one of the most compelling reasons to accept evolution is because the process is do damned screwed up that there is no way that a flawless God would ever have been responsible for it. While exquisite in its design, every genome is filled with junk and it is in a constant battle between checkpoints and repair process to keep an organism alive.

Thanks anyway. My view of God makes a lot more sense to me.

And finally, you have said "You say you are a believer" to me one too many times for my liking. It sure seems to have a condescending ring to me and I know that you probably don't mean it that way. I would hope that is not the case.

Well if I had to choose who is being deceiving - God or Satan - I would think Satan hands down, but that is just me.

When I state "you say you are a believer", I do that because I really don't know if you are a believer in the God of the Bible, are you a Christian.....or do you just believe in God in general. It is from my lack of knowledge, maybe you have stated it already, but I missed it.

Becasue to me, and to many folks, to be a christian one must believe the bible becasue without the bible there is no way to "know" anything about christianity. They go hand in hand. To me, and many folks also, the bible is either true from beginning to end, or it is not true at all and is worthless. There is no inbetween. There is no "I believe this part, but not that part". Because then the problem is - which part is true and which part isn't? Is it up to each person to decide? I think not because then you would have several billion different meanings. I don't think God meant that. I don't think God means several billion things.

So I am not sure where you are in this? Your posts seem to indicate that you believe in God and Jesus, but question the bible. If that is true, then I think you have a problem becasue without the bible, you really have no knowledge of who God and Jesus are? See where I am coming from?

"DOLPHAN1 wrote:

i think ultimately this is what it boils down to. what is comfortable to the individual.

Well.....isn't that just saying that whatever you want to believe in, if it feels comfortable, then believe it? That can't be truth, because then you would have several billion different truths, and not only that ....on what basis would anyone have to claim wrong or right? See that is the fallacy with moral relativism, there can be no right or wrong. Under moral relativism, as much as we disagree and hate the 911 hijackers, we would have no basis to say they are wrong. Because under their relative morality - they are right? See the delemna?

I believe, and the bible clearly states, that there is only one source of truth - God - and it is an absolute truth, and that truth comes down "from" God, not what ever we want to "send" up to God and attribute our truth to Him.

Am I making sense?

"Dolphan7 wrote:

To me, and many folks also, the bible is either true from beginning to end, or it is not true at all and is worthless

So you agree that the right way of dealing with disobedient children is stoning them?

"Vendigo wrote:

So you agree that the right way of dealing with disobedient children is stoning them?

In the OT Theocracy that the Jews lived under - yes. Doesn't mean I agree with it, but it was the way it was.

In todays society there are laws against such a thing. The NT tells us that we are to follow the government placed in authority over us, as long as it doesn't force us to disobey God.

TIT 3:1 Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed,

"Dolphan7 wrote:

Doesn't mean I agree with it, but it was the way it was

Woah, wait a minute: You've just said that the Bible is either true from beginning to end or not true at all and that you can't just pick the parts you want to believe in. So you either agree that it was right and true and good to stone disobedient children or you've just so much as acknowledged that the Bible is worthless. Sorry for giving you a hard time, bro, but I'm just holding you up to your own standards.

In todays society there are laws against such a thing. The NT tells us that we are to follow the government placed in authority over us, as long as it doesn't force us to disobey God

But not stoning your disobedient child clearly is disobeying God as God quite clearly stated that you are to do it.

"Dolphan7 wrote:

Well if I had to choose who is being deceiving - God or Satan - I would think Satan hands down, but that is just me.

When I state "you say you are a believer", I do that because I really don't know if you are a believer in the God of the Bible, are you a Christian.....or do you just believe in God in general. It is from my lack of knowledge, maybe you have stated it already, but I missed it.

Becasue to me, and to many folks, to be a christian one must believe the bible becasue without the bible there is no way to "know" anything about christianity. They go hand in hand. To me, and many folks also, the bible is either true from beginning to end, or it is not true at all and is worthless. There is no inbetween. There is no "I believe this part, but not that part". Because then the problem is - which part is true and which part isn't? Is it up to each person to decide? I think not because then you would have several billion different meanings. I don't think God meant that. I don't think God means several billion things.

So I am not sure where you are in this? Your posts seem to indicate that you believe in God and Jesus, but question the bible. If that is true, then I think you have a problem becasue without the bible, you really have no knowledge of who God and Jesus are? See where I am coming from?

Where exactly in the bible does it say science is satan?

Further more, are you a man or are you the second coming of jesus? If you are man then this following statement is flat-out blasphemy:

Becasue to me, and to many folks, to be a christian one must believe the bible becasue without the bible there is no way to "know" anything about christianity. They go hand in hand. To me, and many folks also, the bible is either true from beginning to end, or it is not true at all and is worthless. There is no inbetween. There is no "I believe this part, but not that part". Because then the problem is - which part is true and which part isn't? Is it up to each person to decide? I think not because then you would have several billion different meanings. I don't think God meant that. I don't think God means several billion things.

Who exactly do you and these other people think they are? What knowledge was given to you by your god that you can say this without absolute certainty? If the bible is god's words, then by saying, thinking, and acting upon what you said, is a declaration that you know the mind of god. You've absolutely no idea how god wanted the bible to be viewed. This statement and its belief is the ultimate form of hypocrisy. At once you will claim not to know the mind of god, then turn around and make a statement that clearly implies to know something you can never know. To further this hypocrisy, you then claim that science can't claim a relative age of the Earth because they've no evidence, when you have considerably less evidence that the bible is to be taken literally.

As is the case with message board discussions, specific questions get left unanswered. Often, when that happens, the person asking the questions, thinks the avoidance of those questions is because the other poster can't answer them or they are wrong. To avoid that, and give full opportunity, I'll post the questions I'm asking of you in a list.

1. Where exactly in the bible does it say science is satan?
2. Are you a man or are you the second coming of jesus?
3. What evidence do you have that you can claim the bible is to be taken literally with absolute certainty?
4. What other areas do you claim to know exactly what god means?

"Vendigo wrote:

Woah, wait a minute: You've just said that the Bible is either true from beginning to end or not true at all and that you can't just pick the parts you want to believe in. So you either agree that it was right and true and good to stone disobedient children or you've just so much as acknowledged that the Bible is worthless. Sorry for giving you a hard time, bro, but I'm just holding you up to your own standards.

But not stoning your disobedient child clearly is disobeying God as God quite clearly stated that you are to do it.

The bible being true doesn't mean that we have to agree with, or understand, it. We are all in a constant state of rebellion. I don't like having to drive in a 25 MPH zone when I think it should be 35. But the law says 25.

In order for you to understand why we don't stone our children to death for being disobediant (although the temptation is there sometimes I think ....I am joking...)you have to understand that the OT was a time of the Jews under a direct Theocracy under God. The NT and Jesus changed all that and most of the societal and religious practices of those times are no longer needed or required. The moral laws are still important today however.

Today we don't have a Theocracy, we have the United States Government and it's laws.
Today there is no Temple and therefore no ability to practice the religious practices, even if there was a temple (which they are working to rebuild) that would be Judaism. We are under the grace covenent of Jesus - called Christianity for those who believe - This does not require the religious practices of the OT.

"Finascious D wrote:

Where exactly in the bible does it say science is satan?

Further more, are you a man or are you the second coming of jesus? If you are man then this following statement is flat-out blasphemy:

Who exactly do you and these other people think they are? What knowledge was given to you by your god that you can say this without absolute certainty? If the bible is god's words, then by saying, thinking, and acting upon what you said, is a declaration that you know the mind of god. You've absolutely no idea how god wanted the bible to be viewed. This statement and its belief is the ultimate form of hypocrisy. At once you will claim not to know the mind of god, then turn around and make a statement that clearly implies to know something you can never know. To further this hypocrisy, you then claim that science can't claim a relative age of the Earth because they've no evidence, when you have considerably less evidence that the bible is to be taken literally.

As is the case with message board discussions, specific questions get left unanswered. Often, when that happens, the person asking the questions, thinks the avoidance of those questions is because the other poster can't answer them or they are wrong. To avoid that, and give full opportunity, I'll post the questions I'm asking of you in a list.

1. Where exactly in the bible does it say science is satan?
2. Are you a man or are you the second coming of jesus?
3. What evidence do you have that you can claim the bible is to be taken literally with absolute certainty?
4. What other areas do you claim to know exactly what god means?

I am making a logical argument, and that is this.....

If a person claims to be a christian, but the only knowledge of christianity is the bible, but that person does not believe the bible, then how can they say they are a christian. It is really a simple logical argument.

As far as your questions:

1. I never said science is Satan. I believe that if there is deception going on in the world it is of Satan not God and I said that in context to another posters comments.
2. You already know the answer to this.
3. Go back to the logical argument. If it isn't to be taken literally , where does it say it should be taken allegorically, or metphorically are any other way? Secondly I didn't say it should be taken literally, I think you assumed that. It should be taken in context to the original author's intent, who it was written to and the culture of the times etc... Simple Exegesis and hermaneutics.
4. All I know is what I read in the Bible.

"Dolphan7 wrote:

The bible being true doesn't mean that we have to agree with, or understand, it. We are all in a constant state of rebellion. I don't like having to drive in a 25 MPH zone when I think it should be 35. But the law says 25.

In order for you to understand why we don't stone our children to death for being disobediant (although the temptation is there sometimes I think ....I am joking...)you have to understand that the OT was a time of the Jews under a direct Theocracy under God. The NT and Jesus changed all that and most of the societal and religious practices of those times are no longer needed or required. The moral laws are still important today however.

Today we don't have a Theocracy, we have the United States Government and it's laws.
Today there is no Temple and therefore no ability to practice the religious practices, even if there was a temple (which they are working to rebuild) that would be Judaism. We are under the grace covenent of Jesus - called Christianity for those who believe - This does not require the religious practices of the OT.

Isn't that what you just said?

SO if the law said that homosexuality was fine and marriage is fine then by the bible it is fine.

"Dolphan7 wrote:

Well if I had to choose who is being deceiving - God or Satan - I would think Satan hands down, but that is just me.

Ok...are you suggesting that Satan planted fake evidence in God's creation to draw us off track or are you suggesting that Satan is making us "see" evidence that isn't really there?

"Dolphan7 wrote:

When I state "you say you are a believer", I do that because I really don't know if you are a believer in the God of the Bible, are you a Christian.....or do you just believe in God in general. It is from my lack of knowledge, maybe you have stated it already, but I missed it.

You know what I believe. I have told you in the very recent past! I am insulted that you think I am stupid enough to buy this excuse.

"Dolphan7 wrote:

Becasue to me, and to many folks, to be a christian one must believe the bible becasue without the bible there is no way to "know" anything about christianity. They go hand in hand. To me, and many folks also, the bible is either true from beginning to end, or it is not true at all and is worthless. There is no inbetween. There is no "I believe this part, but not that part". Because then the problem is - which part is true and which part isn't? Is it up to each person to decide? I think not because then you would have several billion different meanings. I don't think God meant that. I don't think God means several billion things.

Whose to say that you know the truth? From what I have seen, you may just be wrong. Also, look around. It is not unusual, in light of overwhelming evidence, to consider that the Genesis creation tale is just that -- a "tale". So, to me and many people, it is ok to enjoy the love of God and still believe the evidence.

"Dolphan7 wrote:

So I am not sure where you are in this? Your posts seem to indicate that you believe in God and Jesus, but question the bible. If that is true, then I think you have a problem becasue without the bible, you really have no knowledge of who God and Jesus are? See where I am coming from?

See above.

"Dolphan7 wrote:

Well.....isn't that just saying that whatever you want to believe in, if it feels comfortable, then believe it? That can't be truth, because then you would have several billion different truths, and not only that ....on what basis would anyone have to claim wrong or right? See that is the fallacy with moral relativism, there can be no right or wrong. Under moral relativism, as much as we disagree and hate the 911 hijackers, we would have no basis to say they are wrong. Because under their relative morality - they are right? See the delemna?

I believe, and the bible clearly states, that there is only one source of truth - God - and it is an absolute truth, and that truth comes down "from" God, not what ever we want to "send" up to God and attribute our truth to Him.

Am I making sense?

No. i would leave it at that but there is a 5 character minimum and even though your response only needs a two letter answer, i have to do THIS just to post my reply!

"DOLPHAN1 wrote:

No. i would leave it at that but there is a 5 character minimum and even though your response only needs a two letter answer, i have to do THIS just to post my reply!

Why do people complain about having typing more than 5 characters? :lol:

How about "No way!" "Hell no"

"Dolphan7 wrote:

I am making a logical argument, and that is this.....

If a person claims to be a christian, but the only knowledge of christianity is the bible, but that person does not believe the bible, then how can they say they are a christian. It is really a simple logical argument.

As far as your questions:

1. I never said science is Satan. I believe that if there is deception going on in the world it is of Satan not God and I said that in context to another posters comments.
2. You already know the answer to this.
3. Go back to the logical argument. If it isn't to be taken literally , where does it say it should be taken allegorically, or metphorically are any other way? Secondly I didn't say it should be taken literally, I think you assumed that. It should be taken in context to the original author's intent, who it was written to and the culture of the times etc... Simple Exegesis and hermaneutics.
4. All I know is what I read in the Bible.

and of all the things you have said, this makes the most sense of anything. you clearly have the mindset of someone who should be living in the time of the NT as you call it, i think life for you would have a lot less complication. you certainly would not have to deal with all the diatribe of the last 2000 years.

"Celtkin wrote:

Why do people complain about having typing more than 5 characters? :lol:

How about "No way!" "Hell no"

because just a simple "NO" was all i needed......:tantrum::pity:

:yes:

"Dolphan7 wrote:

Well if I had to choose who is being deceiving - God or Satan - I would think Satan hands down, but that is just me.

When I state "you say you are a believer", I do that because I really don't know if you are a believer in the God of the Bible, are you a Christian.....or do you just believe in God in general. It is from my lack of knowledge, maybe you have stated it already, but I missed it.

Becasue to me, and to many folks, to be a christian one must believe the bible becasue without the bible there is no way to "know" anything about christianity. They go hand in hand. To me, and many folks also, the bible is either true from beginning to end, or it is not true at all and is worthless. There is no inbetween. There is no "I believe this part, but not that part". Because then the problem is - which part is true and which part isn't? Is it up to each person to decide? I think not because then you would have several billion different meanings. I don't think God meant that. I don't think God means several billion things.

So I am not sure where you are in this? Your posts seem to indicate that you believe in God and Jesus, but question the bible. If that is true, then I think you have a problem becasue without the bible, you really have no knowledge of who God and Jesus are? See where I am coming from?

this whole part to me is where the break down in this discussion is. you choose to take the Bible absolutely and literally. there is no compromise. and, it is no wonder that we keep coming to these impasses. how you chose to believe is totally up to you and i will not hold that against you. but, under these circumstances there is no room for discussion because you are unyielding or open at all.

"Dolphan7 wrote:

Well.....isn't that just saying that whatever you want to believe in, if it feels comfortable, then believe it? That can't be truth, because then you would have several billion different truths, and not only that ....on what basis would anyone have to claim wrong or right? See that is the fallacy with moral relativism, there can be no right or wrong. Under moral relativism, as much as we disagree and hate the 911 hijackers, we would have no basis to say they are wrong. Because under their relative morality - they are right? See the delemna?

I believe, and the bible clearly states, that there is only one source of truth - God - and it is an absolute truth, and that truth comes down "from" God, not what ever we want to "send" up to God and attribute our truth to Him.

Am I making sense?

1. no two people, let me repeat this, no two people have the exact same belief in anything. similar? yes. exact? no. so there are as many "truths" then as there ever have been people. this is so because no two people have ever experienced ANYTHING in the exact same manor. what you have are groups of similar or like minded individuals that congregate together to believe and worship in a similar manor.

2. who is right or wrong on an Earthly basis is determined by a set of standards that, as members of the human race, we all understand are needed for all to co-exist. we see this on all levels and, in part from all religions or beliefs. from your local government which we all have the opportunity to vote on, all the way up to the Supreme Court. on national levels we see it in places like the United Nations, the World Court and N.A.T.O. it is up to us as human citizens to live the best we can. absolute belief is not necessarily absolute knowledge.

"Dolphan7 wrote:

The bible being true doesn't mean that we have to agree with, or understand, it. We are all in a constant state of rebellion. I don't like having to drive in a 25 MPH zone when I think it should be 35. But the law says 25.

In order for you to understand why we don't stone our children to death for being disobediant (although the temptation is there sometimes I think ....I am joking...)you have to understand that the OT was a time of the Jews under a direct Theocracy under God. The NT and Jesus changed all that and most of the societal and religious practices of those times are no longer needed or required. The moral laws are still important today however.

Today we don't have a Theocracy, we have the United States Government and it's laws.
Today there is no Temple and therefore no ability to practice the religious practices, even if there was a temple (which they are working to rebuild) that would be Judaism. We are under the grace covenent of Jesus - called Christianity for those who believe - This does not require the religious practices of the OT.

but the "OT" is part of the "NT" so you are, in your own words, choosing mans law over Gods law. in fact, we all are choosing mans law over Gods law. so by your absolute definition we are all sinning knowingly and there fore choosing a path apart from God. you speak in "literal" circles.

"Dolphan7 wrote:

This does not require the religious practices of the OT.

So I take it then that the ten commandments are no longer needed either? You can't claim that "There is no I believe this part, but not that part" and then go ahead and believe this part but not that part. That's hypocritical. So either the OT is true in its entirety or it isn't true at all. You either believe everything or nothing. If the ten commandments apply today, stoning children also applies. If the Genesis is true, so is stoning children. After all, it was you who argued that there's no picking and no in betweens. Can't have both.

My brother in Christ, Dolphan 7, has painted himself into the proverbial rhetorical corner. It is an easy place to find oneself.

Let me give you folks my denomination's official position on the Bible.

It is the sole authoratative rule and norm for the faith and life of the Church and its people.

I am going to disagree with Dolphan 7 regarding the requirement to take everything at the same value. I don't see scripture doing that to itself. (By Jesus day there was no stoning to death of disobidient children, it is not clear that levitical order was EVER followed in the community.) It is clear Jesus interprets Old Testament passages in new ways (His teaching on divorce for example) and the standards for being a Christian in Acts which include not eating meat offered to idols (not a problem I've run into much) had to be updated, which is what the council in Jerusalem circa 50 A.D was doing in Acts anyway!

If any of you would like to do more than score debating points and would like to have some answers to your questions from a different Christian perspective please list them here and I will do my best. We may not agree but we might help inform each other.

i was watching the History Chanel last night and a show called "Search for the Lost Ark". i mention this because Professor Tudor Parfitt from London's School of Oriental and African Studies found(from an earlier expedition) a "Black African" tribe, the Lembers, located in Zimbabwe, that had claimed to be a lost tribe of Jerusalem. he ended up in this tribe during his new search because, through science they were able to identify this tribe as, in fact, direct decendants of the priests of Jerusalem from the Exodus. they had tales of a sacred artifact that was used, among other things, during battles with other tribes to scare their enemies away. it was carried into battle by two "carriers" and was never to touch the ground. it was found and in very bad condition but science found it was not the actual Ark as it was only 600 years old. the Elders of the tribe claimed that their ancestors did bring with them an artifact that was described much like the original Ark but no evidence that it was there was found.

i found interesting that science and religion (history) working together to solve two issues on this show.

http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detail&episodeId=276933

most of my life i have encountered people such as D7 who seem to have a blind reverence for the Bible. every time i have ever asked questions i get the same type of answers. i usually end up frustrated and look elsewhere for my answers. part of my problem is that i am rather inquizitive and have some degree of inteligence, very often the "answers" in the Bible do not match up with real life, they just don't make sense.

it is too bad that i have not encountered some one as your self, Ohio, previous to this. i may have a different out look on religious matters if i had.

"DOLPHAN1 wrote:

i was watching the History Chanel last night and a show called "Search for the Lost Ark". i mention this because Professor Tudor Parfitt from London's School of Oriental and African Studies found(from an earlier expedition) a "Black African" tribe, the Lembers, located in Zimbabwe, that had claimed to be a lost tribe of Jerusalem. he ended up in this tribe during his new search because, through science they were able to identify this tribe as, in fact, direct decendants of the priests of Jerusalem from the Exodus. they had tales of a sacred artifact that was used, among other things, during battles with other tribes to scare their enemies away. it was carried into battle by two "carriers" and was never to touch the ground. it was found and in very bad condition but science found it was not the actual Ark as it was only 600 years old. the Elders of the tribe claimed that their ancestors did bring with them an artifact that was described much like the original Ark but no evidence that it was there was found.

i found interesting that science and religion (history) working together to solve two issues on this show.

I too have seen the program and found it fascinating. The use of DNA markers within small groups seems to offer great promise in clearing up some tribal mysteries. The origins of the Romany, the Basques, and other smaller groups such as the Lembers. It also points out to modern scholars the importance and the veracity of oral traditions within small populations. It is more reliable than some would give credit to and makes the stories of the early Biblical oral traditions even more likely.

"DOLPHAN1 wrote:

most of my life i have encountered people such as D7 who seem to have a blind reverence for the Bible. every time i have ever asked questions i get the same type of answers. i usually end up frustrated and look elsewhere for my answers. part of my problem is that i am rather inquizitive and have some degree of inteligence, very often the "answers" in the Bible do not match up with real life, they just don't make sense.

it is too bad that i have not encountered some one as your self, Ohio, previous to this. i may have a different out look on religious matters if i had.

You are very kind, and I am still happy to answer those things I can.

I too was blessed with a fair amount of native intelligence by God and have asked lots of questions all my life. I was blessed to have good folks with answers that met my needs at the time. The brightest people I have ever worked with were a few of my seminary profs who were Ivy League summa cum laudes and PhD's. They answered my questions and taught me how to ask even better ones.

Bible study for me is not just doing the hard work and reference but being willing to listen to the answers, not going to a text expecting to find the answer I already want. I work with Biblical texts each week and have for 24 years. It is the rarest of rare weeks that I don't discover some new idea, nuance, and/or connection. The times I don't its usually because I haven't been listening.