Not at all. Concordances are not attempts to confirm the bible, but to explain the language to aid in knowing what was originally written. They are made by scholars in the languages and often provide cross references to other languages too. It's like picking up a dictionary in 1920 and reading the definition of the word queer so you understand that it may not be the same as understood today.<quoted text>
The problem with the concordances is that all of them already knew the Earth is spherical. Do you seriously think that did not affect their translations at all?
Yes, I have dealt with it quite nicelyThat being said, I think your disagreement about how the Bible does tell us the Earth is flat has been dealt with.
What is your point? the lacking of scientific evidence does not mean something is not true, it simply means there is no evidence of it being true or not. Quantum mechanics operated for quite a long time with no real scientific evidence, yet we know many aspects to be true.Now when it comes to the theory of evolution what evidence do you have to support anything else? I guarantee you that there is no real science behind creationism and even creation "scientists" know it.
You obviously have absolutely no clue what a concordance is. It does not validate the bible, it validates the language used in the bibles. This in and of itself is also peer reviewed.Just as Biblical scholars have concordances science has peer review.
They write peer reviewed articles all the time. This is the reason why there are over 3000 separate denominations within the Christian religion alone not to mention the several different sects of Islamic and Jewish religions. Now maybe what you mean is scientific peer reviewed articles and that would be true because religion is not science.Creationists avoid peer review like vampires avoid holy water. Many of them have written peer review articles in their chosen careers before they tried to contribute to creationism. None of these people right peer reviewed articles with a creationist paradigm. That lack of action shouts volumes.
I am simply baffled by the problem people like you have insisting that something is not valid if it is not scientific, yet reality proves you wrong every day. I've already been over the entire discussion about someone approaching you and asking directions and you having no scientific way to prove it doesn't mean it never happened, yet you think that because something that is not science doesn't profess itself in science, it automatically is invalid. I seriously hope you are not involved directly with science as all future discoveries would cease to happen if real scientist ever adopted your methodology.