No problem! Thank you for the response. I will go ahead and reply, if you will indulge me. (I did say I wasn’t going to get into a lengthy back and forth).

Your suggestion is one way of interpreting the data. Of course, another way of interpretation is that a good many people do not understand the cultures and literary genre they are reading. They are removed by a minimum of 2,000 years and represent cultures and languages different than our own. One would expect misunderstandings and misinterpretations — especially among people who are ignorant of languages and cultures (which a good many Christians are — not trying to be unkind, but it is true).

Even in a discussion of science there are ignorant people , who are not scientists — but yes even scientists are not immune, who offer up contradictory views. All it proves is that anyone can enter a discussion regardless of their knowledge, credentials or lack thereof.

Indeed, various opinions may prove the entire concept is flawed, but not necessarily so. Nor is unanimity a flawless predictor of truth.

There are many different interpretations of proper medical and nutritional procedures and treatments — many are down-right bizarre, contradictory and harmful (differences even held among professionals). All one has to do is search the internet to know this. Such differences do not invalidate proper medical practice.

The same would be true in the practice of psychology and philosophy (a better parallel, perhaps). There are many conflicting views among philosophers and psychologists. Again, there is wide divergence of opinion; but contradictory opinion does not invalidate the entire enterprise.

I don’t think hard sciences can be compared over and against metaphysics. The goals are different.

Again, thank you for the response!