Yes I am a Christian and I think it would be accurate to say evidence is in the eye of the beholder, but that does not prevent me from exploring for common ground between seemingly contradictory worldviews.
To the Christian there is Biblical "evidence" the the earth etc. was created by God. To the Scientist there is "evidence" that the earth was formed through natural and increasingly more understood processes.
Is it possible that God used natural processes to create the earth and left a record for us to discover through our own effort? We are promised that all things will be revealed, does all of the revelation have to be divine or can some be discovered by or own efforts, like for instance flight and many other technical advances.
I see no "evidence" to refute that possibility besides perhaps a few narrow interpretations of the scriptural account.
I think it is beneficial to broaden our minds, after all we can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Sometimes we should try that intellectually and challenge ourselves a little.
Ok, I see. What would you say is your highest authority especially regarding epistemology? By that I mean, how do you know what is true or, maybe better, what your standard of truth is.
For me learning the truth is an eternal discovery that will continue long after we have passed beyond this mortal sphere.
In the here and now we see through "a glass darkly" and so the truth has many facets, I am prepared to explore all angles since they are facets of the same diamond.
When I learn something new it is both shaped by and shapes my existing knowledge and beliefs.
I can't say that I have a "highest authority" since what I learn from the physical modifies the spiritual and visa versa.
Truth in my opinion remains true and is not threatened by new knowledge but is enhanced and also enhances.
I suppose my standard would be does this expand the understanding or shrink and shrivel it?
I hope you are not bored by my ongoing questions. :) But I wonder, since I know it's impossible not to have a highest authority in matters of knowledge and forming a life and worldview, wether you can see and would admit that you yourself are your highest authority and arbiter of Truth?
I tried to determine your standard of truth, that is by what standard do you know you have gained "new knowledge" or true believes? You mentioned the expanding of understanding, but I'm afraid that can't be the standard of truth. Actually, your standard of Truth is by what you know that you have expanded you understanding via new knowledge.
What do you think of Joh 17,17?
How is the word received?
I don't know what exactly you mean by that question. Do you ask how one personally comes to know what is written in the bible or how it was revealed to the prophets and apostles?
Both, because there are human understanding's present in all of these interfaces with the word. As my own personal understanding matures the word takes on greater depth and meaning.
What I read and learned from it the first time is not what I learn from the same passage decades later
I see. Well, Gods Word was theopneustos, godbreathed, according to 2Tim 3,16. It is the inerrant Word of God, inspired through the Holy Spirit. The Bible is truth (Joh 17,17) because it reveals God's thoughts. It is the only infallible rule of life and source for doctrine.
In respect to the question how one can know what the Bible contains I hold to a kind of occasionalism. I regard it as impossible to come to any true proposition by the senses or scientific method, which is based on the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent. Self-refuting scepticism would be unavoidable.
There are necessary truths and matters of interpretation. I regard a non-evolutionary worldview as necessary true because it would, again, lead to self-refuting scepticism by making knowledge impossible.
To believe what the bible says about itself is not an act of blind faith as some would have you believe. I have found that most Christians are unaware as to how the canon of scripture as we know it came to be. The reason for this is because it would be difficult for "Pastor Dan" to do a sermon on how the Roman Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon, but, uh, they uh, did put the bible together for us so we could use it to denounce them, A-amen??? Here is a decent account of the canonization process:
http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap030700.htm