Re: Why ICR "wins"

R. Joel Duff (Virkotto@intrnet.net)
Wed, 21 Jan 1998 10:09:16 -0600 (CST)

>Steve
>
>ICR wins because they are "REAL" scientists whose interpretation of science
>is consistent with the priority of Scripture (from a literal gramatical
>historical interpretive view) not the other way around. You want the
>scriptures to conform to your view of science. They want to see science in
>a way that is consitent with scripture. It is simply a question of which
>you place first in your world view. Most Christians choose the latter view
>and therefore you find them somewhat unreceptive to your perspective.

Pete,
Let me respectfully disagree. I more than agree that many Christains are
swayed by the "wisdom" of the world. Man's sinful heart does make him tend
to want to find athority anywhere but in Christ but just because we have
sinful hearts is not reason enough to suggest that Christians who question
a particular form of literalistic interpretation are bent upon worship of
man versus God. I think some additional evidence must be produce to show
that some people are specifically rejecting God's word for this reason
before you can judge the heart.

Let me also say that what you have said is almost word for word what I have
been told by my several geocentrists friends when I have suggested that
geocentricity was not a physical reality. You see if one argues that one
can absolutely not look at any evidence from God's creation but can ONLY
derive ones interpretation from the Scipture alone, before looking at the
Creation, there would be absolutely no reason to ever question the fact the
Sun goes around the Earth. Now I do not say that there are no sound
exegitical evidences that can be obtained from Scipture to debunk the
geocentric viewpoint, but does not one have to have a REASON to question
the position of the Earth before one even would think to look for those
Scriptural proofs. Cleary if you have any inkling that the earth goes
around the sun you must be first have gotten the idea from the natural
world and then examined Scriptures to FIND a way to conform reinterpret
them.

Now you may say that a reexamination of Scriptures still leads to the
necessity of a literal 6-day creation but I don't think one can rule out
the use of extraBiblical data as a source of information that might force
one to at least attempt to reexamine the Scripture. But if you first say a
young-earth is what the Bible says and then attempt to interpret all the
data around you then I would say you are simply standing on an
interpretation/assumption that you have never really tested (how do you
know you are not trying to shove a square peg into a round hole?).

I would be interested in your views on geocentricity and how specifically
you came to your beliefs in this area. If you think about it I think you
will see that the there is no clear dichotomy between the Bible-only and
external-evidence only but that their must be a give and take between the
two, though I would affirm that the Bible always takes precedence.

blessings to you,

joel duff

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
,-~~-.___.
Joel and Dawn Duff / | ' \ Spell Check?
Carbondale IL 62901 ( ) 0
e-mail: duff@siu.edu \_/-, ,----'
or virkotto@intrnet.net ==== //
or nickrent-lab@siu.edu / \-'~; /~~~(O)
* * * * * * / __/~| / | * * *
\\\/// \\\/// =( _____| (_________| \\\///

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
http://www.intrnet.net/~virkotto/joelduff.htm
http://www.intrnet.net/~virkotto/index.html
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/