Diane (Allen?) Roy wrote
<< Glenn accepts Actualism. As a Creationary Catastrophist, I accept
Actualism up to the point that it conflicts with Biblical witness evidence.
Witness evidence has more authority than any philosophical tenet (not the
other way around). >>
Where we have a divine revelation, this principle is sound. But if you have
the idea that the historical books of the Bible qua history are revelations
from God or that the science in the Bible is a divine revelation rather than
an accommodation, that itself is a philosophical tenet. There is no divine
revelation, no biblical claim, that either the history or the science in the
Bible is a divine revelation.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 16 2000 - 00:06:41 EDT