From: Jim Eisele <jeisele@starpower.net>
To: <allenroy@peoplepc.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 2:47 PM
Subject: Re: The Bible is not a scientific text??
> >If we don't know what it could look like, then how do we know that the
> > Bible doesn't look like it?
> Allen, why don't you just come out and say what you are
> getting at?
What I am getting is, what do we mean when we say the Bible is not a
scientific text? What does that mean? On what basis does one determine
that a manuscript is scientific or not? And is this even the correct
question? Does it matter whether it is a scientific text. Can scientific
ideas be founded on it or derived from it? Science can only be done within
a paradigm. Must the philosophical assumptions for that paradigm come from
only scientific sources?
I am not saying that it is or isn't scientific. I just want to know on what
basis do we say that. Jan de Koning said, "Unfortunately, we cannot know
what a "scientific" text written or inspired by God would look
like." It follows logically that if we don't know what it could look like,
then we also do not know what it could not look like. So we are still left
with the original question.
I feel my self being dragged back into a time consuming discussion. I cant
do that so I'm going to try to shut up.
Allen
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 15 2002 - 00:01:48 EST