In a message dated 3/15/02 6:17:32 PM Mountain Standard Time,
jeisele@starpower.net writes:
> Allan writes
>
> >But when some of us make similar observations about forced scientific
> >readings of Genesis 1, many of those reasonable people view that as making
> Scripture "weak" (or >as selling out the Bible completely).
>
> Hi Allan. I'm interested in what you say about reading Gen 1
> as science/history making Christianity weaker. My experience
> has been the exact opposite.
>
Umm ... that's not what I said. I was saying that almost everybody
understands the passages implying geocentrism to not be science, and nobody
seems to think that understanding weakens the Scripture (to address your
issue, recognizing the geocentric passages as non-science prevents some faith
crises that would arise if people thought God was teaching the "science"
found in those passages). Yet when similar understanding is proposed for
Gen. 1, some (you a couple of days ago, for example) seem to consider that
making the Scripture "weak." I still contend that when God communicates
truth, it is "strong" whether it is done as science, history, figurative
language, poetry, or whatever.
I said I was going to get out of this discussion because it was going nowhere
... I hope I can stick to my exit strategy this time ...
Allan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado | SteamDoc@aol.com
"Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cats"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 15 2002 - 22:43:46 EST