RE: sciDocument.rtf

From: Glenn Morton (glenn.morton@btinternet.com)
Date: Thu Jul 04 2002 - 09:13:05 EDT

  • Next message: Michael Roberts: "Re: Was the Incarnation necessary?"

    > I am sorry to mischaracterize you, Glenn, I thought you
    >said that if the
    >Bible was not free from scientific and historical error, then that
    >was proof
    >that it was not inspired or that God did not exist? What is your
    >explanation
    >of Lev. 11:19-22 and Lev.11:6?

    I don't have an explanation other than that the guy made a mistake or used
    idioms differently than we moderns want him to. A question I would think is
    a good one with the 'walk on all fours' comment. Is that an idiom for
    crawling along the ground? Afterall, we talk of the sun 'setting' and the
    North 'Pole' and those are scientifically inaccurate also. Occassionally
    marine mammals are classed with the fish in common parlance. Since the guy
    was giving dietary laws, which were their observations about what made
    someone sick, that passage doesn't seem to me to have great wads of divine
    inspiration. It is not of great theological significance what the writer
    called the hare or the insects.

    glenn

    see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
    for lots of creation/evolution information
    anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
    personal stories of struggle



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 04 2002 - 01:21:33 EDT