Well, then, why the disagreement? Whether you want to call it
accommodation to pre-scientific views or use of common idioms, clearly we
have a scientifically inaccurate description of certain animals. WE should
admit this to be so, rather than try to harmonize these statements with
modern science. I'd still like some comments on the rest of my post , which
involve more substantive issues.
-----Original Message-----
From: Glenn Morton [mailto:glenn.morton@btinternet.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 9:13 AM
To: Shuan Rose
Cc: Asa
Subject: RE: sciDocument.rtf
> 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 : Fri Jul 05 2002 - 16:17:29 EDT