<<Wait half a second here. Jim you are advocating that spirtual man arose
40-50,000 years ago. This hypothesis has consequences. They are that if the
Scriptural account has any historical value at all, then we should find
evidence of cities, tents and farming at that time. We find tents in the
archaeological record PRIOR to that time but cities farming metallrgy are
found thousands of years later. Thus the observational data we have does not
support your view. So why should I believe what you say about man arising
when the data (since you don't believe in any gaps in the archaeological
record) does not go with you on this?>>
I'll wait TWO seconds if you want me to. ;-)
OK. Once again, it is a certain, literalistic, journalistic view of Scripture
that is the difference here. It's a theological difference, we've been over it
before, and rather than go through it again I have mentioned a couple of
writers I think are excellent on the subject.
<< As usual, you have chosen to ignore the problems with your own view. >>
I think you're being a tad unfair here. Anytime I point to what I see as the
central issue, you cast me as "choosing to ignore." This has happened numerous
times in the past. In other words, if I don't argue along the narrow
parameters you have chosen, it somehow isn't valid. But this isn't persuasive
if one doesn't agree with your particular heremeneutic.
You are entitled to your view, but I don't agree with it. And since I don't,
the "problems" you pose are not problems at all.
<<Jim won't ever answer scientific objections raised against his views.>>
Again, I think that's unfair. For example, I've gone around and around with
you, Jim Foley and others on the data regarding modern man. I've cited
articles and texts going all the way back to our debate on whales. I
constantly refer to specific books and journals. Or am I dreaming?
However, when it is pointed out that there is, say, no evidence for your 5.5
million year old view, that is brushed aside. When the problems of the whale
transitions were specified, who didn't answer the scientific objections?
But science is not the problem.
It is clear to me now the problem here is one of scriptural interpretation.
You are holding a rigid line which therefore creates "problems." But if your
interpretive view is not correct (isn't this a possibility?), then these
problems are self-created.
I'll ask you the same question I ask of myself and others: Is it possible your
hermeneutics may be in need of revision?
Jim