No. This issue does not revolve around the literalistic view of ths
Scripture. Your and Hugh Ross's view of when spiritual man was created has
consequences. From those implications we can look to see if the data
supports it. It doesn't that I can see. So if the data does not support it,
why would you and Hugh make such a suggestion? The only purpose for making
such a suggestion is to somehow imply that the Bible is true and needs to be
paid attention to by the sinners of the world. Presumably you would not
recommend that sinners pay attention to some document which is UNTRUE! Thus
as I said, the only reason I can see for making an apologetical argument at
all is to support the TRUTH of the Bible. If the aplogetical view does not
do that and indeed makes the Bible look false, that would appear counter
productive.
You wrote:
>>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. <<
I am not trying to be unfair, but explain to me a simple question which you
don't want to respond to. How does your view of man's creation help the
Christian cause? Does it match with known archeological fact? If it
doesn't, does that make the Bible look better? If we don't have to match the
facts (or at least fit within them) why can't we simply appeal to miracle and
be done with all this verbosity on the evolution reflector?
What you are ignoring is the simple question: WHy if man was created 50,000
years ago do we not see farming and cities until 10,000 years ago? and the
related question, If we don't have to believe what the Scriptural Record
says, why do we care to propose such a view? If we don't have to believe the
details of the Biblical record, then we can make up our own creation story.
Some have criticized evolutonists for "creating there own creation story". It
would appear that if you can make up your creation story, TE's should be able
to do the same. So it would seem to be best to quit criticizing the TE's for
doing that! If you make up your creation story, you certainly have no leg to
stand on when criticizing those who some might think are doing that with
evolution.
JIm bell wrote:
>>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? <<
I realized when you were quoting Tattersall a few days ago that you were
quoting the man's conclusions and not his evidence. I too have read
Tattersall. The scientific data is not a man's conclusions, but the facts
upon which those conclusions are based. So I have found what you said less
than convincing. Why would H. erectus have a Broca's area which all men have
and which is used for speech?
You wrote:
>>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?<<
Of course it is possible my hermenutic needs revising. But how about the
attention you pay to details of fact? Shouldn't your suggestion have some
relationship to what the Bible says and fact constrains? If you say that
there was no farming for 40000 years after man's creation, then the Bible is
clearly wrong to say that Cain and Abel farmed. So if it is wrong there, why
do you believe it to be correct in Genesis 1:1? You hold literallly to that
verse I believe. So why should you criticise me for holding to the validity
of other verses? Or do we get to choose what verses we believe in?
glenn