>For some reason, Glenn has mixed up science and hermeneutics. For >example,
he alleges then when I am talking theology, the "observational >data is
irrelevant," as if that is a charge worth making.
I give up Jim. When we were talking about your 50,000 year creation of man
viewpoint, the data was irrelevant. But the 50,000 year creation of man view
is anything but a theology.Scientific data comes to bear on whether that
SCIENTIFIC view has any validity. You can't hide behind textual genre when
you suggest a theory like your 50,000 year theory which has scientific
implications.
But I give up. I am so thoroughly confused as to what in the world you
believe that I may never understand anything you say ever again. If
Bloesch's view brings about this type of confusion and is more difficult to
understand than General Relativity, I probably wouldn't understand it anyway.
glenn