>>I agree with you here. And I agree also with what you say about "the data"
reflecting back on the Bible, as a way for us to "judge" it. But here's
where we differ: If you choose one form of interpreting Genesis 1, and then
the datarefutes it (as you say it does with YEC), the problem just MIGHT be
that you've approached Gen. 1 incorrectly. That's what I think you've done.
You took the back door, and rearranged the time line to fit the data. That's
one way to harmonize, but for me, not the right one.<<
I agree that if the data refutes an interpretation of Genesis the problem may
very well be that the approach is incorrect. That is precisely why I altered
my approach to Genesis. I am sure there are others. Why? Because the one
and only thing I remember from my graduate studies in philosophy are that for
any given set of facts there are an infinite number of theory to explain
those facts.
I know I have asked this before. What IS your harmonization between Genesis
and Science? If you say my approach is wrong, then I would think that it is
incumbent upon you to come up with a consistent means of harmonization which
matches the data--both Biblical and Scientific. In my view the only two
views which do this are mine and Dave Probert's. I don't like Dave's view
but it does work. What is yours?
You wrote:
GM<<Then you and I do not have a difference here as long as you allow the
History to be verified. But there is a logical contradiction. You and I can
not be in agreement and you and Denis be in agreement at the same time.
That implies strongly that Denis and I are in agreement, and I know that
ain't true. So the only place I can see that you are not going to like
possibly is the part about testing the history data.>>
You wrote this purposely to keep me up all night, didn't you, Glenn? Somehow,
this logic looks solid, but for the life of me, I can't prove it!<<
Can't prove what? The logic is impossible. Denis and I are for the time
being diametrically opposite on the issue of the need for historicity in
early Genesis and the historicity of early Genesis. He passed the test as a
true non-literalist when he said that there was no literal history in Genesis
1:1. I disagree strongly with that. I feel it needs to be historical and
indeed IS historical There is no logical way for you to agree with both of
us at the same time.
glenn