> We can continue to interpret the Bible in a fashion
>that makes it observationally false, or we can try to find a new interp.
>that does not force the believer to deny what he can see with his eyes.
Glenn,
This discussion started out with a proposal to discuss Christ and
Creation.
Instead, it immediately degenerated into a traditionall TE vs
Creationist debate
with absolutely no reference to Christ as Creator.
Please accept what I am saying in the appropriate light. (Really, I am
typing
in a kind way!) :-)
I really want to end an ad-infinitum off topic string. I concede that
our mutual
posts have led nowhere and may in fact go on forever.
May I suggest several things to work on WRT your model that would
contribute more to understanding than to winning the (so far) unwinnable
argument of TE vs. creation.
1. Take time to research scripture more thoroughly. You get an "A" for
your
zeal in defending your position. But IMHO your scriptural research is
wanting.
You make broad brushed claims that the Bible teaches evolution but when
the onion is peeled back, you have trouble defending your model against
conflicting scripture. I think that it is an inherent TE liability.
Your reliance on the NIV, which language you defend vociferously and
upon which much of your argument depends, only because it is
conveniently on your compouter, turns it into a crutch. I, for one,
would
rather avoid spending my precious time confirming whether the
translation
you use has some degree of accuracy.
May I suggest something?
I personally use several study tools:
- an interlinear Bible
- a good exhaustive concordance (Strong's)
- a Hebrew-Chaldean and Greek Dictionary
- several translations (I like the Bronx Bible best :-))
Consider purchasing some of these. Most are available as software
or CD-Rom .
You may want to spend some time in the Book and rethink or rework your
interpretation of Genesis 1.
2. You have developed a circular argument regarding your method of
interpreting scripture. First, you say that the Bible teaches evolution.
Then
you say that the evidence, properly interpreted, supports evolution.
Then,
that that evidence should be used to re-interpret the bible. This
reasoning
is a tautology and provides no self-correction for error.
Any argument needs an independent external control. In the TE vs.
creation debate, it is scripture. We cannot use the force of reason to
reinterpret God's word. Since all scripture is inspired (theo-pneustas),
then it is the absolute reference for all we think, say, or do.
As for physical evidence, we live in an accursed, corrupted world. The
evidence must speak to that corruption. Since evidence is in fact not
holy,
it cannot be the arbiter of scripture. Scripture must only answer to
itself,
or to God.
3. Your tag-line editorials castigating all of the Christians who can't
see
your point contributes nothing to understanding. I think that many of us
want to truly understand your model, but if we cannot even get past your
translation and interpretation of scripture there will remain a vast
chasm
between us.
But, since it is your model the burden lies upon you to re-work the
weaker
areas. I hope that you do do that and post your revisions for later
discussion on this reflector. I recomend some additional thought in the
scriptural end of things. If not, the non-believers on the list will
just have
a good laugh reading all of our arguing.
Toward understanding,
Yours in Christ,
Paul
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." Proverbs 27:17"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Durham pdd@gcc.cc.md.us
Oakland, Maryland