<<Bloesch's demand means a disconnect between
observation and scripture. He is removing history from the Bible.>>
You are quoting a small portion of a book from 1971, and even that doesn't
support your conclusion. Bloesch doesn't say this at all. He says the exact
opposite. You need to read "Holy Scripture" (IVP, 1994) before going
further. "The truth of Scripture is both historical and metahistorical. It
is revealed in history but at the same time transcends history. It has
universal applicability and significance even while it has a historical
focus and setting." [p. 270]
That is clear enough. Then you quote Ramm from 1954! And switch the issue
from the theological to the scientific. Of course his data will be dated!
But you haven't dealt with the scriptural issue. For that you need to read
his "After Fundamentalism" (Harper & Row).
<<My point is, Jim, Christians have decided what the solution must be
before
they have ever looked at the evidence. And when they are looking at the
evidence, they refuse to alter their viewpoint as the data requires.>>
Yes, but that is not the issue I presented. You say there are only two
views of scripture, and that IMO causes you insoluble problems. But Bloesch
and Ramm represent the view of the Reformers (and really a reaction against
the late 19th and early 20th century rise of the fundamentalist view of
inerrancy). This is what you need to explore if you are going to deal
rightly with the observational data of Scripture.
Jim