Excellent. This is a rare moment and we both should savor it. :-)
>By the way. As said from the beginning of our discussion the difference of
>opinion that you and I depend is just that, and only that. Our salvation
>does NOT depend on the stance we take. I do not know about you, but I am
>getting precisely what I wanted to begin with. A debate with an
>articulate, well-read Christian who differs with me and the position I
>take.
I am enjoying this very much. You have taught me much and caused me to dig
deeper which is good for me. And I absolutely agree with you that salvation
is not involved in this issue. It is one that we believers must struggle
with to try to fit the data, both Scriptural and scientific, into a
coherent picture. So I thank you for this excellent and civil tete-a-tete.
Lets proceed.
I have a question, If kol eretz depends on context and can't necessarily be
assumed one way or the other, are we, as believers, not then free to go to
the observational evidence to help us determine what the context must be?
I mean, assume that the Scripture can be LEGITIMATELY interpreted in one of
two fashions: As advocating a spherical earth and as advocating a flat
earth with a dome over it. Under this circumstance, if I were advocate that
the earth was flat because I interpret the Scripture that way, and there
are satellite pictures of a spherical earth, am I allowed to ignore the
observational evidence? Am I allowed to tie the Scripture to a false view
(given the satellite photos) which will then tie the TRUE WORD OF GOD to a
false view? I would say that I am not allowed to do that. So I guess the
question is, what is the legitimate and illegitimate role of observational
data?
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm