Allen wrote:
>>> I know your history. The issue is not the need for counter evidence,
but rather that in realizing that the evidence is really interpretation
within a religious paradigm and not pure fact. <<<
This is very interesting and inconsistent with what you said to Paul Seely.
On Tue 1/9/01 12:57 PM you wrote:
>>>You are assuming that the Bible NEEDS interpreting in order to make
sense. In other words, the Bible cannot mean what it really says. You must
change the meaning to fit whatever philosophies are in vogue at the time.
The only interpretation needed is in accurately transmitting the meaning of
the texts from one language to another without adding to the meaning of the
texts the philosophies of the interpreters. The inclusion of the translators
philosophies into translations is espceially apparent when comparing various
translations of the Bible. And that is why one needs to checK many
translations and go back to the original langauges whenever possible to see
if alternative interpretations are possible and better.<<<
Here you admit that interpretation is needed in accurately transmitting the
meaning of the texts. Thus, you must realize that the translation you prefer
is really (to quote you) "interpretation within a religious paradigm and not
pure fact. "
The word 'earth' in Genesis 6-9 can be translated with the meaning 'planet
earth' or 'land' or 'country'. That word is translated in that way
throughout the old Testament. Your choice of 'planet earth' as the
preferred translation is nothing more than an interpretation within a
religious paradigm. Please become consistent in your beliefs and don't tell
others how NOT to interpret things, when YOU YOURSELF INTERPRET THINGS IN
THE SAME FASHION!!!!!!
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of Allen Roy
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 6:40 AM
To: asanet
Subject: Re: Unwillingness to listen
From: Glenn Morton
Allen, you forget that I used to be a YEC, a publishing YEC. I will put
my life history in evidence as proof that I listen to both sides. I spent
the first 44 years of my life as a YEC. I didn't change to my present views
without critically examining the evidence. Where is the evidence that you
consider the other side of the arguement?
The standard explanations for sedimentary depositions are assumed to
only have happened in the same kinds of environments, grouped under Marine,
Non-marine and transitional, which exist today. In other words, the
explanations or interpretations of the deposits are done within Actualism
which is a corollary of the religious philosophy of Naturalism/Materialism.
Thus when one accepts the current interpretations then one is agreeing that
the religious philosophy of Naturalism is correct and that the Bible and the
Flood are false.
What is needed, is to be able to differentiate between fact (or data) as
derived by scientific methodology and interpretation (or explanation) of the
facts or data within a specific philosophy. As a creationists, rejecting
Naturalism and it's corollary Actualism, I am under no obligation to accept
any interpretation which is contrary to the creationary philosophy. I have
no right to dismiss real facts or data, but am required to develop new
interpretations of the data within a catastrophist model.
From what I have read, all of what you present as "facts" which don't
fit a flood catastrophist model are not really facts, but rather,
Actualistic interpretations of the facts. When I see you doing this, I
realize that you are not making distinction between fact and interpretation.
I realize that you made major changes in your beliefs based on Actualistic
interpretations of the facts and not on the facts themselves.
When I reject these Actualistic interpretations and present possible
Catastrophist interpretations of the real data, I am accused of picking and
choosing whatever I want and ignore the rest. That is not the case. I
search for the real data and then finding explanations which fit within the
Catastrophist model, just as those who believe in Naturalism find
explanations of the data within their model.
A case in point. A scientist submits rock samples to a lab which
scientifically measures various quantities of isotopes. The lab returns to
the scientist data consisting of the measurements of the isotopes. These
lists of measurements are scientific facts.
If the scientist accepts Actualism, he may then interpret the data by
entering it into formulae from which ages may be computed. However, this
information is not scientific fact, but philosophical interpretation of the
facts.
The Creationary Catastrophists is under no compunction to accept such
philosophical interpretation because of very basic differences in
philosophy. Such computed ages have no meaning in the Catastrophist model.
The Catastrophists may wish to develop an interpretation of the measured
isotopes. Such an interpretation need not address the Actualistic
computations of time.
But you may say, I have never been indoctrinated in Naturalism! True.
There are no classes in Naturalism as there are for Creationary
Catastrophism. What really happens is that Naturalism is assumed. It is
"The Given." Naturalism may never be brought up or pointed out. It is
simply and subtly there and everything is interpreted within it. The
student must head the warning "buyer beware."
Allen
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 10 2001 - 15:30:33 EST