PHSEELY@aol.com wrote:
> Allen wrote:
>
> << The thing we (YECs and I) have in common is that the Bible comes first,
> because we know we can trust the witness evidence given by men as moved by
> the Holy Spirit. Observations are valid irregardless of whether the texts
> are ment to be scientific or not. >>
>
> You are still assuming that God _reveals_ history and science in Scripture.
> If he accommodates his revelation to the science/history of the times, your
> premise is false. Further, I see no biblical reason to believe that he
> reveals science or history. Biblical historians refer to their sources as
> human sources; while prophets refer to their source as direct revelation. I
> think your basic premise is an autonomous extra-biblical belief; and I have
> yet to see any evidence that any scientific statement in Scripture is in
> advance of the science of the times.
To broaden Paul's point a bit, the argument of Allen (and unfortunately
many other Christians) amounts to:
A. The Bible is divinely inspired.
B. Divine inspiration ensures truth.
D. All the narratives in the Bible are accurate historical and/or
scientific accounts of events which have actually taken place.
What is missing in order for this to be a complete argument is the
usually unexamined premise:
C: Only accurate historical and/or scientific accounts of events which
have actually taken place
can be truthful narratives.
And this is false.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 17 2001 - 14:34:31 EST