why be a concordist?

From: bivalve (bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com)
Date: Thu Jul 03 2003 - 20:50:10 EDT

  • Next message: Howard J. Van Till: "Re: Predeterminism and parallel universes"

    Howard asked (while I was away)
    >I'm wondering now if this also represents the views of persons on this list who take a similar concordist approach -- arguing that the the results of the empirical natural sciences provide support for the Bible, when properly interpreted.<

    While not taking a concordist approach, I would note that the Bible and empirical natural sciences do agree well when they actually are talking about the same thing. Such matters are generally in the background in the Bible, e.g., incidental mentions of fauna and flora of the region or cultural details confirmable by archaeology. In contrast, such details in the Book of Mormon are entirely contrary to the scientific evidence.

    Of course, this only provides somewhat corroborative evidence, rather than proof, of the reliability of the theologically significant aspects.

    Also, the passages relating to natural history often contain statements that are not strictly scientifically accurate. While perfectly legitimate as everyday language descriptions, they do not provide evidence of supernatural revelation of scientific facts. Rather, they suggest that the authors were recording things reliably in light of their own idioms and knowledge.

        Dr. David Campbell
        Old Seashells
        University of Alabama
        Biodiversity & Systematics
        Dept. Biological Sciences
        Box 870345
        Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
        bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com

    That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droitgate Spa

                     



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jul 03 2003 - 20:41:30 EDT