From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Thu Oct 09 2003 - 18:05:10 EDT
One only
> needs to look at literalist or concordist approaches to geology and
> scripture from past centuries to see how silly it appears when Bible
verses
> are tied to ideas long defunct (e.g. Burnet's _Sacred Theory of the Earth_
> 1681, Whiston's _A New Theory of the Earth_ 1696, Hugh Miller's _The
> Testimony of the Rocks_ 1857). I believe that some modern examples like
> Henry Morris' _ The Bible and Modern Science_ (continuously in print under
> various titles since 1946) will also fare poorly.
>
Much of Steve's reply I liked but not the above. Hugh Miller's book is an
excellent one and I would rejoice if more people took it to heart. It is the
finest statement of geology and genesis in the 19th century. I only have
three copies of the book which has been reprinted twice this century. His is
fine mid Victorian OE stuff with a wonderful chapter on the Anti-geologists
written with a ready wit. It is a must read.
Burnet and Whiston were fair works for the 17th century, with a strong
emphasis on the deluge but an extended understanding of the 6 days, which
would make them unacceptable to ICR and AIG. Whiston allows for a long chaos
followed by 6 days of a year each. They are not given the respect they
deserve, though their ideas have not stood the test of time and were
overthrown within 50 years.
Henry Morris is in a different order altogether and not worthy of
comparison with the other three, who are a Christian geologists illustrious
forbears. Ishall say no more.
Michael
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Oct 09 2003 - 18:05:45 EDT