Re: Biblical Interpretation Reconsidered

It's essential to start with theological considerations, rather than science. This approach highlights the fact that you are trying to develop an approach within a theologically sound context and makes it more difficult to make accusations like the recently-cited ones from Willis. Secondly, it deals with a topic that is likely to be familiar. This argument tries to gain support by usurping the claim of Jesus' authority. Exposing the fact that the young-earth argument is misrepresenting Scripture might point folks to consider the possibility that "young-earth" and "biblical" are not synonyms.

>(like a recent creation and a global Flood-Luke 17:26-27), why should we believe what He says about heavenly things?<

The author of this argument is wrong about what he claims the Bible says. Luke 17:26-27 says nothing about the age of the earth, and the following verses make it clear that Jesus is not talking about whether the Flood was global. Why should we believe what this YEC says about theology or science?

>by connecting it with the fact of the creation of man and woman as Genesis says!<

But again, this tells us nothing about when or how.

> The Sabbath commandment, another moral issue, was given explicitly because God created the heavens and earth in six normal-length days<

"Normal-length" is an addition to the text.

Making a particular view of creation essential to being a good Christian is an addition to the gospel. Paul has bad things to say about this in Galatians.

    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

                 
Received on Thu Dec 18 14:24:45 2003