Re: In defense of Paul Seely

 You're making a category mistake. YEC says that science is in Scripture and must be "true"; so they are self-consistent in that they [think they] have the correct answer -- so obviously all other "science" must be wrong. Therefore how could they possibly change. But there is no reason to think that Scriptures were ever written to answer scientific questions. You're forcing texts into boxes they not only don't fit into, but could not even be imagined until recent history. Despite the hard work you have put into your research (which I greatly admire), I personally consider your interpretation as a reductio ad absurdum of the concordist position.
 
Yes interpretation changes, but it's generally for theological reasons (albeit sometimes prompted by other circumstances).
 
Karl
****************
Karl V. Evans
cmekve@aol.com
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: glennmorton@entouch.net
To: ASA list <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 23:00:36 -0400
Subject: Re: In defense of Paul Seely

I would ask Karl, if this means that we should never change our theological view
or intepretation of
scripture. YOu do, know, don't you that this is what the YECs implicitly say.
________________________________________________________________________
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.
Received on Thu Jun 8 13:30:52 2006