Re: Firmament and the Water above was [asa] Re: Slug

Glenn wrote,

<<Paul, you totally missed the point with those examples from astronomy
using
words in a certain way. Everytime someone brings up raqiya as an example
that one can't concord, you guys miss the fact that even modern science uses
words in a way that don't strictly concord, but then you all expect us to
swallow the hook you lay out for us.>>

Sorry. But other concordists have done silly things like saying the
firmament is the "matrix of space", so I just thought you were doing the
same sort of thing.
Now that I see your real point, I will answer that:

The statements of modern astronomers which use words that could be construed
as being out of concord with reality must be interpreted within the context
of modern knowledge. In that context, we know they are not saying the sky is
really solid. Similarly the statements in Scripture must be interpreted
within the context of ancient knowledge. In that context, we know they ARE
saying the sky is really solid.

From the slug thread you asked me for a modern book on apologetics. I have
not kept up with them, but assume they exist. I think William Lane Craig has
some good literature, but the last apologetics book I read and recommend is
Gary R. Habermas and Anthony G.N. Flew, Did Jesus Rise From the Dead? Terry
L. Miethe, editor (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987) It is a critical
debate on the question "Did Jesus rise from the dead?" that took place
between world-renowned atheistic philosopher, Dr. Anthony Flew, and New
Testament scholar and Christian, Dr. Gary Habermas. A panel of five
philosophers from leading universities judged the outcome. What was the
conclusion? Four votes for Habermas. None for Flew. And one draw.

Paul

 
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri, 16 Jun 2006 20:40:38 -0700