Subject:
|
Re: Why not Both?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:06:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
354 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In addition, your phrasing answers the very question you pose: "seems to
> say" explicitly points out the interpretability of the text. Who determines
> what the book "seems to say"?
Yes, I admit I changed the wording of that sentence after re-reading it, and
I must point out that this is important. If the Bible says "day", do we
necessarily know the definition of the word "day"? After all, the Jewish day
is measured from sunset to sunset. And assuming you travel westward (or
eastward) at a ridiculous speed (or really ANY speed), wouldn't a day be
longer? Or is a day the amount of time the Earth takes to spin around once?
And with respect to what? Newtonian space? The sun? Anyway, just driving the
point home a little more...
> It is the most valid and, as Bruce, DaveL, and I have repeatedly pointed
> out, the most complete means of arriving at explanations of how the natural
> world works. Now, that leaves the question of whether we accept the bible
> as valid... (though I agree that in my hypothetical model I was assuming it
> to be so).
As I said, I think, the closest science has come is to say that the Bible
isn't INvalid. We can't disprove it, if only because interpratability won't
let us. Maybe God was a Lawyer :) [gosh, that'd be rather ironic... don'tcha
think?]
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) In addition, your phrasing answers the very question you pose: "seems to say" explicitly points out the interpretability of the text. Who determines what the book "seems to say"? The natural world "seems to say" that evolution took place, but (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
