 | | Re: Why not Both? —David Eaton
|
| | | (...) Exactly. And maybe I erred semantically-- your assumption (I think) is that when what science tells us disagrees from what the Bible tells us, obviously science's conclusion has erred somehow-- either due to lack of data, incorrect data, or (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Jon Kozan
|
| | | | | (...) Probably. That's not to say that, being humans, we can't mis-interpret the Bible. But philosophically, the literal interpretation says that the Bible is relatively easy to understand - at face value. Not everything, certainly, but most (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Jon Kozan
|
| | | | (...) 2 things in particular come to mind. 1) personal relationship with God - difficult to explain. Outwardly could appear to be similar to your beliefs. Although there's more historical basis for mine... I also have the evidence of my life and (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) You'll have to clarify here: your personal relationship has a historical basis, and is based on the evidence of your life and others'? Actually, I'll correct myself by saying I think you're adressing two topics-- both the personal connection, (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
