Re: Coconino - Evidence for a flood?
George Murphy (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Sat, 21 Mar 1998 17:00:53 -0500
John Neal wrote:
> No, you misunderstand what I'm saying. It's not the context or the elements
> that are necessarily what's being called 'knowledge falsely so called.' It
> is the nature of the relationship of these individual elements to the
> perception of the individual person that classifies whether or not something
> is true knowledge. ................
I find your use of the word "context" puzzling here. I should
have said that of course individual items of knowledge can be true
without being the result of divine revelation, but that we see things &
relationships in their fullest meaning & truth precisely in the
_context_ of God's revelation which is given in Christ.
I agree that scientific statements are given a false sense if
they are construed in opposition to revelation. But then we have to be
careful to understand what that revelation is. Belief that Scripture is
a true & authoritative witness to God's revelation to Israel which
culminates in Jesus does not mean that all of Scripture, including
Gen.1-11, must be understood as accurate scientific and/or historical
chronicle. Clearly you believe that is what these texts are, & that is
then the point of difference, not a question of whether or not the Bible
George L. Murphy