Dick Fischer wrote:
> Genesis 1:11 mentions "fruit trees" on the third day of creation. In 1611
> that might have made sense, however in Hebrew, a "nut" is a fruit.
> Conifers bear seeds (nuts), and appear in the fossil record prior to fish,
> whereas cherry trees, apple trees, etc. do not. How the human writer
> understood this verse we cannot know. What the Holy Spirit intended we can
> only guess. The fossil record can be useful. Why not use it?
This is an issue I always find myself straddling the fence on.
One problem I see in wrestling this issue is that (for
example) Muslims also claim that the Koran already predicted
all sorts of amazing things long before science verified them.
At least one site I have run into before resembled a
Muslim version of RTB.
I've also heard Buddhists claim that their books
(actually 100s of them) agree with science too. Of
course with such vast ranges of views (some even
clearly influenced by Christian theology), at least
some part of each surely got something right, but anyway.
So whereas I would definitely agree that concordance is very
_useful_ (indeed valuable), ultimately even if we could show
an undeniable 1 to 1 agreement between the scientific
and the biblical accounts, it still comes down to whether
you think the writers told the truth to the best of their
ability or not.
by Grace alone we proceed,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 17 2002 - 07:19:20 EST