Jan Dekoning wrote:
> Do I understand correctly that you do not believe God's revelation in Nature?
After I wrote that I reflected that the proposition
"The Bible says it" needs more definition. "Says"
does require a reference frame. In the case of
how I read creationist views it runs something like
"MYYY interpretation of scripture is the only correct
way to read scripture, and all other MUST be false,
because I have made up my mind that all other
interpretations are by definition false [and I
write the definitions]." It is little different
from some atheists who basically say "WEEEEEE
have it all solved." There is no way to reconcile
with thinking like that, but at least if the person
is willing to admit that it is faith and only faith,
I can consider them consistent.
There are other ways of reading the scripture that
allow for God's revelation in nature without insisting
on how God is supposed to do God's work in the world.
In this respect, the most bitter atheist I meet (like
many of the YEC folk) seem to insist on how God must
do God's work. Such skeptics seem rock stuck in their
"facts", and YEC in their interpretation of a book.
We have a Bible, we have our minds, and we have a world
in which to compare these. If what we observe goes
against what we think is right we either modify how we
view our world or we set up barriers to ignore what
conflicts with our views. I don't want to say what
is rational to do here, but my own preference is to
modify my views. The authors of Chronicles and Kings
had to wrestle with the issue of their time and
we have to wrestle with issues of ours.
By Grace alone we proceed,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 05 2002 - 23:44:47 EDT