Date: Tue Sep 24 2002 - 14:11:45 EDT
In reply to Walter's posting below:
It is not reasonable to think that people in the past are thinking in the
same words as we do. "Historical" has a specific meaning now, especially
for scientists, a meaning that is not shared by everyone. People in the
past did not think in the same words as we do and some words have other
meanings. Even when they have approximately the same meaning, a word like
"history" was not used even some centuries ago in the same way it is now
used by scientists. God inspired the Bible not to scientists but to
"ordinary" (let us say people not versed in physics etc.) people. Requiring
that they must have read the words in the same way as we do is very
un-scientific. We need language-scientists, philosophy-scientists,
hsitory-scientists etc. The way the word "science' is used as if it is the
end of a discussion, forgets that even mathematics (but all science) is
founded on certain philosphies. Especially the explaining of its results.
This is my last reply now. I explained my position several times in the
past, without getting sufficiently founded replies. I got trapped again
here. I am sorry.
Walter Hicks writes:
> Jim Eisele wrote:
>> I'm realistic enough not to expect agreement. But, the stakes are high,
>> and some will drop out along the way. My claim is that the Bible is
>> historical until shown otherwise.
> I will second this. Why is it not a reasonable position? Is it not what we
> generally follow with respect to scientific theories?
> Why, I'd bet that even a good lawyer might agree ;-).
> Walt Hicks <email@example.com>
> In any consistent theory, there must
> exist true but not provable statements.
> (Godel's Theorem)
> You can only find the truth with logic
> If you have already found the truth
> without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 24 2002 - 16:00:11 EDT