From: bivalve (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Jun 20 2003 - 17:14:58 EDT
Not sure that my point was clear. I agree that a concordist approach runs into many difficulties and do not personally endorse it. However, exactly what poses a difficulty depends on the exact claimed correspondance between the text and the scientific evidence. Thus, if someone is merely claiming that the sequence from Genesis 3 implies that the plant category first appeared before the water/air animal category, then the fact that seed plants appear after large water animals with good nervous systems does not refute that claim.
The firmament being beyond the microwave background is not especially plausible (notably the fact that the background is a temporal threshold rather than a physical structure), but is nearly impossible to disprove. Its failure is principally in the ridiculous effort to find scientific matches for incidental details in the text. If someone accepts that method of eisegesis, then they can find matches if they try hard enough.
My point was that I am not convinced that invoking particular discrepant details necessarily disproves all concordist approaches. I think the exegetical assumptions are a more fundamental problem.
Dr. David Campbell
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droitgate Spa
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 17:08:06 EDT