>But I also
>believe that if we are serious about dealing with 'Science and Christian
>Faith' we had better become as professional as we can in BOTH areas. In the
>context of this discussion, we scientists need to learn more principles of
>exegesis, more biblical languages, more philology, more biblical
>theology... and become able to read and grasp something of the
>disagreements between experts that Jack refers to.
Agreed. Otherwise we are simply pooling our ignorance.
>A third methodological point is one on which I agree completely with the
>main thrust of Glenn's approach: that "external evidence" from science or
>any other area of General Revelation MUST be used in doing good exegesis!
>My only argument with Glenn is over the possibility of making good
>exegetical decisions based on the "internal evidence" of the text alone.
I would modify that a bit to say that external evidence must be used when
it can. I would add that when attempting to use evidence from one field to
confirm or challenge the conclusions of another, you have to be very
careful to avoid letting wishful thinking influence interpretation of data.
Bill Hamilton | Chassis & Vehicle Systems
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)