>It surely
>seems like an arrogant and dangerous game to seek to force Scripture to
>fit the "facts" uncovered by science. If the Bible is so unreliable in
>its dealing with the "truth" of origins, why trust it?
> Why not establish a new gospel according to science and chuck the old
>one based on revelation.
>
It seems more dangerous to me to say that the Bible doesn't have to have a
relationship with the events of history specifically geologic history and
anthropological history. I agree with your point. If it says nothing
true about origins then I certainly would find it difficult to trust it.
Current apologetal systems make the Bible say false things about the
world.
>It is these that inspired my first post, not, as Dick and Glenn seem
>to assume, some superior knowledge on my part.
I do wish people would quit mixing Dick says with what I say. Dick and I
rarely agree although we get along just fine. Dean go re-read what I sent
you privately. I did not assume any sort of knowledge on your part. Nor
did I really scold you. I merely told you why I felt the area was
important to my ability to evangelize geoscientists.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm