This is exactly what I struggle with when faced with Paul Seeley's views.
And I am well aware that what I suggested might fall explicitly into the
areas that Paul would say are concessions. If there is no real 'divine' in
the divine inspiration, then we are all in trouble. This is an area that I
would like to do more research on and I don't have the answers. I know what
I don't like and I don't like the idea that the Bible is just a bunch of
concessions to humankind. And I don't like the idea that major doctrines
are merely a concession. Nor do I really like the suggestion I made last
night. I would begin my study by wondering if there is a difference between
governmental laws and moral laws in the Pentateuch. Those smarter than I
will know this instantly.
I do know this. I see little reason to believe a religion that is so
plastic as to be believable under any and all conditions. And that is what
I fear modern liberalism has done to christianity. On the other hand, I see
no reason to believe a religion which must deny any and all observational
data which is what I fear modern conservatism has done to christianity.
Somewhere there must be something better than either of those alternatives.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution