On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 05:33:35 +0000 glenn morton <mortongr@flash.net>
writes:
>This is most likely what Allen was wanting, but that conclusion can
>only be
>reached by ruling out what Bill Payne said (nothing is missing) and
>what I
>said, (commas are missing). To me, this is a case where a conclusion
>can be
>drawn only if one limits the possible answers.
I would say that a conclusion can be drawn only if we know what the
product (in this case a series of numbers) was intended, by its creator,
to look like. To say that a 4, or commas, or anything else is missing is
to assume that we can read the intentions of Allen, or that we can
delimit for Allen his range of possibilities. Since we have no
communication from Allen, we have no way of knowing whether anything is
missing or not. Only if Allen tells us what the series is supposed to
look like, will we be able to know what, if anything, is missing.
With respect to the cosmos, the mind of God as revealed in Scripture
gives us some boundaries within which to work.
And this is what
>young-earth creationism does, it limits the possible interpretations
>of the
>Scripture to just one, and then says that that is the only possible
>answer.
> It is important not to limit a view to simply one possibility until
>the
>data requires it.
Meaning you're open to YEC?
Bill
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 25 2000 - 23:37:36 EST