Inge wrote:
> I find it interesting if Warfield supported evolution, because his defense
> of the total inerrancy of the Bible has had a major influence on American
> evangelical theologians.
Ted did inform me that all were active at the turn of last century. To me
this in some sense emphasizes the point I was making with Burgy. Today there
are apparently no writers who believe in inerrancy or historicity who accept
both evolution and the age of the earth. The fact that their used to be a
few (and I might note that this is not a large number) is quite interesting
in light of where Christendom seems to be today. For accepting evolution, I
have been called an apostate, a heretic the son of Satan etc. It seems that
those with whom I agree with on the historicity issue are less than thrilled
with my acceptance of evolution. I think today I am the only one writing who
accepts the historicity of early Genesis, evolution and the age of the
earth. (so that there is no misunderstanding by historicity I don't mean a
story that became inflated and filled with false details leaving only a germ
of truth. To me that is not a historical tale as is obvious from the recent
discussions.) If anyone knows of another who accepts all those things I
would like to know. Dick Fischer comes close, but I don't think I would
include Dick Fischer here. This is because if the Bible and Sumerian texts
disagree, Dick goes with the Sumerians every time as far as I can tell,
meaning that the Bible has the wrong details once again.
glenn
see http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 13 2000 - 13:16:46 EST