Allen wrote,
<< Your "factual knowledge" is really "evolutionary interpretation of the data
within the assumption of the mythology of Naturalism." This lack
discernment between fact and interpretation is the very thing which Morton
(and you) seems to be incapable of comprehending. Within "sound Biblical
thinking" means that scientifically acquired data is interpreted within the
Biblical paradigm. Thus the bible is the basis for interpretation of the
data. It is read as it makes sense without the need to try to reinterpret
the Bible to fit the assumptions of mythological Naturalism. >>
Eccl 1:5 says, "the sun rises and the sun sets" By taking the verse out of
its historical context, one can rationalize it to mean that, it is just
speaking phenomenologically; but, it continues,"and hastening to its place,
it rises there again." It clearly says the sun is moving around the earth.
Nowhere does the Bible say or infer that the earth is moving rather than the
sun. Indeed, as Luther pointed out, the world (the earth upon which man
dwells) is fixed and cannot be moved (Psa 93:1; 96:10).
If "sound Biblical thinking" means that scientifically acquired data is
interpreted within the Biblical paradigm, then you must join Luther in
rejecting Copernicanism. If you do reject Copernicanism, then for you "the
bible is the basis for interpretation of the
data. It is read as it makes sense without the need to try to reinterpret
the Bible to fit the assumptions of mythological Naturalism." But, if you
accept Copernicanism, according to your espoused principle, you are
subscribing to mythological naturalism.
So, is the sun moving around the earth as the Bible says, or not? Bible or
naturalism? Which do you choose?
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 07 2002 - 02:01:24 EST