>Bernard Ramm, a few years before he died, wrote a marvelous book "After
Fundamentalism" (Harper & Row) in which he warns of the very rigidity I see
as a problem for Glenn. Ramm's evangelical credentials are unquestioned, and
that makes the book quite moving. [I am also biased because I corresponded
with him].<<
The ridgitiy of which you speak is that observational data can not and must
not be ignored. If you believe that it is ridgid to pay attention to the
data at hand, now is the time to say so Jim. If I don't have to pay
attention to the details of the Scriptural record, nor to the details of the
scientific data, then obviously I will have an easier time proposing all
sorts of theories to explain the way the Bible can be true. But if
observation and Scriptural accounts like Genesis 4 are to be viewed as
historical then one must of course be ridgidly attentive to the details.
No one else took me up on my question yesterday morning, So, Jim, how much
observational data can Christians ignore when it comes to an apologetical
view? one fact, two facts? three facts? 100 facts? or all the facts?
glenn