>>When the issue is textual criticism, evidence from geology is IRRELEVANT.
Again, if you think that it is, please clarify how that can be. How does an
observed datum, like a skull fragment from Africa, tell me what rules of
textual approach I should employ? <<
This will be my last post in response to this issue. When we were talking
about the theory of man's creation 50,000 years ago, we were not discussing
textual approach. We were discussing a view you were advocating. Data is
not irrelevant to that. While I agree that the crust of the earth can not
tell you how to approach the text, your view of fossil man does not fall into
the category of textual approach.
Enjoyed it.
glenn