Jim Bell wrote:
>><<Huh? The observational data has NOTHING to do with theology. If you think
it does, please demonstrate how that is. How, for example, does the earth's
crust tell me how to do hermeneutics?>>
The truncated version only quoted the first sentence, and that was misleading
if you haven't been up on all the messages. The discussion was about the
theology OF HERMENEUTICS, not about general theology, and not about what the
observational data has to do with the textual data.<<
Since I had never said that the earth's crust had anything to do with
hermeneutics, nor had the subject of the earth's crust ever come up in our
discussions of fossil man,and Jim was the first to mention the earth's crust,
this explanation is a red herring. His use of the earth's crust could be
interpreted only as an example not as something I had said.
glenn