<<No, we did not settle that. If you define theology as "hermeneutics" then I
would agree with you that observational data has nothing to do with
hermeneutics.>>
Then we DID settle that, because that's exactly what I told you more than once
in our past discussions. We were very clearly talking about HOW to interpret
the Bible at that point. So, we agree on this point.
<< Theology also has to include the
claims and demands made by the revelation whatever form that revelation
took. Thus if the revelation says that the earth is on the back of a turtle,
then the revelation is capable of being judged by observational data. >>
That's a far different thing. What you are doing is using the observational
data itself to JUDGE (your word) the theology. But you still need first to
define, in theological terms, your first principles (e.g., revelation, the
means of understanding that revelation, etc.)
<<The Bible claims that Jesus arose from the dead. This is a central point in
our theology. It involved the observational data available to the apostles.
Thus observational data played a role in the theology we believe.>>
I agree with you here. And I agree also with what you say about "the data"
reflecting back on the Bible, as a way for us to "judge" it. But here's where
we differ: If you choose one form of interpreting Genesis 1, and then the data
refutes it (as you say it does with YEC), the problem just MIGHT be that
you've approached Gen. 1 incorrectly. That's what I think you've done.
You took the back door, and rearranged the time line to fit the data. That's
one way to harmonize, but for me, not the right one.
<< I guess I don't see the
analogy. Are you saying that it is wrong to ask "What is the correspondence
between historical science and the scripture?">>
It is wrong if the question is loaded the way you seem to load it. You have
one way of doing history (the ol' VCR). Therefore, one way only to address
this question. I think there is anothe way of doing history. So did
Longfellow.
<<Then you and I do not have a difference here as long as you allow the
History to be verified. But there is a logical contradiction. You and I can
not be in agreement and you and Denis be in agreement at the same time. That
implies strongly that Denis and I are in agreement, and I know that ain't
true. So the only place I can see that you are not going to like possibly is
the part about testing the history data.>>
You wrote this purposely to keep me up all night, didn't you, Glenn? Somehow,
this logic looks solid, but for the life of me, I can't prove it!
Jim