>>
<<But Jim, Denis has stated that there is no historical content. >>
Er, when was Denis declared Pope? Denis, is that pointy hat you're wearing?<<
Jim, get real. When I am responding to a point that Denis made, don't assume
that I am responding to you.
You wrote:
>>I don't KNOW how He did it. No one does. That's what makes him God. That's
why Genesis is written the way it's written. The mechanics of omnipotence are
foreclosed to our knowing in this natural world.<<
In that case you will never set up a hypothesis which can be tested and all
you will ever do is merely say "Your view is not correct!" My analogy
earlier about your intellectual style has just been confirmed. You will
never do anything but shoot at other people's ideas but never propose
anything. Intellectual drive-by shooting with the aim of solipsism. This is
a very useful contribution to the world's knowledge. Thank you.
I wrote:
>><< You see, the ONLY way you can KNOW that he did it in
space-time is if we are told what He did and then can compare it to what
actually happened. >>
Jim replied:
>>But that is exactly what we DO have! Genesis 1 says he did it in
space-time. And hey, what do you know, here we are, in space-time! I believe
the latter is a valid empirical observation (though this reflector could
simply be a dream, a possibility I've entertained from time to time). <<
How do I KNOW that it is God speaking here? He can't tell a straight story
about what happened, so on what basis do I say that it is God speaking here?
Your authority?
You state, "...what do you know, here we are, in space-time! I believe the
latter is a valid empirical observation..." I grant your observation, but
how do you know it wasn't by evolution? How do you know it wasn't by
NATURALISTIC evolution? You don't have a leg to stand on with which to
condemn evolutionary origns. You stated that you don't know how it happened,
so you can say that it didn't happen by evolution!!!!
You wrote:
>>But you said grammar shouldn't matter AT ALL if one considers Genesis less
than VCR history. You said, "If there is no historical value in Genesis 1,
why does the grammer mean anything at all?"<<
No, my point is that we don't give the same level of attention to the grammar
of Eusebius that we do to the Bible. I grabbed my Eusebius and found only
one footnote on language. We give the attention to grammar in the Bible
because we feel that we can squeeze a little more content out of it in that
fashion. If it is written by a man, men don't spend the time considering
grammar as tightly as theologians seem to think the writer of the Bible did.
glenn