My take on this one is that we interpret scripture literally unless we
have a VERY GOOD REASON not to. For example, in Isa 55:12 we read:
For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the
mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing,
and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands. (KJV)
I have not a single grammatical reason NOT to interpret these words in
a literal manner. However, I don't do so. I don't believe that trees
have hands. The same word is used in Lam 2:15
All that pass by clap their hands at thee; they hiss and wag their
head at the daughter of Jerusalem, saying, Is this the city that men
call The perfection of beauty, The joy of the whole earth? (KJV)
Were I an alien from the planet Bizzlezorp, I might look at these two
verses and conclude that Earth was an interesting planet - the bipedal
inhabitants and large plants both have similar appendage structures. But,
I'm not from Bizzlezorp, and I know better. I've seen trees and I've seen
people and I conclude from this experience (scientific knowledge???) that
the verse in Isaiah should be interpreted as figurative.
>Second: I believe that the Bible is inerrant, but necessarily your
>interpretation of it. By the same token, since God is the creator of all
>things, I believe that science is inerrant, but necessarily our
>interpretation of it.
I'm not sure I would have phrased it quite that way, but I have no quarrel
with what I interpret (grin!) to be your intent. I kind of like the old
traditional "general and written revelation" paradigm -- probably because
you're less likely to be yanked out of context.
>Third: To turn the argument around--If you disavow the physics of
>radioactive decay as it relates to dating old things, then on what basis do
>you trust the rest of physics when you board a plane, drive a car, read this
>message, etc.
The version of this I use with my students speaks more toward the statistical
validity of uniformitarianism (I'm a numbers guy.) If I were a nut and bolt
manufacturer and took a sample of a production run in which 50% of the sample
were badly threaded, I probably would not assume that I got the only bad ones
when I sampled. I'd probably stop the run, assuming that half my product was
coming out bad because I think uniformitarianly by nature.
jbt
*******************************************************************
* John B. Tant http://wwwp.exis.net/~jtant jtant@exis.net *
* *
* Alan Keyes for President `96! *
* http://sandh.com/keyes/index.html *
* *
* The opinions I express are my own, not my employer's *
* http://pages.prodigy.com/VA/n4xan/stonebridge.html *
*******************************************************************