I agree with the observation of a spherical earth because I can see it with
my eyes. That, however, is a far, far cry from the 'evidence' of
macroevolution. Here we are delving into speculation and calling it
'science'. There are just too many observations that do not jibe.
Mathematically its impossible, microbiology says it couldn't happen, and
the fossil record is woefully inadequate when it comes to transitional
fossils. In fact, microbiology, for example, is in the same circumstance
that the invention of the telescope was in proving geocentrism wrong. It
took a lifetime, but eventually truth won out.
Ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth
shall make you free. John 8:32
Ron Chitwood
chitw@flash.net
----------
> From: Glenn R. Morton <grmorton@waymark.net>
> To: Ron Chitwood <chitw@flash.net>; EVOLUTION@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: starvation all over the world
> Date: Friday, June 05, 1998 8:31 PM
>
> At 08:52 AM 6/5/98 -0500, Ron Chitwood wrote:
> >>>>>I am listening to many experts who point out that 'erets' means
'land'
> >not
> >'planet earth'. I have discussed this with a fellow from Dallas
> >Theological Seminary (a very conservative institution) and he tells me
that
> >what I am saying is entirely within the legitimate possibilities. <<<<
> >
> >Agreed. The use of 'kol erets' depends on its context.
> >
>
> Excellent. This is a rare moment and we both should savor it. :-)
>
> >By the way. As said from the beginning of our discussion the difference
of
> >opinion that you and I depend is just that, and only that. Our
salvation
> >does NOT depend on the stance we take. I do not know about you, but I
am
> >getting precisely what I wanted to begin with. A debate with an
> >articulate, well-read Christian who differs with me and the position I
> >take.
>
> I am enjoying this very much. You have taught me much and caused me to
dig
> deeper which is good for me. And I absolutely agree with you that
salvation
> is not involved in this issue. It is one that we believers must struggle
> with to try to fit the data, both Scriptural and scientific, into a
> coherent picture. So I thank you for this excellent and civil
tete-a-tete.
> Lets proceed.
>
> I have a question, If kol eretz depends on context and can't necessarily
be
> assumed one way or the other, are we, as believers, not then free to go
to
> the observational evidence to help us determine what the context must be?
> I mean, assume that the Scripture can be LEGITIMATELY interpreted in one
of
> two fashions: As advocating a spherical earth and as advocating a flat
> earth with a dome over it. Under this circumstance, if I were advocate
that
> the earth was flat because I interpret the Scripture that way, and there
> are satellite pictures of a spherical earth, am I allowed to ignore the
> observational evidence? Am I allowed to tie the Scripture to a false
view
> (given the satellite photos) which will then tie the TRUE WORD OF GOD to
a
> false view? I would say that I am not allowed to do that. So I guess the
> question is, what is the legitimate and illegitimate role of
observational
> data?
>
> glenn
>
> Adam, Apes and Anthropology
> Foundation, Fall and Flood
> & lots of creation/evolution information
> http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm