Shuan writes in reply to David
>>I would not regard the classification of bats with birds, etc. as
>>scientific errors because I would not regard the relevant verses as
>I'll buy that approach. Sounds like you, I and Mr. Seely can join hands
>over the idea that THe Bible is not meant to be a science textbook.
Is there one person on this list who claims that the Bible is a science
textbook? My guess here is that you are inferring a whole lot more than
what you are willing to directly state. Otherwise, why would you be
"joining hands" with anybody over such a trifling matter?
I repeat the idea that the OT is extremely grounded in history.
I FIRMLY argue that you are challenging historicity as well as science,
judging by your past posts. As I recall, you also went on to challenge
the Bible's theology.
At this point, I am becoming amused. I am wondering what you are going
to challenge next. You continue to be in "challenge" mode. As long as
you are there, you are never going to "get" the Bible. But thanks for the
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 04 2002 - 12:50:20 EDT