View Single Post
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 06-27-2007, 04:10 AM
AV1611 AV1611 is offline.
Puritanboard Senior
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 2,802
Thanks: 197
Thanked 394 Times in 256 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnV View Post
I would answer differently. Evolution is not the concern. How the Bible is regarded is what is at issue. Even given all that this argument says, even if all that is true, it's still an imposition upon the Word. We do not interpret the Bible by our scientific theories. The same facts that science must deal with do have a regulative effect on how we interpret the Bible, but that's altogether different than interpreting the Bible via science.

It's really simple. There are different views that are put up against the six-day creation view. They all come from men's theories. The six-day view comes from God, even more clearly in the Ten Commandments. That puts this "theory" in a completely different category than men's theories. No amount of dispute over the word "day" is going to change that difference. It's still man-made theories up against a Word-generated theory, at worst.

They've got to do a lot more than come up with scientific theories. They've got to do a lot more than exegetical acrobatics with the Word, so that their theories fit the words of the Bible, whether literal or figurative.

The bottom line: if one's interpretation of the Bible is so easily shaken by winds of doctrine, then the problem is one of relationship to God through the Spirit and the Word, not evolution.
Indeed, I pointed out at the very beginning that the rule of interpretation is that Scripture interprets Scripture not Science interprets Scripture.
__________________
Richard
CofE
UK