garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (12/07/84)
*** REPLACE THIS MESS WITH YOUR LINEAGE *** > > > > Well, now. Do you call up the weatherman when he says what time > > the sun will "rise" tomorrow, and chew him out for his antiquainted > > geocentrism? Probably not. So what's the beef if the Bible speaks > > phenomenologically, i.e., in regular language? > > -- > > Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois > > Now wait a minute. What's the beef in saying the Bible was speaking > in "regular" language when it discussed the creation of the world? > Remember, the readers were going to be sheperds and farmers. The text > HAD to be geared to them and what they saw and felt. > > I think the original concept stands. The bible is a wonderful guide > to morals and everyday living, but as a scientific/historical/geographical > document, it ceased to be valid about 500 years ago. > > Marcel Simon allegra!mhuxr!mfs How can the validity of any document be a function of time? Are you saying that until about 500 years ago, the sun DID revolve around the earth, at which time the relationship inverted? (Besides which, Copernicus, who thought that the earth revolved around the sun, lived a lot longer than 500 years ago. And regarding history and geography, which statements regarding these subjects were valid 500 years ago and are no longer valid? Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!garys