lsenders@hotmail.com writes:
>Stephen M. Adams wrote:

>> On the basis that a literal reading of 1-day == 24 hours is not
>>required by the text.
>>
>Based on what? Is it required then that God is the actual creator or
>that he even exists? The problem with allegoricalism is that its
>limits are never truly determined, they are always relative to the one
>who is doing the "determining". Who gets to say that within the same
>verse, this aspect is literal and that aspect is symbolic?

And yet, in another thread, you said that the 'literal' reading did
permit for metaphor, typology, etc. Which is it?

>> No. I do not believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis record,
>> IF that means 7 24-hour days. Neither did the Church Fathers.
>>
>> My position is more complex. Basically, I'm skeptical of ALL origin
>> theories and all evolutionary theories. Not because they are false,
>> but because the available evidence is not strong enough to convince
>> me beyond a reasonable doubt it is true.
>>
>And it is exactly here that I have decided to start a new thread to
>specifically look at the heresy of either the literal interpretation or
>the heresy of all other interpretations.
>_______________
>There is one specific way that the literal interpretation can be
>evidenced. That method is to prove that earth, even the cosmos itself,
>can be no more than 6 to 10,000 yrs old. Last night I went through my
>old notes taken during young earth vs evolution debates. So these
>notes detail objections to the evolutionary model which professors,
>phd's of physical sciences could not give an answer to.
>
>Where do I begin? I have a note book full of scientific proofs.

All of which make a bold assumption that *observation* can answer
the question. Of course, you reject it:

>> Can we no longer trust our senses to give a reasonable description of the
>> world around us? Is it all but a giant fraud perpetrated on us?
>>
>No, you cannot trust yourself because of the scriptural interpretation
>of man -that he is fallen and has only his own reasonability to
>constructively interpret the cosmos. Christianity will not allow this.
>Biblical Christianity is radical in that it maintains that man is only
>allowed to reconstruct the revelation which has been given to him by
>God.

We can't trust MY observations, but we can trust yours and those who
you represent here? Give me a break. Either we can trust observation
or we can't. If we can't, then you have no grounds either! If we can,
then it becomes a competition of competing observations.

I'll leave to others, and other groups, to refute your observations. I
just refuted your objections against MY observa