Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Calendar Time and Euro-centric reasoning. Message-ID: Date: 11 Jun 91 03:41:11 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA Lines: 32 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes: Of course the apologist will explain on the one hand that the Bible is not a science manual, I will agree. But on the other reject evolution on the grounds that it doesn't agree with the literal statements of Genesis, i.e. 7 days about 6000 years ago. One can't have both. Well, maybe one can. I can accept the argument that it's all a paradox and mystery, sort of a Zen approach to the Bible. I'm posting this because I think it can clear up a common misconception about the way many Christians view the Bible. I'm sure John Clark already knows this, but so many don't... The Bible *isn't* a science manual, and that's one reason why I (and many, many other Christians) don't demand that Creation happened over seven days some six thousand years ago. You are right that one can't have them both. Unfortunately, some non-Christians make the mistake of giving fundamentalists sole reign over Biblical interpretation while not admitting their ability to correctly decide issues of morality or politics. This is, of course, pushing down big giant straw men. Of course, there are many fundamentalists who will insist that the Bible, insofar as it mentions the physical world, does so literrally and inerrantly, but they are not in the majority of Christians, merely the most vocal in this country. The majority of Christians (counting the Roman Church) do *not* hold to a literalist interpretation of Scripture. I'm sure John Clark knows this full well, but he doesn't seem to give any glimmer of that in his post. -mib