Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: allenroy@cs.pdx.edu (callen roy) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Calendar Time and Euro-centric reasoning. Message-ID: Date: 14 Jun 91 03:47:06 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 70 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes: >The 'reason' for my somewhat 'fundamentist' interpretation is >because of the following logic that was given to me recently as >'proof' of the significance of the 7-th day. "God made the Earth in >6 days and rested on the 7-th, therefor in honor of this and in >acordence with other texts I keep the 7-th day Sabath". I pointed >out that from the time of the Creation (using the literalist >interpretation) to the giving the of the Laws at Sinai there is no >mention of any 'Sabbath-keeping'. I'd just like to point out that SDA's are not 'fundamentalist' in interpre- tation of the Bible. Where the Bible is Figureative it is read figuratively. Where the Bible is metaphoric, it is read metaphoric. Where it is literal, it is read literal. Where the Bible is Symbolic, it is read symbolic. It is read the way any type of communication is read, as close to the meaning that the authors intended as we can discern it to be. The creation story is so obviously a literal story, written in a stylized form of writing, that one cannot help but accept it as such. It is only after apparent conflicts with 'science, so called', that doubts are raised. Some SDA views are similar to some 'fundamentalists', but it is not accurate to lump the two together. >I am aware that most Christians would probable agree to some aspects >of an 'evolutionary' explanation of the universe with some 'help' >from the Diety. From the Biblical perspective. God invented, designed and made the Universe and all the laws of 'Nautre' that exist within the Universe. God also, inspired (not dictated to ) men to write the Bible. Therefore; since God is resposible for Nature and the Bible, there should be agreement between statements in the Bible about the Natural world and what we find while studying Nautre using the scientific method. If there appear to be conflicts then one of the following three rules applies: 1. We are misunderstanding or misapplying Biblical statements. 2. We are misinterpreting or missing the evidence and facts found by science. 3. We have an incmplete knowledge of both the Bible and Nature. Of the three rules, the third is usually the case. Unfortunately, we feel like we must know things absolutly, rather than acknowledging the fact that we just know things in part. Some take dogmatic stands on supposed Biblical 'facts' and others take dogmatic stands on supposed scientific 'facts'; and then the fight is on, until someone can show, not just by compromise, how the Bible and Nature really are saying the same thing. Many times, Biblical and Scientific 'facts' are really misunderstandings that can be clearified by further study. We cannot forget the limitations of the Bible and Science. The Bible was not designed to tell us the how of the functions of Nature, but the cause and when of events of Nature. Science is excellent for learing the how and where of Nature, but is inadequate for discovering the cause of the Universe and the actual order of events in Nature. Together, we have complementing systems of study that can give a whole understanding to existance. Allen Roy God loves you. All He want's is for you to love Him back. [In the current context, I think the term "fundamentalist" implies that people believe the Bible is inerrant. As far as I know, all Protestants (and these days I believe the dominant Catholic tradition as well) do their best to read passages as originally intended, i.e. symbolically when there is symbolism, metaphorically when there is a metaphor, etc. This is true whether they believe in inerrancy or not. --clh]