Replies

When an interpretation of Scripture defies reality, it is the interpretation of Scripture that is at fault.

When an interpretation of the data defies God's revealed Word, it is the interpretation of the data that is at fault.

When an interpretation of Scripture defies reality, it is the interpretation of Scripture that is at fault.

When an interpretation of the data defies God's revealed Word, it is the interpretation of the data that is at fault.

So obviously it is faulty interpretation of the data -- in this case of geography -- were we to suggest that the Apostle Paul was incorrect in claiming that the gospel had been preached throughout the whole world, as he did for instance in Colossians 1:6 and 23; Romans 1:8, 10:18 and 16:19?

I just need some clarification... Should we conclude that the populations of the Americas, Australia, The Pacific Islands, Southeast Asia, Far-East Asia, etc, never really existed at all, or where they and their cultures created ex nihilo sometime after the 1st Century?

Or is it just possible that we might sometimes have to look beyond the plain meaning of scripture because it conflicts with merely secular human discovery? I know it's possibly an earth-shattering concession for you to make, but whadaya think?

Interpretation of data can only properly take place within the context of other data. That is what a theory does in science. You can interpret individual data points any old way you want (which is why creationists like taking evidence out of context), but when it is interpreted in relation to other evidence, patterns emerge. The Theory of Evolution is one such pattern.

Your interpretation of Scripture might be consistent with any individual piece of evidence, but it is wildly at variance with the evidence as a whole.