I want to add a couple of things to the notes I wrote early this morning.
I wrote:
>>I would prefer a situation where the names are re-given to other
>>rivers as is often done. There is a Carrollton, Texas and one in
>>Georgia. There is a Paris in France and one in Texas.
You replied:
>Hold on. There are thousands of towns. How many rivers do you know
> that are named the same in this or any other country?
Well, Lets see. There is the Red River which separates Oklahoma from
Texas. There is the Red River of North Dakota, There is a Red river in
China/Vietnam (Hong is Chinese for red). There is a Colorado river in
Texas and a Colorado River in Arizona. There is also a Colorado River in
Argentina and one in Mexico. There is the Rio Grande river between Texas
and Mexico. A Rio Grande in Puerto Rico, and two Rio Grande's in Brazil.
There is a James River in North Dakota and one in Virginia.
In short, I know of lots of rivers named the same.
Further to that, all
>the towns named in the first eleven chapters of Genesis are in Southern
>Mesopotamia too. Where is Assyria? Look at a map.
>
I want to take another shot at something that was stated last night. As I
have thought about this I have felt both complemented and a little
disappointed.
>
>Glenn, I'll give you this. For an apologetic that has nothing going for
>it you do manage to make a reasonable sounding case for it.
First, to say that an apologetic "has nothing going for it" one would
assume that this means that it does not fit any facts at all. But that is
not the case as the second part of your statement says.
Secondly, your statement rejects the view NOT on the basis that it fails
to match the facts but on the basis that it "has nothing going for it."
If our job in trying to harmonize Genesis with what we know of science is
to explain point by point how the Scriptural events fit into the real
history of the earth, then we must explain all the statements of Scripture
(not just the ones we want to choose) and it must be done in a
self-coherent view which does not contradict known fact, known physics or
known history. One must also not reject a view because it is not
consistent with one's own view. An example below:
You wrote:
>>I would identify the Gihon as the Nile.
>
>The Nile is on another continent. How could it be connected with the
>garden of Eden as stated in Genesis 2:10? This is like talking about
>St. Louis and identifying one of the nearby rivers as the Amazon.
Your basis for rejecting this is that the Nile is on another continent.
And could not flood Mesopotamia. But that is exactly the issue between
us--where was the flood. You can not assume that your view is correct and
then use that assumption as a rejection of this view. You must dispose of
my view via showing how I do not match either the facts of science or the
statements of Scripture. It is not logical to reject my view because it
disagrees with yours.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm