>As one of the debaters with John last June, I must disagree. If logic
and
>science cannot be applied to the Bible and is bad for religion, I fear
that
>illogic and non-science would be even worse. Too often I fear that
what we
>really have in many of the widely held apologetical views is exactly
too
>much illogic and too much nonsense. I can't see that a little logic
can
>make it worse.
I agree that logic and science should be applied to the Bible. To often
we evangelicals shy away from applying logic and science to the Bible
because we are afraid our faith will be damaged (or we are afraid we
might have to think)!
There are however times in the Bible, and I think they are called out
rather plainly, when the only thing we can use is faith. These times
are when God uses miracles to accomplish his "task on hand." I believe
when God uses miracles he is transcending the laws of physics as we
understand them today. The parting of the Red Sea is and example and so
I believe is the Flood.
If we apply logic to the flood, we come (I believe) to the following
conclusion:
The geological evidence, is something God has given us (and thus must be
true) to help us understand his wonderful creation, albeit our
interpretation of what we are seeing may be flawed. Scripture must be
true -- if it is not true then we can argue there is no omnipotent God.
Geologic evidence does not speak of a cataclysmal flood .
Scriptural evidence speaks of a cataclysmal flood, there can not be much
interpretation here -- "(Gen. 6:17 NASB) And behold, I, even I am
bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in
which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on
the earth shall perish."
Our conclusion must be that the flood, and the events before and after
it, must be filed under the category of miracles.
Since God was erasing the race of man and starting over again with the
line of Noah, he might not have wanted to leave any evidence of their
past life for Noah and his family to point to and hold on to.