I have been gone to Federal Offshore Lease sale and was trying to shut down
the debate prior to leaving. I know I told you that you could have the last
word, but you raise a couple of very interesting points that deserve
attention.
At 05:58 AM 8/25/98 EDT, RDehaan237@aol.com wrote:
>I see that you slip easily from the flood story to the creation story to
>illustrate your point of how a biblical author can write a story that is
>compatible with modern theories. I'd like to see you write either your
>Mediterranean flood story or the Mesopatamian flood story with the elegant
>simplicity that is found in Gen. 1, that is also, although perhaps
indirectly,
>compatible with modern theories.
I think Genesis 6-9 is a very simple story and fits the facts of the
infilling of a large sub-sea level basin. I couldn't write that account
simpler and if one assumes what I have, you do get a very good match to the
geologic data.
>I appreciate the fact that you face a bunch of atheists. Most of us don't
>face that problem, at least I don't. I take it they read the bible as pure
>chronicle and laugh at any other interpretation.
they would view what you all are doing as being an emperor with no clothes
type of solution. As with the Vietnam era statement by a military leader
"We had to destroy the village in order to save it", which was correctly
hooted and howled at by the anti-war people, to say that which is false is
true in a fuzzy, subjective sense, holds no meaning for these atheists. And
indeed it holds little meaning for me.
Their minds are probably
>already made up and nothing less than a scientific explanation of scripture
>would satisfy them, or at least satisfy them that you are struggling to
>address their scepticism. I wish we could help you, but I don't see how
>without following George's suggestion that the core of the Bible is about
>Jesus Christ not Noah.
I am not really looking for help, nor do I spend a lot of time trying to
convert them, as you are correct that their minds are very made up.
However, that being said, they have a very cogent set of arguments against
Christianity and someone should at least attempt to answer them. To not
make this attempt, means that we aren't listening to them or don't care to
avoid the defections of Christians to the atheist cause. And they tend to
find it laughable that Christianity which is based upon the HISTORICAL (in
the modern sense) resurrection of Christ is relayed to us via a
NONHISTORICAL book which has little history in it.
I still am wishing to shut this down as we have begun to repeat ourselves.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm