Re: Is there a Plan B? (was: So we're all related!)

> In what way does a straightforward reading of Genesis 2 prove my scenario of
> the Flood reshaping the earth's surface to be false? For me (and,
> presumably, for Ambrose also) the use of the word 'ruach' in this context
> suggests God-ordained _supernatural activity_. I particularly have in mind
> the language used in respect of the parting of the Red Sea at the time of
> the Exodus (Ex.14:21-22). Clearly, the forces involved there cannot have
> been entirely 'natural'.

Vernon,

Genesis 2 gives us a description of the geography of a portion of the
Middle East. What author would waste his time trying to geographically
locate some place in an earth that was totally different geographically?
Here we have the Garden of Eden's location described for us. Four rivers
are mentioned. The readers didn't need anyone to tell them where the
Euphrates River was. The location of the other rivers was described
relative to locations that the readers would presumably have known about.
People have used these descriptions, including the reports of mineral
deposits, to identify the rivers whose names we don't recognize. A
straightforward reading of this passage shows that the surface of the
earth was not different then from what it is now.

God can use 'natural' or 'supernatural' means to accomplish his miracles.
Wind can move water around. There is a shallow lake on the border between
Austria and Hungary where the wind sometimes pushes the water from one end
toward the other, and people who have ventured out onto the exposed lake
bed have drowned when the wind let up. In the Red Sea crossing the wind
blew for several hours to accomplish God's purpose. Computer simulations
have been done that show that what is described in Exodus can really
happen naturally.

Gordon Brown
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0395
Received on Thu Oct 21 18:59:36 2004