On Fri, 13 Oct 1995 10:53:57 -0400 you wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>Unfortunately for Glenn, the Bible says nothing about a "dam". The
>Heb. word rendered "fountain", "ma'yan", does not mean a dam, but an
>undergound spring or well:<<
GM>The Bible says nothing about two Adams either. Both views are
>interpretations of the Biblical data. If I your criticism is valid, then it
>should also apply to your view as well. I guess we are both wrong in that
>case. :-)
Glenn consistently misrepresents my case. I am beginning to believe
it is a waste of time responding to his posts. :-) I have repeatedly
said that the "Two Adam model" is just a shorthand. The full term I
use is "Gn 1 man - Gn 2 Adam model". I repeat, there was only ONE
Adam, the individual called "Adam" in Gn 2!
I have defended the view that Gn 1 man corresponds to the genus Homo
(all other living things in Gn 1 are "kinds", ie. categories, not
individuals), whereas Gn 2 Adam is an *individual*. The so-called
"Two-Adam" model is defendable Biblically and has been defended
by others (eg. E.K.V Pearce, "Who Was Adam?", 1969). If Glenn
wants to debate the "Gn 1 man - Gn 2 Adam model" separately then
I am happy to do so.
Glenn's brushes aside my criticism that "the Bible says nothing about
a "dam". The Heb. word rendered `fountain', `ma'yan', does not mean
a dam, but an undergound spring or well", by counter-attacking my view
about Adam.
Even if my view was wrong about *Adam*, that does not save his view
about the *Flood*. Two wrongs do not make a right. This dam = spring
is a critical point in Glenn's whole theory so if he is genuinely
interested in defending his view, he will need to show how the
breaking of a surface *dam* at Gibraltar is what the Bible means when
it says in Gn 7:11 "the fountains (lit. "springs" of the great deep
(were) broken up".
If Glenn is not prepared to do this rigorously, then his theory seems
to be on a par with Velikovsky and Von Daniken, who take a scientific
occurrence in the past and force an identification between it and a
Biblical event, with no real regard for what the Bible itself actually
says.
OTOH I am genuinely concerned about pushing this too far, because I
sense that is Glenn's last stand. If Glenn cannot square his
geological views with a literal Flood then he may be forced into a
crisis of faith. I would suggest to Glenn that he put the Bible
first, try to see where the scientific facts fit into the Bible's
picture (not the other way around), but at the end of the day to be
prepared to say "I don't know how it happened", rather than "it
didn't happen". Here is some good advice from an old soldier, that
I try to follow:
"Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil
comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness
in place,and with your feet fitted with the readiness that
comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
flaming arrows of the evil one." (Eph 6:13-16)
God bless.
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------