On Thu, 19 Oct 1995 22:37:16 -0400 Glenn wrote:
[...]
GM>On the other hand, I see no way to falisfy or verify your two Adam
view. >If I say that some character is indicative of humanity, you
say it is >emerging humanity. Exactly what would falsify your 2-Adam
view?
Proving it does not fit the Bible or the scientific evidence. For
example, if it is exegetically untenable that Gn 1 "man" is not the
same as Gn 2 "Adam", then the "two-Adam model" is falsified. Or if
Jesus in quoting from both Gn 1:27 and Gn 2:24 in Mt 19:4-5 is
asserting that the "male and female" of Gn 1 is the same as the "man"
and "wife" of Gn 2, then the model is falsified.
Equally, if the scientific evidence reveals that the general Biblical
picture of modern man as originating in Mesopotamia, and farming,
etc., within the comparatively recent past, is false, then my model
would be falsified.
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>Glenn fails to see the distinction between Gn 1-11 which is
>*pre-history* and the rest of scripture post-Abraham which is datable,
>verifiable *history*.<<
GM>So are we to cease all efforts at making the early parts of the
>Scripture verifiable history? I really can't see a reason to give up
>entirely. The Scripture really does present everyone a real problem
>in deciding the exact place in which it begins to describe
>nonverifiable history. Was Terah a myth? Was Nahor an imaginary
>person? Was Serug the first mythical personage? Maybe it was Reu
>who had no real existence? Maybe Peleg or Eber was the fable. You
>can continue this back to Noah.
Nowhere did I say that "pre-history" was a "myth" or a "fable", in the
sense of having "no real existence." I said it was not "datable,
verifiable *history*. For the record I believe that "Terah...Nahor...
Serug...Reu...Peleg...Ebe...Noah" were all real people. But whether
we can date them, or verify their existence from non-Biblical
evidence, or know anything much about them, is more unlikely the
further back in time we go. In that sense, they are "pre-history".
GM>One thing is absolutely certain. These patriarchs either did exist
>or they didn't. You can not avoid that. This is not an issue of
>whether the Biblical document is true or not but a matter of fact or
>falsehood. Even if we have no independent knowledge of their
>existence that has no bearing on the fact or falsehood of their
>existence. I have lots of ancestors from the 8th century of whom I
>have no knowledge. This lack of knowledge does not mean they did not
>really exist.
Once more for Glenn's sake, I will repeat that I believe these events
in Gn 1-11 really happened, but that they may in places be clothed in
symbolic garb. A good example is the Book of Revelation - no book is
more symbolic, yet the events described will (or did) really happen.
GM>Given that, name for me the place you think the list becomes fable.
>I know you can't prove it but what is your gut feel?
I don't believe any of it is "fable". I believe it all really
happened, but some of it may be clothed in symbolism. The note to
Gn 5:5 in my NIV Study Bible says:
"5.5 930 years. See notes on v. 27; 6:3. Whether the large numbers
describing human longevity in the early chapters of Genesis are
literal or have a conventional literary function-or both-is uncertain.
Some believe that several of the numbers have symbolic significance,
such as Enoch's 365 (v. 23) years (365 being the number of days in a
year, thus a full life) and Lamech's 777 (v. 31 ) years (777 being an
expansion and multiple of seven, the number of completeness, cf. the
"seventy-seven times" of Lamech's namesake in 4:24). The fact that
there are exactly ten names in the Ge 5 list (as in the genealogy of 1
1:10-26) makes it likely that it includes gaps, the lengths of which
may be summarized in the large numbers. Other ancient genealogies
outside the Bible exhibit similarly large figures. For example, three
kings in a Sumerian list (which also contains exactly ten names) are
said to have reigned 72,000 years each-obviously exaggerated time
spans."(Barker K. ed, "The NIV Study Bible", Zondervan: Grand Rapids,
1985, p13)
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>There is a difference in not knowing *exactly* where and when the
>Flood was, but believing in its general time and location within
>limits. It is one thing to believe the Flood may have been in
>Mesopotamia within the last 10 - 50 thousand years, and another to
>believe it happened to a different species (ie. H. habilis), in the
>Mediterranean, 5500 thousand years ago.<<
GM>First I see no reason for the limits. Second, historical events
>especially geological events, usually leave some historical or
>geological evidence of themselves. To say that the flood left no
>evidence of itself, means that we are asking every skeptic to believe
>that we are correct when we can give them no more evidence that our
>document is historically accurate than the believer in leprechauns
>can give for the leprechaun's existence.
The Flood was no ordinary event - it was a unique event predicted and
executed by God. There is "historical evidence of the Flood". It is
documented in both the Bible and ancient Mesopotamian legends. As to
"geological evidence" (ie. flood sediments), this presumably would
have originated as a blanket of mud covering the known world of
Noah's day? There is no Biblical evidence that Noah saw a blanket of
mud covering everything, as Utnapishitim is depicted as seeing in the
Gilgamesh Epic:
"And all mankind had turned to clay. The ground was flat like a roof"
Since such a blanket of mud would contain the drowned bodies of Noah's
contemporaries as well as animals, for Noah and his family's mental
and physical health, it is reasonable to expect that God saw to it
that it did not remain. To demand there be Flood sediments, you
must maintain that Noah and the animals had to wade through metres
of lethal mud to begin their new life.
The Biblical account records that "God...sent a wind over the earth,
and the waters receded" (Gn 8:1). The parallel is with Gn 1:2 where
"the Spirit (Heb. "wind" of God" moved upon the face of the waters".
There is Biblical evidence therefore that this "wind" of Gn 8:1 and
1:2 are one and the same, that is, the Holy Spirit, preparing the
"earth" for man's habitation.
To me, a believer, this is a perfectly satisfying possible solution.
I would not even try to ask a "skeptic" to believe this - his first
problem is to recognise his sin, repent, and be born again. However,
I would be prepared to offer it as an apologetic, ie a reasonable
defence of my faith, as per 1Pet 3:15:
"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give
the reason for the hope that you have".
Glenn may not be aware that I do defend my views before an audience of
skeptics. The Australian Creation v Evolution fidonet echo is
comprised of a number of atheists and two Creation-Scientists. All
sceptical of my views, but some at least have grudgingly admitted they
are reasonable. That is all I can expect. I leave the convincing up
to the Holy Spirit.
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>"I am not bothered that I don't know EXACTLY where or when the
>Flood ocurred. I BELIEVE THERE WAS A LITERAL NOAH, ARK AND FLOOD
>because Jesus seemed to (Mt 24:38; Lk 17:27), but IF the Biblical
?account turns out to be a "creation-myth" BASED ON THAT ORIGNAL
>LITERAL EVENT IN PRE-HISTORY, then my faith won't be shaken one
>little bit.<<
GM>Let me paraphrase this. "I am not bothered that I don't know
>EXACTLY where or when the Leprechaun's live. I BELIEVE THERE WAS A
>LITERAL LEPRECHAUN, POT OF GOLD AND WISHES"
This is a caricature, not a "paraphrase". I don't believe there are
leprechauns, but I do believe "there was a literal Noah, Ark and
Flood".
GM>I am not trying to belittle what Jesus believed or what you
>believe, but I am merely trying to point out that there is no reason
>for believing one statement over the other. If you can show me
>evidence for your flood, then I have a reason to believe your
>statement and you can then point out that my statement has no
>observational evidence to support it. In that case the Biblical
>record is correct and my leprechauns are not.
Glenn claims that he is not "trying to belittle" what I believe, but
unfortunately his use of "leprechauns" as an analogy of my belief that
the Flood was a literal event that may have been clothed in symbolism,
*does* belittle what I believe. :-(
I have already posted "evidence" for my view of the Flood. I do not
judge its success by whether Glenn believes it or not. Some believers
might agree with my view, but I doubt if anyone, skeptic or otherwise,
is going to believe Glenn's alternative of a 5.5 MY Homo habilis Noah.
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>There is not even that. As Glenn blithely deletyes and ignores, the
>Genesis story mentions subterranean *springs*, whereas Glenn's story
>mentions a *dam*.<<
GM>You want springs, how about the water escaping from the
>subterranean water which was stored in the rocks of the surrounding
>continents? All rocks are saturated with water. If you drained the
>Mediterranean, then waters would ooze out of the rocks along the
>continental slopes of all continents surrounding the basin. Prior to
>the Flood, Genesis 2:6 would be literally fulfilled. "but streams
>came up from the the earth and watered the whole surface of the
>earth." Genesis 2:6, NIV
>O.K. Stephen you have your springs. These waters would also add to
>the flood. :-)
Glenn seems to now acknowledge that the "springs" (ie. the "fountains
of the great deep) are "subterranean water", not surface water as
would be held back and released by a breaking of the natural dam at
Gibraltar 5.5 MYA which flooded the Mediterranean.
Since the Bible in Gn 7:11 and 8:2 gives only two causes of the Flood,
namely "the springs of the great deep" (subterranean springs) and "the
floodgates of the heavens" (rain), Glenn's flooding by surface
sea water is not mentioned in the Biblical account at all.
>Stephen wrote:
GM>But at least Glenn acknowledges that there is no "no Biblical or
>anthropological evidence for his "5.5 MY Mediterranean Flood".<<
GM>Stephen, you became very confused here. You attributed what you
wrote to me. In the post I am responding to, here is what you have.
GM>Stephen wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>SJ>See previous. Subterranean "springs" being broken up and a
>surface oceanic dam breaking in are two very different things.
>There is no Biblical or anthropological evidence for Glenn's 5.5 MY
>Mediterranean Flood.
GM>There is PLENTY of geological evidence!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
GM>You are the one that suggested there was no evidence. I (the part
>with the >GM> in front of it said I disagreed. Please do not
>attribute what you write to me. > >
It appears that I have made a mistake in attributing my comments to
Glenn. I apologise to Glenn.
>Stephen writes:
SJ>Again this proves my point. The rain water in Glenn's story mainly
>comes from the already flooded basin. It is largely irrelevant.<< >
GM>No, the rain comes from the FLOODING basin. Once the basin is
>filled, the rain stops.
Glenn confirms what I said! On his scenario the basin was already
flooded *before* the rain started. Noah's contemporaries would
already be dead. Any rain therefore was a side-effect and makes no
real difference.
>Stephen writes:
GM>I have the same problem as Glenn. But it is important to put
>things in their proper perspective. The Flood story is about sin,
>righteousness, judgement and mercy, in short *salvation*. It is not
>about geology.<<
GM>Real floods, like the 1993 Mississippi River Floods leave many feet
>of sediment as a testimony to their occurence. Fables do not leave
>such evidence.
Again, Glenn calls my view a "fable". I have never used that term. I
believe the Flood was as real as "the 1993 Mississippi River Floods",
and I don't rule out that it may have left "many feet of sediment".
OTOH the Missisippi and most other Floods are caused by rapidly
flowing river water collecting silt and later depositing it. In
the Biblical Flood there is no mention of rivers. The Flood was
general. While rivers no doubt did fill up and overflow, this would
later be diluted by the flooding of the whole area. There may have
been no concentration of silt left behind as in river floods.
Indeed, it is possible that if the Flood was a local Flood (as Glenn
and I both believe), that the Flood did indeed leave "many feet of
sediment", but either: a) it has not yet been located or recognised;
b) it has been obliterated by natural or even human causes; or c) God
removed the blanket of mud that contained the rotting bodies of Noah's
former countrymen and their animals.
GM>Thus if one wants a real flood of any sort, one should expect to be
>able to examine the geological evidence of the occurrence.
Why? Where has God promised that everything in His word must be
backed up by presently existing "evidence". I have already pointed
out that it is in fact precisely the opposite. We do not have
presently existing "evidence" for *anything* in the Bible. We do not
have the Ark, Moses' tablets ot the law, Aaron's rod, the brazen
serpent, a piece of the Cross, an original manuscript, even a
description of Christ. It would have been easy for God to whom not
even a sparrow falls to the ground without Him willing it (Mt 10:29)
to preserve such evdidence if He wished. But we have good Scriptural
warrant for believing that God does not want us to have material props
to our faith. In 2Ki 18:1,4, we read that: "Hezekiah...broke into
pieces the bronze snake Moses had made, for up to that time the
Israelites had been burning incense to it."
GM>The historicity of the flood depends upon the record written in
>the geologic record every bit as much as the historicity of the
>foundation of the Christian Church depends upon the written record of
>its occurrence.
I would have thought that for a Christian, the "historicity of the
flood depends upon the record written" in *the Bible*, and in
particular upon the testimony of Jesus Christ (Mt 24:38; Lk 17:27). I
can understand that this may be a problem for Christian geologists
like Glenn, but the vast majority of Christians do not need geology to
uncover sediments before they can believe that the Flood was real.
"For we walk by faith, not by sight" (2Cor 5:7).
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 |
----------------------------------------------------------------