On Sat, 21 Oct 1995 21:24:00 -0400 you wrote:
>ABSTRACT:I answer Stephen Jone's demand for springs to be in my model
>of the flood and show him how the model I am presenting could fit
>Stephens view of the Biblical description of the land prior to to the
>flood.
[...]
>I wrote:
>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. :-)<<
>Stephen replied:
SJ>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!<<
GM>Stephen, I apologize. I was attempting a little humor here and
>that is why the smiley face is on the end.. I guess you didn't like
>it.
I accept Glenn's apology, but I do not accept his explanation.
Putting a "smiley face" at the end of a misreprentation of someone's
view does not excuse it.
>Stephen writes:
SJ>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.
SJ>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".<<
GM>O.K. I think your objection can be answered. You insist on
>springs I can give you springs in another way. But several facts
>need to be laid out first.
*I* don't "insist on springs". It is what *the Bible* says!
GM>First the evaporation rate in the Mediterranean basin is
>tremendous. Today the only reason the Mediterranean is a sea is that
>ocean water can come in from the Atlantic. Kenneth Hsu writes:
>"One can picture the desiccated Mediterranean as a giant bathtub,
>with the Strait of Gibraltar as the faucet. Seawater roared in from
>the Atlantic through the strait in a gigantic waterfall...Even with
>such an impressive influx, more than 100 years would have been
>required to fill the empty bathtub."~Kenneth J. Hsu, "When the
>Mediterranean Dried Up", Scientific American, December, 1972, p. 33.
So Glenn's Flood lasted " more than 100 years"? According to Gn
Gn 8:2 "The fountains also of the deep...were stopped" after
only "an hundred and fifty days" (Gn 7:24)
It seems the rate of Glenn's filling of the Mediterranean was so slow,
that it would have left plenty of time for everyone to escape?
[...]
GN>Fifth, springs are defined as a flow of water from the ground. At
>least that is what my dictionary defines it as.
Yes, from *under* the ground, not a body of sea water on the
*surface*.
GM>Sixth, the geologic evidence at the base of the Mediterranean
>proves that the basin was once empty and was quickly filled up.
"Quickly" meaning over "more than 100 years"!
GM>The question I have raised is: Can this be a model for the Flood?
>I think so.
Sorry, but IMHO it is nothing like the Biblical Flood! :-)
[...]
GM>Here are your springs, Stephen. If this is your last objection to
>my model do you now accept the model? :-)
Glenn, you are welcome to your so-called "model". If you want to
believe it and it saves your faith as a geologist, then that's the
main thing, as far as I am concerned. Unfortunately I cannot accept
it as in any way resembling the Flood I find in my Bible.
>Stephen writes:
SJ>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.<<
GM>O.K. I think I just barely escaped your relegating me to the ranks
>of Velikovsky and Von Daniken. Would you agree? I have given you
>your precious springs. But I must admit that I think your demand is
>somewhat of a nitpick but if you need it , there the springs are.
They are not *my* "precious springs". They are what the Bible says!
Clearly these are a grudging add-on to Glenn's model? I presume they
aren't even in his book? Indeed, I find it interesting that Glenn
never quotes from his book.
GM>One other thing about the model I have. Prior to the time that the
>Mediterranean dried out, the rocks surrounding the basin on Africa,
>Asia and Europe, would have been saturated with water. This would
>explain Genesis 2:6. That verse has always been difficult to explain
>within the confines of my science.
IMHO Gn 2:6 only describes the local situation in the Eden area where
Adam was about to be created.
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>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:<<
GM>Stephen, do not fear for me. I will go where I believe the truth
>lies. You are not responsible for my spiritual state.
Unfortunately I am (Mt 18:6)!
GM>(You have not gone as far as one prominent person on the reflector
>who once asked me privately why I didn't go on and be an atheist
>since I sounded like one.)
I do not believe you sound like an atheist. But you do not seem to
like the thought that God may have acted supernaturally in ensuring
that there was no Flood sediment.
GM>And besides you have not
>really given me any reason to reject my views either geologically or
>theologically. I believe a dam is fine theologically even if you
>don't (but if you want springs you can have them within my views).
>The only people who have given me any worries at all about my views
>are Terry Gray with the MHC polymorphism and an atheist friend of
>mine who has criticised one other theological feature of my view.
>Other than that, I feel very confident that my view answers the
>problems geology, biology, paleontology and anthropology presents to
>the Scripture. My problem is that most christians do not know enough
>geology to even know that there is a major problem for Scripture from
>that science. And what they do know is through the filter of ICR
>which is utterly wrong. Thus they find my views too different for
>their tastes.
Fine. I think we should end our debate on this issue, with your faith
intact! :-)
GM>As to needing a literal flood, I have always found it odd what some
>have done to the Scripture who take a less historical view. They
>believe that the early chapters of Genesis are myth and not
>historical, the Exodus did not occur, it is doubtful they say that
>Daniel's prophecy was written prior to Alexander's conquests, it is
>doubtful that there was a star of Bethlehem and it is doubtful that
>there was a virgin birth. But other than that, they say, the Bible
>is true and should be believed! When faced with such an unhistorical
>document I always ask myself WHY should it be believed in anything?
I do not believe that "myth" and "not historical" are synonymous. I
have said that elements of Gn 1-11 are probably real history dressed
in symbolic clothes, as proposed by James Orr:
`I do not enter into the question of how we are to interpret the third
chapter of Genesis-whether as history or allegory or myth, or most
probably of all, as old tradition clothed in oriental allegorical
dress-but the truth embodied in that narrative, viz. the fall of man
from an original state of purity, I take to be vital to the Christian
view.' (Orr J., The Christian View of God and the World, 1897, p185,
in Ramm B. "The Christian View of Science and Scripture", 1955,
Paternoster, London, pp223-224).
And Glenn sounds surprisingly like "the ICR" when he links regarding
Gn 1-11 as partly symbolic, to doubting the "star of Bethlehem" and
the "virgin birth".
GM>If God, is the God of the universe, AND He is powerful enough to
>create the world, why is He too weak to get us a relatively clear
>exposition of what actually happened? Thus I would contend that the
>Bible must be rather historical or it is at risk of being erroneous
>in toto.
To most Christians, Gn 1-11 *is* "a relatively clear exposition of
what actually happened". But of course, God wants to do much more
than relate "what actually happened". He is also concerned to convey
the underlying *meaning* "of what actually happened".
I believe I am wasting too mcuh time on this issue (1Tim 1:4; 6:4 Tit
3:9), so I may not respond to any further posts from Glenn on it.
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 |
----------------------------------------------------------------