>>snip...
>I don't know how long you have been on the list, but I will stand shoulder
>to shoulder with you on the issue that the Bible must be historical or it is
>probably not inspired. My good friend, Denis Lamoureaux says I am
>hermeneutically unclean, and you probably would agree. However, since the
>two of you are coming from opposite sides of the theological spectrum, I
>feel pretty good being in the middle.
>
I do own you an apology. I didn't know you held the position that The
Bible isn't an inspired book just because it doesn't match some idea of
what history is. But again with that simple statement one declares that
Paul is wrong 'All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
rigtheousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for
every good work'. 2 Tim. 3:16-17 It doesn't claim to be inspired because
it matches the historical record of someone.
>I do have one problem with your approach. In your entire post, you did not
>discuss the problems and issues I raised, the fact that a global flood
>violates the second law, the fact that ammonites are sorted according to
>suture shape. You did not try to explain why that data is as it is. You
>were content to go another direction and raise other issues.
>
While in the fifth paragraph of my message, one can read the second reason
for sending the message (it had to do with the erroneous and painfully bad
interpretation of the Biblical narrative), the fourth paragraph clearly
states what are my thoughts on the area of interpretation of rock or bone
records.
The Bible, specially the New Testament writes over what to do with lengthy
discussions over these type of themes '...avoiding the profane and idle
babble and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge (science) by
professing it some have strayed concerning the faith.' I Tim. 6:20-21 (NKJ)
>The problem I have with this approach concerns the question, "Are Christian
>theological views immune from observational data?" The nature of your
>response would seem to suggest that your view does not need to take into
>account the problems I raised. In my opinion this leads to relativism.
>here is why.
>
No they aren't. But you are presenting something more than reports of
observational data while trying to build thesis on a single word. You call
this last approach hermeneutics. Your friend describes it as
'hermeneutically unclean'. I won't even attach the word hermeneutics to
this method.
>Consider the Hindu who believes his religious books that the world is on the
>back of a turtle swimming in a cosmic sea. You, wishing to evangelize him
>say, "Hey, that is wrong! We have sent spaceships up, photographed the earth
>and there is no turtle and no sea. Your religion is wrong!"
>
>To which the Buddhist replies, paraphrasing you, " The Bhagavadgita is The
>Book of Truth. No amount of 'Scientific Theory' can ever explain away
>divine fact."
>
>How do you now evangelize him? Evidence is irrelevant to him. When you say,
>"Hey, you can't ignore that evidence that spacecraft provide!" He can say,
>"Yes I can, you do it all the time with that global flood idea!" Stand off.
> Relativism reigns.
>by doing what you are doing you reduce your religion to the same level of
>every religion that believes wierd things. Christianity should be higher
>than that.
>
What sets apart The Bible apart from other books are the claims it makes
and the ongoing proofs it provides every day throughout the world. If
Jesus said 'I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father
except through me' and that makes Him a relativist. So be it. I'll be one
with Him. He made some pretty clear statements regarding Scriptures and
their reliablity. His Apostles claimed to have a view that the truths
depended on the message they were conveing. If that makes them adherents
to relativism. So be it. I'm one with them.
The difference between this type of Christian thought and the one from
other religions, is that a true Christian has the ability to be a vessel of
supernatural power to bless other humans; and they do daily worldwide.
Like Peter, while he believed he walked on water, the moment he doubted he
sank. But his Master was next to him to pull him up to safety. Later on,
he learned to keep his faith and was able to bless multitudes and he did.
The moment a man or woman thinks that 'I'm going to evangelize this person'
he/she must resort to human reasoning and logic. This approach doesn't
work and is anti-Scriptural. Furthermore, one will never accomplish a
thing by walking up to somebody and declaring his faith as wrong or bad.
Spirit led evangelism doen't need a human intellect to get in the middle.
If I can convince somebody of this today, somebody else can convince
otherwise tomorow.
Paul wrote regarding this 20 centuries ago:
"...to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of
Christ should be made of no effect. For the message of the cross is
foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is
the power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the
wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." Where is the
wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God
made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God,
the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the
foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews
request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ
crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but
to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and
the wisdom of God."
The power lies in the gospel not the ability to 'reason' the whole thing.
After all in Christianity one must give to receive, become the lowest to be
the highest, be the last to become the first, give it all up to receive it
all and lastly die to live.
> snip...
>Let me assure you that there was lots of life prior to 5,000 years ago. The
>Sumerians were in existence at least 500 years prior although they had not
>invented writing.
Thanks. But no need to assure me. I know. It all died though during the
flood.
>
>>2. What about human population? If man have been on this
>> planet for a million years, why is population explosion
>> only recently becoming such a problem?
snip..
>>
>Technically this is not an argument for a global flood. This is an argument
>for a young earth. Even if the earth is young, it does not mean that there
>was a global flood. However, your 1/2% per year does not work because the
>rate of population growth has varied throughout history. It is estimated
>that there were 3-5 million people on earth at 8000 B.C., 162 million in
>400 B.C. If I did my math correctly that is a rate of .045% per year. By
>AD 1 the population had grown to 250 million. This is a rate of
>approximately .1% per year. By AD 500 the population was 206 million a
>decrease of 17% over those 500 years. By 1500AD the population had grown to
>417 million more than doubling over these 500 years.It nearly doubled again
>to 770 million people by 1750. By 1970 (less than the previous sampling
>period of 250 years) the population had quintupled. And in the last 27
>years, the population has nearly doubled. The rates of population increase
>is not constant through time. This argument assumes a constant rate of
>increase which is observationally false. At low rates of increase, mankind
>could have lived long, long ago. For the data I used, see (L. Luca
>Cavalli-Sforza, Paoli Menozzi and Alberto Piazzi, The History and Geography
>of Human Genes, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), p. 68 )
>
Again, we have estimates and assumptions at work. The reality is that as
time goes by humans take over and reproduce rather quickly. The only thing
that stops human growth are wars, epidemics or catastrophes.
However, I do find it interesting that 80% of the Chinese population today,
belong to 5 main families only. Imagine that 800,000,000 from five couples
in 5000 years.
>What does this have to do with proving a global flood? I don't think the
>local flood was in Mesopotamia. I think a mesopotamian flood is as
>observationally unsound as is a global flood.
> snip...
>All this provides is SUPPORT for an anthropologically universal flood. It
>does not prove a global flood and does not even prove an anthropologically
>universal flood.
>
Lets discard the Utnapishtim, Noah and the other 700 or so flood accounts
worldwide. Because after all, first hand account does not count since they
don't match the current model.
>
>yes I agree. Using a similar use of "under the entire heavens" Jobe
>36:33-Job 37:4, Job is speaking of the thunder of a storm being heard "under
>the entire heavens" this is not possible. I can not hear thunder from
>California. I think the phrase means "under the dome of the sky" meaning
>the local region. Job 37:3-4 says
>
>
>"He unleashes his lightning beneath the WHOLE heaven and sends it to the
>ends of the earth.After that comes the sound of his roar; he thunders with
>his majestic voice." NIV
>
Please help me so I get this straight. The Biblical narrative is only of
events that they could see. So if it there was a flood was only local.
>You can only hold this if you decide apriori that EARTH means planeat earth
>not land. If we are going to hold this type of view of Biblical words, then
>why do you not believe that the entire UNIVERSE was filled with water? 2
>Pet. 2:5 says the entire KOSMOS was destroyed. Why would you not include
>Mars, Jupiter, Alpha Centauri and the Andromeda galaxy in the destruction of
>the Flood? After all that is what the Bible says.
>
The burden is on you to prove that twenty centuries ago when 'kosmos' was
used it meant the entire universe. If we are going to use ancient Greek
and Aramaic in our exchange of ideas, at least lets be honest and use the
meaning of the word as it was then, not now, to support a given point of
view. The word meant then, an orderly arrangement which implied the world.
'And spared not the old world <kosmos>, but saved Noah...' 2Pet.2:5a
>>The last point has to do with rain. According to Scripture, rain as we
>>know it today didn't happen until after the flood. In Gen. 2:5 'for The
>>Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the
>>ground' Not until Noah do we find rain again Gen. 7:4. But the water
>>that poured from heaven was no common storm. The Biblical description in
>>Gen.7:11 'all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the
>>floodgates of heaven were open. And rain fell on the earth forty days and
>>forty nights'.
>>
>This may not be what that verse says.
I don't have any doubt you could come up with a whole different spin.
>
>"and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the
>field had yet sprung up, for [BECAUSE] the LORD God had not sent rain on the
>earth and there was no man to work the ground." Gen 2:5.
>
>Well if there was no rain before the Flood, then there were no plants or
>shrubs before the flood either. This view of this verse is problematical.
>Genesis 1 clearly says plants were created, but I guess they weren't created
>until the flood because there was no rain.
>
>I view this verse as saying that agricultural plants were not on the earth
>because there was no man. See my web page for more info on this verse.
>
Mr. Morton:
I was trying to withold judgement in one thing, but not anymore.
Gen. 2:6 reads 'but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole
face of the ground'.
I will be a great benefit to learn to read more than a verse a time.
Believe me.
>>Lastly, we find that clouds aren't mentioned in the Bible until after this
>>deluge takes place. And the clouds are associated with the rainbow. The
>>symbol by which God establishes the Noahic covenant and promises never to
>>use a flood to destroy all life on the planet.
>
>We don't find elephants mentioned either. Were there no elephants before
>the Flood?
>
And neither after the flood. In fact they are totally absent from The
Bible along with the admiration for scientific findings.
If one day you decide to take up some serious Bible study, maybe you could
find the meaning of the first mention principle in Biblical hermeneutics.
>
>I would disagree with you here. I believe in a historically correct
>Biblical account of the Flood and I believe that the 6 days were 24 hour
>periods,
I will love to read your explanation of 24 hours periods when the moon, the
sun and the stars weren't created until the fourth day. But then again,
maybe Genesis is wrong in this sequence too.
>I believe that the details of the Flood account were correct.Noah
>was on an ark for a year, only 8 humans survived. The entire LAND was
>flooded. What is it that I don't beleive? I don't believe your
>interpretation of 'eretz" as planet earth is the correct one. While I may
>disagree with you, I do not disagree with the Bible.
>
How does 'all living things which were on the face of the ground; both men
and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from
the earth.' rimes with only a local flood. How can the papagayos in
central America died from a flood far away ?
>I fail to see why the Bible, a book inspired by God, must force me to
>believe that what I see with my eyes in nature, is illusion. Surely God
>knew what was buried in the rocks prior to telling Moses what to write. If
>He didn't know, then He isn't God.
>
Funny thing. I seen nature up close too (last time I lived in the Amazon
was for 18 months back in the early 70s) and enjoy tremendously reading and
taking advantage of the advances in science.
I saw the Amazon river flood every year. And every year the river went
down to its prior level without any large deposits of dirt left on top of
the ground. There were no 6 feet or 6 mm of mud on top, nothing.
Moreover, many homes are so close to the river that the first floor gets
flooded every year. The owners always come back, sweep the floors with any
broom to clear the wood and coat it with diesel fuel (to keep insects away)
and back to normal.
Have never been in a situation where I have to explain away Biblical
accounts by deeming the Scriptural record somewhat less of what it is, or
begin some word guessing to accomodate the 'scientific' thought of the day.
Many items in The Scriptures aren't clear and The Bible isn't a scientific
manual. As it stands, I believe what it says and have no doubt of events
as described.
Best Regards,
Dario Giraldo
Lacey, Washington