CUT
>
>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.
>>
CUT
>
>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.
>
Dario,
Thanks for your contribution. I have a couple of comments about the above
comments. At the beginning of your message, you seemed to take the position
that we needn't be concerned about trying to seek any correlation between
the Biblical accounts and various current scientific theories. You seemed
to completely eschew an approach of trying to seek scientific confirmation
for one's Biblical interpretations. However, as the above statements show,
you then immediately turned around and attempted to offer observational
evidence to support your particular interpretation! Which will it be? Is
YEC testable or not? If it is not, then your above arguments are
inconsistent with that belief; if YEC is testable, then Glenn is not out of
line for trying to critique your model by noting difficulties in your
theory. In fact, Glenn's counter arguments that he offered in critique of
your position are actually a demonstration that he is taking you seriously.
Mike Farley
Covenant Theological Seminary