>I'd really like Glenn to engage in this discussion because he has a high
>view of Scripture. I don't see why he's avoiding it.
>
>Glenn?
Jim,
I will admit to being very discouraged at this time. And I probably took
that discouragement out on you (or you provided a trigger). I have answered
the quesiton 3 times. What more can I say? Here is a 4th time to answer the
question. It will be my last attempt to answer your question about the
miraculous view of the flood.
I don't believe that even if God miraculously provided the wind, that it
means that the rest of the flood was miraculous. Where is the connection?
I see none.
As to the 3 times, here is the fact. At 5:58 am on 2/18/98 I wrote:
>>Jim, God could do anything He wants miraculously. But Flood afficionados
don't want to rely on miracle. They try to use science to explain the
Flood. If they said it was a miracle, I would have no problem and no
response to them. What they do is try to say that science supports their
position. It doesn't.<<
at 8:18 p. m. 2/18/98 I answered again:
>>>God may have caused the wind, but the wind has PHYSICAL effects which can
be searched for (in theory). And I would agree with you that if the Flood
was miraculous, then uniformitarianism, physical law, or congressional law
is useless. Could God have done everything miraculously? Yes. Did He? I
think not because he would have to arrange things so exactingly that it
would have the appearance of a deception. If you have a murder case and the
guilty party plants the gun in your house dribbles a bit of your blood at
the scene and uses a car with tires identical to yours, you would call that
a deception. This is the type of activity that God must have engaged in to
make the geologic column look as it does.<<<
At 6:04 am this morning I wrote:
>>>But, I would point out that to claim that God performed the flood
miraculously is to beg the question and the answer. The only way that the
global flood could occur in my opinion is if it is entirely miraculous. A
local flood could occur in a wide variety of ways naturalistically or
miraculously. So the question is which is it global or local? You can't
assume that miraculous = global because miraculous might = local. When
Jesus created the wine (a miracle) he didn't flood the world with wine. It
was a miracle with local effect.
And nowhere does the Bible say "God produced the flood miraculously". That
is merely an interpretation of the Scripture and it may be right or may be
wrong. God very well might have used natural means to create the flood.
<<<<
and at 6:04 this morning I also answered:
>>>You cut out my verses that I noted that God says he brings the rain in
its season. That is my answer but you choose to cut that out. If God
statement that He brings the rain in its season, means that every single
rainfall is miraculous, even today, then everything is a miracle and then
miracles are meaningless because we can predict the occurrence of future
miracles in the world.<<<
and tonight at 6:08 PM I answered the same question:
>>>>Jim, I really don't believe that you will answer the above question.
You never do answer such things. But for the 3rd time I will try to answer
your question. God sends the wind, God sends the rain even today. But God
doesn't send it miraculously. He uses a system He set in place. So I
don't think that the wind spoken of necessarily is miraculous. <<<<
So you are correct I hadn't answered you 3 times I had answered you 4 and
this makes the fifth time. Going back over what I wrote to show you that I
had answered you is exactly the waste of time and gamesmanship I am wanting
to avoid. I have answered you! Deal with it.
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm