>I apologize, Glenn, for being dim. My focus was on a single verse (Gen.
>8:1),and I didn't want to be unfair and ascribe to you a view that you did
>not have (I've done that in the past and reaped the wrath of Morton). I
>take it now that your answers DO relate to that verse, and we'll move on
>from there. I'm really interested in the implications of all this.
>
That's OK. I probably am going to take a break in a few days, not out of
mad but because every now and then I get tired and need to refresh.
>Before we go on, a note about hermeneutics. You wrote:
>
><<And nowhere does the Bible say "God produced the flood miraculously". >>
>
>This is very sloppy, Glenn. Nowhere does the Bible say "Jesus is part of
>the Trinity," either. One of the oldest dodges of the religious skeptics is
>the "It never says this exactly ploy." But you're not a skeptic, so this is
>surprising. One of the reasons we have hermeneutics is that this "defense"
>is really unworkable and unreasonable in the real world of textual
>revelation.
The reason I think it is important is that when we do go beyond what the
Scripture expressly states, (which you admit we are doing in the case of a
miraculous flood), you must be cautious because when we go beyond, we are
into the arena of inference. We may infer correctly, as I believe we do
with the Trinity, or we may infer wrongly. I think far too often we
Christians give our inferential abilities the trait of infallibility. In
other words we believe we are God.
>
>Another unworkable interpretation is this:
>
><<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.>>
>
>This is again sloppy. You can't use a general verse to limit a specific.
>I'll give you an example. The Bible says "God is Love." But it also says
>"God hates what is evil." You cannot use the first to limit the second. The
>first is a general statement about the nature of God, but the second is a
>specific statement about His attitude toward a kind of behavior. So your
>citing of a general verse and importing into a specific context does not
>work.
OK, why does a miraculous wind imply a totally miraculous flood? It seems
to me that one can infer either case.
]
>
>Now, you have stated unequivocally that God did not produce the flood
>miraculously (i.e., non-naturally, apart from the normal "system" set in
>place).
No, I have not stated unequivocally that God did not produce the flood
miraculously. I said that if the flood was global it HAD to be miraculous.
That is a different statement.
I'll deal with that, but I'm even more perplexed by your idea that
>God did not produce the "wind" which cleared up the waters miraculously.
>Your view is a little ambiguous because you earlier wrote:
>
><<God may have caused the wind, but the wind has PHYSICAL effects which can
>
>be searched for (in theory).>>
>
>So what you really may be saying is that the wind WAS caused miraculously,
>but any effects of that wind had normal physical effects. This, of course,
>is reading something in the text because, (get ready) the text nevers says
>"The effects of the wind were normal." OK, I'm being playful with you, but
>you get the point. My disagreement is with your second clause. You assume
>normal physical effects, but we all know that God doesn't always operate
>that way. When he used wind to part the waters of the Red Sea AND to dry
>the ground, that was not normal.
If the wind does not have physical effects then it was ineffectual or the
wind was of no consequence and God's miracle was elsewhere.
>I hope I've summed up your position and the issues fairly. I'm NOT arguing
>geological issues at the moment. I have not examined the data like you
>have. However, we all know that data is interpreted, and that our beginning
>assumptions color our interpretation. This thread is dealing with
>assumptions, and that is something I AM qualified to do.
>
For the most part you have represented me fairly with the corrections noted
above. You can't talk about assumptions until you look at the data. I
categorically deny that the assumption of either a global flood or no flood
colors the observation of footprints and the logical deduction that unless
you have a lot of animals walking for long distances underwater, the waters
MUST have been shallow or non-existent.
>You asked me this:
>
><<ANswer my question: Where does it say "The flood was miraculous"?>>
>
>Below is my answer. And please remember, as I've explained above, that it
>is bad argumentation to insist on specific wording. If it was a good
>method, I'd ask you, "Where does it say 'The Flood was 5.5 million years
>ago'?" That gets us nowhere.
>
>Now let's look at the Bible.
>
>THE FLOOD
>
>Whether global or local, the Genesis flood is spoken of as unequivocally
>coming from God. It was NOT simply a happenstance of forces already in
>place.
>
>Genesis 6:17:
>
><<And I, behold, I do bring the flood of waters upon this earth, to destroy
>all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything
>that is in the earth shall die. (AS)
>
><<And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth (KJV)
>
><<"And behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the
>earth"(NASB)
>
><<I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under
>the heavens(NIV)
OK, lets talk assumptions. The verses rendered in english translate the
hebrew word "eretz" as "earth." The hebrew word is more often translated as
"land" in the scripture rather than earth. Abraham in Genesis was told to
leave his 'eretz'. If eretz means earth, then Abe was told to get off the
planet and he was disobedient because he moved from Ur to Palestine, not to
Mars.
When you read the above statements inserting the more common meaning, "land"
then you have an entirely different meanding of the account.
>And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the land (KJV)
>
><<"And behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the
>land"(NASB)
<<I am going to bring floodwaters on the land to destroy all life under
>the heavens(NIV)
Your choice of "earth" or "land" is made from a presuppositional bias. If
you want a global flood, you chose "earth" and if you don't you choose
'land'. Custance notes that "land" is the most common way to translate this
word:
"According to Young's Analytical Concordance, the Hebrew word is
translated Country 140 times, Ground 96 times, and Earth and Land
frequently. It is also rendered Field once and by several other
words in a very small number of instances. Assuming that Young's
list is exhaustive, actual count shows that the word is
translated Earth about 677 times and translated Land 1458 times.
Moreover, of the 677 occurrences in at least 100 instances the
word may be equally if not more appropriately, rendered Land
rather than Earth."~Arthur C. Custance, The Extent of the Flood,
Doorway Papers, 41, (Ottawa: Privately Published, 1958), p. 3
What has happened is that modern Americans have placed the modern meaning of
earth onto eretz, an entirely inappropirate translation.
>To deny the miraculous origin of the flood of Genesis is to deny Scripture.
No, it is to deny the choice of words chosen by the translators who are not
infallible.
>That's why you won't find a single theologian or commentator who takes the
>view that the flood was caused by some natural system already in place.
to disprove this all I have to have is one example. Bernard Ramm was or is
a prof of Systematic Theology. He believed in a local flood with a normal
source. He specifically stated,
"It is imporoper to affirm that only those who believe in a universal flood
really believe in the inspiration of Scripture and the omnipotence of God.
It is also improper to imply that those who believe in a local flood do not
believe in the omnipotence of God and believe in the peccability of
Scripture." Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture, 1954,
p. 163-164
>THE WIND
>
>It is just as clear that the means of abating the Flood waters was a "wind"
>from the hand of God. Look at Genesis 8:1:
>
><<And God remembered Noah, and all the beasts, and all the cattle that were
>with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the
>waters assuaged (AS)
>
><<And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that
>was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and
>the waters asswaged (KJV)
>
><<BUT God remembered Noah and all the beasts and all the cattle that were
>with him in the ark; and God caused a wind to pass over the earth, and the
>water subsided (NASB)
>
>And as Steve Jones recently noted, the word for "wind" here is the SAME as
>that for "Spirit" in Genesis 1:2!
>
>If that's not confirmation of miraculous origin, I don't know what is.
>
Maybe, but once again, a miraculous end of the flood does not necessitate a
miraculous origin.
>This discussion interested me from a purely Scriptural framework. What the
>implications are for geology, catastrophism, uniformitarianism, and any
>other kind of "ism" is yet to be seen. But from a purely textual standpoint
>this is all remarkably clear.
Not if "eretz" is to be translated "land"
I am moving the following to the end because it fits better here:
you wrote:
>
>My position on all this is that Genesis 8:1 may be a "theological wildcard"
>that makes all attempts to force a uniformitarian spin on this past event
>fruitless. And it is NOT a logical answer to say "Well, God is deceptive
>then" because you can only say that if you preclude God from miraculous
>effects. Why would anyone do this?
I am going to go back to the footprints. Here are the formations throughout
the western US that have animal tracks on them. They are pervasive and
spread over thousands of feet stratigraphically.
Below are three locations and the formations which have which have various
terrestrial tracks on them. The numbers are the thicknesses of the
formations which are piled up on top of each other stratigraphically.
Age Formation
Grand canyon SE Utah W. Colorado
Eocene Uinta 1500'
Eocene Green River 2000'
Paleocene Wasatch 1500'
Paleocene Ft. Union 1000'
U. Cretaceous Mesa Verde grp 1000'
L. Cretaceous Dakota Fm. Dakota-no prints in Colo. 300'
U. Jurassic Morrison Fm Morrison 500'
M. Jurassic Entrada 400'
L. Jurssic Navajo ss Navajo 2000'
L. Jurassic Kayenta Fm. Kayenta500'
L. Jurassic Wingate ss Wingate 600'
U. Triassic Chinle 2500'
M.Triassic Moenkopi Moenkopi Moenkopi 1400'
Permian Coconino 100'
Permian Hermit Shale 1000'
Penn. Supai Group Cutler Maroon Fm 4500'
Penn. Minturn Fm.6000'
~M. Lockley and Adrian P. Hunt, Dinosaur Tracks, (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1995), p. 6-7
These tracks often crushed plants and clams buried in the sediment.
"It was not just the sediment that was disturbed; at one level
clams have been crushed and destroyed by the impact of brontosaur
feet and plant stems have been flattened into the limey lakeshore
sediments."~Martin Lockley and Adrian P. Hunt, Dinosaur Tracks,
(New York: Columbia University Press, 1995), p. 173
Since the clams couldn't swim, all preflood clams should be buried at the
bottom of the geologic column, yet they are found throughout the column and
one is crushed by a bronto.
Since, in general, a track cannot be made by an animal which is buried by
water deeper than its height one must conclude that the tracks are evidence
of shallow water at the very least. Not this superdeep flood that is able to
cover high mountains. And the tracks are not only spread over thousands of
feet of the geologic column, they are also scattered throughout each of
these formations.
This is an example of how many layers have animal tracks, each showing that
the water was shallow, if there was water at all.
bottom
level 1: 1 hadrosaur trackway 1 ceratopsid
12 meters higher
level 2: 2 ceratopsid 2 biped trackways
8 meters
Level 3: 1 ceratopsid track
10 meters higher
Level 4: 6 ceratopsid trackways
2 meters higher
level 5: 2 theropod trackways 1 biped
20 meters higher
Level 6: 5 ceratopsid trackways; 10 theropod trackways
23 meters higher
level 7: 7 theropod trackways one champsosaur trackway
~Martin Lockley and Adrian P. Hunt, Dinosaur Tracks, (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1995), p. 230
There is also the issue the time it takes for dinosaurs to walke around.
There is also the issue of God making the tracks, crushing the clams,
crushing the plants and even occasionally placing some dino dung around the
place. And there were no dinosaurs doing all this, it was miraculous.
Amazing. God makes up a brilliant history (walking dinosaurs) which has no
basis in fact.
>
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm