It think there is one issue we should clear up immediately. I have asserted
that the origin of the flood was the hand of God (a miracle), and not
simply an accident of timing and a result of a system "in place." I think
the Bible is clear on that, and I've posted the Scirtpures. I think you
agree, too:
<<No, I have not stated unequivocally that God did not produce the flood
miraculously.>>
Yes, this is a TRIPLE negative (or should I have said, No, this is not an
un-triple negative?) but I think the meaning is evident. Then you say:
<<I said that if the flood was global it HAD to be miraculous.>>
And I would agree.
Now, I am assuming a global flood for purposes of this argument. So while I
don't necessarily disagree with your riff on "eretz," it's really not
relevant to this discussion.
I wrote:
>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.
You responded:
<<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.">>
And I agree with Ramm (with whom I corresponded), but this doesn't address
my issue. Ramm did not deny the divine origin of the flood, and I am NOT
debating "local v. global." I'm ASSUMING global for the theological
discussion. In fact, Ramm agrees with me on my point, as the quote itself
shows.
Now, I want to get back to the REAL issue for me, and that is NOT with the
origin of the flood per se, but the assuaging of the waters, as detailed in
Gen. 8:1. You almost agree with the abundantly clear teaching:
<<Maybe, but once again, a miraculous end of the flood does not necessitate
a
miraculous origin.>>
Again, let's forget the origin part for now. Assuming a global flood
(admittedly, a miracle) and assuming this miraculous "wind," (which is
"spirit"), we cannot rule out the possibility that the EFFECTS are also
going to be non-natural. That's a huge presumption on our part, but we seem
to be clinging to it only because we don't want to admit our assumptions
may be in error, or because we've published books, or some such. Is that
ever a good reason? Yes, it's expensive to publish, but hey, cash or
candor?
Now, you bring up footprints and clams and the like. I'd like to explore
this more with you. For instance, you write:
<<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.>>
Once again, this is a uniformitarian assumption. If the waters were
assuaged by the spirit of God, and actually "returned" from whence they
came, would that turn your assumption, literally, on its head?
You see, that's my big issue. You are saying we've got this here, and that
there, and clams can't swim, and on and on. But you're assuming they would
HAVE to swim. I can see all sorts of things happening by a tremendous,
reverse hydrodynamism. Can't you?
No? Why not? Because you've never seen it. And that's the problem. You are
making a huge naturalistic assumption about what the Bible calls a
miraculous event (wind>>assuage). What I want to know from you is this. IF
(and that's a big if, but go with me)...IF God did indeed assuage the
waters miraculously, in a way unlike anything we've experienced or observed
today, isn't it possible that what you expect to find in the fossils would
have to change?
That's the big question.
BTW, Genesis 8:13 says:
<< Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face
of the ground was dry. >>
Jim