Since I didn't keep a copy of what you wrote, and the archiver still
doesn't seem to be working, I'll just say I'm sorry I misunderstood you.
Maybe I read too much into what you wrote.
I don't think you can read that into the text. I do think,
>however, it must have had an effect that we can't judge through our lenses.
Certainly there are some challenges connected with trying to understand
what processes in the past gave us the geology we see today. And if God
performed some miraculous actions to bring about the end of the flood, that
makes things more difficult. But there is a danger in simply declaring the
end of the flood to be a miracle: the danger is that we will be tempted not
to investigate further.
>A miraculous event by God in the past is not something we are equipped to
>investigate with our assumptions of the present.
But we can investigate the natural means which were used. God sometimes
brings about unmediated miracles, but more often the miracle seems to be in
the direction and timing of events andf processes we would normally
consider natural.
>
><<In any case, a global
>flood would be a very significant act of God, that His people would talk
>about for many generations. It would have considerable apologetic value --
>if there was fairly unambiguous evidence it had occurred. So if your
>scenario is correct, I'm left puzzled about why God would hide one of his
>great acts from humans.>>
>
>The "act" as it were was the destruction of all humanity, minus 8! That is
>what was passed down generation to generation--the story of his judgment.
>Why are we hung up on what the ground is supposed to look like? It is
>enough that God has revealed what he did in his Word.
I totally agree: the significant message is that God was displesed with the
sins of men, so he destroyed all but eight and restarted from there.
Attemps to elaborate in the direction of physical data may be misguided. I
say "may" because I would not want to discourage anyone from careful,
cautious investigation. But most of us who get involved in these
discussions jump to unwarranted conclusions from time to time.
>
>That, BTW, is God's method. He did not leave us evidence of the Passover,
>for example. But he did command his people to tell the story every year.
Hmm, I would say that the evidence is that His people do still tell the story.
>
><<Sometimes young-earth creationists ask me if I
>believe the miracles in the New Testament. Jesus' turning water into wine
>at Cana is an example they sometimes bring up. While the account doesn't
>say "This is a miracle" in bold face type, it seems clear to me that it is
>a miracle. >>
>
>But it DOES say so!
>
>"This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested
>forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him." (John 2:11) And I
>think Scripture is just as clear about God's hand in the Flood and
>post-Flood.
What can I say? (other than the fact that my NIV doesn't use boldface type
to announce that this was a miracle in Jn 2:11) :-). I stand corrected.
Thanks, Jim.
And I agree that Scripture is pretty emphatic about God's role in the flood
and its ending.
>
><< It sometimes seems to me that the young-earth
>creationists, with their naturalistic explanations of the flood, are trying
>to take the flood -- in part -- out of the miracle category. >>
>
>I agree with you. I said earlier that Genesis 8:1 may be a "theological
>wild card" that deals a blow both ways. I'm exploring this option. I find
>it stunning.
>
The most important message we should get from comparing Scripture and
scientific knowledge is that we ought to be humble.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Bill Hamilton
Staff Research Engineer
Chassis and Vehicle Systems
GM R&D Center
Warren, MI