Let me begin with a question to you. I respect your
exhaustive research into geology and especially into the
Flood, and I respect your Christian faith. However, if you
maintain that the Flood was a local affair, how do you
reconcile God's promise that he will never destroy the world
again,(in respect to a world flood)? If the event was a
local flood, then God has destroyed the "world" many times
with local floods.
You wrote:
>The point here is that Christians have unfortunately been
>willing to ignore observational data in order to believe
>what their theology requires.
If you replace "ignore" with "interpert", then yeah, I
accept that statement without apology. Proponents of
biogenesis make the same statement. Since you and I weren't
there, the observational data must be interperted. We must
rely on present observational data that may represent the
past. I have seen, (in photographs), a geologic column that
was laid down in seconds after the Mt. St. Helens blast.
The column was complete with stratified layers of different
thicknesses and compositions. This being said, Glen, I must
admit that although I choose to be a YEC, you have certainly
caused me to think about the age of the earth in a new, (or
old), aspect. :)
However, I believe it is a mistake to look for justification
for the Resurrection in fossils. As the angel said to Mary
in the empty tomb, "...why do you look for the living among
the dead"? You and I both know that He is risen. It is a
personal encounter with Jesus that makes us believers and
not faith in the age of the earth. Jesus didn't come to
earth to start "Christianity", He came to offer salvation,
to show men how to develop that personal relationship with
the Father.
John 20:29
"Because you have seen my you have believed,
blessed are those who have not seen and yet
believed."
You wrote:
>Assuming that the ancient Christians are no different that
>modern Christians...
They SAW the holes in His hands and in His side, the only
manmade things in heaven today. They were totally
convinced. We all have doubts, but if I were a first
century Christian and my faith was not 100%, I would not
permit myself to be crucified upside down until my guts ran
in my throat, as Peter and others did. In this reference, we
are different.
Oh, by the way, Copernicus may have been correct that the
earth is not the center of the geographic universe. In
light of the following:
1. There is a loving God who's desire is for us to enjoy
His creation.
2. That the planets and stars' purpose was to fortell the
coming of Jesus, (not your daily horoscope).
3. That the heavens were created for us to wonder and be
in awe of our Father's majesty.
I believe that the earth is the center of the universe.
I hope that I've addressed some of your question, Glen.
Your Christian brother,
Dan Muller
PS. Did I spell "intriguing" correctly?