Thanks for responding to my recent posting.
You said:
> First off I would like to object to the egocentric assertion that only
> those who agree with you "take the Bible--and its warnings--seriously
> ..." There are lots of evolutionists who do and I believe in
> the 6 days, a miraculous creation of Adam, Eve taken from the rib, a
> talking snake, a real/historical flood. What in the world can you
> find in that to indicate that I dont' take the bible seriously. I
> don't agree with you, but that is not the same as taking the Bible
> seriously, unless you think your views are the ONLY views that are
> compatible with the Bible. But that means then, that you think you
> are an infallible interpreter of the Bible. You aren't.
> As has been pointed out numerous times, the terms like 'under the
> whole heavens' are used in local senses in Job and in Deuteronomy. As
> to common sense, that is such a relative term and usually is defined
> as "those views that agree with mine have common sense and those that
> don't, don't.."
Let me take up a few points here:
(1) Regarding 'common sense', wouldn't you agree that the whole Flood
episode, as you see it, is rather odd? The reason for the event, and
God's purpose in bringing it about, is clearly put, surely: "... God saw
that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every
imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually...And
the Lord said, I will destroy man from the face of the earth; both man
and beast, and the creeping thing and the fowls of the air;..." (Gn.6:5,
6:7)..."And the waters were exceedingly mighty on the earth, and all the
high mountains under all the heavens were covered;..." (Gn.7:19). How is
this judgment to be effected with a flood which is merely local? Why
have poor Noah build a large ocean-going vessel when he (with his family
and animals) could have traversed the globe in the time available? We
are informed that he alone "found grace in the eyes of the Lord."
(Gn.6:8) No one else! With the exception of the occupants of the Ark,
the cleansing was therefore total and complete!
In my rejecting the ridiculous notion of a local Flood you might like to
point out where reason and 'common sense' fail me.
(2) You have already provided a clue as to the means used for clouding
and defeating the clear narrative, viz 'under the whole heavens', 'the
face of the earth', and 'all' are to be interpreted with reference to
other, totally unrelated, biblical passages. But isn't it more
reasonable (and, indeed, more usual!) to allow context to determine the
meaning of a word where some ambiguity exists? In view of God's stated
purpose, can there really be any doubt as to what these words mean? And
can we turn a blind eye to the Lord's words concerning the outcome
(Mt.24:37-39, Lk.17:26-27)?
(3) I make no apologies for raising these issues again. The Flood
narrative provides the Christian with a real opportunity to demonstrate
where his true loyalties lie. I suggest the onus is on those who believe
the Flood to be local to bring forward some better evidence for that
view than currently exists.
Glenn, you claim to be a serious student of the Word of God, but as I
see it, for you, it is the doctrine of evolution that ever 'calls the
tune'! Am I not correct?
Thank you for clarifying some of matters re geological dating. I'm sure
the setting of the 'radiometric clock' is indeed 'a long and involved
question' - and, undoubtedly, crucial to the whole enterprise.
Sincerely,
Vernon
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/index.htm
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~indexer/miracla1.htm