Hello Glenn, and Dick,
Glenn you may be surprised to see me saying something on this topic and I
find it surprising that I am saying something like this to you. Dick, I
don't remember that we have corresponded before so please accept what
follows as a genuine attempt to help you guys resolve your differernces
without getting into the argument myself.
It simply is not a question I am interested in trying to answer but the
methodolgy I suggest, I have found helpful when I disagree with someone.
And, it has a few times changed argument to fruitfull conversation so I
offer it with best wishes to both of you.
Here I go sticking my nose in where it doesn't belong, and unless someone
encourages me to say more I will say just this and consider it suffecient.
Before there can be agreement on conclusions there must be agreement on
definitions and on what is or is not relevant data.
Definition: what do each of you mean by "flood"?
Assuming you have or can come to a common definition of the word flood,
then you can start working on coming to a concensus on what is and what is
not relevant data for determining whether or not there was a flood at a
specified location and time. And, once you have worked out whether or not
there was a "flood" at each of the potential or proposed locacations you can
deside whether or not it was at the correct time. Then I think you will have
an asnwer you agree on. But if you don't agree on the definitions and
criteria, I don't know how you will ever agree on an answer.
Darryl
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dick Fischer" <dickfischer@earthlink.net>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2002 9:46 PM
Subject: RE: Noahic Covenant
> Glenn wrote:
>
> >Dick wrote:
>
> >>We also differ on the extent of the flood. For those of us who have
> >>spent time studying the flood, myself, Paul Seeley, Davis Young,
> >>Robert Best, and others, there is agreement on the time and place and
> >>scope. That should tell you something.
>
> >Aaahhh, should it tell me that 4 people can be wrong at the same time? A
> >list like that is useless as a measure of truth.
>
> There were twenty authors in Robert Best's bibliography I had read in
> researching my book:
>
> Alster
> Bailey
> Gelb
> Gould
> Hasel
> Heidel
> Jacobsen
> Josephus
> Kidner
> Kramer
> Lambert
> Langdon
> Mallowan
> Parrot
> Sollberger
> Speiser
> Tigay
> Wenham
> Woolley
> Young
>
> How many books from any of these authors have you read?
>
> Let me put it another way. How many books and articles have you read
> on geology? How do you feel when you encounter someone who has read
> not one geology book and yet has the gall to hassle you about your
> conclusions.
>
> >To paraphrase and mangle Mark Twain, there are several
> >billion Buddhists who agree that Buddhism is correct.
> >Shouldn't that tell us something as well?
>
> Best and I together have read well over 300 books and articles
> directly pertaining to this subject, and we agree on the date, 2900
> BC, and the place, southern Mesopotamia.
>
> Either shun the research and trust those who do it, or do the
> research and weigh in. Best, Young, and I did the research and
> agree, you haven't and disagree. Does THAT tell you anything?
>
> Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orislol.com
> ÏThe Answer we should have known about 150 years agoÓ
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 21 2002 - 09:36:56 EDT