>>Perhaps you will now be prepared to comment on the three points I advanced
>>as
proof that the Flood was indeed global - as all the principal Bible
translators
have assumed - judging from their rendering of the narrative.
>>
Vernon: In my judgement, to insist that the flood was global in the face of
so much contrary evidence is incredibly useless. Particularly since you (and
others favoring that position) are totally unable to come up with any
evidencs or arguments which suggest it except some particular
interpretations of scripture.
If we had no scientific evidences at all which were in conflict with the
global flood idea, then one (of many) interpretations of scripture would be,
indeed, that the flood was global. Even then, interpretations which assumed
only that it was local would be theologically respectable, and even an
interpretation which said all of Gen 1-11 consisted of myth would be OK. We
all bring to the table our own presuppositions, culture, knowledge, etc.
But we have enough scientific evidences, as well as logical arguments
(volume of water, etc.) to KNOW the global flood concept is sufficiently
flawed as to make it unworthy of serious consideration.
Suppose we had no scriptures, Vernon. Is there ANY scientific fact that
would suggest a global flood? I think there are none.
As to your treatment of Dick, I reiterate that it disgusts me.
LL (off the list now. Not mad at anybody -- just better places to chat)
>From: Vernon Jenkins <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
>Reply-To: vernon.jenkins@virgin.net
>To: Lucy Lear <lucylear@hotmail.com>
>CC: asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: Re: Noahic Covenant
>Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 23:14:36 +0100
>
>Dear Lucy,
>
>Thanks for writing.
>
>Dick's evolutionary stance is deep-seated and well-known. In my view it
>prompts
>him to 'mould' the Scriptures accordingly - apparently in complete
>disregard,
>(a) of the unflattering things the Bible has to say about man (eg Gen.8:21,
>Psalm 2, Jer.9:17) - amply confirmed by what we know of ourselves and of
>the
>world around us and, (b) of the biblical warnings concerning such
>practice(eg
>2Pet.3:15-17). I believe the Bible to be a repository of revealed truth -
>specifically provided for those created perfect in His image (but now
>intellectually crippled as a result of the Fall) by a loving heavenly
>Father.
>Thus, to be accused of "impugning the integrity of the Scriptures" by one
>who
>does this as a matter of course - or so it seems - I naturally find hard to
>accept.
>
>Perhaps you will now be prepared to comment on the three points I advanced
>as
>proof that the Flood was indeed global - as all the principal Bible
>translators
>have assumed - judging from their rendering of the narrative.
>
>By the way, to speak plainly and debate robustly is in no way
>'unchristian', in
>my view. Do you really believe the Apostle Paul applied the 'softly,
>softly'
>approach?
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Vernon
>
>
>Lucy Lear wrote:
>
> > Vernon: You wrote to Dick that "And rather than accusing me of impugning
>the
> > integrity of the
> > Scriptures by drawing attention to these realities perhaps you would now
> > admit
> > that the only reason you believe as you do is because your faith in
> > evolution
> > overrides such matters as simple logic and the just demands of God's
>Word."
> >
> > I see you are again challenging the motivation of your opponent rather
>than
> > his arguments. This is such a standard tactic of the YEC crowd that it
> > rather turns off most persons from ever examining their arguments any
> > further.
> >
> > Vernon -- it is also -- simply -- an unChristian tactic.
> >
> > Lucy the Lurker
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
_________________________________________________________________
Join the worldís largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 22 2002 - 17:36:57 EDT