Hi Vernon you wrote:
>Thanks for your response. Just one thing - the 'first sentence' I
>was referring
>to was
>
>"The true nature and extent of the Flood can hardly be downplayed as a
>"non-essential" matter for the Christian because our correct reading of
>earth history rests largely upon this one event - as I'm sure you must
>agree."
>
>Do you agree?
No. I don't agree. I think it would be helpful in advancing the
gospel message if we all understood the Flood as a local event. I
believe we can do the work of Jesus Christ and help more followers
find their way into God's kingdom by removing the stumbling stones
which the notion of a global flood in the absence of any
substantiating evidence has become.
There is significant corroborating historical and physical evidence
to support a local flood. Nothing supports a global flood. I
believe the weight of OT biblical narrative also falls on a local
flood. Nephilim (Gen. 6:4, Num. 13:33) on both sides, Emims,
Anakims, and Zamzummims (Deut. 2:10,11,20,21) that do not appear to
have descended from Noah's sons, for example.
Whether someone perceives the flood as local or global, however, is
not essential for salvation in my opinion. So I do not consider
being correct on this issue a hallmark of one's Christianity.
On the other hand, I think Christians should feel an obligation to
get their facts right Dogmatic assertions, intransigence,
obstructionism, and an unwillingness to accept what should be quite
obvious have no place in Christian apologetics.
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orislol.com
ěThe Answer we should have known about 150 years agoî
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 30 2002 - 12:03:13 EDT