On Mon, 9 Oct 1995 22:03:39 -0400 Glenn wrote:
[continued]
GM>But I am interested in reconciling more that geology. I am
>interested in reconciling works of art from 300,000 years ago,
>broca's brain in creatures from 2 million years ago, and possible
>human habitations from 3-400,000 years ago. Are these not intersting
>to you also?
I have already discussed these elsewhere, under a PC "two-Adam" model.
They are consistent with an emerging humanity (Gn 1 man). But these
examples actually argue against Glenn's case. In Glenn's view Noah
built an ark *3.5 million years before* the earliest hominid with the
beginnings of a "Brocas' Brain" speech centre even existed!
>Speaking of the Caspian Depression, Stephen wrote:
GM>I do not claim this is where the Flood was. It may have been, but
>for some reason "sediments" have not been found? And I do not
>believe that every mountain had to be covered, only those in the
>experience of the writer.<<
GM>Sediments have not been found! Large areas of the Caspian do not
>have Recent sediments. That region is very flat and the 3000 foot
>high mountains in the east centre of the basin can be seen for a
>long, long distance. The writer should have had experience with
>them.
As I said, "I do not claim this is where the Flood was". It is just
one suggestion.
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>IMHO much of the problem lies with our interpretation. The main
>purpose of Gn 1-11 is to teach theology, not geology. Karl Barth was
>once asked did he believe in a literal serpent in the Garden, to which
>he replied he was much more interested in what the serpent said.<<
GM>Some have said that the resurrection is not important because the
>story was to teach the essentials of God's relationship with man.
>Some have said that it is not really important that the Hebrews fled
>Egypt because it is a great story of God's dealing with man. Some
>have said that it is not important that Abraham existed. He is a
>father figure. This reasoning can be applied to any event and
>effectively destroys the reality of the event.
No. Gn 1-11 is pre-history. Verifiable, datable Biblical history
begins with Abraham at Gn 11:26. The resurrection was witnessed in
historical times and there is independent historical evidence for the
Exodus. It is simplistic to say that if we accept that the serpent in
the Garden was real history "clothed in oriental allegorical
dress" (Orr J., The Christian View of God and the World, 1897,
p185), then we destroy the reality of historical events in other
more recent parts of the Bible.
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>Has Glenn ever considered that God may have ensured there is no
>evidence? This is no mere desperate attempt to escape the
>difficulty. The God of the Bible ensures that not even one sparrow
>falls to the ground without Him willing it (Mt 10:29). Not *one*
>piece of physical evidence for the Judeo-Christian faith has survived
>(eg. Noah's ark, Ark of the Covenant, Moses' tablets of stone, the
>Bronze Serpent, a piece of the Cross, not an original manuscript, or
>even a description of Jesus). My conclusion is that God didn't want
>it to survive.<<
GM>This would bother me. There is no evidence that the earth is
>riding on the back of a turtle in the cosmic sea either. Maybe the
>turtle is invisible and the God of the Hindu's is hiding him.
Whether it "bothers" Glenn or not, God *has* seen to it that *every*
piece of critical evidence for the Judeo-Christian faith has not
survived. It does not "bother" me one bit. The early Christians did
not seem bothered by not having a piece of the Cross, or a physical
description of Jesus, or even a chair or table that He had made (he
was a carpenter by trade). I am not bothered that I don't know
exactly where or when the Flood ocurred. I believe there was a
literal Noah, Ark and Flood because Jesus seemed to (Mt 24:38; Lk
17:27), but if the Biblical account turns out to be a "creation-myth"
based on that orignal literal event in pre-history, then my faith
won't be shaken one little bit.
Even if some of the stories in Gn 1-11 turn out to be real history
clothed in symbolic dress, that does not put them in the same category
of Hindu myths of "the earth...riding on the back of a turtle in the
cosmic sea". The Biblical stories are unique in that they are free
from the gross and crass mythology that characterised all other
ancient literature of the same era.
BTW, if Glenn is bothered, here's a joke to cheer him up :-) :
"A male lecturer had spoken about the nature of the Earth and planets.
Afterwards, an old lady came up to him from the audience, claiming she
had a theory superior to the one he had described. 'We don't live on
a ball revolving around the Sun,' she said, 'we live on a crust of
earth on the back of a giant turtle.' Wishing to humour the old lady
the lecturer asked, 'And what does this turtle stand on?' 'On the
back of a second, still larger turtle', was the confident answer.
'But what holds up the second turtle?' the lecturer persisted, now in
a slightly exasperated tone. 'It's no use, mister,' the old woman
replied, 'it's turtles all the way down.'" (Hoyle F. & Wickramasinghe
C., "Evolution from Space", J.M. Dent & Sons: London, London, 1981,
p148-149)
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>While much of the Flood was caused by amplified "natural" causes,
>there were some direct acts of God in the Biblical account (Gn 7:16).
>What sediment remained of the Flood could have been used for bricks
>and farming (Gn 9:20; 11:3).<<
GM>You know, sometimes I think you just don't want my view to fit the
>facts. Above you failed to mention the springs as a cause of the
>flood when you criticized my view for having the Gibraltar Dam
>failure as part of the flood.
See previous. What I "want" is irrelevant. There is simply no
Biblical or lexical warrant for concluding that subterranean "springs"
are the same as a surface "dam".
GM>You said that the flood was caused by rainfall.
I said that "The Bible gives the PRIMARY cause of the Flood as rain
falling upon the earth "forty days and forty nights" (Gn 7:4,12).
GM>Now you are saying that the flood was caused by amplified
>'natural' causes which includes the springs (fountains of the deep).
>Why can't my causes be the natural part of the explanation?
See previous. Subterranean "springs" being broken up and a surface
oceanic dam breaking in are two very different things. There is no
Biblical or anthropological evidence for Glenn's 5.5 MY Mediterranean
Flood.
God bless.
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------