On Tue, 5 Dec 1995 07:28:20 -0500 you wrote:
SJ>Glenn can "suggest" all he likes! :-) In critiquing a scientific
>theory it is not encumbent for the critic to offer his own theory.
>Glenn's theory has to stand on its own two feet.
BH>But the criticisms will not be taken seriously by the scientific
community
>unless the critic offers an alternative. If your objective is simply to
>reinforce belief within the Christian community (a laudable objective), you
>will have some success critiquing scientists' models without offering
>alternatives. If you want to engage the scientists, you need to either
>clearly label your critiques as theological _or_ offer a scientific
>alternative. To fail to make these distinctions makes you seem dishonest
>to the scientific community -- not a good position from which to defend the
>faith or win new Christians.
Let's face it - neither Glenn's nor my position will be taken
seriously in
the scientific community! :-) IMHO Glenn's theory is untenable, both
Biblically and anthropologically. I have given plenty of reasons and
have advanced my own alternatives which involve the supernatural
activity of God in removing Flood sediment. This helps resolve
difficulties between the Bible and science. Glenn has admitted that
my solution is at least possible. The Lord has convicted me about
endless controversies (1Tim 1:4; 6:4; Tit 3:9), so I don't want to
keep debating this point. I am satisfied in my own mind now, and
I have receive a "peace of God, which transcends all understanding"
(Phl 4:7) in this matter. I thank Glenn for that! :-)
SJ>Glenn knows I am not a geologist and I don't pretend to be one. I
am
>mainly concerned with being faithful the the *Biblical* picture. IMHO
>Glenn's Mediterranean Flood model is not consistent with the Biblical
>picture.
BH>Glenn's book resulted from a desire to interpret Scripture honestly
in a
>way that doesn't fly in the face with known geological facts. I submit
>Glenn's commitment to Scripture is as strong as yours. Glenn's
>interpretation could be wrong, and he acknowledges it. But he's trying to
>deal with both bodies of evidence. While you are quite justified in
>defending your view of Scripture, I think you are premature in dismissing
>Glenn's alternative.
I made no judgment about Glenn's "commitment to Scripture". I just
think
in the balance between Biblical and geological data, he gives too much
weight to the latter and not enough to the former. IMHO he errs in
trying
to find a purely naturalistic solution to the Flood, and in assuming
that
there *must* be sediments that can be found today. If those sediments
cannot be found in Mesopotamia, then Glenn feels the Flood cannot have
been there, despite what the Bible indicates.
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 |
----------------------------------------------------------------