RE: Creation Ex Nihilio and other journals

From: Glenn Morton (glenn.morton@btinternet.com)
Date: Mon Jan 22 2001 - 15:28:43 EST

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "RE: Energy and Jan. Atlantic"

    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: PHSEELY@aol.com [mailto:PHSEELY@aol.com]
    >Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 5:13 AM

    >PS: It is hard to take you seriously when your own theory of the
    >Flood is a
    >local theory and not universal. You don't believe the entire earth was
    >flooded any more than I do. There is only one way to get the
    >account to pan
    >out 100%: Take the flat earth and the ocean on which it floats,
    >the solid sky
    >and the ocean above it; and let the ocean from above and below completely
    >bury the earth in water. The account is based on accommodation to the
    >science-history of the times. Take it all; or, forget about thinking you
    >must believe every detail.

    Au contraire, Paul. I don't think they fibbed. I think we mis-translate.
    Eretz means land , the land was flooded. It does not mean planet earth,
    which is what the YECs hold. Or are you saying that eretz means planet
    earth? Unless you hold to that, you don't really have a leg to stand on with
    the above criticism.

    >
    >PS: <<How did the ark go north? That is just a part of the way
    >flood stories
    >are written: the ark always lands on a high mountain in the vicinity of the
    >story-teller. Gen 1-11 is not VCR history; but, that does not mean
    >it has no
    >historical value.>>
    >
    >GM: To paraphrase:
    >
    >Why can't we physically see the risen Lord today? That is jut a part of the
    >way resurrection stories are written: the resurectee always goes away after
    >a short time, often from a place in the vicinity of the story-teller. Luke
    >24 is not a VCR history; but that does not mean it has no historical value.
    >
    >One can apply such logic to anything and the beauty of it is, one never has
    >to say one's views are false.
    >
    >PS: Again, you can't be serious or you would dump your own theory. Your
    >landing spot for the ark is at least 1000 feet higher than the
    >Mediterranean
    >sea. What did Noah do, push it up the mountain?

    Obviously you haven't read the book. My landing spot is on the shoreline,
    not 1000 meters up. Please come back and argue better when you have actually
    done your research. It seems really odd to me that you can make this claim
    without even having tried to understand my views. Shame on you. Prior to the
    flood, what is now the continental slope would have appeared as mountains.
    To Noah's descendants, that wouldn't appear as mountains anymore. They would
    have received the report that the ark landed on the mountains (which Noah
    recognized) and thus they would have by tradition moved the landing site.
    Does this make the account untrue? No. From the base of the Mediterranean
    all the way to Mount Ararat itself, one can travel up an increasingly
    elevated terrain. It composes one single mountain range, half of which is
    now underwater!

    >
    >Besides that there are plenty of flood stories to back up the
    >statement that
    >this is the way flood stories are written. Where are your resurrection
    >stories, and especially where are the ones that begin with a bonafide
    >historical person? Your fictional parallel isn't parallel.
    >
    >The Flood account is directly related to the Mesopotamian account in
    >Gilgamesh; and, in that account the ark lands on a mountain northeast of
    >Babylonia, leaving the same problem of water flowing uphill. You cannot
    >blame the writer of Genesis for following his sources. Or, did God
    >reveal all
    >the details? If so, as I said, take the whole ancient cosmology
    >upon which
    >the story depends and is integrally related. Or, come over to a
    >biblical view
    >of the history in the Bible: It is contingent, as nearly every biblical
    >historian infers, upon the sources available.

    Then I repeat what I said to George, Inspiration doesn't make much of a
    difference does it. It makes no difference in facts, so how can I know that
    it makes much difference in theology. As I have written to you several
    times. If God can't influence the science of those people, why on earth
    should we believe that he influenced their theology? Because you tell us so?

    glenn

    see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
    for lots of creation/evolution information
    anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
    personal stories of struggle

    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 22 2001 - 15:25:37 EST