From: Vernon Jenkins <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
>There are a number of points to be made here.
>(1) I believe most of us are under pressure to conform with the current views of the scientific and intellectual establishments. Accordingly, any departure from a literal reading of Gen.6-8 must, in my view, be inspired by the evolutionary (hence 'old earth') views of the 'experts'.
This has three basic errors. First, the linkage of old earth and evolutionary. The age of the earth has no relationship to whether biological evolution occurred. A very young age for the earth might limit the extent of possible biological evolution, but the estimated rate of evolution depends largely on the dating of the geologic record.
Secondly, the claim that old-earth or evolutionary views are based on trying to accommmodate to the views of the supposed experts is not necessarily correct. Many people have actually examined the evidence themselves. Whether or not you think they interpret it correctly is another issue, but the views reflect an effort to deal with actual evidence.
Thirdly, how do we know what is the proper, literal meaning of the text in Genesis 6-8? The words for earth/land, all, etc. frequently are not global in other Biblical texts, including the rest of Moses' writings. Careful examination of the available evidence is necessary to decide what Moses meant by his account. If Peter found Paul's writings challenging, we should be careful about interpreting what Moses wrote over 3000 years ago.
>(2) The source of the Flood water seems to be adequately dealt with in the text. If it is backed up by miracle, then so be it; after all, it is the Creator who is executing the judgment.
The problems related to the source of the water is not whether or not a miracle could have occurred, but whether one did. Many young-earth explanations are inconsistent by claiming to provide a non-miraculous explanation and then invoking miracles. For example, claiming that all the extra water came from rain while providing no account of where all of it evaporated from and what becomes of the heat released by condensation is bad science. Claiming that God simply produced it miraculously, without any scientifically detectable evidence, is internally consistent and does not invoke bad science. However, it may raise theological problems. There is also the problem of a lack of physical evidence for a global flood.
>(3) Had you not considered the possibility that the Antediluvian earth might have been a smoother sphere than it is now? That deep ocean basins that now exist might have resulted from events accompanying the Flood? And that that is where the water went?
I would not consider this possibility unless someone provided a coherent explanation that accounted for the observed features of the deep ocean basins and the geologic record.
>"To your knowledge, is there any parallel (to Rev.13:18 - which ratifies the reading of Hebrew and Greek words as numbers, specifies the methods of numerical geometry as being
relevant to Scriptural exegesis, and promises wisdom to those who proceed accordingly) in a secular book?"
I do not see any reason to extrapolate from Rev. 13 to look for numeric significance in other texts. There are certainly plenty of claims of numerological significance in other books. Lots of the pyramid power stuff, for example. I read a short story in high school English that had some peculiar numbers in it. We discussed possibly significant ties to names of people in the story. I also discovered that my teacher's name could be generated using those numbers.
Dr. David Campbell
"Old Seashells"
Biology Department
Saint Mary's College of Maryland
18952 E. Fisher Road
St. Mary's City, MD 20686-3001 USA
dcampbell@osprey.smcm.edu, 301 862-0372 Fax: 301 862-0996
"Mollusks murmured 'Morning!'. And salmon chanted 'Evening!'."-Frank Muir, Oh My Word!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 22 2001 - 19:53:15 EST