From: Stephen J. Krogh, P.G. (panterragroup@mindspring.com)
Date: Wed Oct 08 2003 - 23:12:58 EDT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
> Behalf Of Jay Willingham
> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 6:18 PM
> To: ASA
> Subject: Re: RATE
>
>
>
> > >
> > > Jay Willingham wrote:
> > >
> > > >> > One could hypothesize that Pangea's division began in the
> > > time of Peleg
> > > of
> > > > > Genesis 10:25, "Two sons were born to Eber: One was named
> > > Peleg, [ 10:25
> > > > > [Peleg] means [ division ] . ] because in his time the earth was
> > > divided;
> > > > > his brother was named Joktan."
> > > >
> > > Stephen J. Krogh, P.G. <panterragroup@mindspring.com> wrote
> > > >
> > > > Why would "one" want to? I suppose you could also "postulate" that
> WWII
> > > > occurred before the Civil War, but that wouldn't make sense either.
> BTW,
> > > > please bottom post.
> > >
> > > Jay Willingham wrote:
> > >
> > > The history of the last 200 years is a bit easier to prove
> > > empirically than
> > > that of millenia ago.
> >
> > Do you have any physical evidence that suggests that the
> continents split
> > after pelegs time, and how recent was Pelegs time? If you ignore the
> > Geology, then sure. But why would you do that? Maybe you need
> to look for
> > another event, say, something that happened at a similar time to the day
> of
> > Peleg, rather than something that occurred several million years prior.
>
> I tend to want to date the Bible to try to match the dating of Geology
> through the hypothesis that it was common to telescope
> generations, omitting
> some for brevity. This telescoping is in keeping with our Lord's
> admonition
> to not contend over "endless geneologies". A hundred million years would
> involve how many generations?
But you are not considering Geology when you make up stuff like Peleg was
referring to Pangaea. The generations are irrrelevent, since man was not yet
on the scene for those millions of years.
> > > God had laid out what happened in the Bible and I tend to believe his
> > > testimony. That does not mean my interpretation of it is any better
> than
> > > anyone else's.
> >
> > What was laid out is very sparse. I believe you are straining
> the text to
> > fit an interpretation. No where does it say that the continents split
> apart
> > at the days of peleg. It is not necessary.
>
> Yes, it is sparce and I may be straining the text but I feel a need to be
> literal in my approach to the Word but not dismissive in my
> appraoch to the
> current scientific thinking and the data that evokes it. In
> short, I feel
> a need to reconcile the two without doing violence to either. That may be
> impossible but therefore unneccesary.
But you are looking in the wrong area in trying to reconcile the two events
that are not related. It is not working.
> > > It also does not mean I blindly believe anyone else's
> interpretation of
> > > scientific truth, either.
> > >
> > > I am looking for ways of reconciling scientific and Biblical truth.
> >
> > This is not the way. Maybe try going in a different direction.
> If you must
> > find a correlating event in geology, how about lands or peoples being
> > separated by some sea level change, like the Bearing Strait and the
> > formation of the Aleutian Islands - all that is left of the land bridge
> > between north America and Asia. At least that would be a better place to
> > start.
>
> I tend to think the event's God choose to record in his word were more
> profound than that.
That is simply wrong. Was the parting of the Red Sea profound? I could list
several minor events that were recorded in the Bible that were not profound
at all.
> > > What makes sense to man does not necessarily make sense to God.
> >
> > Oh, really now. God is a god of confusion? How can we tell if God is
> making
> > sense or He isn't? I know some interpretations of scripture by men that
don't make sense. If you
> > ignore the creation itself, how can you be sure that your interpretation
> is
> > even relevant.
> >
>
> I can't be.
Then don't ignore it. If we all ignored it then, we would all be
geocentrists.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 10 2003 - 12:25:59 EDT