For David O., Michael Roberts and Bill Hamilton
David O. wrote:
>>So the maps you're speaking of wouldn't show evidence of the flood in any event if the evidence is in exposed sediments?<<
No, I said(or thought I said) just the opposite. IF it were there, it would have been found. It hasn't. I have looked at lots of Iraqi geological maps and none of them, surficial deposits, bedrocks, nothing indicates anything much wider than what I showed. If you want to beleive in a Mesopotamian flood, then it is your responsibility to demonstrate that there actually are river-laid sediments over a wide area. So far, no one has done that. The burden of proof is on the advocate of a position to prove that the evidence is there. Mesopotamian flood advocates say the flood is there, but never show the geological evidence that it actually happened. Then some of them claim my view is imaginary.
***
David wrote:
"The Bible, when correctly interpreted in light of the level to which culture and the means of communication had developed at the time it was written, and in view of the purposes for which it was given, is fully truthful in all that it affirms." <<<
I agree. But, my point just stands. What evidence is there that Ararat IS a mistake? Most people do agree that the Scripture was edited fairly late in the game after Urartu was there, for someone to change the name from whatever it was to one more familiar to the current readers of the day, would not be a mistake. I guess one could do as apparently the Hill's do and say that the Koran has the correct story, the Bible is wrong, and Noah landed on Gebel Judi. The Koran says:
11.44": And it was said: O earth, swallow down your water, and O cloud, clear away; and the water was made to abate and the affair was decided, and the ark rested on the Judi, and it was said: Away with the unjust people.
So, if the Koran is correct, why don't we go believe it rather than this false bible? It gets back to my complaint here that evidence, and truth don't seem to matter very often here to the apologetical scheme. If the evidence says that the Bible is false, and the Koran is right, then if we continue to believe the Bible, we are ignoring evidence we ought not to ignore.
>>>Erickson fleshes out this definition with some important principles, among them that the text's cultural setting, the purposes for which the text was written, and the pervasive use of phenomenological language to report scientific matters and historical events means that we should not impose modern expectations of precision on the text. <<<
GRM: I don't have a problem with error, I know there is error, but to make up an error where there is so little evidence to be sure that it is an error, for the purpose of saving one's theological position seems totally ad hoc.
>>>You seem to be suggesting that the "mountains of Ararat" mean a specific mountian range or inerrancy is violated. Based on what Phil is saying (and many others have said the same kinds of things), I don't think that's necessarily so. <<<
GRM: No, I am suggesting that the process which decided that this particular error exists is wrong. As I said, if I get to make up a reason to reject whatever portion of the scripture conflicts with my personal theological position, then that process is flawed. If you get right down to it, I can make that claim about any verse anywhere anytime and I can then end up with just about any kind of religion I want.
GRM: when Pim asked today, "Do we get to pick and chose our Biblical passages?" Well, the answer on this list is clearly so. It IS what we do even if it means saying that the Koran is correct and the Bible is wrong or saying that the Babylonian accounts are correct and the Bible is wrong. If this Bible is so wrong, why on earth do we pay any attention to it?
***
MIchael Roberts said:
>>This definition is quite simply accommodation.<<
GRM: Michael, the question you NEVER answer, and flee from as if it is the bubonic plague is why this can't be done for every single religion around. Why won't it work for Shinto. I have asked you this in many fora and you always go as silent as a YEC when asked about geology, and then like a YEC pop up again saying the same nonsense as if my question has never been asked. Do you have the guts to answer this question? Here it is again:
By the way I ran across a wonderful Shinto creation story which has the cosmic egg first, heaven and earth were created from that. Then the earth and the sky mated and created the gods. The gods then produced the ocean followed by the islands by the coagulation of the sea water. (the islands of Oki and Sado were archetypes of twin births in humanity --thought you should know that). After that came "mountains, rivers, herbs, and trees." But still there was no sun. Only after all this did two gods mate and voila here came the sun. http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/ANCJAPAN/CREAT1.HTM
GRM: Do you have the intellectual honesty to actually answer what makes it different for a Christian to do this vs. a Shinto?
In "Foundation, Fall and Flood" you postulate that Noah lived in what is now the Mediterranean, that he survived the infilling of the Mediterranean by building the ark, and that the ark landed in North Africa. I believe you said that probably "the mountains of Ararat referred to mountain range in North Africa. Have you changed your position on that? <<<
GRM:You have the earliest version. I have changed my mind on the landing place. I would now say Turkey. The water from the infilling would push any floating thing towards the east end of the Med. I originally chose Africa to get them into Africa as the fossil record says, but was convinced by criticism on this list that that was probably a wrong-headed idea. They could get to Africa in other ways. Later versions of Foundation have that correction.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 07 2006 - 17:19:25 EST
