Here's my take, from the top of my head:
Global flood:
Strength: The Bible appears to be reporting real history, and this interpretation treats it as such.
Weakness: Almost completely ignores evidence from modern science.
Local Flood:
Strength: It tries to integrate the story of the Bible with scientific evidence.
Weakness: Tries to be faithful to both the Bible and science and in so doing, weakens the testimony of both.
No Flood:
Strength: Most closely aligns to scientific evidence from geology and biology.
Weakness: Destroys faith in the Bible as "inerrant" in matters of history and science.
...Bernie
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of gordon brown
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 2:04 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Noah's Ark- the debate over floods... and biblical interpretation
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Dehler, Bernie wrote:
> I'm going to be debating Noah's Ark- global flood, local flood, or no flood. I'm taking the no flood position.
>
> Curious-
>
> What all do you think would be the best argument for each position?
>
> Please keep your answers short- no essays.
>
> Info on my event:
> http://www.meetup.com/sciligion/calendar/9503416/
>
> ...Bernie
>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Apr 6 17:36:35 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 06 2009 - 17:36:35 EDT