I don't mean to "pile on" anybody, especially a brother in Christ. It's
just that I feel a little frustration, like a rancher whose barn catches on
fire and as soon as he pulls the horses out they run back in again.
Admittedly the evidence for Adam that I've talked about on this list for
many years now, while tantalizing, is less than conclusive. But the total
evidence for a flood in southern Mesopotamia around 2900 BC is overwhelming
in my judgment.
As for a global flood, the Nephilim (giants) in Gen. 6:4 are ancestral to
the Anakim in Num. 13:33. If the Pentateuch itself tells us there are flood
survivors then the flood cannot be global nor did the writer(s) of Genesis
think it was. Add to that the Sumerian king list that enumerates pre-flood
kings and post-flood kings and the absence of any geological evidence, and
that should settle it. End of debate.
The flood was local to the immediate area and judgment on Noah's kin.
Dick Fischer, GPA president
Genesis Proclaimed Association
"Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"
www.genesisproclaimed.org
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Merv Bitikofer
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 10:49 PM
To: asa
Subject: Re: [asa] Noah's Ark- the debate over floods... and biblical
interpretation
Well, since Dick may have started a "let's pile on Bernie" activity, I
don't want to feel left out; so I challenge you, Bernie on a different
point. Why does attempting to be faithful to both the Bible and science
weaken the testimony of both? If somebody's *understanding* of the Bible
becomes clearly seen to be false, (whether shown by other deeper
Biblical insights, science, or anything else) then that *understanding*
should be shed for the millstone it is, and the remaining faith, if it
ever was true, should get clearer focus with another false prop removed.
Pity the one, though, who was hoisted up using a false prop but hasn't
yet crawled off it onto a sturdier foundation. How many of us have been
vulnerable like that? --I swallow my own flippancy. The only sure
foundation I ever had is Christ.
--Merv
(from the top-of-the-head stuff is fun, Bernie, if you don't mind being
picked on and having it picked apart later.)
Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>
> 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.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Apr 7 12:03:04 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Apr 07 2009 - 12:03:04 EDT