It is lease sale time and I have been working very long
hours. When I logged on tonight I have lots of mail and
will probably not get to it all tonight.
>Does anyone know anything the possibility that the
>Ararat mentioned in Genesis may not be the same as
>day Ararat? I read something of the sort in a book
>promoting a local flood exegesis by a man named Woodrow.
There is no assurance at all that Ararat is ARARAT. The
modern mountain got its name in the late middle ages or
>Glenn has certainly thought alot more about this than I
>have, so I just throw out a few thoughts. In my opinion
>the great antiquity of Glenn's solution is a decisive blow
>against it. I welcome his efforts though.
Geologically, Terry, Ramm's view is as flawed in its own
way as is the YEC view. All the suggestions I have heard
from Christians on this area avoid details, and the
problems raised by the details of the geology. I
for one think it is time Christian theologians and
scientists cease using throwaway suggestions with no
detailed content as apologetical answers. If we are going
to suggest something then we should be able to withstand
the scrutiny of our most avid critics. AND it should be as
thorough in its work as is the work you and I as scientists
are expected to do in our respective jobs.
The lack of dealing with detail emphasized a quotation I
found while re-looking at Ramm's book. He quotes Fosdick,
"A religion that is afraid of the facts is doomed."
H.E. Fosdick, The modern Use of the Bible, 1924, p. 178
cited by Ramm, The Christian View of Science and the
Scripture, p. 70
I am curious about one thing, that you, an old earth,
theistic evolutionist (on which point we fully agree) are
against an ancient flood. Surely it is not because of the
genealogies in Genesis? If you place additional time in
the genealogies in order to move the flood from 2336 B.C.
to some time earlier (in order to avoid having the flood in
the middle of the Egyptian empire), you are doing the very
same thing as I am doing. The only quibble is the amount
of time, not the FACT that we would both be adding time to
>It appears that I am much more comfortable than he is
> with not having all the answers to the conundrums of this
I am never happy with not having answers--especially to
questions that are threatening the intellectual
underpinnings of my religion. I can see no reason at all
to be comfortable with that state of affairs. And I can
especially see no reason to be satisfied while sloppy
suggestions are offered by people who do not know the
details of a science and then those flawed suggestions are
used as apologetical supports among the church. You and I
have a particular Australian friend who is quite taken with
Ramm's view and refuses to see anything wrong with it.
>Perhaps a quick answer to one of Glenn's earlier
>puestions to me is in order. He asked me about my
>*bases* for believing scripture assuming that in my
> choice of the word *bases* that I had more than just God.
> Do I for example trust the Bible in part because of
>connections with historical events? The answer to that
>question is yes. I think that the historical reliability
>of the gospel manuscripts and the gospel accounts is very
You and I agree on this. The most crucial accounts which
must be historical are the Gospel accounts. But in my
mind, the second most important accounts are the accounts
relating to the original sin. I fail to see how we can be
morally accountable for sin if sin itself is a product of
evolution (and therefore part of the way God made us).
Thus I while I have not argued here much for the
historicity of Adam and Eve and the fall, I do believe
this is crucial to the claim of Christ's raison d'etre.
Foundation,Fall and Flood
Foundation,Fall and Flood