Re: Thomas and Gideon (was Re: Abraham)

Glenn Morton (
Sat, 13 Apr 1996 19:43:40

> I guess that's why I have no problem with Glenn's theory,
>it fits the facts and is faithful to God. It might
>be wrong, but I think it is in the right spirit (and
> even Spirit).

I agree with you that my view might very well be wrong. And
if it turns out to be observationally incorrect, then it
should be rejected or modified. But I know that the other
flood models are wrong from the observational data.

>(BTW Glenn do
>you have a name for your theory; the term "concordism"
> seems a bit broad.)
No, which goes to prove what a poor marketer I am. A catchy
name would be great. I have often described it as a "Days
of Proclamation" view based upon the way I handle Genesis
1. For those who have not seen any discussion of what I do
with Genesis 1, I believe that the days represent either 6
literal days at the beginning of the universe or 6
proclamations before the universe began. The proclamations
laid out the rules for the universe. This is different from
the "Days of Revelation" of Kurtz (1957). Kurtz believed
that the days were the successive days upon which God spoke
to Moses.
Foundation,Fall and Flood