Re: Black Sea Flood

From: Walter Hicks (
Date: Thu May 02 2002 - 12:50:33 EDT

  • Next message: Michael Roberts: "Re: Questioning the Big Bang"

    JW Burgeson wrote:
    > Wally wrote (to George) "Just why is it any better to accept your
    > interpretation that it is some sort of fable, allegory, or what ever name
    > you want to give it."
    > Reason 1. It makes the most logical sense

    To you and George maybe. Not to me and some others.

    > Reason 2. It is not in conflict with the Christian faith.

    To you, but not to everybody.

    > "You both agree that it is our Faith in Jesus Christ that mostly matters."
    > Wrong. The word "mostly" in what you write is incorrect. It needs to be
    > stricken forthwith. There is no middle position. Either trust in Christ is
    > 100% or it is nothing.

    Of course that is true. I failed to convey properly what I meant.

    > "I personally prefer one that comes closer to real history than one which
    > uses mythology."
    > If push comes to shove, I do too. But I also prefer lots of things that did
    > not and will not happen.

    You miss the point or, more likely, you intentionally avoid it. If
    Glenn, or somebody else, offers up a "historical" or "scientific"
    explanation for something in the Bible ---- and it is consistent with
    factual external evidence --- then I say it is to be preferred over the
    myth, allegory or theological explanations. I cannot think of any reason
    at all why it should not be.

    A second point is that it is not clear why things should _not_ be
    tentatively considered to be factual (historical) unless (and _only_
    unless) either you, George or someone else can prove to the contrary.
    That I say only because I believe that the Old Testament is inspired by
    God for even simple (non theological) folks to read.

    Let me take a shot a Genesis 1 for example. In that chapter the
    following facts as best we know from science) are correctly listed.

    1.) There was a beginning. (something only recently "discovered")
    2.) One of first things that happened was light. (True in Big bang
    3.) Creatures were "created" in a sequence that started with the simpler
    ones and getting more complex until man. (known as fact only since
    evolutionary data has been gathered._

    When I was a little kid, I thought ("observed" with my eyes) that the
    earth was flat and that the sky was a bowl shaped object over the earth.
    I surmised that rain somehow or other was water from the sky located
    somewhere up there. Those were simple observations. I was far to young
    to have any scientific theories -- or even know what science was. When
    my father told me that the earth was round, I did not believe him. I
    showed him with a rubber ball, that people could only live on one side
    of a ball without falling off. (He was not impressed but had no counter

    Although my childlike observations of my environment were the same as
    ancient man, I would not have guessed the above 3 items. For ancient men
    to have the same "observations" and get the insights of Genesis 1 is
    more than just amazing to me. I cannot accept the myth, allegory,
    theology story. Sorry guys.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 02 2002 - 12:57:37 EDT