From: Jim Eisele (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Sep 17 2002 - 19:17:45 EDT
John writes (I actually feel that we are beginning to reach some
type of understanding :-)
>As to your last question, I suppose it depends upon what one calls a "big
>part." For some, this means take the biblical flood without question as
>literal history. It does not mean that for me.
I'm not sure what value there is to denying all of the evidence for a
local flood. It confirms the Septuagint/Samaritan Pentateuch "long age"
genealogies. And a real ark is a powerful indicator of God at work.
Of course, it makes Bible translators look absolutely awful, which is
why the translation of "mountains" in the flood story has not been
changed to "hills."
So, if this is your biggest beef with Scripture, you are in good shape.
It's nice to be talking to you again.
Genesis in Question
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 17 2002 - 23:22:54 EDT