Re: It's no joke!

From: <CMSharp01@aol.com>
Date: Sun Apr 10 2005 - 02:30:41 EDT

Hi Vernon,

> Hi Christopher,
>
> Concerning the Genesis Flood, you wrote,
>
> "A straight reading of the Genesis story indeed implies a universal flood,
> whatever "universal" means, but not necessarily a global flood. But no
> matter what the ancient Hebrews knew about geology or hydrology, it is
> irrelevant to modern science, which cannot be held hostage to what one group
>
> of bronze age people believed...The matter of a global flood was
> investigated by many geologists about 200 years ago, many of whom were
> Christians, and they had to come, reluctantly in some cases, that there was
>
> no global flood because the geological evidence contradicted that, at least
> a global one less than 10,000 years ago. This was arrived at about 150
> years ago, so flogging the dead horse of a global flood is no more
> meaningful than flogging the dead horse of geocentricism. They are both
> obsolete arguments that had their day in court, but lost out to the
> evidence, and in science evidence is what counts, not what people believe or
>
> like."
>
> As a Christian, I am surprised you should rule out the globally of the
> Mabbul so readily, for a careful reading of the narrative (Gen.6-9) reveals
> a number of logical inconsistencies which face those who hold to the _local
> flood_ hypothesis. These have been well aired on the ASA threads, 'So we're

It does not matter how well I have read the Mabbul, the empirical evidence
contradicts a global flood, and that was arrived at about 200 years ago. In
science all that matters is the evidence, and you have provided none. Ask
any competent geologist who uses our modern geology, not particular
biblical interpretations, to look for, say, oil.

> all related!' and 'Is there a Plan B?' (Oct-Nov 2004); however, let me
> briefly summarize the more striking of these:
> (1) Why the need for a large ocean-going vessel? A trek to higher ground
> would surely have been the simpler and more reasonable alternative.

You are assuming that the ark was an ocean sized vessel, in fact such a
vessel made out of wood would not last very long after being hit by the
first wave. You are assuming that the measurements given in the Bible
corresponded to the original measurements without any errors or
mistakes in translation.

> (2) Why the need to save a representative sample of the fauna? - it being
> certain that, later, these would freely mix again with those outside the
> flood's influence.

You are assuming that representatives of all fauna from around the world,
including presumably from S.America and Australia, were on that huge
wooden boat. Why not throw in some saguaro cacti from here Arizona,
whilst you are about it? They grow in Tucson.

> (3) It is claimed that the physiography of Mesopotamia suffered no great
> change as a result of the Flood. But where are we now to find a virtually
> complete ring of high ground that would (a) have held the rising floodwaters
>
> for a total of 150
> days (Gen.7:24) and, (b) have retained the slowly lowering floodwaters for a
>
> further 150 days after the rains and subterranean fountains had ceased
> (Gen.8:3)?

Well, with God you can always throw in a few miracles to explain anything you
like, so perhaps there was an invisible miraculous ring of high ground that
disappeared after the flood leaving no trace.

> (4) We are informed that the people destroyed by the cataclysm were _evil_
> -
> and therefore infer that those living outside its sphere of influence were
> essentially _good_ and unworthy of the judgment that God meted out to the
> former; yet, unaccountably, these are not included in the covenant God made
> with the occupants of the ark!

You are assuming that those who were outside the flood area were
exceptionally
good. As far as I know, the Native Americans, for example, were neither
exceptionally good nor evil, and they have been in America long before Noah's
flood, if it took place about 4500 years ago as many creationists claim. No
mention is made of the Native Americans in the Bible, which is not
surprising,
as their existence were not known until 1492, excepting perhaps the Vikings.

> (5) Further, had the Flood been _local_ then surely, to remove all
> ambiguity, the terms of the covenant would need to have made that clear.

Again you are assuming that your interpretation of Genesis is correct.

> Again, those who prefer to read the Hebrew word 'eretz' as 'land' rather
> than 'planet earth' are faced with a problem raised by the Apostle Peter
> (2Pet.3:6) who speaks of "...the world that then was, being overflowed with
> water, perished..." Used in this context, the Greek word 'kosmos' appears to
>
> offer no alternative to 'world' or 'earth'. Peter, undoubtedly, believed the
>
> Flood to have been _global_ and, we infer, so did the Lord Jesus!

So what, appealing to authority in science is meaningless, and in any case,
you are using the Bible to prove the Bible, which is circular reasoning,
thus proves nothing at all. Whether Peter or even Jesus believed the flood
covered the whole world does not mean it did, and in any case from their
perspective and knowledge, the whole work could have meant the whole
world known to them. Even Jesus said he did not know the hour when
He would return.

All your arguments here are very much like the arguments Answers in
Genesis uses. The problem is that your arguments have no meaning without
evidence, and are all based on the presupposition that your interpretation of
the flood is correct. There is no evidence that this is the case, so all
your
arguments collapse like a house of cards unless you can provide the
evidence which can stand up to analysis.

> It appears to me that this is the cruxof the whole matter. As Christians,
> who are we to believe? Do we trust _science_ to provide the answers in
> respect of this critical event of earth history, or do we trust the Lord
> (and common sense)?

That is a false dichotomy! I trust the Lord for salvation, meaning and
purpose
in life, but I use (and yes even trust) science to understand the physical
universe, but always with the rider that science can be wrong in some cases,
but in the case of the flood, there is no doubt that the type of global flood
you propse has been soundly refuted. Incidentally, who is talking about
common sense here, a global flood is certainly inconsistent with that.

> That is why I believe there are processes - as yet
> unknown to science - which might well have accompanied the Flood (which,

Name them and win the Nobel Prize, I will even pay for your airfare! Using
an argument that some completely unknown process yet to be discovered
will overturn a current theory is a non-argument, particularly as you are
unable to provide any evidence of your own. Geology is sufficiently well
advanced now that there is no way there could have been a global flood,
just as astronomy is sufficiently well advanced that the Sun does not orbit
the Earth.

> after all, was a supernaturally inspired event) and caused a global
> disturbance of its 'atomic clocks'. The C-14 data referred to earlier appear
>
> to support this conclusion.

So there was a supernatural global flood event about 4500 years ago, which
was followed by another supernatural event to erase all the evidence and
plant
the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps with several 100,000 years worth of
evidence of snowfall that can be directly examined. On top of all that the
atomic clocks were reset by some unknown process leaving behind no
evidence, and you have the complete gall to talk about common sense!
I have an invisible pink unicorn in my bathroom, and an invisible pixie
sprinkles invisible pixie dust on me every night!

>
> Vernon
> www.otherbiblecode.com
>
> PS I trust you will by now have acquainted yourself with the evidence
> provided at my website. You may remember that your failure to acquaint
> yourself with the strength of my position was a matter of justifiable
> complaint during our earlier exchanges.
>

What evidence, all I see is numerology? Sorry, people like you bring
ridicule
onto Christianity by your totally absurd arguments, then Christians complain
that the world is getting more secular. With these type of arguments anybody
with more that two functioning neutrons will consider Christianity to be
a religion of kooks and nuts.

Christopher Sharp
Received on Sun Apr 10 02:32:06 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Apr 10 2005 - 02:32:07 EDT