Re: The flood
Matthew Burdette (burdette@net2.netacc.net)
Fri, 10 Jan 1997 23:27:34 -0500 (EST)
At 03:56 PM 1/10/97 -0800, you wrote:
>Helen 1/9
>Matthew, in all his drivel about the flood the one question that Ronal
>could not answer for me was this: If the earth was flooded to the highest
>mountain, that something close to six miles deep, 4000 years ago, where did
>all that water go? I don't think either Gilgamesh, which was well before
>your Bible, or your Bible answers that one. The Biblical story is utter
>nonsense.
>
>Matthew 1/10
>Helen, I am sorry that it is drivel to you. Actually, the story of Noah and
>the creation story are those that are the most often targets of those who do
>not believe in the Bible. Actually, I have seen lots of evidence both pros
>and cons concerning these stories. While I am still trying to accumulate
>information for them for myself, I do not believe the 4000-6000 year dating
>is correct.
>
>In any case, from what little I know of creationist literature, they would
>proclaim that the flood itself help to create the higher mountains today.
>Ronal has answered you well. Even though an atheist, he has undoubtedly done
>much research here, and can perhaps help you with some of the data. There
>are also several creationist sites on the web if you wish to search for
>them, and they can explain their beliefs to you.
>
>BAKER 1/10
>Matthew the biggest difference between you and I, and between errantists and
>me is interpretation. You and I are in agreement about many historical facts
>that are presented in the OT. We agree, for example, that the flood occurred
>and that Noah survived a flood on some sort of Ark, but we disagree on
>whether or not any of the facts of this story was divinely caused or
>recorded. Even though I am an atheist I cannot sit back and allow
>errantists, who usually have an errant view of the bible and the reliability
>of its history to gang up on you. There is middle ground for both sides to
>move into if each side was more willing to allow for another interpretation.
>Both sides generally accept the current interpretations, whether they
>actually believe them to be true or not, and this belief dictates how they
>will answer most posts on such issues. Until someone can adequately
>demonstrate to me that the current translations are 100% true there is no
>reason why I should agree with either side on any issue 100%.
> >
Matthew 1/10
Ronal, I appreciate your voice of reason and courtesy. Even though you are
an atheist, I have learned much from what you write and hope to learn more.
Strangely enough, outside this list, I have many good friends from all
religions and cultures. I agree with your 100% comment; indeed, this is the
point that I have tried to make in many of my posts, but I will not go into
that here as I do not want this to be self-serving.
Actually, when I joined this list, I had hoped even to learn from Till, but
that does not seem possible given his methods.
In Christ,
Matthew
burdette@net2.netacc.net
====================================================================
For help, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word
"help" in the subject or body of your message. To unsubscribe from
ERRANCY, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word
"unsubscribe" in the subject or body of your message.