Shaking Matt's Faith

achillesz@usa.net achillesz@usa.net
Sun, 31 Jan 1999 14:35:23 -0500 (00917832923, 19344594960095@unifour.com) 

On 31 Jan 99, at 3:10, JAlw@aol.com wrote:

> ==============

> Joe Alward:

> 

> Must "face of the earth" be equated with the "surface of the globe"?  Could it

> just have meant the area bounded by the horizons? If the latter, then the

> Bible and the local flood can co-exist, can't they?


Achilles

As I'm sure you must be aware, Joe, water seeks a level. So, if you interpret 
it that way, then you are going to have to posit old YHVH throwing up a force-
field around the area of this local flood, because verses 19 and 20 clearly 
state that the waters rose above the mountains. Even if this only refers to a 
relatively low mountain peak in or near palestine, this still indicates a water 
level that would have engulfed lowlands all over the world. 

And if you are going to posit this force field, you have firmly and 
demonstrably entered the real of eisegesis (sp?) - i.e. you are just making 
stuff up. The text doesn't imply this at all. If we can just make stuff up you 
can make the Bible mean whatever you bloody well like - we can posit that YHVH 
was a space alien and doubtless find much more support for this in the text 
than we can for a force-field around palestine to keep the flood from 
spreading. 

It seems to me that anyone who really believes the Bible is the Word of G-d 
would have more respect for the text than this. Just making stuff up to change 
the meaning of any section you don't like would be considered blasphemy by 
those who really believe it is the Word of G-d - if not, why not? 



/Achilles     achillesz@usa.net

All rights reserved.

Random thought for the moment:

    A sword never jams, never has to be reloaded, is always ready. It's
    worst shortcoming is that it takes great skill and patient, loving
    practice to gain that skill; it can't be taught to raw recruits in weeks,
    nor even months. 
           -- Oscar Gordon in Glory Road