Buster Dobb's Ark Theory
JAlw@aol.com JAlw@aol.com
Sun, 31 Jan 1999 15:14:10 EST (00917835250, 5c1ebec8.36b4b992@aol.com)
In a message dated 99-01-31 11:53:47 EST, you write:
<< Subj: Re: Buster Dobb's Ark Theory
Date: 99-01-31 11:53:47 EST
From: mlbakke1@earthlink.net (Mark Bakke)
Reply-to: mlbakke1@earthlink.net
To: JAlw@aol.com
> CREA
> And I'm curious as to how it is possible to reconcile the statement at
> Genesis 8:21, where ole YHWH promises "...never again to destroy EVERY
> LIVING THING, as I have done" with (a) a local flood, and (b) the
survival
> of the various "kinds" of cetaceans, and other aquatic life forms which
> COULDn't have travelled to the Ark?
> Joe Alward:
>
> Buster Dobbs said all this happened "supernaturally". Zebras from Africa,
> kangaroos from Australia, polar bears from the North Pole, snakes from
Mexico,
> microscopic organisms from the far reaches of the globe, were magically
> transported--all at the same time, of course, to the ark. God is
omnipotent.
BAKKE
Needless to say, this begs a much larger question. To wit, if God is
omnipotent and could magically transport a plethora of creatures, why
did he need a 600-year-old man to build an ark to protect those same
creatures from the flood? For that matter, why did he need the flood to
wipe out all the doomed creatures? Seems to me that he could have
eliminated them "supernaturally" as well.
=================
Joe Alward:
I hope it's not begging the question. I assume for the sake of argument that
there is an omnipotent god. If you mean to say that my statement *leads* to a
larger question, I agree.
One has to be careful with arguments which ask "Why", such as the one Mark
Bakke presents. They will completely shut down further meaningful inerrancy
debate. Of course, the question Mark asks is completely reasonable, but why
stop there? Why not just end the whole Bible debate once and for all and ask,
Why didn't God just hard-wire into the DNA of every human everything He wished
for them to know about Him? That way, we wouldn't have needed to give us a
bible. Why didn't he do that? Doesn't the fact that He didn't show that
there is no omnipotent god? If there is no omnipotent god, what's the point
in discussing the Bible?
Such arguments need to put to one side, in my view, if we want to debate the
errancy/inerrancy of Bible passages.