Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Who Knows What Eeevil Lurks in the Heart of FARMS


Daniel Peterson

Recommended Posts

Hi, Cinepro.

CFR that I've ever denied the fact that LDS are pretty unified in their devotion to the Savior, their belief in His divinity, and their desire to serve others.

The point is that you can't accept the primacy of these "unified" themes and still support a chapel/internet divide based on questions about the flood. To support the divide you're pushing, you have to find disunity in the upper tier of tenets--you know, the kind of thing you see with the Anglicans and Methodists over appointing gay and women clergy.

As I've said countless times before :P , I use the "flood" as a litmus test not because it is somehow central to the doctrines of the Church (indeed, it could disappear tomorrow and nothing else about the Church would even change), but because it is a clear doctrine of the Church that is also clearly addressed by Earth sciences. That is why it is useful to illustrate the different approaches LDS take towards resolving apparent conflicts between the two.

You can start by establishing that it is, in fact, a clear doctrine of the Church. The last time we discussed this I acknowledged that a global flood was assumed but that it hadn't been a declared product of revelation and didn't meet the standards of doctrine as published in the Church's statement on doctrine. (Of course, you didn't respond.) The irony, however, is that here you've essentially been using this same argument with Scott--while Polygamy was always declared to be a product of revelation, the institution of the ban on the priesthood wasn't.

I don't know of any other doctrine that is as clear and also as clearly conflicting with modern science.

Other than, say, the resurrection? You wouldn't think this is a little clearer or as conflicting with science? Oh, and also more of an actual doctrine? I don't care about any perceived disconnect you see with LDS doctrine and science. I'm more interested in how we determine what is doctrine first. For example, the fact that Christ arose from the dead is declared to be the product of revelation repeatedly in almost every volume of the standard works. Knowing this, I believe it to be doctrinal and true. So ask me what I think about any conflict with science in terms of the resurrection.

But with the "global flood" litmus test you've always begged the question first. It's not repeatedly stated in all the volumes of the SW like the resurrection--it comes from our interpretation of a translation of one passage. And it certainly doesn't meet the criteria as laid out in the statement on doctrine which requires collective discussion by the brethren before consistent publication. Can you point to anything that shows a concerted collective discussion by the brethren on this issue? Can you point to anything other than your myriad links that simply show it to be assumed without discussion or revelation? First demonstrate that it's doctrine, then demonstrate that it's a clearer test than what science may say about something important like the resurrection.

Regards

Link to comment

In the meantime, anyone who wants to claim that there are "two different religions" based upon these questions is still a brazen, barefaced liar; and anyone who tries to deviously and surreptitiously support that claim by indirection is still a disingenuous manipulator.

I do agree, the difference I note does NOT reflect two religions, let-a-lone differing ones.

Also, those of us in those days who had discovered via much study/prayer topics unknown to the Chapel, considered the difference as a positive thing ... with a bit a sorrow (and self righteousness) towards the unknowing/unstudied members.

Link to comment

While I'm waiting for a reply from Cinepro to my last response, I'd like to extend a previously-stated line of reasoning:

There was a trend during the 19th century to dismiss the miracles in Christianity--specially the corporeal resurrection of Christ--because they violated scientific laws. Supposed "great thinkers" from Hume to Hitchens have echoed these sentiments. (Note how Hitchens compares the resurrection to UFO sightings in God is Not Great, p. 151.) Latter-day Saints, however, are unified in their belief in the resurrection. JS even said that belief in the Savior's resurrection is the main tenet of our faith and that everything else is but an appendage to it. Even Cinepro admits that a. LDS are unified in their belief on this and b. that it's a major doctrine. But given this admission, it's interesting that he attributes his one-note playing on the global flood theme to a supposed litmus test on how LDS approach possible conflicts with science. It's clearly doctrine, he says, and it clearly conflicts with science so it's the best test case. But is it the best case? And is it really doctrine? Why isn't the resurrection a better test case? Isn't it clearly doctrine? Isn't it clearly one of the most defining elements of our faith? Doesn't the idea of a dead organism coming back to life clearly conflict with biological science?

Further, if two individuals both believe in the resurrection but one of them doesn't believe in a global flood, what then can the flood issue really tell us about belief and conflict with science? And what if someone believes clearly in the resurrection but withholds judgment on a global flood due to textual and not scientific issues? In other words, is this really a good test? Based on this, I suspect that Cinepro's one-note flood theme has more to do with reasons other than a scientific litmus test. Scott Lloyd's theory about clinging to folk doctrine because it's easier to ridicule could possibly explain it. But I really don't know.

Link to comment

You can start by establishing that it is, in fact, a clear doctrine of the Church. The last time we discussed this I acknowledged that a global flood was assumed but that it hadn't been a declared product of revelation and didn't meet the standards of doctrine as published in the Church's statement on doctrine. (Of course, you didn't respond.) The irony, however, is that here you've essentially been using this same argument with Scott--while Polygamy was always declared to be a product of revelation, the institution of the ban on the priesthood wasn't.

The global flood is attested to by the scriptures, and the repeated, consistent statements of the prophets and apostles in official Church publications. If you read the LDS Newsroom statement on doctrine, you'll find the "Global Flood" actually hits almost all the criteria set forth. If it were mentioned in the Articles of Faith, we'd have doctrinal bingo.

Other than, say, the resurrection? You wouldn't think this is a little clearer or as conflicting with science?

The claim that a single man was miraculously resurrected around 33AD isn't subject to any sort of analysis by modern science that I'm aware of. The claim that the entire planet was subjected to a devastating global flood in the last 6,000 years is; if it weren't, everyone would still believe in a global flood. (I find it odd that you can't tell the difference between the two claims, and if you truly can't, I don't blame you for disagreeing with me. I would too if I really saw things that way.)

Then again, if Christ's resurrection were scientifically testable, I suspect that we would have several alternate theories ("limited resurrection theories") that would serve to change the scope of the claim and place it safely once again outside the scope of scientific observation.

But with the "global flood" litmus test you've always begged the question first. It's not repeatedly stated in all the volumes of the SW like the resurrection--it comes from our interpretation of a translation of one passage. And it certainly doesn't meet the criteria as laid out in the statement on doctrine which requires collective discussion by the brethren before consistent publication. Can you point to anything that shows a concerted collective discussion by the brethren on this issue? Can you point to anything other than your myriad links that simply show it to be assumed without discussion or revelation? First demonstrate that it's doctrine, then demonstrate that it's a clearer test than what science may say about something important like the resurrection.

Your summary of the scriptural and official LDS statements on the flood shows that you are not familiar with the consistency, certainty, and number of such statements. You also make the common mistake of appealing the LDS newsroom statement as setting for the criteria for doctrine, then inventing your own criteria (now it must be shown that there was "discussion and revelation"? Where did that come from?) That being the case, I don't blame you for feeling the way you do. :P

Edited to add: I invite anyone interested in the differences between a Chapel Mormon and Internet Mormon to review the references in my blog linked above (including the LDS Newsroom definition of doctrine), then re-read J Green's post, and compare it with the quote in my sig. Textbook case.

Link to comment

Hi, Cinepro. I note that your answers are still mostly about the flood itself rather than how it fits your overall methodology of a litmus test.

The global flood is attested to by the scriptures

Scriptures? Plural? We have Gen 6-8 and what else? We assume a global flood by interpreting the translation of problematic passages from Gen 6-8 that are based on two different sources (J and P), depend on Mesopotamian accounts, and demonstrate late editing that attempts to align the pericope theologically with the creation narrative. These textual issues are recognized by all scholars and would seem to coincide with clear LDS doctrine in multiple volumes of scripture that claim textual corruptions in some of the biblical narratives. (Even Moroni quotes Malachi differently when he appears to Joseph.) Within the corrupted text itself, there are markers that point to a local flood, and the Heb behind "all the earth" is better translated as "all the land." (See also the "all the earth" missionary statements in the NT.) Based on the textual issues here, and a simple understanding of language and translation, you can assume all you want, but you certainly can't say that a global flood is attested to in Gen. So what should we do to resolve this? Well, we usually go to other volumes of scripture. But what do we find in the D&C and PGP? Silence. The PGP addresses the coming floods but does not mention whether they were global or local, although the fact that Noah preaches repentance to everyone before they are destroyed certainly makes it sound more like a local event.

and the repeated, consistent statements of the prophets and apostles in official Church publications.

I've noted before that these statements rather assume a global flood rather than declare it as revelation or doctrine. Two examples: Evolution and Goliath. With evolution there were a number of assumptions and opinions that resulted in discussion and official statements by the First Presdency. Doesn't matter what side of the evolution discussion you're on here, the point is that it came up for debate and the brethren counseled together on this issue. They also did this with the Priesthood ban and prayed about it collectively. At the other end of the spectrum is the case of who slew Goliath--according to 1 Sam 17 it was David, but according to 1 Sam 21 it was Elhanan. While some try to explain the discrepancy (two Goliaths, Elhanan is David's throne name, etc.), most scholars simply accept a corruption of the text. But this hasn't caught the attention of any of the brethren. (And why should it?) Like most of us, they simply assume David slew Goliath and go on about making sure the priesthood is functioning, and bishops are ministering, etc. And just like with the flood issue, you could create links on your blog to statements in many church publications that talk about David slaying Goliath. But in the end it's really a product of tradition and assumption and has nothing to do with LDS Doctrines. It's not in the D&C, BoM or PGP. So at which end of the spectrum does global-flood-as-LDS-Doctrine lie? Has it been discussed collectively and prayed about? Or is it simply a traditional assumption from one problematic passage (like the case of Goliath) that is not touched on anywhere else and has no reference to doctrines that are repeated consistently in every volume of scripture? (Such as Atonement, Resurrection, etc.)

If you read the LDS Newsroom statement on doctrine, you'll find the "Global Flood" actually hits almost all the criteria set forth.

It hits almost none of them. See below.

If it were mentioned in the Articles of Faith, we'd have doctrinal bingo.

But it's not. What do you think that means?

The claim that a single man was miraculously resurrected around 33AD isn't subject to any sort of analysis by modern science that I'm aware of.

The claim that any organism can live after having died was a point of contention against the Christians from the very start, which is why you have some of the greatest thinkers in Christian history weighing in on this subject. And it was a big deal among scientist and philosophers after the Enlightenment as well. (William Craig provides a decent summary of the science, philosophy, and theology behind these movements and then attempts a rebuttal here.) And of course, contrary to your statement, it most certainly has been the subject of numerous studies in modern science as well. You can start with Michael Welker, Ted Peters, Robert Russel (eds.), Resurrection: Theological and Scientific Assessments (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002). See also S. T, Davis (Ed.), Death and afterlife (New York: St. Martin

Link to comment

[*]Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications.

I think the "doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications" part is pretty important. And the global flood theory is certainly "consistently proclaimed" (especially if you take into account that there has never been an ambiguous or contrary theory even admitted as being possible).

I'm not really interested in discussing the claims regarding Christ's resurrection, as I noted earlier. I'm not arguing that it isn't miraculous; I'm just saying that the scope of the claim is such that it just doesn't work (practically speaking, there isn't any discernible division among "believing" LDS, so a particular LDS's feelings on the subject doesn't really say all that much). Let's just call LDS who believe in Christ's resurrection "LDS".

I agree with all your point about the flood. My feelings on the subject aren't the point.

The point is that there are many, many LDS leaders and members who don't see things your way. They have studied the subject as much (or more) than you, and know as much (or more) than you about ancient Hebrew and the scriptures, and they firmly believe that the flood was global. That is the point. Some people look at the references on my website and say "Yes, the scriptures, Prophets and Apostles and Church publications teach a global flood; therefore, there was a global flood."

Others read those same references, and say "We assume a global flood by interpreting the translation of problematic passages from Gen 6-8 that are based on two different sources (J and P), depend on Mesopotamian accounts, and demonstrate late editing that attempts to align the pericope theologically with the creation narrative. These textual issues are recognized by all scholars and would seem to coincide with clear LDS doctrine in multiple volumes of scripture that claim textual corruptions in some of the biblical narratives."

Frankly, I'm interested in knowing why this happens. And most interestingly, people who argue the second point tend to think that the first type of person will end up agreeing with them if they only learn a little more about scriptural history, or ancient hebrew, or prophetic fallibility etc. But this isn't the case. Many of the first group already know as much or more than those in the second group, but they still believe it was global (or that there was no physical death or evolution anywhere on the planet at any time before Adam's Fall, including the creation period).

And for me personally, if I'm discussing issues like prophetic fallibility with and LDS, it is really, really helpful to know where a person sits on the issue before I make assumptions about their feelings on the subject. Sure, all LDS believe our leaders are human, but there is a huge difference in the degree to which members think Prophets and Apostles can be mistaken. If I know someone believes in a local flood, I know that they're willing "give" a little more in their thinking about such doctrines.

Whether or not these two groups of people are given labels is kind of a side issue, and what, exactly, those labels might be is even more ancillary. I could call them "Blue LDS" and "Red LDS" if you like. It's the fact that there are these different approaches that must be taken into account that is important to me and others who must deal with both groups online and in Church. If all LDS believed in the global flood, or all LDS believed in a local flood, it would be just as irrelevant an indicator as the resurrection is.

Link to comment

I'm not really interested in discussing the claims regarding Christ's resurrection, as I noted earlier. I'm not arguing that it isn't miraculous; I'm just saying that the scope of the claim is such that it just doesn't work (practically speaking, there isn't any discernible division among "believing" LDS, so a particular LDS's feelings on the subject doesn't really say all that much).

Good point. When trying to demonstrate that there are important divisions in the community of Saints, it just won't do to discuss the hundreds of issues where one can't even discern a division.

Link to comment

I think the "doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications" part is pretty important. And the global flood theory is certainly "consistently proclaimed" (especially if you take into account that there has never been an ambiguous or contrary theory even admitted as being possible).

Of course it's important. It's part of the statement. But you can't truncate the statement to only say what you want it to say, and this is what you've always done--only taking the last part of the phrase and working backwards to create your own criteria. It is important that it is consistently published, but it first has to be the product of counsel and divine inspiration. Absent this, you don't have what you're looking for. I see Hamba notes how silly this sounds as well.

I'm not really interested in discussing the claims regarding Christ's resurrection, as I noted earlier. I'm not arguing that it isn't miraculous; I'm just saying that the scope of the claim is such that it just doesn't work (practically speaking, there isn't any discernible division among "believing" LDS, so a particular LDS's feelings on the subject doesn't really say all that much).

Come on, Cinepro, you have to admit how ludicrous this sounds. "I'm not getting what I want on the most important LDS doctrine of all (even thought it fits the parameters of conflicting with science) so I'll just keep working my way down to one of the least important issues I can find until I find what I'm looking for."

The point is that there are many, many LDS leaders and members who don't see things your way.

I agree with this part . . .

They have studied the subject as much (or more) than you, and know as much (or more) than you about ancient Hebrew and the scriptures, and they firmly believe that the flood was global.

. . . but disagree here. You've got a member who does. Donald Parry is apparently your standard bearer on this, but you've lumped "leadership and members" in together in the last sentence. Please either separate the two or I'd like a CFR on the fact that there are leaders in the church who know the language, have studied it critically, and disagree.

That is the point. Some people look at the references on my website and say "Yes, the scriptures, Prophets and Apostles and Church publications teach a global flood; therefore, there was a global flood."

Cinepro's website establishing doctrine. Who need's the Church's statement?

And most interestingly, people who argue the second point tend to think that the first type of person will end up agreeing with them if they only learn a little more about scriptural history, or ancient hebrew, or prophetic fallibility etc.

I don't think this way, and I'm not sure what you mean by prophetic fallibility in this context.

But this isn't the case. Many of the first group already know as much or more than those in the second group, but they still believe it was global (or that there was no physical death or evolution anywhere on the planet at any time before Adam's Fall, including the creation period).

This is moving into areas that were not part of the discussion. This started with a. Is the idea of a global flood officially binding doctrine of the Church? and b. Is it the best litmus test to understand how LDS deal with conflicts between doctrine and science? You're wandering into personal testimony about why some think a global flood scenario to be true. Irrelevant.

And for me personally, if I'm discussing issues like prophetic fallibility with and LDS, it is really, really helpful to know where a person sits on the issue before I make assumptions about their feelings on the subject. Sure, all LDS believe our leaders are human, but there is a huge difference in the degree to which members think Prophets and Apostles can be mistaken. If I know someone believes in a local flood, I know that they're willing "give" a little more in their thinking about such doctrines.

I understand what you want to do, but first you have to establish that anyone has said through prophetic inspiration that the flood was global. If this were established, it would simply be exactly like the resurrection. End of story. All LDS would be unified on this. Period. The issue here is not prophetic fallibility, science, or anything else. Any division there might be will usually boil down to this right here between you and me--is this the product of prophetic inspiration? So it's not about science or fallibility. You beg the question that it is doctrine so that you can move the goal posts to an argument of prophetic fallibility or science v. doctrine, but it's simply not the case.

Whether or not these two groups of people are given labels is kind of a side issue, and what, exactly, those labels might be is even more ancillary. I could call them "Blue LDS" and "Red LDS" if you like. It's the fact that there are these different approaches that must be taken into account that is important to me and others who must deal with both groups online and in Church. If all LDS believed in the global flood, or all LDS believed in a local flood, it would be just as irrelevant an indicator as the resurrection is.

I don't care for any two-option method, as it ignores the reality of the landscape. And I don't care about a label debate either. I do care about knowing what has been revealed and what is assumption. It's why I love the D&C--it's the record of a young prophet starting to peel away layers of assumption through direct revelation. He did it through asking the direct question and publishing the revelation to the Church. And this is the methodology I expect: prophets and apostles asking questions and counseling together and then proclaiming their answer collectively. It works this way on all the major issues, and it's exactly how the Church's statement on doctrine is articulated. But we don't get this happening with who killed Goliath, which Psalms are post-exilic, whether this or that genealogy list is conflated with another, who wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews, or whether or not the flood was global due to textual weirdness in Gen 6-8. And so this is why the specifics of this discussion are important to me--I simply don't care much for your methodology of determining doctrine on behalf of the Church.

Regards

Link to comment

EbedSecret.png

Hmmm...a book on "LDS Apologetics for Dummies". Intriguing idea. Sounds more like a FAIR project, though, than FARMS. Different approaches for different genre.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I have a deep, dark secret. I have written such a book. There it is out. It was rejected because there is not a large enough market to make it economically viable. I suspect the real reason is that I'm just a lousy writer. Much of what I have posted here and elsewhere comes directly from that manuscript.

Link to comment

I have a deep, dark secret. I have written such a book. There it is out.

Fun.

It was rejected because there is not a large enough market to make it economically viable. I suspect the real reason is that I'm just a lousy writer. Much of what I have posted here and elsewhere comes directly from that manuscript.

Most publishers aren't yet equipped for niche markets. Just-in-time publishing changes all that, however. As does the web.

So you can make it available even if a bigger publisher won't.

Link to comment

I don't know if Cinepro plans to respond to my last post here. And this conversation has probably run its course. But I did want to thank him for the discussion. Last time we talked on this topic, I don't think he responded to any of my points. This time he responded to all of them. While we obviously disagree, at least we had the conversation.

Thanks, Cinepro.

Link to comment

I don't know if Cinepro plans to respond to my last post here. And this conversation has probably run its course. But I did want to thank him for the discussion. Last time we talked on this topic, I don't think he responded to any of my points. This time he responded to all of them. While we obviously disagree, at least we had the conversation.

Thanks, Cinepro.

I'm willing to let the Church-published statement speak for themselves on this matter. I will note your shifting goal-posts in trying to characterize it as an argument over whether it is officially binding. This always happens; Local Flood believers try to frame the argument over issues like core doctrine or officially binding, which are levels of doctrine not defined by the newsroom statement (or any other Church publication that I know of).

I readily acknowledge that the Global Flood doctrine (and it's attendant "Noah as Second Adam" and "Earth's Baptism" doctrines) isn't "core" or "binding". That's not why I bring it up. I bring it up because it is clear doctrine, clearly and consistently taught in Church publications, which is part of the standard for determining whether something is an official doctrine or not.

As with other Local Flood believers, you must add provisions to the matter to give you wiggle room, as if the fact that the prophets hadn't been fluent Hebraists actually means something. Then, when the Church publishes a clear statement by a professor of Hebrew saying explicitly that the Local Flood theories are false, and that he (and we) know from the prophets that the flood was Global, it still isn't good enough. It makes no sense to me, and I suspect you haven't read the citations I helpfully summarized on my blog.

And, as always, I promise to also post any Church-published acknowledgments of the possibility of a local or allegorical flood if you can find any.

Additionally, I would encourage any of our resident LDS Hebrew experts to write an article explaining JGreen's points, and showing how the Hebrew Old Testament argues for a local flood and that should be the preferred interpretation. If JGreen (and other Local Flood believers) are right, it should be gratefully accepted for publication. If it isn't...?

Link to comment

Thanks for the response, Cinepro. Just a few points of clarification:

I bring it up because it is clear doctrine, clearly and consistently taught in Church publications, which is part of the standard for determining whether something is an official doctrine or not.

Yet you still are only applying the last part of a single sentence, ignoring the rest of the sentence that precedes this and the rest of the statement in its entirety. You know, the part where doctrine is determined through divine inspiration with the First Presidency and Q12 counseling together. Could you comment on this part at all? It seems rather silly that you cling to the last few words in one sentence while rejecting everything else in the sentence and the rest of the statement.

As with other Local Flood believers

Actually, as I told you last time, I haven't made up my mind on this. I believe a flood occurred, I simply don't think we have clear revelation or enough evidence to tell us whether it was global or local. And I think the original text gives us clues that could be interpreted both ways but is understood better in a local sense. But I care less about this specific issue than I do about how we go about determining what is revelation and what is assumption.

as if the fact that the prophets hadn't been fluent Hebraists actually means something.

I don't think it means anything, since it was you who brought it up. You told me that both "leaders and members" who were fluent in the language and had studied the issue disagreed with me. Since I suspected you were simply conflating Dr. Donald Parry with "leaders" in order to make your point more expansive, I asked you to separate the two categories or answer a CFR on leaders who fit into this category. So do you have any in mind?

Then, when the Church publishes a clear statement by a professor of Hebrew saying explicitly that the Local Flood theories are false, and that he (and we) know from the prophets that the flood was Global, it still isn't good enough.

I respect Dr. Parry quite a bit. His knowledge and achievements in both language and scripture easily surpass mine. Fortunately, this is not a contest between the two of us about whether the flood was global or local. The issue is about who sets official doctrine for the Church, and I suspect that Dr. Parry would agree with me that neither of us do. His article in the Ensign is very good. I just don't think it is official doctrine. I also think John Sorensen's article on BoM LGT in the Ensign is excellent. But whether or not I think it is accurate or true has nothing to do with the fact that I don't think it represents official doctrine. The same could be said for Nibley's articles, or Stephen Robinson's articles, etc. I love them all. I just don't think they represent doctrine that is "officially binding" on the Church. And that is point.

It makes no sense to me, and I suspect you haven't read the citations I helpfully summarized on my blog.

I've read most of them, and a few others over the years. I'm not sure I see the point. I've readily acknowledged that a global flood has always been assumed. Have I not? The point is whether an assumption based on tradition can represent officially binding doctrine, no matter how often it is referenced in passing. If you can find one where through divine inspiration the brethren have counseled together and then consistently published their collective deliberations, I would love to see it. Haven't we always assumed in the Church that David killed Goliath? Does that assumption constitute doctrine? Most of us assume, without much study, that all the Psalms were written by David. Does that assumption mean that it is also doctrine? What constitutes doctrine through revelation, and what is simply assumption, regardless of whether or not it is true (an entirely different discussion)?

And, as always, I promise to also post any Church-published acknowledgments of the possibility of a local or allegorical flood if you can find any.

And as always, if you can find a statement where through divine inspiration the brethren have counseled together and then consistently published their collective deliberations about whether or not the flood is global or local, then you would have something to post.

Additionally, I would encourage any of our resident LDS Hebrew experts to write an article explaining JGreen's points, and showing how the Hebrew Old Testament argues for a local flood and that should be the preferred interpretation. If JGreen (and other Local Flood believers) are right, it should be gratefully accepted for publication. If it isn't...?

This is rather silly on several levels. Why is this the issue (as opposed to what constitutes official doctrine?) Why would anyone agree to make a case for someone else's arguments? Published by whom? Why does an argument have to be published to have any force? (You can't make a valid argument on a message board or in an e-mail?) In any case, you started several threads on this very subject, and Bill Hamblin provides a useful summary in one of them as to why a local flood might make sense based on textual, cultural, cosmological, and other issues. So you have somewhere to start. Read it, or not. I don't care. Our discussion is about whether or not the idea of a global flood is binding doctrine. It's not about the merits of a local flood theory, however strong or weak they may be. Please stay on track.

Regards

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...