>>I'm not standing on my head! Wasn't it a question I gave? David,
surely you are aware that many religious minded folks think they have a
sound hermeneutical principle and they don't conclude with a recent,
global flood interpretation of the text.>>
Shall we discuss biblical hermeneutics, Robert? Show me internal evidence
(not external "science") which shows that the account of a global recent flood
destroying all land life on the planet was NOT what the author intended us to
understand. Differentiate this NON-historical text (if that's what you assert
it is) from other texts that you say ARE historical. Any straightforward
approach using hermeneutically sound principles would say this is intended as a
history of an actual recent global flood.
The problem for you AE's who claim to believe the Bible is that if the many
thousands of feet of sediments making up the geologic column are NOT residue of
Noah's recent global flood, then what IS that evidence?
If you say that it is NOT recent, or it is NOT global, then Atheist Todd WILL
eat your lunch to say that the Bible is a pack of lies...and if he won't I
will show you where your view is in direct contradiction to the scripture.
Who is Gene Lipscomb? And what position does he take?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]