You wrote:
> This is prompted by a recent posting that you made to Glenn.
>
> One does not need to be an evolutionist to believe that the Flood was
> local. In fact, this view is fairly common among progressive creationists.
> Hugh Ross, one of the best known progressive creationists on this side of
> the Atlantic holds to a local-flood view and has produced tapes and
> writings expounding this view, but he does believe that the flood was
> anthropologically global.
Thanks for this information.
> Considerations such as the fact that several times the volume of water
> available would be required to submerge all the land and that the Flood
> did not float the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets give a strong
> indication that the Flood was not global. These considerations have
> absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution. Also, from Genesis the
> slow rate at which the waters receded during most of the abatement period
> (less than 45 feet in four months (Gen. 6:15 and 8:4-11)) suggest that the
> water may not have been deep enough to cover Mt. Everest.
But have you not considered the possibility that there was no Mt.Everest
in the days before the Flood? There may not have been any marked 'highs'
and 'lows'. Indeed, returning to an earlier theme, this would fit in
very well with a world that had known no rain until the Deluge - and the
rainbow!
>
> The Hebrew word 'erets is usually translated land (more than twice as
> often as it is translated earth). Even in some cases when it is translated
> earth it is obvious that it does not mean the entire planet.
> Interestingly, one such instance is in the Flood account itself. Genesis
> 8:9 says that the water was on the surface of all the earth, but we know
> from Gen. 8:5 that at that time it did not cover everything on earth
> because mountain tops were visible. A similar phrase elsewhere might have
> the same meaning.
But on what basis would you say that 'eretz' - as we find it in the
Flood narrative - 'obviously' does not refer to planet Earth? As I've
pointed out to Glenn, the context strongly suggests that.
> Concerning why the Lord didn't send Noah to a place that wasn't going to
> be flooded, consider II Peter 2:5. Noah was a preacher of righteousness.
> He would not have been obedient to his call if he had moved away from the
> world of the ungodly.
>
This sounds reasonable, but is based on the assumption that man's
occupation of the planet was confined to a particular locality. God's
intention to include all land animals and birds in his judgment by water
(Gn.6:7) demands a global scenario, wouldn't you agree?
Sincerely,
Vernon
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/index.htm
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~indexer/miracla1.htm