Thanks for your input.
I believe I have responded to most of the points you raise in my replies
to Glenn, George and Gordon. However, on the matter of the context of
Mt.24:37-39/Lk.17:26-27, viz the unexpected nature of the 'second
coming', this will be a global event, will it not?
Regards,
Vernon
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/index.htm
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~indexer/miracla1.htm
David Campbell wrote:
>
> >(2) You have already provided a clue as to the means used for clouding
> >and defeating the clear narrative, viz 'under the whole heavens', 'the
> >face of the earth', and 'all' are to be interpreted with reference to
> >other, totally unrelated, biblical passages. But isn't it more
> >reasonable (and, indeed, more usual!) to allow context to determine the
> >meaning of a word where some ambiguity exists? In view of God's stated
> >purpose, can there really be any doubt as to what these words mean? And
> >can we turn a blind eye to the Lord's words concerning the outcome
> >(Mt.24:37-39, Lk.17:26-27)?
>
> What context are you using to determine the meaning of the passages?
> Matthew 24:37-39 and Luke 17:26-27 identify the victims of the flood as
> "they", which does not seem very helpful in determining the extent. Luke
> 17:28-29 gives apparently identical wording with regard to the destruction
> of Sodom and Gomorrah, which was clearly not global. The context is
> emphasizing the unexpected nature of the second coming, so I do not see
> them as very helpful in establishing the extent of the events. I Pet. 4:20
> talks about how few were saved, suggesting that the others were not, but
> does not say anything about the extent. II Pet. 2:5 refers to the world of
> the ungodly, which, as previously noted, has been taken as constraining the
> flood to be regional since before the acceptance of evolutionary ideas.
> Arguing that the words within Gen. 6-9 are global is arguing circularly.
> Moses elsewhere uses the same words in a non-global sense, so it is clear
> that such an interpretation is linguistically credible. The immediate
> context is more important than other usage in choosing which interpretation
> is valid, but other contexts may be very helpful when there is question
> about the immediate context.
>
> The Flood could have drowned all humans not aboard the ark without being
> global, if humans were confined to certain areas.
>
> It is impossible to approach the Scripture alone, without external input.
> Silla niin on Jumala maailmaa rakastanut, etta han antoi aionokaisen
> Poikansa, ettei yksikaan, joka haneen uskoo, hukkuisi, vaan hanella olisi
> iankaikkinen elama, plus appropriate accents, does not do me any good
> unless I learn Finnish, but in a language I know it is very significant
> (John 3:16.) Even in translation, many passages make no sense unless I
> learn a bit about ancient cultures. Our experience with nature tells us
> that Isaiah 55:12, with the trees clapping their hands, is a metaphor
> because trees do not have hands. Likewise, our experience with nature
> indicates that the axe head floating for Elisha was a miracle, because iron
> does not float even when a stick is thrown into the same pool.
>
> The available evidence from creation points to the Flood being regional or
> local rather than global. Michael Tuomey, in his 1848 Report on the
> Geology of South Carolina, had a section on the "Consistency of Modern
> Geology with the Mosaic account of the Creation". He endorsed geology as
> highly "worthy of the attention of the Christian student" because it shows
> that "all save the Almighty had a beginning". He also declared that,
> although in the past the formation of fossiliferous rocks had been
> attributed to the Deluge, "no one, who has ever examined a fossiliferous
> deposit for five minutes, can hold such an opinion." I have not yet
> encountered a Flood Geology model that stands up to his objections, much
> less more recent discoveries.
>
> David C.