Vernon wrote:
>Apropos your latest post I would like to make two brief points:
>
>(1) You said "...the scripture says that God would destroy all the
>animals in the 'eretz', not all the animals on the earth."
>
>Assuming for the sake of argument that your 'local flood' scenario is
>correct, we would expect to find across the globe representatives of all
>bird and animal 'kinds' that had escaped the ravages of the Deluge.
>What, then, was God's purpose in commanding Noah to build so large a
>vessel? Could it have been anything other than to ensure the
>preservation of planet Earth's fauna along with man?
The purpose would have been clearly to save animals which were special to
man or animals from that region that weren't special to man. By making the
flood local, it means that tens of thousands of animals don't have to be
cared for by Noah et al, and this then avoids some of the really silly
problems, and even sillier solutions that some YECs have proposed, for an
overcrowded ark would have. If all animals were on the ark, the manure and
urine problems would be so great as to flood the ark itself. Woodmorrappe
says that urine could drain overboard, but this would be impossible from
the lowest deck. He even says that the animals were trained to defecate on
command into buckets held by Noah and the others. An ark with several
thousand animals would use up the oxygen quite rapidly, the heat given off
by the animals would over heat the ark (ever been in a crowded room and
felt hot? The ark would be worse). Such problems and the silly solutions
YECs have proposed make the Bible a laughing stock among reasonable peoples.
Fewer animals fewer problems like this. And then the Bible can avoid the
'help' that the YECs give it. Avoiding YEC interpretation makes the Bible
look a bit more reasonable.
>
>Clearly, your initial premise leads us to conclude that Noah and his
>family enjoyed the company of animals! - for otherwise, what was the
>purpose of them being there?! I suggest that your evolution-induced
>interpretation of Gn.6-9 trivialises the whole episode.
I keep repeating and you keep intentionally ignoring the fact that it is
not an evolution induced interpretation. The silliness of the YEC global
flood is what made me change to a local flood. Only after that did I
eventually become an evolutionist. Please don't forget this again and
please don't make that same statement again. I get the feeling you are
ignoring me and believing what you want to beleive.
Only by
>believing that all animal life outside the ark was destroyed can we make
>sense of it all. It follows that the Flood must have been global. >
Hardly.
>(2) You appear to be making great play of Gn.6:13 where God refers to
>the destruction of the earth. I have already suggested what I believe to
>be a reasonable reading of this matter in respect of a global flood, viz
>"...in the sense that the terrain was no longer what it was - suggested
>by the 'breaking up' of the 'fountains of the great deep' (Gn.7:11) - he
>effectively eradicated the old order." What is your understanding of it
>in a local sense? Can it be greatly different from mine?
My understanding is that God destroyed the LAND (eretz) which is what David
Campbell pointed out to you. It ain't land anymore, it is seabottom. You
are inconsistent concerning Gen. 6:13. Here you want to avoid the clear
implications that God destroyed the eretz. you say that eretz means
'planet earth' and use that meaning to support a global flood. But when
the planet earth must be destroyed, you squirm and claim that the eretz was
only re-arranged, not destroyed. You continue to ignore the fact that Abram
was told to get off 'planet earth' (eretz). If you are correct that eretz
means planet earth, then Abram disobeyed God. You interpret eretz
inconsistently depending upon what meaning you require for your theological
position at the time. This means that you really aren't paying attention
to what the Bible says. You are only paying attention to what your
theology requires. To you, your theology has become 'The Word of God'
rather than the Bible.