----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 23:56:39 +0100
From: Vernon Jenkins <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
Subject: Re: global flood (was fish to amphibians)
Hi Glenn,
Glenn R. Morton wrote:
>
> HI Vernon,
>
> 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.
You say, "The purpose would have been clearly to save animals which were
special to man...". Ingenious!! But inadequate! Your interpretation is
far from clear when one reads the narrative! The relevant verses are
6:19, 7:14 and 7:16: "And of every living thing of all flesh...",
"...every beast after his kind...", and "...they went in...two and two
of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life." It's no good you homing in
on the supposed impracticalities of this situation. Do you really think
it likely that God would allow his purposes to be frustrated by
presenting Noah with insurmountable problems?
> 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.
You may think you've made it look more reasonable. However, our proper
course as Christians is to determine what the Word of God actually says.
In attempting to impose conditions on the Flood narrative, I believe you
are making a grave error.
> >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.
I am certainly not ignoring what you say, but I see nothing in this post
that would cause me to change my view re the real origin of the 'local
flood' notion.
> 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.
In your understanding of Earth history, inundation followed by elevation
is a 'bread and butter' concept. You would, no doubt, regard the former
as a 'destruction' of the land involved and, presumably, the latter, as
a 'resurrection'. Speeding up this process we then have the conditions
attending a transitory flood, do we not? - regardless of it being local
or global?
In respect of your comment about Abram, I have never maintained that
'eretz' was always to be interpreted in the wider sense. You therefore
do me an injustice.
Perhaps we should now conclude this particular exchange. Thanks for
fielding my questions and comments. As to a satisfactory conclusion: I
think we shall have to agree to differ!
Sincerely, and with kind regards,
Vernon
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/index.htm
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~indexer/miracla1.htm
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 18:41:49 -0500
From: "Glenn R. Morton" <grmorton@flash.net>
Subject: Re: global flood (was fish to amphibians)
At 06:27 PM 6/27/99 -0500, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>>Perhaps we should now conclude this particular exchange. Thanks for
>>fielding my questions and comments. As to a satisfactory conclusion: I
>>think we shall have to agree to differ!
I enjoyed it. I am sure that we will cross paths again.
glenn
//www.flash.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm
------------------------------
End of asa-digest V1 #1282
**************************