PHSEELY@aol.com wrote:
>
> Hi Vernon,
>
> you wrote
>
> << I appreciate your writing, and thank you for the information. However, I
> have to say that with respect to the ongoing discussion regarding the
> extent of the Flood, it appears to matter little whether our thinking
> involves 'planet Earth' or 'flat circular disc floating upon an ocean'.
> To achieve God's purposes, was the globe (or disc) completely immersed?
> or was it not? Thinking sensibly is hardly a time-dependent thing! Moses
> understood the Flood had to be global, and could hardly have said more
> to convince the reader of the fact. >>
>
> My question is: Where are you getting your information that the Flood was
> global?
> Moses knew nothing of a global, that is, a spherical earth; hence he could
> not have "understood the Flood had to be global." The pre-flood world in the
> Bible is not described as a spherical planet with the oceans embedded, but a
> flat earth embedded in (floating upon) an ocean, a flat earth which did not
> include the America's, Australia or even the Far East. And this limited flat
> earth was the _total_ earth. Hence the Bible cannot be and is not describing
> a global flood. You cannnot be getting your information that the Flood was
> _global_ from the Bible; so, from where are you getting this information?
I think we are getting our lines crossed a little here! With respect to
my final sentence I was using 'global' in the sense of the Flood being
'all-embracing' - having earlier suggested that it mattered little
whether Moses understood the world to be sphere or flat disc.
Regarding the Gn.6-9 meaning of 'eretz', it is interesting that in all
the Bible translations I have examined it is rendered 'earth' - not
'land', as Glenn so trenchantly demands. Do you agree with him that a
straight reading of these chapters - unhampered by all preconceived
notions - leads one naturally to the view that the Deluge was 'local'?
Wouldn't you rather agree with me that that the now widespread belief
that the event was 'local' is largely, if not entirely, of darwinian
parentage? I venture to suggest that the possibility of such an
interpretation would hardly have been contemplated by a Christian before
the Nineteenth Century.
>
> My point is, Do you realize that your theory of a global flood is resting
> upon the findings of modern science? I think you will be helped in your
> thinking, if you realize and say out loud, "My theory of a global flood is
> resting upon modern science."
>
> Paul S.
With respect, I am not in the habit of repeating mantras - particularly
when they concern theories! In my view the Scriptures speak clearly and
forcefully on the matter of a global flood; the narrative is convincing,
and its truth is borne out by the New Testament references. On the other
hand, Glenn's imaginative theory departs both in word and spirit from
the original text. Its only 'merit' appears to be that it satisfies
other, extra-biblical, considerations.
You obviously have a high regard for modern evolutionary 'science'. But
you do realise, I'm sure, that when it comes to building a view of the
past, the data that are available to science can never lead to an
unequivocal answer - and it is gross folly to pretend they can.
Vernon
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/index.htm
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~indexer/miracla1.htm