The translation at hand (NASB) renders it as earth in Gen. 41:57, where a
global interpretation is not reasonable.
>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'?
What counts as preconceived notions? A straight reading of these chapters
without any outside information is impossible, because you need to learn
how to read in order to read these chapters. If you have a general
knowledge of the use of Hebrew words, a straight reading of these chapters
is not definitive regarding the extent of the flood, because "earth" and
"all" have greater flexibility than their English usage tends to convey.
Some aspects sound more universal, others less so. A straight
interpretation of the geologic evidence, without preconceived notions,
produces the conclusion that the flood was not global and cannot account
for much of the geologic column.
>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?
No. The non-global nature of the flood and the great age of the earth were
established before Darwin.
>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.
Only if you are willing to utterly deny the possibility of knowing anything
about the past. The email from you, for example, is relatively unequivocal
evidence that somebody sent an email from your address in the very recent
past. If I find a fossil shell, I do not think it is particularly
questionable that that sort of shell once lived in the vicinity. If I find
one layer, a higher layer, and no evidence that the layers have been
disturbed after their deposition, it has been realized since Steno, in the
seventeenth century, that the higher layer was deposited after the lower
one. True, the whole thing could be miraculously created with the
appearance of having been made by other processes. However, the same
argument equally applies to your email. The argument grades into
skepticism of the existance of anything. Unless we can make unequivocal
statements about the past, we cannot confidently say that Christ is risen.
This statement is based upon historical rather than scientific evidence,
but it is gross folly to pretend that it is not true.
David C.