Re: Noah's flood -- worldwide?
George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Tue, 14 Dec 1999 07:40:24 -0500
glenn morton wrote:
> However, that said, one must be
> careful of using the word in Genesis 6-9 which is translated as 'earth' as
> meaning planet earth. The word is 'eretz' and is more often translated as
> 'land' or 'country'. The Bible, therefore seems to say that the land was
> covered, not the earth.
>
> >If so, (1) were there other homo sapiens (i.e. homonids with spirits,
> making them "in Our
> >image" beings) elsewhere who were not killed in the flood? (2) Were there
> other "earlier"
> >homonids elsewhere who were not killed in the flood? (3) What, also, of
> animal species
> >outside this region? (And no, Glen, I haven't had the chance to read your
> texts yet,
> >though I'm working toward them!) Regarding the last 3 questions, if there
> were "others"
> >outside this region who were not killed by the flood, are we to accept
> that they were more
> >righteous/less deserving of God's judgment? If so, why do we hear nothing
> in scripture of
> >them?
>
> I think this is a serious problem for the mesopotamian view and it is why I
> have cynically said that any old wet event, from a wet sponge to a river
> flood, will serve as the Noachian deluge for some, regardless of how badly
> it fits with what the Bible says. And this is why I think we have to match
> what the Scripture describes of the Flood.
If eretz can be rendered "land" or country" in referring to the extent of the
flood (& it certainly has that limited meaning in some contexts) then it can also
have that limited meaning in speaking of the wickedness &c of the eretz in 6:5-11.
Then the whole account could be read as one of God's judgment on a particularly wicked
region, like that of Sodom & Gomorrah.
Shalom,
George
> Foundation, Fall and Flood
> Adam, Apes and Anthropology
> http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
>
> Lots of information on creation/evolution
--
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/