Re: Noahic Covenant

From: Dick Fischer (dickfischer@earthlink.net)
Date: Fri Jul 26 2002 - 12:39:56 EDT

  • Next message: Jay Willingham: "Re: deception in perception--slander"

    Hi Vernon, you wrote:

    >I am puzzled as to why you should send me so comprehensive a list of
    >extracts from ancient writings proving the reality of the Flood. This
    >hardly addresses the matters raised in my email of 17 July. And whilst I
    >appreciate you have spent much time studying this event, may I ask whether
    >that included giving due weight to items #1, #2 and #3 below? If so,
    >perhaps you would share your reasons for dismissing these arguments which
    >favour a global flood. Further, may I take it that you fully agree with my
    >opening sentence?

    Taking your last question first, I fully agree that you seem to be
    "puzzled." But in fairness, this whole subject has puzzled all of
    Christianity for 2,000 years.

    The parallel accounts do not prove the flood happened. They do not
    prove "the reality of the Flood." All the accounts taken together
    substantiate that if such a flood happened, it was in southern
    Mesopotamia at around the 2900 BC time frame. Gilgamesh was a post
    flood ruler at Kish, and is dated about 2800 BC. If he was
    contemporary with Utnapishtim (Noah), the dates match up.

    >(1) The logic and power of the narrative and its sequel.

    The Jewish people have suffered three extremely tragic events: the
    flood, the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and the holocaust in
    the 1940's. No events of such relative magnitude have ever happened
    to the Chinese people, or the Europeans, for example. How much is
    written about Babylon in the Old Testament? In relative terms, it
    was important to them. It was part of their history, as was the
    flood.

    >(2) The need to build an ark surely suggests there would be no higher ground
    >to which Noah could migrate (undoubtedly the simplest solution to the coming
    >problem - had it been available).

    Had Noah migrated he could have been followed by curious relatives
    interested in survival. The flood was intended for them. Animals on
    board is an open issue. I don't pretend to know why.

    >(3) The testimony of two NT commentators - one of whom had certainly walked
    >with Jesus. In the Greek of Heb.11:7 and 2Pet.2:5 we find the word "kosmos"
    >used; in the context of these passages this can only be rendered _world_ .
    >Had _land_ been intended, then the word "chora" was available and would
    >surely have been used. The inevitable outcome of the event is confirmed by
    >the Lord Himself in the parallel passages, Mt.24:37,38 and Lk.17:26,27.

    In His earthly ministry, Jesus was the Messiah, the king of the Jews.
    True to that earthly mission, Jesus spoke to them in their terms.

    In the use of the word "world," I said this in the book:

    "In addition to the Genesis account of the flood, the Apostle Peter
    makes mention of the flood in his second epistle. "Whereby the world
    that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" (II Pet. 3:6).
    Does the word "world" in this verse identify Noah's flood as a global
    deluge? Not necessarily; look at how we use "world" in English.

    We say "world" every day without intending it to mean the entire
    continental land mass of our planet. The wide "world" of sports may
    "span the globe," but only covers sporting events. The "world" of
    entertainment concerns films, TV, and stage plays. The "world" of
    fashion includes cosmetics, hair styles, and clothing. So although
    we sometimes mean planet when we say world, we may also use "world"
    to connote the encompassing of all of a category of something. Bible
    writers did the same thing.

    "World" was sometimes used in the sense of planet (what little they
    knew of it). In John 21:25, "I suppose the world itself could not
    contain the books that should be written." Many times, however, the
    Bible authors used "world" to mean just the human occupants. "But
    the world may know that I love the father ..." (John 14:31). Also in
    John 3:16, "For God so loved the world ..." applies to human beings
    living in the world.

    The word "world" also denotes only a segment of humanity. James
    teaches, "the friendship of the world is enmity with God" (Jas. 4:4).
    Here James grouped the unsaved, or unrighteous, into a "world."
    Doing just the opposite, John used "world" for the redeemed. "Behold
    the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29).

    Peter himself narrowed the "world" by speaking of the flood being
    wrought upon "the world of the ungodly" (II Pet. 2:5). The "world"
    that was "overflowed with water" and "perished" singles out the
    Adamite world including some hapless bystanders.

    Nobody headed for high ground in the African world though, or in the
    Asian world, or in the Americas. Even the nearby Egyptians,
    Persians, and "Nephilim" in Genesis 6:4, Numbers 13:33 for that
    matter, were survivors untouched by the Genesis deluge."

    Vernon, explain not only how an olive tree survived, but how did the
    "giants" survive a world flood?

    Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orislol.com
    ěThe Answer we should have known about 150 years agoî



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 26 2002 - 12:39:58 EDT