Hi Dick,
Thanks for your response. Just one thing - the 'first sentence' I was referring
to was
"The true nature and extent of the Flood can hardly be downplayed as a
"non-essential" matter for the Christian because our correct reading of
earth history rests largely upon this one event - as I'm sure you must
agree."
Do you agree?
Sincerely,
Vernon
Dick Fischer wrote:
> 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
> ÏThe Answer we should have known about 150 years agoÓ
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 29 2002 - 18:01:03 EDT