Is there a Plan B? (was: So we're all related!)

Gordon,

In the interests of clarity, perhaps you would allow me to address your
responses to my questions re the Genesis Flood thus:

1) Unless one has an axe to grind, I suggest the Flood narrative (Genesis
6-9) describes a _global_ catastrophe in which all but Noah, his immediate
family, and a representative selection of animals died.

2) From an evolutionary standpoint, our current understanding of geology
demands that the Flood be accepted as _local_ rather than _global_.

3) This interpretation is facilitated by the inherent ambiguity associated
with the Hebrew word 'eretz' which may be fairly translated 'land' rather
than 'earth'.

4) However, it should be noted that New Testament commentators when
referring to this event invariably use the Greek word 'kosmos' - meaning
'earth', or 'world order', but not 'land' (eg 2Pet.2:5, 3:6; Heb.11:7).

5) Those Christians who yet insist that 'land' is the intended meaning of
'eretz' in the Flood narrative must then assume it to take a particular
form - for it had to be capable of sustaining the flood waters for 150 days
after the rains had ceased Gen.7:24). This appears to necessitate an
unbroken ring of high ground surrounding 'the land'.

6) The question then arises, Why an ark? (its building taking about 100
years) rather than an overland trek to the high ground? Gordon, you answered
this point as follows:

"Noah was a preacher of righteousness (II Peter 2:5). God called him to do
this. Presumably this was to warn his wicked neighbors of impending
judgment. He would have been unfaithful to his calling if he had gone to
some location where there was no one who needed to be warned."

But _before the ark was built_, God had already decided who were to be its
sole occupants! (Gen.6:18-20). The reference to Noah being a 'preacher of
righteousness' must refer to an earlier (or, possibly, a post-diluvian)
time.

7) To follow some other implications of a _local_ flood, we need to accept
the survival, not only of the occupants of the ark, but also of the
populations of people and animals who dwelt outside 'the land' who were
completely innocent of the divine stricture "...the wickedness of man was
great _in the land_, and every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was
only evil continually (Gen.6:5)."

8) Yet, strangely, these do not fall within the aegis of the Noahic
Covenant! - for that was specifically established with Noah, with his
descendants in perpetuity, and with every living creature from the ark, and
their descendants (Gen.9:8-10). So where does each of us stand today? Are we
included in this covenant? - or are we not? Clearly, in a _local_ flood
scenario we cannot know!

9) In response to my observation that the Lord's promise to Noah and his
descendants might be judged _false_ because we are aware that _local
flooding_ is often responsible for great loss of life, you said

" The Flood was not the usual local flood. When we say local, what we really
mean is that it was not global. Its magnitude was far beyond any
subsequent flood, and so God has not broken His promise."

But this is hardly satisfactory. If not _global_ then it was surely
incumbent upon the Covenant Maker to state what He meant by _local_.
Clearly, some qualification is necessary to specify what degree of flooding
He is talking about. Is its extent _precisely_ the same as the flood
experienced by Noah? Or does that represent a _lower limit_? Or, possibly, a
slightly smaller flood qualifies!

No, Gordon. Assuming the Flood to be _local_ ultimately makes nonsense of
the whole scenario. Do evolutionists and others have a 'Plan B' to fall back
on now that _global_ appears to be the only show in town? It appears that a
complete revision of the geological interpretation of earth history is
called for - or, otherwise, for the Christian, the removal of Chapters 6-9
of Genesis from his/her Bible!

Vernon
www.otherbiblecode.com

Original Message -----
From: "gordon brown" <gbrown@euclid.Colorado.EDU>
To: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 11:50 PM
Subject: Re: So we're all related!

> Vernon,
>
> Noah was a preacher of righteousness (II Peter 2:5). God called him to do
> this. Presumably this was to warn his wicked neighbors of impending
> judgment. He would have been unfaithful to his calling if he had gone to
> some location where there was no one who needed to be warned.
>
> The Flood was not the usual local flood. When we say local, what we really
> mean is that it was not global. Its magnitude was far beyond any
> subsequent flood, and so God has not broken His promise.
>
> Gordon Brown
> Department of Mathematics
> University of Colorado
> Boulder, CO 80309-0395
>
>
> On Wed, 6 Oct 2004, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>
> > I remember your arguments - but not the refutations. Would you mind
stating
> > your defence afresh with respect to, (1) Ark vs Trek to higher ground,
and
> > (2) the implied false promise to Noah concerning future 'local'
flooding.
>
Received on Mon Oct 11 18:44:30 2004