> I do believe the flood was caused
> by a supernatural intervention of
> God and I'm not looking to science
> to support this view.
Pim replied:
> That's very smart especially since
> there is no evidence of such a
> worldwide catastrophic flood.
Glenn replied to Pim:
> While you are correct that there is
> no evidence supporting the concept
> of a global flood, this does not rule
> out the existence of an event which
> matches the Biblical description. It
> is just local in nature.
Pim responded:
> Hmmm, and I thought that the flood
> described in the bible was worldwide
> and so catastrophic that it killed all
> life outside the Ark.
The scripture must be understood in its total contextual setting. Part
of that context comes from an understanding of the underlying languages
in which it was written. The chief problem in studying the Old
Testament--where the Flood Myth appears--is that the Hebrew language had
at the time only a few thousand words. This meant that each word could
carry a much wider range of meanings than similar words in modern
languages. Consider Glenn's following example:
> In explanation of this assertion
> (that the flood was not necessarily
> universal) it needs to be pointed out
> that the Hebrew 'eres', translated
> consistently as 'earth' in our
> English Bibles, is also the word for
> 'land' (e.g. the land of Israel, the
> land of Egypt).
And Pim's tongue-in-cheek reply:
> Perhaps someone should inform the ICR
> of this <g>
The Hebrew word for earth is better transliterated as 'eretz', and it
can mean any size ground, from the little square on which an urbanite
might plant a lawn to the entire globe of the earth and every size in
between. The same is true about very many words in Hebrew. Although
deep linguistic study is not required to understand the basic teachings
of scripture, when a person is going beyond surface issues and dives
into the murky water of so-called "high doctrine", references that
assist in the understanding of the ancient languages are absolutely
essential. Without them, there will only be confusion and
misunderstanding.
Another aspect of the total contextual setting of scripture is its
harmony with the natural universe. One of the best ways to demonstrate
the Christian system false is to show how it is in utter conflict with
nature. Although the popular YEC view is in total conflict with the
creation, other views such as OEC, TE, and others are not.
Regarding the ICR, there are a great many things about which I should
like to inform them, but they will not listen. They have replaced the
Word of G-d with the doctrines of men which is one of the major
criticisms that Yeshua (Jesus) brought against the religious leaders of
His time. I regard Young Earth Creationism as outright heresy that must
be purged from Christianity--it has done a great deal of harm and no
good.
Glenn had said:
> This view allows the conservative
> Christian to have what they want,
> which is a historical Bible, but
> does not require them to reject all
> science.
And Pim replies with some scriptures often used by the ICR to support
the YEC heresy:
> What about the Genesis 6:17 "Look!
> I am going to cover the earth with
> a flood and destroy every living
> being everything in which there is
> the breath of life. All will die."
and
> Genesis 7:21 "And all the living things
> upon the earth perished--birds domestic
> and wild animals and reptiles of all
> mankind--everything that breathed and
> lived upon dry land."
followed by his comment:
> It becomes harder to argue that the
> flood might have been a local one,
> according to the bible.
These scriptures describe what happened to those people and creatures
that lived in and around the human civilization that G-d destroyed. He
destroyed everything at a certain place and time, and by saying as much,
He is not saying that everything on the entire earth would be (or was)
destroyed.
Given scientific evidence as we now have it, it is impossible to argue
that the Flood covered the entire earth, but we can plausibly argue that
it describes a much smaller scale event. Glenn favors the filling of
the Mediterranean basin; I believe it to refer to the filling of the
Black Sea basin; others think it describes a flood of the Mesopatamian
flood plain. Whichever it is--or some other--I believe that the global
flood idea is so much in error as to deserve a serious challenge within
the Christian community--we should put it behind us along with
geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism.
May the L-rd bless and keep you.
Russ
Russell T. Cannon
rcannon@usa.net