On Fri, 31 Jul 1998 06:45:30 +0100, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
[...]
VJ>2) It follows that a crucial battle must be fought over the nature of
>the flood and its outcome in respect of our correctly interpreting the
>geological data, as we find it. You have expressed your disillusionment
>with YEC for failing to face up to facts contrary to their beliefs. Now
>I am going to suggest to you that you are failing to meet the demands of
>simple logic. If the flood were 'local', as you so stoutly maintain,
>what was the necessity of building an ark and undertaking the subsequent
>voyage? And where are these watertight mountain ranges (which Noah would
>surely have done better walking to with family and animals in tow - he
>certainly had ample time!!).
Both local and global Flood advocates agree, that there really was a Flood, a
Noah and an Ark, because Jesus confirmed there was (Mt 24:38; Lk 17:27).
Their argument is over the *extent* of the Flood.
Local Flood exponents argue that the Flood could not be global because: a)
there is no geological evidence for a global Flood and much against; b) the
problems of a global Flood are immense and require a whole raft of ad hoc
auxiliary hypotheses not mentioned in Scripture; and c) the language describing
the extent of the Flood (eg. earth=land; etc) can be interpreted locally (eg. the
world of Noah's experience, etc).
OTOH global Flood advocates argue that a) the language for the extent of the
Flood seems global "...all the high mountains under the entire heavens were
covered" (Gn 7:19); "Every living thing that moved on the earth perished ...and
all mankind." (Gn 7:22) ; b) there would be no need for an Ark if the Flood was
only local because the animals and men outside the extent of the Flood would
survive anyway.
Each sides' arguments against the other's are IMHO unanswerable. The only
solution that I can see is that both are right! That is, the Flood, Noah and the
Ark was real, and it was *both* local *and* global!
How these apparently irreconcilable viewpoints could both be true is is if there
was an original local Flood which was later expanded (perhaps under the
influence of Babylonian flood stories in the Babylonian Exile) into a symbolic
story to teach cosmic theological truths about God's judgment against the
rebelious, and mercy to the obedient (which is in fact how the Church uses it).
That there is some textual evidence for this is seen by the traces of two sources
in the the Biblical Flood story:
"Genesis 6-8 is one of the showpieces of literary criticism a textbook-example
of the art of detecting and unravelling a composite narrative. Two traditions,
Yahwistic (J) and Priestly (P), are claimed to be found here, and are considered
to be so discrepant as to need separate treatment in most modern
commentaries. The following points are usually made. First, in the ark J has
sevens of clean animals and birds, as well as pairs of unclean; P makes no
distinction. Secondly, J ascribes the flood to heavy rain, but P to waters from
the great deep and the windows of heaven; thirdly, J's flood lasts forty days
plus the three weeks in which the birds are sent out, while P's lasts a year and
ten days. Fourthly, repetitions and tricks of style continually betray the
presence of the two sources." (Kidner D., "Genesis: An Introduction and
Commentary," 1967, p97).
Evangelicals usually reject this "JEDP Documentary Hypothesis (as Kidner
does), because it is impossible to reliably unravel the sources into neat
categories based on the divine names and editorial styles. But few evangelicals
theologians will deny that parts of Genesis *could* be based on sources, even
if the sources can no longer be clearly isolated.
My proposal was that there are in fact two source documents behind the single
Flood story we have in Genesis 6:11-9:17 today. The earliest source was of a
local Flood and the later sources was built upon and expanded out into a
cosmic salvation history epic.
Under this proposal, to those who insist that it was a local Flood, I will say
"You are right!" And to those who insist that it was a global Flood, I will say
"You are right!" That is, you are *both* right. It was *both* a local *and* a
global Flood!
This proposal, if true, would go a long way to answering all the intractable
problems of the Flood. There is no way to prove it, but it is the only model of
the Biblical Flood that I know that is consistent with *all* the facts.
I would welcome *constructive* criticism.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ senojes@hotmail.com
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------