On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
> I am surprised you should pursue this matter. According to the
> chronological sequence provided in Gen.5, the Antediluvian period of
> earth history lasted 1656 years. One would suppose this to be ample time
> for these early pioneers to migrate to regions remote from Eden. On an
> evolutionary chronology, the likelihood would be orders of magnitude
> greater. Taking either view, therefore, would you not agree that much of
> the world would have been settled by the time the Flood came?
Vernon,
This is highly speculative. The Bible doesn't tell us, but Gen. 6:1 would
be consistent with man not having spread too far. In spite of what could
have been done, isn't it true that Iceland, New Zealand, and Hawaii were
settled only relatively recently?
You seem to rely on English translations to deduce that the Flood had to
be geographically global. The relevant question is what the Hebrew says.
The Hebrew uses the same word ('erets) for land and earth. This forces the
translator to make a choice and use a word more specific than is in the
original. I once used Strong's Concordance to calculate that in the King
James Version 'erets is translated as land 62% of the time and as earth
only 29% of the time. Furthermore, in many instances where it is
translated as earth, it obviously doesn't mean the entire planet. For
example, in Gen. 8:9, which is part of the Flood narrative, we are told
that the water was on the surface of all the earth, but this couldn't mean
the whole planet since four verses earlier in 8:5 we are told that the
mountain tops had become visible. If it doesn't mean the entire planet
here, why should it be obvious that the same expression means something
different elsewhere in the Flood account?
Gordon Brown
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0395
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 16 2001 - 19:12:31 EST