Paul,
Thanks for your thought-provoking response.
In saying "I do not accept the idea that because 'earth' can mean 'land'
or 'country' that it can have this meaning in the Flood account. The
context of the Flood account demands a universal Flood.", you give me
cause to believe we are in agreement. However, in your closing sentence,
you then say "If one is not willing to maintains the biblical cosmology,
one cannot deny to others equal freedom in dealing with the biblical
text." - apparently introducing the qualification that unless one
discounts all verifiable scientific knowledge concerning 'the heavens',
and thinks as an Antediluvian, one must allow others freedom to subvert
Gen.6-8.
Surely our agreed reading of the true nature of the Flood is an absolute
which must remain independent of changing perceptions of 'the heavens'.
Sincerely,
Vernon
PHSEELY@aol.com wrote:
>
> Vernon wrote:
>
> << In 2Pet.3:16 the Apostle issues a dire warning to those who, to satisfy
> their own agendas, 'wrest' the scriptures. Gordon, if you (and others)
> insist on the Flood being local, then - duck and dive as you will - you
> cannot avoid the charge that you are guilty of manipulating God's Word. >>
>
> I agree with Burgy that this is an improper statement especially from a
> spiritual point of view .
>
> I do not accept the idea that because "earth" can mean "land" or "country"
> that it can have this meaning in the Flood account. The context of the Flood
> account demands a universal Flood. At the same time, 2Peter specifically
> emphasizes the creation of the earth out of water and destroyed by water,
> which goes back directly to Gen 1:2-10 and 7:11. And, these verses clearly
> reflect the cosmology of the times: a flat earth floating on a sea which came
> up through the fountains of the Deep and a solid firmament which allowed a
> goodly portion of the sea above it to pour down through the windows of
> heaven.
>
> To avoid wresting Scripture and manipulating it for private agendas, the
> historical-grammatical meaning of the text must be maintained; and that means
> one cannot read a global, i.e., spherical earth, into the account. If one
> upholds the idea that Gen 1-11 is a revelation from God of the nature of the
> universe rather than an accommodation to the views of the times, then
> consistency demands that such a person affirm the solid firmament with its
> sea above it as existing even yet today; for Gen 8:2 and Psa 148:4 infer that
> not all of the sea above the firmament came down at the time of the Flood.
> If one is not willing to maintains the biblical cosmology, one cannot deny to
> others equal freedom in dealing with the biblical text.
>
> Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 18 2001 - 18:15:38 EST