Paul,
You wrote:
> When the writer of Genesis says, "And the waters prevailed exceedingly
> upon the earth; and all the high mountains that were under the whole
> heaven were covered," he is speaking of the flat earth of the universe
> of Gen 1 which is capped by a solid firmament and has an ocean of
> water surrounding both heaven and earth. It is the surrounding ocean,
> the ocean above the firmament and upon which the flat earth is
> floating, which is the source of the water in Gen 7:11 that floods the
> earth. The "earth" mentioned in the Flood account, because of the
> action of Gen 7:11, collapses back to a state close to that in which
> it was in Gen 1:2. If you remove the solid firmament, you dismantle
> the universe upon which the account is based and lose the surrounding
> ocean of water which is the source of the Flood----and therewith the
> universality of the Flood.
But how can you justify this interpretation of events? It seems you are
more influenced by extra-biblical sources than by the Word of God. The
Hebrew word 'raqia' - properly translated 'expanse' (NASB) rather than
'firmament' (AV) - doesn't in itself suggest 'solidity', and nowhere in
the Scriptures do I find confirmation that it does. Surely, the details
of the Creation process that are provided in Gen.1 can only have come
from God - the sole eyewitness. Likewise, the Flood narrative is not
something dreamed up by Noah to explain his testing experience. We read
that God kept him informed all along. Why should you suppose that He who
created all things would be bound by the erroneous beliefs of his
creatures?
You also said:
> Creation science, by reading modern science into the account and
> changing the flat earth into a spherical globe, the solid sky into
> atmosphere and the sea above the firmament into vapor or clouds,
> engenders so many problems which violate the laws of physics (such as
> spreading the continents all out after the flood thousands of times
> faster than is possible without adducing an extra-biblical miracle,
> raising mountains to their present heights faster than is possible
> without adducing a miracle, getting sloths (which cannot walk) back to
> their habitats after the flood without adducing an extra-biblical
> miracle, etc) that the idea of a universal flood becomes impossible
> except by way of human speculations held together by ad hoc miracles.
> In short from both a biblical and scientific point of view one cannot
> read a modern understanding of the heavens and earth into the biblical
> account without bringing the universality of the Flood into serious
> question.
I think the charge of 'speculation' is better applied to those who will
not accept the clear words of the Flood narrative. In this connection it
is significant that, following the Flood, the Lord should say (in his
heart), "I will not again curse the ground anymore for man's sake; for
the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth..." (Gen.8:21).
Concerning miracles: I see no reason why they should be summarily
dismissed, as you appear to suggest. In the circumstances described, and
as Christians, we should, surely, be open-minded in this matter.
Paul, as yet you have failed to comment on my reading of Rev.13:18 - a
verse which, (a) offers wisdom, and (b) dare not be ignored. It ratifies
the gematria (the reading of Hebrew and Greek words as numbers) and
specifies certain numerical principles which reveal Gen.1:1 to be a
'standing miracle', and hence a strong reason for my believing as I do.
I would appreciate your comments on these matters for they also have a
bearing on our confidence in God's Word - and thus our understanding of
the extent of the Flood.
Sincerely,
Vernon
Vernon Jenkins MSc
[musician, mining engineer, and formerly Senior Lecturer in Maths and
Computing, the Polytechnic of Wales (now the University of Glamorgan)]
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/index.htm
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~indexer/miracla1.htm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 20 2001 - 17:53:47 EST