gordon brown wrote:
>
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>
> > I'm sure we can agree that it was God's intention to 'clear the
> > decks' of defiled humanity, beast and bird, and begin again. And we
> > can also agree, no doubt, that if the evolutionary scenario is
> > correct, the entire globe would be teeming with life by the time the
> > biblical judgment was effected. But since it is chiefly to mollify
> > the evolutionist that a local flood is being demanded, it is clear
> > that God's true intent must, necessarily, be watered down (no pun
> > intended). The resort of taking refuge behind the many-faceted
> > Hebrew word 'eretz' is, in my view, disingenuous.
> The judgment was because of man's sin. Aquatic animals are omitted
> from the list of creatures to be blotted out. A flood would not
> destroy them. The land animals in the region to be flooded would
> perish, but Noah saved a few of the various kinds by taking them with
> him on the ark. These would be useful to him before others could
> migrate in from unflooded regions. (See Gen. 8:7-12,20; 9:3.)
While I agree that it was essentially man's wickedness that brought down
God's judgment on the world, the method of execution would, necessarily,
also eliminate bird and land animal. If my reading of the event is
correct (viz global flood) then only those aboard the ark would remain
to repopulate the earth. On your reading (viz local flood), God's
intentions are, manifestly, not fulfilled in respect of these. Further,
I fail to see how the references you have provided can have any bearing
on this conclusion.
> Your statement that it is chiefly to mollify the evolutionist that a
> local flood is being demanded is a reckless charge. One need not be an
> evolutionist to ask where all the extra water for the Flood came from
> or where it went or why the Flood didn't float the Greenland and
> Antarctica ice sheets or how the sloths got to South America. If one
> notes that the ancients didn't know that the earth was a globe nor how
> large it was and that their word for it could just as well refer to
> part of it, a local flood appears to be an option, and, in fact, many
> nonevolutionists take this view. When people try to explain away the
> problems I mentioned with the global flood theory, they often tend to
> come up with solutions that are at variance with the apparent meaning
> of other passages of scripture.
There are a number of points to be made here.
(1) I believe most of us are under pressure to conform with the current
views of the scientific and intellectual establishments. Accordingly,
any departure from a literal reading of Gen.6-8 must, in my view, be
inspired by the evolutionary (hence 'old earth') views of the 'experts'.
(2) The source of the Flood water seems to be adequately dealt with in
the text. If it is backed up by miracle, then so be it; after all, it is
the Creator who is executing the judgment.
(3) Had you not considered the possibility that the Antediluvian earth
might have been a smoother sphere than it is now? That deep ocean basins
that now exist might have resulted from events accompanying the Flood?
And that that is where the water went?
(4) Again, to assume that polar ice sheets were around at the time of
the Flood seems quite unjustified.
(5) The views of the ancients have no bearing on the biblical account
(please see my reply to Paul Seely).
Gordon, on another matter, you drew my attention a week or so ago to the
interesting number 1729. I responded by pointing out several features it
had in common with 2701, the numerical reading of Gen.1:1. In the same
posting I concluded by asking you "To your knowledge, is there any
parallel (to Rev.13:18 - which ratifies the reading of Hebrew and Greek
words as numbers, specifies the methods of numerical geometry as being
relevant to Scriptural exegesis, and promises wisdom to those who
proceed accordingly) in a secular book?" As a Christian, and as one more
than familiar with the manipulation of numbers, I really think you
should provide an answer. You might think it fit also to confirm my
understanding of this 'riddle', and comment on my view that Gen.1:1 is
nothing less than a 'standing miracle'.
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 - 17:53:57 EST