Gordon,
You are right, of course. I concede the point.
Regards,
Vernon
gordon brown wrote:
> Vernon,
>
> Yes, I agree that this is the only exception, but I think that that is
> enough to show that this word shouldn't be used as evidence that the Flood
> was global.
>
> Gordon Brown
> Department of Mathematics
> University of Colorado
> Boulder, CO 80309-0395
>
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>
> > Gordon,
> >
> > Thank you for bringing this to my attention. As you say, in the context of Ps.29
> > the Hebrew word 'mabbul' does not necessarily refer to Noah's Flood. I observe
> > that Matthew Henry says of this psalm: "It is the probable conjecture that David
> > penned this psalm at the time of a great storm...". So you may well be right.
> > However, if that is the case, I think you would agree that it is the one
> > exception to my claim.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Vernon
> >
> > gordon brown wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
> > >
> > > > It must surely follow that the
> > > > _mabbul_ was no
> > > > local flood. Indeed, scripturally, this Hebrew word is only used of Noah's
> > > > flood.
> > >
> > > This last statement is not obvious. Mabbul is used in Psalm 29:10. Since
> > > this psalm is about a thunderstorm passing over Israel, there is no
> > > context to imply that this verse refers to the Noachian Flood.
> > >
> > > Gordon Brown
> > > Department of Mathematics
> > > University of Colorado
> > > Boulder, CO 80309-0395
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 11 2002 - 15:22:49 EDT