Hi Mike,
While I am well aware that the Hebrew word "erets" is more often translated
"land" than "earth" (meaning "the planet"), I observe that it is the
latter that
is clearly meant in Gen.1:1, and in many of the subsequent references in the
Creation narrative. You write: "The facts of scripture and science combine to
clearly show that Noah's flood could not have been global,...". I
suggest, on the
other hand, that a straight reading of the Flood narrative, the ensuing Noahic
covenant, and the relevant NT passages, demand that this must have been a
_global_ event. I further suggest that to be "assured" by scientists
that it must
have been _local_ is to confuse the _interpretation_ of certain
observations with
_fact_. You choose to disbelieve the account offered by the only
eyewitnesses to
this cataclysm and, instead, place your faith in forensic procedures
conducted by
people who - as evolutionists - already know what the outcome has to be.
As I have written elsewhere, the logical absurdity of God requiring
Noah to build
a large sea-going vessel to escape the ravages of a _local flood_
(which was yet
some 100 years away) is hardly a solid foundation on which to build a
convincing
argument. In my view, this alone should deter the Christian (by definition, a
lover of truth) from following such a line of reasoning.
Nevertheless, for many,
it is clear that the ambiguity associated with the meaning of "erets" is a
temptation too hard to resist. However, other matters of relevance
appear to have
been overlooked, viz:
* "And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth to
destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and
everything that is in the earth shall die." (Gen.6:17). Now "shemayim" has
the unambiguous meaning "heaven" or "sky". How, therefore, can "...destroy
all flesh from under heaven..." mean anything less than a
globally universal
operation?
* Rainbows are seen everywhere - not just in Mesopotamia. So it
would appear,
wouldn't you agree, that "earth" in the context of Gen.9:14 certainly has
global connotations in respect of the covenant?
* "And I will remember my covenant , which is between me and you (Noah) and
every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a
flood to destroy all flesh." (Gen.9:15). Observe here that there is no
reference to "erets" - and thus no associated problem of
interpretation. The
argument therefore hinges now on what we are to understand by
"all flesh". I
suggest "kol" (meaning "all") is quite unambiguous - as is
"basar" (meaning
"flesh"). God's covenant is here clearly stated as being made between
himself and all creatures then living - the rainbow (whenever,
and wherever,
it appeared) to remind him of this "everlasting covenant".
(Gen.9:16). So, a
typical question facing the _local flood_ theorist might be, "Does the
occurrence of a rainbow in the North of Scotland remind God that
he is never
again to assault Mesopotamia with a major flood?" I think not; but what
about you, Mike?
Again, regarding the matter of scientists "assuring us" of this and that, I
believe Christians - who should have some understanding of man's true
nature and
of the exclusiveness of the scientific enterprise - have the responsibility to
question all pronouncements that undermine the Authority of God's Word. In view
of the foregoing observations, I suggest the mabbul was undoubtedly _global_.
With that understanding, Christian geologists and others should, I
believe, begin
an urgent reassessment and reinterpretation of the available data.
Sincerely,
Vernon
MikeSatterlee@cs.com wrote:
> Vernon,
>
> Your question was to Glen. But since it was also sent out to the whole list
> I'll respond to it.
>
> You wrote: no doubt you will remember that a significant item in the list is
> the guarantee that "neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters
> of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth."
> (Gen.9:11). ... That all seems clear enough - but only if the Flood had been
> _global_ - for manifestly, since Noah's day, there have been many _local_
> floods - some of which have wiped out whole communities. May I ask how you as
> a Christian and local flood theorist make sense of this matter.
>
> The Hebrew word which is translated as "earth" in Gen. 9:11 is much more
> often translated in the Old Testament as "land," such as in "the land of
> Shinar" and "the land of Canaan." Same word. Look it up.
>
> So, God was not promising Noah that He would never again allow a flood to
> destroy any land area on Earth. He was telling Noah that He would never again
> allow a flood to destroy the land Noah then called home. The land that was
> then completely destroyed by the Genesis flood was the land of Noah, a land
> which Bible historians refer to as "Mesopotamia," a land which is now located
> in southern Iraq. Since the time of Noah's flood this land has never again
> been completely destroyed by a flood. Though it has since that time
> experienced some small amount of flooding when the Tigress and Euphrates
> Rivers have overflowed their banks, no flood has since that time ever again
> destroyed the area of land which Noah once called home.
>
> By the way, the flood of Noah's day could not have been either geographically
> or anthropologically global. For scientists assure us that our earth has
> never been completely covered with water at any time since land masses first
> emerged from its once global sea many millions of years ago. And many
> indisputable physical facts prove that our earth could certainly not have
> been completely flooded with water at anytime within the last 50,000 years.
> (Among them is a similar number of annually deposited layers of ice which
> have been counted in Greenland and Antarctica. They show no disturbance by
> any global flood during the time of their being laid down.)
>
> Bible chronology dates Noah's flood within the last 5,000 years. And the
> historical setting described in Genesis tells us that the flood must have
> occurred within the last 10,000 years. For Genesis tells us that at the time
> of the flood people were herding animals, raising crops, forging metals and
> building cities, things which science assures us did not take place on earth
> any earlier than 10,000 years ago. Science also assures us that North America
> has been continually inhabited for 15,000 years and Australia for 30,000
> years.
>
> So when did Noah's "global" flood take place?
>
> The facts of scripture and science combine to clearly show that Noah's flood
> could not have been global, it could not have killed all people on the earth
> who were then outside the ark, and we cannot all be Noah's descendants. Thus
> God's promise to Noah about never again allowing a flood to destroy the land
> must have referred only to the land of Noah. God has kept this promise.
>
> Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 24 2002 - 01:12:11 EDT