Hello Vernon,
Thanks for your reply.
You wrote: 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 have studied all aspects of this subject matter in great depth, including
those which you just mentioned, and have reached a different conclusion.
You wrote: You choose to disbelieve the account offered by the only
eyewitnesses to
this cataclysm ...
No, I do not. If an eyewitness to a fire that destroyed a large building
tells me that before finding his way out of the building that "smoke was
everywhere," should I believe that our entire planet was then covered with
smoke? Or, since science tells me such a thing would not have possibly
resulted from one building burning, should I conclude that this "eyewitness"
must have been referring to "everywhere" in a limited sense?
You wrote: 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.
I see no problem with any of this in a local flood scenario. Maybe Noah was
instructed to build an ark big enough to hold every person in the land that
was about to be flooded. An ark which would have room enough for all those
who might repent but didn't. We know that "God does not desire any to be
destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance." How could Noah be telling
a land full of people to repent and get on the ark if that ark had no room
for them? God's plan of salvation today has room for everyone on earth, does
it not? Should we believe that God's plan of salvation in Noah's day did not?
The numerical dimensions of the ark may have also been meant to convey a
symbolic significance which we do not as yet understand. Other factors I can
think of may have also made it well worth while for Noah to build an ark of
the size he did, even though the flood did not cover our entire planet.
You wrote: "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?
The apostle Paul told the Colossians that, at the time of his writing, the
good news of Jesus Christ had been "proclaimed to every creature under
heaven." (Col. 1:23) Are we to believe that, by using phraseology very
similar to that used in the Genesis flood account, Paul was including in his
statement the people who then lived in North America, South America, China
and Australia? I could cite other biblical examples where apparently "global"
language was used to refer to non-global events.
You wrote: 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?
No, I would not. God's covenant was with Noah and with his descendants to
never again destroy the land which He had just destroyed. The promise did not
refer to other lands. When Noah's descendants moved away from the land which
had been destroyed by the flood of Noah's day, and when they saw rainbows in
those other lands, the rainbows they then saw would remind them of the same
promise. God's promise to never again destroy the land of Noah with a flood.
A local flood does not create a conflict here in any way.
You wrote: "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.
Does the word "erets" have to appear in every single verse and sentence? It
appears in both the previous verse (14) and the following verse (16). If God
was in the Genesis flood account using the word "erets" to refer to the
"land" of Noah, then in verse 16 God was referring to, "all the living
creatures of every kind in the land" of Noah. Again, there is no problem here
for a local flood understanding.
Vernon, Noah's flood was not global. This fact has been firmly established in
more ways than I can possibly here begin to mention. For a discussion of this
subject matter see Problems with a Global Flood at http:
//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html . I strongly encourage you to
reconsider your position. For I believe that when Christians now tell people
that the Bible clearly teaches that the flood of Noah's day was global, a
teaching which conflicts with all serious scientific evidence, instead of
helping to bring people to Christ they drive them away from Him. They do this
by making Christianity look very foolish and the Bible appear to be no more
trust worthy than a book of fairy tales.
Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 24 2002 - 01:20:08 EDT