Vernon wrote:
>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.
Not quite so "clear." God created the sky and the land. All the sky
and everything
in it, all the land as far as the eye can see and any other lands
known about from
travelers. The concept of "oceans" is problematical when "darkness
was on the face
of the deep." On the other hand, under inspiration of the Holy
Spirit, the writer(s),
just as the book of Daniel, can write beyond what they know, and the
narrative can
be expanded to include the entire globe without difficulty. At least here.
> 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.
If the Genesis narrative "demands" a global event and there was no
global event,
then you have relegated Genesis to a collection of dubious tales and
stories with
value as interesting literature and little more. What you intend is
not what you get.
By such statements you impugn the integrity of Scripture. That is
the malignant
effect of the young-earth creationist movement of which you seem to be a part.
The effect of YEC is to drive away potential believers by giving them
a reason to
disbelieve.
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 25 2002 - 02:34:46 EDT