Hello Mike,
Thanks for the link. I look forward to studying what Mark Isaak has
to say. Just
a couple of brief comments on this occasion:
(1) I must press you on the strange matter of a massive ark being required to
meet the demands of a _local_ flood that was scheduled to occur in the distant
future. You wrote:
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.
But the ark was never intended to house more than 8 people (Gen.6:18); all the
remaining accomodation was for the animals (Gen.6:19,20)! Have you no better
explanation to suggest?
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.
What you appear to miss in Gen.6:17 is that the One who speaks his
intention knew
Earth to be a sphere and the "heavens" to extend beyond what Noah
sees above his
head. Whether or not Noah understood what the Lord really had in mind is beside
the point. Clearly, we today are in a more privileged position than he.
Sincerely,
Vernon
MikeSatterlee@cs.com wrote:
> 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 : Tue Jun 25 2002 - 03:01:17 EDT