Vernon,
I was quite surprised to read your claim that a global flood was supported
by eyewitness accounts. Noah wasn't able to receive satellite photos of
the earth. He relied on releasing birds. The most he could determine as an
eyewitness was that everything in sight was covered. When that occurred,
his point of observation would have been less than 45 feet above the
water, and because of the curvature of the earth his horizon couldn't
possibly have been more than about eight miles away. That would not make
it possible for him to determine that the entire planet was covered.
As to the question of whether the phrase `under heaven' implies that the
Flood was global, compare Deuteronomy 2:25. Are we to understand that the
Israelites were feared by the inhabitants of South America and the islands
of the South Pacific?
I could cite several instances where the `surface of all the earth' does
not refer to the entire planet. One of these is in the flood story itself
(Gen. 8:9), where it is obvious that the water did not cover the entire
earth since mountains were visible. Why then must 'erets always mean the
entire globe elsewhere in the same account?
The Flood did not float the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets, and wind
caused the waters to recede. These arguments have nothing to do with
evolution.
Gordon Brown
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0395
On Sun, 23 Jun 2002, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
> 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 : Tue Jun 25 2002 - 03:13:45 EDT