Re: Noahic Covenant

From: Vernon Jenkins (vernon.jenkins@virgin.net)
Date: Wed Jun 26 2002 - 17:22:41 EDT

Next message: Vernon Jenkins: "Re: Noahic Covenant"

Previous message: Shuan Rose: "RE: The Bible: human word of the almighty God.doc"
Maybe in reply to: Vernon Jenkins: "Noahic Covenant"
Next in thread: Vernon Jenkins: "Re: Noahic Covenant"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Gordon,

I think we can agree that Noah was not only a righteous man but also
an exceedingly
able thinker. It then follows

    * that when told of the Lord's intentions (Gen.6:13), and
instructed to build an
      ark (Gen.6:14-16) in order that he, his immediate family, and a
representative
      selection of all animals (Gen.6:18-20) might survive the coming
Flood, he would
      have been well aware of the time and the labour needed for the
task; in his
      agreeing to follow orders (Gen.6:22), I suggest he would have
deduced that the
      Flood was to be of exceedingly large proportions - otherwise the
Lord would
      surely have offered the simpler alternative of family plus
menagerie decamping
      to higher ground, there being ample time available (120 years in
fact!); that
      alternative not being offered, he would again have deduced that
there was no
      ground high enough for that purpose, no matter how far he
travelled, or in what
      direction!
    * that his voyage in the ark confirmed these deductions; at age 600 years he
      would surely have known something of the topology of the land in
which he lived
      - and that of the regions beyond; he observed that the waters
had covered the
      mountain tops familiar to him - and with 15 or so cubits to
spare (Gen.7:20);
      this situation prevailed for 150 days (Gen.7:24) and he must
have wondered how
      it could be sustained for so long; where was the unbroken ridge
of high ground
      that would be necessary to trap the waters for this period? - whatever his
      final understanding of the form of his world, he would at least
have realised
      that the Lord had successfully accomplished what He had set out to do.

Gordon, just to broaden the scope of our discussion a little I think
it would be
helpful if we were to consider the key events which preceded the
Flood. Here is my
understanding of your position, as an evolutionist:

    * Adam was just one of many hominids who frequented the earth many
thousands of
      years ago.
    * He was chosen by God to be the progenitor of a line of beings with whom He
      could enjoy fellowship.
    * What we read of the Fall relates specifically to him and his seed; his
      erstwhile companions - the other hominids - are therefore not
involved , and
      are thus free from "original sin".
    * It was the wickedness of Adam's seed that brought the Flood down
upon their
      heads - and, indeed, on all living things - within the confines
of the "Land of
      Noah" (as Mike has it), ie Mesopotamia.
    * Elsewhere, life (and evolution) continued as before.
    * It must follow that the current world population is a complex
mixture of the
      "sinless" and the "fallen" - for whom Jesus suffered and died.

Please correct me if I have erred at some point. As it stands, it all sounds a
hopeless mess which no Christian should touch with a bargepole! "The
theological
teaching of the Bible has traditionally been interpreted in the sense
that all men
except Noah and his family were destroyed." (Illustrated Bible
Dictionary, p.511). I
strongly recommend that we return to that view.

Sincerely,

Vernon

gordon brown wrote:

> 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
> >

--------------994F62AE2808103E6F901103
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Gordon,
I think
we can agree that Noah was not only a righteous man but also an exceedingly
able thinker. It then follows
<ul>
<li>
that when
told of the Lord's intentions (Gen.6:13), and instructed to build an ark
(Gen.6:14-16) in order that he, his immediate family, and a representative
selection of all animals (Gen.6:18-20) might survive the coming Flood,
he would have been well aware of the time and the labour needed for the
task; in his agreeing to follow orders (Gen.6:22), I suggest he would have
deduced that the Flood was to be of exceedingly large proportions - otherwise
the Lord would surely have offered the simpler alternative of family plus
menagerie decamping to higher ground, there being ample time available
(120 years in fact!); that alternative not being offered, he would again
have deduced that there was no ground high enough for that purpose, no
matter how far he travelled, or in what direction!</li>

<li>
that his
voyage in the ark confirmed these deductions; at age 600 years he would
surely have known something of the topology of the land in which he lived
- and that of the regions beyond; he observed that the waters had covered
the mountain tops familiar to him - and with 15 or so cubits to spare
(Gen.7:20);
this situation prevailed for 150 days (Gen.7:24) and he must have wondered
how it could be sustained for so long; where was the unbroken ridge of
high ground that would be necessary to trap the waters for this period?
- whatever his final understanding of the form of his world, he would at
least have realised that the Lord had successfully accomplished what He
had set out to do.</li>
</ul>
Gordon,
just to broaden the scope of our discussion a little I think it would be
helpful if we were to consider the key events which preceded the Flood.
Here is my understanding of your position, as an
evolutionist:
<ul>
<li>
Adam was
just one of many hominids who frequented the earth many thousands of years
ago.</li>

<li>
He was
chosen by God to be the progenitor of a line of beings with whom He could
enjoy fellowship.</li>

<li>
What we
read of the Fall relates specifically to him and his seed; his erstwhile
companions - the other hominids - are therefore not involved , and are
thus free from "original sin".</li>

<li>
It was
the wickedness of Adam's seed that brought the Flood down upon their heads
- and, indeed, on all living things - within the confines of the "Land
of Noah" (as Mike has it), ie Mesopotamia.</li>

<li>
Elsewhere,
life (and evolution) continued as before.</li>

<li>
It must
follow that the current world population is a complex mixture of the "sinless"
and the "fallen" - for whom Jesus suffered and died.</li>
</ul>
Please
correct me if I have erred at some point. As it stands, it all sounds a
hopeless mess which no Christian should touch with a bargepole! "The
theological
teaching of the Bible has traditionally been interpreted in the sense that
all men except Noah and his family were destroyed." (Illustrated Bible
Dictionary, p.511). I strongly recommend that we return to that
view.
Sincerely,
Vernon
  
gordon brown wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>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
 ></blockquote>
</html>

--------------994F62AE2808103E6F901103--

Next message: Vernon Jenkins: "Re: Noahic Covenant"
Previous message: Shuan Rose: "RE: The Bible: human word of the almighty God.doc"
Maybe in reply to: Vernon Jenkins: "Noahic Covenant"
Next in thread: Vernon Jenkins: "Re: Noahic Covenant"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 26 2002 - 17:25:50 EDT