Hi Vernon,
You wrote: We read in Heb.11:7, "By faith Noah, being warned of God of things
not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house;
by which he
condemned the ' kosmos' ( = ' world', not ' land' ), and became heir of the
righteousness which is by faith." God clearly knew that no other person on
earth possessed this righteousness - nor was ever likely to - for "...every
imaginationof the thoughts of (their) hearts was only evil continually."
(Gen.6:5).
I believe this was a general statement. "All" in Genesis is not always used
in an all inclusive way. Do you need examples? Besides, this was said long
before the flood actually occurred. Certainly in the next 120 years or so
some person may have been born whose thoughts were not "evil continually."
You wrote: The message of the Flood narrative appears to be that [Noah's]
words fell on stony ground.
I agree. But if the ark had no room for any [ I say all ] of those Noah
preached "Repent and you can be saved" to, as you seem to believe, he would
have been a liar.
You wrote: However, I'm glad you've drawn attention to some of the Apostle
Peter's words. A fuller excerpt from his second epistle runs as follows: "And
spared not the old ' kosmos' ( = ' world', not ' land' ) but saved Noah the
eighth person, a preacher of
righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;..."
(2Pet.2:4,5). Observe that Peter had for 3 years been a close companion of
Jesus; his words therefore bear the stamp of authority. It was the _world_
that was flooded, not the _land_ of Noah.
First of all the word "world" does not always have an all inclusive meaning.
We can and do refer to "the Christian world," "the Muslim world," "the third
world" and so on. In ancient times, and in the NT itself the Greek word
"Kosmos" was often used in the same way, to refer to a less than total world
of humanity. (One simple example that comes to mind: Jesus said, "The world
hates me." In doing so, He excluded His followers.") Next the Greek word
"kosmos" does not necessarily even refer to the world. It can refer to an
"arrangement" of things. Peter himself used the word in this way when he
wrote of the way women should arrange (or adorn) their appearance outwardly
and inwardly. (1 Pet. 3:3) So Peter may well have referred to the world in a
limited sense or to an arrangement of things that existed in the days of
Noah.
You wrote: But why should God pander to Noah's supposedly limited
capabilities
of cognition rather than speaking the truth?
God probably spoke to Noah, using words in the same way that Noah used them,
so Noah would understand Him.
You wrote: A consideration of the data provided in Gen.4 and 5 suggests that
the Antediluvian population in Noah's day numbered several billions.
I don't think it does any such thing. The long lives listed in Genesis may
have been given to only the few extraordinary individuals who are there
mentioned, those who made up the line of Christ.
You wrote: From what we know of the colonisation of the Americas by settlers
travelling by horse and covered wagon these would have been spread globally
by the time of the Flood - there being 1656 years available.
I agree that the earth was widely populated at the time of Noah.
You wrote: Noah must have been aware that the world he knew was populated in
every
part ...
Maybe so.
You wrote: and [he] would surely have well understood what God had in mind.
I wouldn't say "surely." He may have understood that the earth was then
widely populated and he may have understood that God was bringing a
destruction only on his land. Or he may not have understood either. Though
both were then the case.
You wrote: Mike, I believe your views are largely conditioned by your desire
to
bolster the standing of the Darwinian hypothesis.
I have no such desire. However, I believe the evidence shows that God most
likely used evolution as His primary means of creation.
You wrote: I believe all Christians have a duty to examine carefully all
claims such as you are making (viz, that the Flood was of limited extent -
both geographically and anthropologically) whose effect is to undermine the
authority of God's Word.
I respectfully disagree. The only thing my interpretation of the scriptures
undermines is your interpretation of the scriptures. As I see it, we have
three choices here. 1. A ton of scientific evidence which says that there
was no global flood is wrong. 2. The Bible is wrong in saying that there was
a very large flood at the time of Noah. 3. Your interpretation of the Bible,
saying that it is definitely describing a global flood, is wrong. To me, and
I believe most others on this list, # 3 seems like the most likely of those
three possibilities.
Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 28 2002 - 11:03:16 EDT