From: Vernon Jenkins (vernon.jenkins@virgin.net)
Date: Wed Oct 29 2003 - 17:41:20 EST
VJ had written:
"It is worth observing that the Christian evolutionist has a second problem
with these verses (Gen.9:8-17): since Noah's time many _local_ floods have
occurred - in some cases, wiping out complete populations; ergo, if we
believe the covenant of the rainbow to be true, the Mabbul could not have
been _local_!
This conclusion is reinforced by the ludicrous notion that a large
ocean-going vessel (built over a period of 100 years) was needed to take
Noah, his family and menagerie from A to B, when a leisurely walk (occupying
a few months, perhaps), taken before the big event, would have achieved the
same result."
GB replied:
"What on earth does this have to do with evolution? The Flood, although not
global, was very large, much larger than these other local floods. The point
B to which Noah was transported was flooded, and he could not have survived
the Flood there without the ark."
I suggest our discussion has everything to do with evolution, for it is a
doctrine that you clearly feel obliged to defend at all cost. In the
scenario I have in mind 'point B' is located _outside_ the sphere of
activity of the coming flood. As I say, it might have taken Noah et al some
months to get there on foot, but - had this been the Lord's will - it would
have happened; Noah et al (together with all those in unaffected regions, as
you believe) would have survived, and those caught up in the maelstrom would
have perished.
Having expended so much effort over so many years building an ark, do you
suppose Noah would have appreciated the joke?
Turning now to the earlier point: having interpreted 'eretz' as meaning
'land' rather than 'planet earth' (this, to satisfy the demands of
evolution) you are obliged to do the same with Gen.9:11. But observe: there
is nothing here to specify the _size_ of the inundated area that qualifies
it for inclusion. So your special pleading that the Mabbul - as you envision
it - is somehow different from all _local_ inundations that have occurred
since Noah's time is a mere invention (again, to satisfy the demands of
evolution).
I suggest the inference is abundantly clear: if evolution be true and the
Mabbul _local_ , then you must believe God's Covenant with Noah and with
'all flesh' to be a sham. The more palatable alternative, of course, is to
believe the Mabbul to have been _global_ in its extent - as a straight
reading of the narrative makes abundantly clear.
Vernon
----- Original Message -----
From: "gordon brown" <gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu>
To: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 11:42 PM
Subject: Re: Academics who actively support Young Earth Creationism
>
>
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>
> > Hi Gordon,
> >
> > I quite agree that Scripture must be read in context. But this you are
> > failing to do in respect of Gen.2:6, I suggest. Here is the NASB
rendering:
> > "But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of
the
> > ground." This is surely more suggestive of a _dew-like_ process than
> > rainfall. Again, if you are correct, reference to the _absence_ of rain
in
> > the previous verse would surely lead one to expect the simpler and more
> > direct sequel, "Then it rained." - or its equivalent. In this context I
fail
> > to see that Job 36:27 supports your contention.
>
> You are assuming the correctness of a particular translation whereas
> comparison of translations shows that they must be guessing at the meaning
> of a rare word. There seems to be nothing unusual about mentioning the
> precursor of rain.
>
> The real problem with claiming that there was no rain before the Flood is
> that if lack of rain can be a valid reason for absence of vegetation, then
> you must conclude that there was no vegetation in uninhabited areas before
> the Flood even though it has been around since the third day of creation
> in the Genesis 1 account.
>
> > You deny the necessity of the rainbow being a novelty when given as a to
ken
> > of the Noahic covenant; this on the basis that the tokens associated
with
> > the memorial of the Lord's Supper and with the rite of circumcision were
> > adaptations of _existing_ human practices. So let's consider the NASB
> > rendering of Gen.9:13-15: "I set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be
for a
> > sign of a covenant between Me and the earth. And it shall come about,
when I
> > bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud,
and I
> > will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living
> > creature of all flesh; and never again shall the water become a flood to
> > destroy all flesh." Would it have been necessary for God to have told
Noah
> > where, and under what circumstances, this sign would appear if it had
not
> > been a novelty?
>
> God was not telling Noah what a rainbow was. He was telling him what it
> should remind him of.
>
> > It is worth observing that the Christian evolutionist has a second
problem
> > with these verses: since Noah's time many _local_ floods have occurred -
in
> > some cases, wiping out complete populations; ergo, if we believe the
> > covenant of the rainbow to be true, the Mabbul could not have been
_local_!
> > This conclusion is reinforced by the ludicrous notion that a large
> > ocean-going vessel (built over a period of 100 years) was needed to take
> > Noah, his family and menagerie from A to B, when a leisurely walk
(occupying
> > a few months, perhaps), taken before the big event, would have achieved
the
> > same result.
>
> What on earth does this have to do with evolution? The Flood, although not
> global, was very large, much larger than these other local floods. The
> point B to which Noah was transported was flooded, and he could not have
> survived the Flood there without the ark.
>
> Gordon Brown
> Department of Mathematics
> University of Colorado
> Boulder, CO 80309-0395
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Oct 29 2003 - 17:41:40 EST