From: Vernon Jenkins (vernon.jenkins@virgin.net)
Date: Thu Oct 30 2003 - 18:40:13 EST
"When have I ever defended evolution? It is a topic I have endeavored to
stay clear of. What I have defended are an old earth and a less than
geographically global Flood."
Gordon,
Sorry to have misinterpreted your position. But why seek to defend the
notion that the Flood was _local_? Is this really a necessary requirement
of an _old earth_ scenario?
Vernon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
To: "gordon brown" <gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 10:41 PM
Subject: Re: Academics who actively support Young Earth Creationism
> 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
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Oct 30 2003 - 18:40:30 EST