From: gordon brown (gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu)
Date: Thu Oct 30 2003 - 19:05:30 EST
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
> 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,
I don't see a necessary connection between the two topics. I am sure there
are people who believe in both an old earth and a geographically global
Flood. There could conceivably be some who believe in a young earth and a
local Flood, athough I don't know any.
Since 'erets can be interpreted as either land or earth, it should be no
surprise that differing views on the extent of the Flood exist. There is a
scriptural indication of a less than global Flood. The subsiding of the
Flood is associated with a wind, but wind does not cause sea level to
decrease.
Why should one insist on a geographically global Flood when it is not
demanded by Scripture, and it presents problems whose alleged solutions
appear to conflict with other statements in Scripture? For example, why
didn't the Flood float the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets?
Gordon Brown
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0395
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Oct 30 2003 - 19:05:43 EST