Vernon wrote:
(1) Why the need for a large
ocean-going vessel? A trek to higher ground would surely have been the
simpler and more reasonable alternative.
Who says it was "ocean-going"? And it certainly wasn't
large enough to hold two of every species of animal life. How were
insects saved? What saved the olive tree from which the dove
plucked a leaf? Read the text, Vern.
Also, had Noah trekked off to higher ground he would have been followed
by those for whom the flood was intended.
(2) Why the need to save a
representative sample of the fauna? - it being certain that, later, these
would freely mix again with those outside the flood's
influence.
Why did God tell Moses to make a bronze image of a snake, and if the
Israelites were bitten they could just look at it and not die? Tell
me how that worked. Noah was simply following
instructions.
(3) It is claimed that the
physiography of Mesopotamia suffered no great change as a result of the
Flood. But where are we now to find a virtually complete ring of high
ground that would (a) have held the rising floodwaters for a total of
150
days (Gen.7:24) and, (b) have retained the slowly lowering floodwaters
for a further 150 days after the rains and subterranean fountains had
ceased (Gen.8:3)?
And where did the water go? Where is it today? Also, what is
thought of as one continuous flood may have been a sequence of floods
over two Spring rainy periods.
(4) We are informed that the
people destroyed by the cataclysm were _evil_ - and therefore infer that
those living outside its sphere of influence were essentially _good_ and
unworthy of the judgment that God meted out to the former; yet,
unaccountably, these are not included in the covenant God made with the
occupants of the ark!
Replace the words "evil" and "good" with accountable
and capable of sin from those who were unaccountable and not under the
judgment of sin. The Americas were unaffected by the flood, both
because the American Indians were outside the flood zone and because they
were not held to account by God. Acts 17:30: "And the times of
this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to
repent." Those in ignorance were not held to account and thus
did not perish in the flood.
(5) Further, had the Flood been
_local_ then surely, to remove all ambiguity, the terms of the covenant
would need to have made that clear.
The covenant was with Noah and the Semites who would descend from
Noah. The covenant was not with the Chinese living in China before
and after the time of the flood.
Again, those who prefer to read
the Hebrew word 'eretz' as 'land' rather than 'planet earth' are faced
with a problem raised by the Apostle Peter (2Pet.3:6) who speaks of
"...the world that then was, being overflowed with water,
perished..." Used in this context, the Greek word 'kosmos' appears
to offer no alternative to 'world' or 'earth'. Peter, undoubtedly,
believed the Flood to have been _global_ and, we infer, so did the Lord
Jesus!
Read Luke 2:1: "And it came to pass in those days, that there went
out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the
world should be taxed. In
light of your interpretation of Peter, how would you interpret
Luke? Or Paul? "... your faith is spoken of throughout
the whole
world" (Romans 1:8).
Your selective interpretation of some passages of Scripture while
ignoring other clarifying passages is a typical YEC tactic. Not
only do you not understand science, you don't understand the Bible
either. Or you choose to not understand. I believe Peter
called that "willingly ignorant." Or maybe you didn't
read the preceding verse: "For this they willingly are ignorant of,
that by the word of God the heavens were of old ... (2 Peter
3:5).
Dick Fischer -
Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
Received on Sun Apr 10 23:02:07 2005