Re: [asa] Noah's local flood? (a religious myth)

I agree that a number of Evangelicals have made a fairly strong case
for interpreting this account as myth. But I'm not convinced that
proper interpretation of the passage requires a global flood.

Henry A. Virkler comments on the flood account on p. 85 of
Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation
(Baker, 1981). In discussing how to understand the immediate context
of a passage, he stresses the principle of determining "the
perspective of the author". He writes:

"As an example of the importance of this principle, consider the
question of whether the flood was universal or local. It is
difficult to determine from the context whether the language in
Genesis 6-9 was intended to be understood noumenologically (from
God's perspective) or phenomenologically (from man's perspective).
If the phrases 'all flesh died' and 'all the high hills were covered'
are understood noumenologically, a universal flood is implied. If
these same phrases are understood phenomenologically, they could mean
'all the animals that I could observe died,' and 'all the high hills
that I could observe were covered.' A phenomenological description
could then imply either a universal or a local flood."

Virkler also quotes Milton Terry, who wrote on p. 543 of his Biblical
Hermeneutics (Zondervan, 1974):

"The narrative of the flood is probably the account of an
eyewitness. Its vividness of description and minuteness of details
contains the strongest evidence that it is such. It was probably a
tradition handed down from Shem to his descendants until it was
finally incorporated in the Books of Moses. The terms 'all flesh,'
'all the high hills,' and 'all the heavens,' denote simply all those
known to the observer."

Virkler concludes:

"From the standpoint of hermeneutics, the important principle is that
scriptural writers sometimes intended to write from a noumenological
perspective and sometimes from a phenomenological one. Our
interpretation of their meaning may err if we fail to make this
distinction."

Kirk Bertsche

On Jun 27, 2008, at 3:23 PM, Dehler, Bernie wrote:

> The problem, Phil, is that in the flood account the wording is
> very specific. It said all land-life was wiped-out except for
> those on the ark. It is also specific about the length of the
> flood event- Noah being shut-in for over a year in the ark. To go
> local would be to go against the literal details of the story. But
> to go global would be to deny modern science. The only thing left,
> for a believer, is to see it as a myth to teach theological
> truths. That’s my view- and I say “myth” to be crystal clear that
> the option of any kind of actual flood (local or global) really is
> not reasonable.
>
> Some may argue “it is not a pure myth because some parts may be
> true, like a real Noah person.” But I think that’s like saying
> part of the story of Santa is true because there are such things as
> real Christmas gifts.
>
> …Bernie
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jun 30 21:40:52 2008