Hi Bernie:
You raise a valid point, one that I have asked myself for many years. The
broad question is whether or not there was a flood, and if there was, when
was it and what was the extent? I think that question can be answered
readily. The question you raise is the accuracy of the account. Did the
Bible writer get all his facts straight? If there are mistakes in the
narrative, are there enough to discount or disbelieve the entire narrative
in Genesis altogether?
Compared to the parallel flood accounts the one in Genesis is the odd one
out on the subject of duration. Parallel accounts describe a week long
voyage while Noah's trip in Genesis takes a year. But whatever the case,
mistake or not, scribal error or not, that is no reason to jump to some
other position that can't be defended by anything.
Rainy seasons are annual events in Iraq occurring in the spring when the
snow melts on the mountains in the north and surges down the rivers on to
the flat plain that is southern Mesopotamia. If there were two back to back
flood episodes, and Noah chose to remain in the boat to ride out two rainy
seasons, that could take a year and might explain the long voyage in Genesis
versus the short voyage in the parallel accounts. I'm only throwing that
out as one possible explanation.
So, say my guess is wrong. In court trials where witnesses give their
accounts of a crime they have seen rarely are all testimonies exactly the
same. Perspectives differ, perceptions aren't the same, memories vary. Yet
the judge or jury must decide guilt or innocence on the totality of evidence
presented. Conflicting testimonies are normal and to be expected.
I agree the primary focus should be on the theological lessons based upon
the historical narrative. If the historical account was a fabrication,
however, would that not also call into question the theological lessons
derived therefrom?
Dick Fischer, GPA president
Genesis Proclaimed Association
"Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"
www.genesisproclaimed.org
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 12:22 PM
Cc: ASA
Subject: RE: [asa] Noah's Ark- the debate over floods... and biblical
interpretation
Hi Dick- Scientifically, the problem with a local flood is that there's no
way the water could be contained for a year. You need a bowl shape to do
that, and there is no bowl shape. How were the rivers dammed-up? If you
believe in a flood, how long do you think Noah was floating on an ark- for
about a year as the bible indicates?
Ancient history is full of myths, so it would be no surprise to find
another. However, the Lamoureux position, which I represent, says the
history and science of the Bible is incidental- the theology is what the
Bible is good for. It uses the science and history of the day to give
theology.
Don't worry about pile-up's on me- I usually find them humorous if they
happen ;-)
.Bernie
_____
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dick Fischer
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:55 AM
To: 'Merv Bitikofer'
Cc: ASA
Subject: RE: [asa] Noah's Ark- the debate over floods... and biblical
interpretation
I don't mean to "pile on" anybody, especially a brother in Christ. It's
just that I feel a little frustration, like a rancher whose barn catches on
fire and as soon as he pulls the horses out they run back in again.
Admittedly the evidence for Adam that I've talked about on this list for
many years now, while tantalizing, is less than conclusive. But the total
evidence for a flood in southern Mesopotamia around 2900 BC is overwhelming
in my judgment.
As for a global flood, the Nephilim (giants) in Gen. 6:4 are ancestral to
the Anakim in Num. 13:33. If the Pentateuch itself tells us there are flood
survivors then the flood cannot be global nor did the writer(s) of Genesis
think it was. Add to that the Sumerian king list that enumerates pre-flood
kings and post-flood kings and the absence of any geological evidence, and
that should settle it. End of debate.
The flood was local to the immediate area and judgment on Noah's kin.
Dick Fischer, GPA president
Genesis Proclaimed Association
"Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"
www.genesisproclaimed.org
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Merv Bitikofer
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 10:49 PM
To: asa
Subject: Re: [asa] Noah's Ark- the debate over floods... and biblical
interpretation
Well, since Dick may have started a "let's pile on Bernie" activity, I
don't want to feel left out; so I challenge you, Bernie on a different
point. Why does attempting to be faithful to both the Bible and science
weaken the testimony of both? If somebody's *understanding* of the Bible
becomes clearly seen to be false, (whether shown by other deeper
Biblical insights, science, or anything else) then that *understanding*
should be shed for the millstone it is, and the remaining faith, if it
ever was true, should get clearer focus with another false prop removed.
Pity the one, though, who was hoisted up using a false prop but hasn't
yet crawled off it onto a sturdier foundation. How many of us have been
vulnerable like that? --I swallow my own flippancy. The only sure
foundation I ever had is Christ.
--Merv
(from the top-of-the-head stuff is fun, Bernie, if you don't mind being
picked on and having it picked apart later.)
Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>
> Here's my take, from the top of my head:
>
> Global flood:
>
> Strength: The Bible appears to be reporting real history, and this
> interpretation treats it as such.
>
> Weakness: Almost completely ignores evidence from modern science.
>
> Local Flood:
>
> Strength: It tries to integrate the story of the Bible with scientific
> evidence.
>
> Weakness: Tries to be faithful to both the Bible and science and in so
> doing, weakens the testimony of both.
>
> No Flood:
>
> Strength: Most closely aligns to scientific evidence from geology and
> biology.
>
> Weakness: Destroys faith in the Bible as "inerrant" in matters of
> history and science.
>
> .Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
> On Behalf Of gordon brown
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 2:04 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] Noah's Ark- the debate over floods... and biblical
> interpretation
>
> On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>
> > I'm going to be debating Noah's Ark- global flood, local flood, or no
> flood. I'm taking the no flood position.
>
> >
>
> > Curious-
>
> >
>
> > What all do you think would be the best argument for each position?
>
> >
>
> > Please keep your answers short- no essays.
>
> >
>
> > Info on my event:
>
> > http://www.meetup.com/sciligion/calendar/9503416/
>
> >
>
> > ...Bernie
>
> >
>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Apr 7 14:58:09 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Apr 07 2009 - 14:58:09 EDT