Re: [asa] Noah's Ark- the debate over floods... and biblical interpretation

I think we're losing the point of this sub-thread. Bernie had argued
against a historical local flood on the grounds that man would
naturally have been spread out across the earth, so could not have
been wiped out by a local flood. I pointed out that Gen 11 implies
that man did not spread out until his language was confused. Thus,
man was likely not spread out very far in Gen 7-9, either. A
historical, local flood does not seem to be ruled out on this basis.

A second question has been suggested in this sub-thread: "If the
account of Babel is non-historical, what is its point?" Whether the
account is historical or not, it is divine communication intended to
TEACH something. It tells us something about man's character (desire
for a self-aggrandizing community), which is true irrespective of
historicity.

Kirk

On Apr 13, 2009, at 9:02 AM, Dehler, Bernie wrote:

> Kirk said:
> “The implication of the text is that early man was together until
> God forced mankind to spread out. “
>
> It also implies that just prior there was a worldwide flood that
> wiped out all humans except those who were on the ark- something I
> think neither of us accept. So if we believe that all humans
> weren’t wiped-out, why believe all men lived in one city and had
> one language???
>
> …Bernie
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Apr 13 14:05:28 2009