>By saying that Noah's flood was nothing more than a big local river flood
>which only killed a small percentage of humans alive at the time, we make
>God break his promise and then we tell people that God is to be trusted and
>is truthful. That makes no sense.
>
>I see only two options to solve the problem above, either go with Dick
>Fischer's solution and have the flood only wipe out the Adamites, or do
>what I do and move the flood way, way back.
We tend to forget the Old Testament was written by the Jews, for the
Jews, and about the Jews. It is their history. The covenant was
between God and the Adamic race. The flood was judgment against
the only people who could sin against God - his chosen.
This is one of the reasons the tower of Babel was an offense. God had
promised never to bring another flood as judgment against his people.
These towers began as survival mechanisms to protect them from
floods. Now they were building a massive tower as if God was going
to bring another massive flood.
Never again was there a flood brought against them. Not while they
were captive in Babylon, never in Israel, or any place else on earth.
Yes, floods of biblical proportion have plagued Bangladesh, India,
China as we speak; yet God has been faithful to his promise to his
children.
It is only when we make the mistake of thinking that somehow Adam
of Genesis was the progenitor of the entire human race that we cause
this theological conundrum. The idea that a local flood was judgment
against the human race puts us right in the dilemma you speak about.
We can agree on that.
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution, http://www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago."