From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Sat Nov 01 2003 - 16:02:41 EST
There is nothing in Gen 5 and 6 which suggests changing weather patterns -
unless you can read anything into God's Word.
Vernon wrote > In my view, the Lord's reference to the Flood (eg
Mt.24:38-39) should have
> settled the matter long ago in favour of its universality. This hasn't
> happened, but our recent exchanges have exposed a big problem for those
> Christians who insist otherwise: the first divine covenant (in which the
> rainbow was given as a sign of God's promise never again to destroy all
> flesh by the waters of a flood) has to be sacrificed and the character of
> God impugned!
What Jesus says refers to Noah and NOT to the universality of the Flood.
This is eisegesis. It is important to read what Jesus said and not make it
what we want him to say.
It is a popular view that the New Testament refers to Gen 1 to `11 in a way
that supports and demands a literal interpretation - see Kelly Creation and
Change p131 lists 55 place where a literal interpretation of Early Genesis
is demanded. Only one of the 55 might point to a literal interpretation -1
Tim 2, 13-14. The rest are irrelevant to a literal Genesis This is a
pathetically weak argument but I suppose if you shout it people will listen
because that is what they want to here.
When anyone reads Holy Scripture, which is God's Word, they should read it
carefully and prayerfully and make sure that their interpretation is
reasonable. I am afraid both Vernon's and Douglas Kelly's interpretations
are tendentious and false and are not respectful of God's word. It is wrong
to misuse and misinterpret Scripture in these ways. Otherwise we can make
them mean whatever we want to , like the two university students who took
the text "make love your aim" quite literally!
Please no messing about with Holy Scripture.
Michael
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Nov 01 2003 - 16:04:52 EST