The first seven words in Genesis don't prove a worldwide flood took place

There are many arguments against Noah's ark, not just the "eretz"
argument. For instance Flood geology doesn't explain the geological
evidence, as Christian men of science demonstrated in the 1800s. Neither
is there evidence of a worldwide Flood in the topmost layers of the
geological record.

Have you read the online booklet, "The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark" by
the former fundamentalist Robert Moore?

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8619_issue_11_volume_4_number_1__3_12_2003.asp

Woodmorappe wrote a whole book trying to refute Moore's little booklet.

And Glenn Morton critiqued Woody's critique:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-review.html

"Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net> writes:
>Gordon Brown wrote "There may be many Christians who will jump to a
>conclusion similar to Vernon's. This could lead to the rise of another
>urban
>legend to hurt the credibility of Christians."
>
>Gordon, I'm not in the business of creating 'urban legends', but rather in
>revealing scriptural truth. As you know, the traditional understanding of
>Genesis 6-9 is that God cleansed planet earth with a global flood that
>destroyed '...both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls
>of
>the air...' (6:7). Many, of course, for what they would regard as reasons
>of
>scientific necessity no longer accept this. They insist that the purpose
>of
>this gripping narrative is to describe, not a global cataclysm, but merely
>an inundation of the land in which Noah and his family lived - this by
>translating the Hebrew word 'eretz' as 'land' rather than 'earth'. In so
>doing, of course, they ignore the illogicality of God requiring Noah to
>build a large ocean-going vessel when a simple trek with family and
>menagerie to higher ground would surely have been the kinder option. And
>ignoring also God's promise '...neither shall all flesh be cut off any
>more
>by the waters of a flood...' (9:11 - clearly false if a _local_ community
>had been intended).
>
>I believe these matters now assume a sharper significance in that the
>Author
>of this event, and its telling, is also the One whose powers and serious
>purposes are clearly demonstrated in the miraculous structure of Bible's
>opening verse. Can there really be any more doubt that it is Noah who is
>the
>nearest common ancestor of everyone alive today? Dr Olson and his team
>are,
>perhaps, not so far wide of the mark after all.
>
>Vernon
>www.otherbiblecode.com
>http://homepage.virgin.net/tgvernon.jenkins/Wonders.htm
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "gordon brown" <gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu>
>To: <asa@calvin.edu>
>Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 1:07 AM
>Subject: Re: So we're all related!
>
>
>> There are a couple of questions that this topic has gotten me thinking
>> about.
>>
>> 1. What are the chances that I am a physical descendant of Abraham? Many
>> of Abraham's contemporaries have a number of descendants which might
>> satisfy the sand-of-the-sea description (although not literally). The
>> figure for Abraham would depend heavily on how much intermarriage there
>> has been between his descendants and those not descended from him. This
>> intermarriage may have been fairly common, especially when you consider
>> the ten lost tribes of Israel and any others who lost their
>consciousness
>> of their relation to Abraham.
>>
>> 2. There may be many Christians who will jump to a conclusion similar to
>> Vernon's. This could lead to the rise of another urban legend to hurt
>the
>> credibility of Christians. Is there any way to nip an urban legend in
>the
>> bud?
>>
>> Gordon Brown
>> Department of Mathematics
>> University of Colorado
>> Boulder, CO 80309-0395
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Wed Oct 6 11:30:31 2004