Re: Is there a Plan B? (was: So we're all related!)

Gordon,

I think it's important that we clarify things as our argument progresses, so
before addressing your latest comments let me draw your attention to two of
the matters already discussed (the numbering, as in my original posting),
viz

6) (If flood not global, then) Why an ark? (its building taking about 100
years) rather than an overland trek to the high ground? Gordon, you answered
this point as follows:

"Noah was a preacher of righteousness (II Peter 2:5). God called him to do
this. Presumably this was to warn his wicked neighbors of impending
judgment. He would have been unfaithful to his calling if he had gone to
some location where there was no one who needed to be warned."

I pointed out that _before the ark was built_ God had already decided who
were to be its sole occupants! (Gen.6:18-20). Can I take it then that you
concede this point? viz that to deal with the exigenses of a _local_ flood
there can be no satisfactory reason for requiring the building of an ark?

7) To follow some other implications of a _local_ flood, we need to accept
the survival, not only of the occupants of the ark, but also of the
populations of people and animals who dwelt outside 'the land' who were
completely innocent of the divine stricture "...the wickedness of man was
great _in the land_, and every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was
only evil continually (Gen.6:5)."

8) Yet, strangely, these do not fall within the aegis of the Noahic
Covenant! - for that was specifically established with Noah, with his
descendants in perpetuity, and with every living creature from the ark, and
their descendants (Gen.9:8-10). So where does each of us stand today? Are we
included in this covenant? - or are we not? Clearly, in a _local_ flood
scenario we cannot know!

You appear to concede this point also by speaking of an 'anthropologically'
_global_ but 'geographically' _local_ flood. In other words, because you
believe _all_ mankind was gathered in 'the land' that was to be subsequently
flooded, its destruction would be complete; it follows that you must agree
that Noah is indeed the most recent common ancestor of all living. But what
you appear to have overlooked in this scenario are the more demanding terms
of the Flood narrative, viz the event was intended to be _zoologically_
global, for consider Genesis 6:7, 6:13, 6:17, 7:4, 7:21-23 and 9:11. So the
suggestion must now be that _all_ living forms (including birds) were
somehow concentrated in 'the land' - to be completely annihilated by the
_local_ flood. This is hardly plausible, even allowing for an exceptionally
young earth, but for evolutionists and OECs it makes no sense at all.

So, if as Christians we wish to remain true to the biblical text I see no
other logical conclusion than that _zoologically global_ must also mean
_geographically global_. To believe otherwise surely demands that we expunge
the Flood narrative from the Scriptures. Can any of our members suggest how
the geological evidence currently available may be harmonised with the
biblical demands of a global flood?

Now to return to your other recent comments and questions.

You said, "The word 'cosmos' in the New Testament seldom if ever refers to
something
physical. The usual word for the physical earth is 'ge'. That goes for the
Peter and Hebrews passages also. It is generally the people who inhabit
the planet along with their society who are the world."

But you will agree that it is _kosmos_ rather than _ge_ that these writers
use. I read in Strong's Lexicon that this word (2889) can mean 'the world,
including its inhabitants' - but never 'land' or 'country'.

You posed two questions:

1. How does wind cause sea level to fall? (Gen. 8:1)

I observe that the Hebrew word 'ruach' (7307) can also mean 'Spirit' (as in
Genesis 1:2, for example), and is frequently translated as such. The
implication, for me, is that this period of earth history was accompanied by
a complete reshaping of the earth's surface - with the building of mountain
ranges and the excavation of deep ocean trenches (which, in accomodating the
flood waters, caused the sea level to fall).

2. What is the meaning of 'erets in Gen. 8:9? (According to Gen. 8:5
mountains were visible at this time.)

'...the face of the whole earth' sounds very much like a _global_ event,
wouldn't you agree? Clearly, the tops of the mountains (newly created?) were
beginning to break through. What land surface there was would probably have
been coated with a layer of mud ('...the dove found no rest for the sole of
her foot...').

Sincerely,

Vernon
www.otherbiblecode.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "gordon brown" <gbrown@euclid.Colorado.EDU>
To: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 10:49 PM
Subject: Re: Is there a Plan B? (was: So we're all related!)

> Vernon,
>
> I don't have time to respond to all your assertions, but I would like to
> ask you two questions.
>
> 1. How does wind cause sea level to fall? (Gen. 8:1)
>
> 2. What is the meaning of 'erets in Gen. 8:9? (According to Gen. 8:5
> mountains were visible at this time.)
>
> > 2) From an evolutionary standpoint, our current understanding of geology
> > demands that the Flood be accepted as _local_ rather than _global_.
>
> You always seem to want to label any viewpoint opposed to your own as
> being evolutionary. There are many Christians who are old-earth and
> local-flood proponents who are not Darwinian evolutionists. In fact, when
> I think of the Christian publications that I know about that are devoted
> to the subject of the age of the earth and universe, most of those
> supporting an old earth and universe were written by people who are
> opposed to evolution.
>
> > 4) However, it should be noted that New Testament commentators when
> > referring to this event invariably use the Greek word 'kosmos' -
meaning
> > 'earth', or 'world order', but not 'land' (eg 2Pet.2:5, 3:6; Heb.11:7).
>
> The word 'cosmos' in the New Testament seldom if ever refers to something
> physical. The usual word for the physical earth is 'ge'. That goes for the
> Peter and Hebrews passages also. It is generally the people who inhabit
> the planet along with their society who are the world.
>
> You fail to distinguish between an anthropologically global and a
> geographically global Flood. The various arguments you use could at best
> support the idea of an anthropologically universal Flood, which does not
> necessarily imply a geographically global one.
>
> > No, Gordon. Assuming the Flood to be _local_ ultimately makes nonsense
of
> > the whole scenario. Do evolutionists and others have a 'Plan B' to fall
back
> > on now that _global_ appears to be the only show in town? It appears
that a
> > complete revision of the geological interpretation of earth history is
> > called for - or, otherwise, for the Christian, the removal of Chapters
6-9
> > of Genesis from his/her Bible!
>
> You seem to want to replace the discoveries of geology by the Seventh Day
> Adventist version of the Flood, which is inconsistent with a
> straightforward reading of the Scriptures.
>
> Gordon Brown
> Department of Mathematics
> University of Colorado
> Boulder, CO 80309-0395
>
Received on Thu Oct 14 18:57:03 2004