Stephen Jones outlined 3 ways to view the flood in the scripture..
The second one was:
>>2. GRAMMATICO-HISTORICAL LITERAL: Local flood. "earth" means "land",ie.
known world of Noah. May have been anthropologically universal.<<
The Hebrew word "eretz" is validly translated "land" elsewhere in scripture,
such as when God told Abram to get out of his "eretz". Thus if the writer of
Genesis 6-9 meant "land" rather than "earth" the local flood can also be
viewed as a literal event. This possibility should be mentioned in your
first division.
Stephen wrote:
>>1. The Bible gives the primary cause of the Flood as rain falling upon the
earth "forty days and forty nights" (Gn 7:4,12) In Glenn's
model the primary cause is the Mediterranean Sea breaking its dam
at the Straits of Gibraltar.<<
Actually it is rather interesting that two events are mentioned as being the
cause of the flood. Genesis 7:11 states:
"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the
second month--on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth,and
the floodgates of the heavens were opened."NIV
Stephen, it clearly identifies two causes not one. In my model of the flood,
the dam at Gibraltar breaks first (just as the Biblical description says) and
then the water filling the basin causes air to rise which always causes rain.
Thus, my model exactly fits the description, fountains break first, rainfall
second. So what is the problem here? You don't have to accept my view but
please represent it accurately (as well as what the Bible says).
Stephen wrote:
>>2. The Biblical Flood receded totally receded and was compeletely dry:"By
the first day of the first month of Noah's six hundred and first
year, the water had dried up from the earth. Noah then removed the
covering from the ark and saw that the surface of the ground was dry.
By the twenty-seventh day of the second month the earth was completely dry."
(Gn 8:13-14). Glenn's Flood would leave the Mediterranean Sea where Noah
once lived.<<
Noah could only observe what he could see around him. The land where he was
was dry. That does not require that (in a global flood) the oceans were back
in their present boundaries, or in a local flood of the magnitude I advocate
that everything as dry.
***This is important***
Genesis 6:13 states: "So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all
people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely
going to destroy both them and the earth." NIV
If you require that the entire flooded region be dry after one year, then
this verse can not be true. He said He would destroy the EARTH. If by
EARTH, he meant LAND, then in my model the LAND was indeed destroyed. In
your view, it wasn't destroyed. My view can actually fit the description in
the bible better.
Stephen wrote:
>>3. Soon after the Flood we have one of the descendants of Noah's son Ham
(Gn 10:6), namely "Nimrod" (Gn 10:8) whose kingdom was based at the
Mesopotamian centres of "Babylon, Erech, Akkad and Calneh, in Shinar" (Gn
10:10).<<
and
>> I am trying to fit the
>scientific facts to the Bible. The Bible contains no exact date and
>place for the Flood, so I am not overly worried about trying to fit
>amy particular scientific data and place for the Flood to the Bible.<<
These two statements seem contradictory. On the one hand you say there are
no dates and you really aren't interested in those types of details but then
when you need a "soon" you use it. How soon is soon? If you put several
thousand years, between Noah and Nimrod, then why can't I put more? If you
only put a few hundred years between them then where is the evidence for your
flood? I have to keep coming back to this. If I say "There are
leprechauns!" and you ask "Where?", you will be very disappointed if I say,
"I am not interested in their exact locale." Would you believe me?
Stephen wrote:
>>Glenn's theory does not fit the Biblical evidence, and he has already
admitted that there is no anthropological evidence for Homo sapiens as far
back as 5.5 MY. It seems the only facts that Glenn is concerned at
reconciling are the geological?<<
Even if the only facts I am interested in reconciling are geological, are you
suggesting that geological facts don't need to be incorporated into a view of
the flood?
But I am interested in reconciling more that geology. I am interested in
reconciling works of art from 300,000 years ago, broca's brain in creatures
from 2 million years ago, and possible human habitations from 3-400,000 years
ago. Are these not intersting to you also?
Speaking of the Caspian Depression, Stephen wrote:
>>I do not claim this is where the Flood was. It may have been, but for some
reason "sediments" have not been found? And I do not believe that every
mountain had to be covered, only those in the experience of the writer.<<
Sediments have not been found! Large areas of the Caspian do not have Recent
sediments. That region is very flat and the 3000 foot high mountains in the
east centre of the basin can be seen for a long, long distance. The writer
should have had experience with them.
Stephen wrote:
>>IMHO much of the problem lies with our interpretation. The main
purpose of Gn 1-11 is to teach theology, not geology. Karl Barth was
once asked did he believe in a literal serpent in the Garden, to which
he replied he was much more interested in what the serpent said.<<
Some have said that the resurrection is not important because the story was
to teach the essentials of God's relationship with man. Some have said that
it is not really important that the Hebrews fled Egypt because it is a great
story of God's dealing with man. Some have said that it is not important
that Abraham existed. He is a father
figure. This reasoning can be applied to any event and effectively destroys
the reality of the event.
Stephen wrote:
>>Has Glenn ever considered that God may have ensured there is no
evidence? This is no mere desperate attempt to escape the difficulty.
The God of the Bible ensures that not even one sparrow falls to the
ground without Him willing it (Mt 10:29). Not *one* piece of physical
evidence for the Judeo-Christian faith has survived (eg. Noah's ark,
Ark of the Covenant, Moses' tablets of stone, the Bronze Serpent, a
piece of the Cross, not an original manuscript, or even a description
of Jesus). My conclusion is that God didn't want it to survive.<<
This would bother me. There is no evidence that the earth is riding on the
back of a turtle in the cosmic sea either. Maybe the turtle is invisible and
the God of the Hindu's is hiding him.
Stephen wrote:
>>While much of the Flood
was caused by amplified "natural" causes, there were some direct acts of God
in the Biblical account (Gn 7:16). What sediment remained of the Flood could
have been used for bricks and farming (Gn 9:20; 11:3).<<
You know, sometimes I think you just don't want my view to fit the facts.
Above you failed to mention the springs as a cause of the flood when you
criticized my view for having the Gibraltar Dam failure as part of the flood.
You said that the flood was caused by rainfall. Now you are saying that the
flood was caused by amplified 'natural' causes which includes the springs
(fountains of the deep). Why can't my causes be the natural part of the
explanation?
glenn