Re: Both a local and global Flood? (was An Evil Fruit)
Ed Brayton (cynic@net-link.net)
Thu, 13 Aug 1998 23:36:10 -0400Marc Penner wrote:
>
> >My constructive criticism of this proposal is that you seem to be
> >playing with the definition of "was". You are claiming that it WAS a
> >local flood and it WAS a global flood, but your arguments (which I agree
> >with, by the way) only establish that it WAS a local flood that was
> >exaggerated to make a point. So it really was NOT a global flood, it was
> >only embellished in the biblical account to seem like one. All in all,
> >though, this is by far the most reasonable claim I have heard you make
> >on this list, and it strikes me as essentially correct. There was
> >undoubtedly a real flood that prompted the biblical flood story (and
> >probably all of the similar ANE flood myths as well), and it was likely
> >mythologized in the biblical account to make a point (a point that is
> >still made, as you note). But that does not mean that it really was a
> >global flood; it means quite the opposite.
>
> Excuse me for stepping into a discussion that I really haven't heard all
> of, but I am bothered by the concept of "embellishment" of the flood.
> While I don't try to define my viewpoint on the global/local flood
> question, I like to keep an open, but critical mind about the arguments for
> either side. Also, I like to try and understand the perspective of the
> people of the time. That is why I have a problem with the embellishment
> theory. We, in the twentieth century, have the luxury of knowing how big
> the earth really is. Now it is possible to fly around the world in a
> matter of days. But for the people at the time of the flood (at least the
> ones that are featured in the Bible), the "world" consisted of their
> horizons, of what they could see, where they had been and where they knew
> of. All of which was miniscule in comparison to what we think of as the
> "world." So a flood that covered their whole world would still be a huge
> flood and would not have to be embellished (how can you embellish about
> areas of the world that people of the time never would have dreamed
> existed?). Yet to us it would not be a global flood. Just my two cents.
Well, it matters little to me whether they embellished the story by
claiming it was global, or were simply mistaken in their claim that it
was global. I think it is very clear from the geological evidence that
it could not have been global in extent. Whether their mistake was
deliberate or indeliberate is of no consequence to me, since I am not
defending the veracity of the account as Steven is. There is another
perspective, of course, and that is Glenn's notion that the flood was
not global and that the text does not demand that it was global.
Ed