On Sat, 15 Aug 1998 22:33:05 -0700, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>SJ>Local Flood exponents argue that the Flood could not be global
>because: a) there is no geological evidence for a global Flood and much
>against; b) the problems of a global Flood are immense and require a
>whole raft of ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses not mentioned in Scripture; and
>c) the language describing the extent of the Flood (eg. earth=land; etc)
>can be interpreted locally (eg. the world of Noah's experience, etc).>>
PM>Indeed, the absence of evidence of a global flood is the most
damaging to such.
Agreed.
SJ>OTOH global Flood advocates argue that a) the language for the extent
>of the Flood seems global "...all the high mountains under the entire
>heavens were covered" (Gn 7:19); "Every living thing that moved on the
>earth perished ...and all mankind." (Gn 7:22) ; b) there would be no need
>for an Ark if the Flood was only local because the animals and men
>outside the extent of the Flood would survive anyway.>>
PM>Yet such a theory lacks 1) where did the water come from and where
>did it go 2) how come that there is no evidence of a global flood.
Agreed.
>SJ>Under this proposal, to those who insist that it was a local Flood, I
>will say "You are right!" And to those who insist that it was a global
>Flood, I will say "You are right!" That is, you are *both* right. It was
>*both* a local *and* a global Flood!
PM>Yes, the bible makes for such a great explanation of what really
>happened <g>
This assumes that "the bible" *intends* to "make...a great explanation of
what really happened." Indeed, Ramm considers that the Bible's lack of
explanations of
"The Bible is singularly lacking in any definite theorizing about astronomy,
geology, physics, chemistry, zoology, and botany. These matters are dealt
with according to popular and phenomenal firms and are free from
scientific postulation. We cannot but agree with the judgment of W. B.
Dawson when he wrote:
`A remarkable point in Biblical references to nature, is that we find no
definite explanation anywhere of natural things. The writers of the Bible do
not go beyond the description of what they actually see around them, and
the correct way in which they describe what they do see is beyond
praise...The writers of the Bible show more than severe self-control, and
must indeed have been divinely guided, in thus keeping to description and
avoiding theoretical explanations of natural things.' (Dawson W.B., "The
Bible Confirmed by Science," (n.d.), pp32-33)
(Ramm B.L., "The Christian View of Science and Scripture," 1967, p48)
While knowing "what really happened" is a high priority for 20th Century
Western man, there is no evdidence that it was a high priority for the
ancients. In general the Bible is more concerned with providing an
explanation of *why* its events happen than *how* they happened:
"The approach of the Bible to Nature is essentially religious and
theological. The Bible tells us emphatically *that* God created, but is silent
as to *how* God created. It informs us that the stars, and the flowers, and
the animals, and the trees, and man are creatures of God, but how God
produced them is nowhere a matter of clear affirmation in Scripture. God
made the mountains and the oceans, but the Bible has not a chapter on
geological processes. For man's religious and spiritual needs what the Bible
says about Nature is ample. We need no more." (Ramm B.L., "The
Christian View of Science and Scripture," 1967, p70)
The essential message of the Flood being God's universal judgement of sin
and His gracious deliverance of those who obey Him, has been obvious to
the people of God down through all ages.
>SJ>This proposal, if true, would go a long way to answering all the
>intractable problems of the Flood. There is no way to prove it, but it is the
>only model of the Biblical Flood that I know that is consistent with *all*
>the facts.
PM>What facts? There are no facts other than a story, supporting a global
>flood. Why insists on something for which there is no evidence,
>mechanism ?
The facts I am referring to are: 1) the two sources of the Flood behind the
Biblical Flood story, one a local Flood, the other a global Flood; 2) the lack
of geological evidence for a literal global Flood; and 3) Jesus' confirmation
that there was a Flood, a Noah and an Ark (Mt 24:38; Lk 17:27).
All these facts can be reconciled by there being: 1) an original literal,
historical, local Flood, with a Noah and an Ark; and 2) the Flood story
being later expanded into a theological epic to convey the message of
God's universal judgement against rebellious mankind and his mercy and
deliverance to those who obey Him.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ senojes@hotmail.com
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------