On Thu, 13 Aug 1998 13:34:20 -0400, Ed Brayton wrote:
>SJ> My proposal was that there are in fact two source documents behind
>>the single Flood story we have in Genesis 6:11-9:17 today. The earliest
>>source was of a local Flood and the later sources was built upon and
>>expanded out into a cosmic salvation-history epic.
>>
>>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!
>>
>>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.
>>
>>I would welcome *constructive* criticism.
EB>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.
Thanks for your constructive criticism. I agree that it was not a local and a
global Flood *in the same sense*. I was referring to the fact that under this
model both local and global Flood advocates would be right, but in
different senses. The local Flood advocates would be right in a literal
historical sense, and the global Flood advocates would be right in a
theological sense.
EB>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.
Thanks for the back-handed compliment! :-)
EB>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.
Agreed. I had already said that there was no hard evidence of a literal
global Flood.
But if there was "a real flood" behind the "biblical flood" and the "ANE
flood myths", then they are not technically speaking myths, but *legends*:
"Myths grow up around famous (or infamous) historical figures because
they seem to stand apart from other mortals, out of time. Their lives
acquire a numinous aura, their deaths an ominous aspect, and weird tales
about them circulate. One authentic Darwin myth is the local tradition that
he 'still lives and visits his old home...His aged and ghostly figure may still
be observed' pacing the grounds.- Darwin's shade is even said to be one of
seven haunting the house- across the road. Stories like this have a history,
but their origin are the province of folklorists and social psychologists, not
professional historians. Legends by contrast are about real events." (Moore
J., "The Darwin Legend," 1995, p2).
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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------