Re: It's no joke!

From: Dick Fischer <dickfischer@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun Apr 10 2005 - 14:43:38 EDT
Vernon wrote:

(1) Why the need for a large ocean-going vessel? A trek to higher ground would surely have been the simpler and more reasonable alternative.

Who says it was "ocean-going"?  And it certainly wasn't large enough to hold two of every species of animal life.  How were insects saved?  What saved the olive tree from which the dove plucked a leaf?  Read the text, Vern.

Also, had Noah trekked off to higher ground he would have been followed by those for whom the flood was intended.

(2) Why the need to save a representative sample of the fauna? - it being certain that, later, these would freely mix again with those outside the flood's influence.

Why did God tell Moses to make a bronze image of a snake, and if the Israelites were bitten they could just look at it and not die?  Tell me how that worked.  Noah was simply following instructions.

(3)  It is claimed that the physiography of Mesopotamia suffered no great change as a result of the Flood. But where are we now to find a virtually complete ring of high ground that would (a) have held the rising floodwaters for a total of 150
days (Gen.7:24) and, (b) have retained the slowly lowering floodwaters for a further 150 days after the rains and subterranean fountains had ceased (Gen.8:3)?

And where did the water go?  Where is it today?  Also, what is thought of as one continuous flood may have been a sequence of floods over two Spring rainy periods.

(4) We are informed that the people destroyed by the cataclysm were _evil_ - and therefore infer that those living outside its sphere of influence were essentially _good_ and unworthy of the judgment that God meted out to the former; yet, unaccountably, these are not included in the covenant God made with the occupants of the ark!

Replace the words "evil" and "good" with accountable and capable of sin from those who were unaccountable and not under the judgment of sin.  The Americas were unaffected by the flood, both because the American Indians were outside the flood zone and because they were not held to account by God.  Acts 17:30: "And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent."  Those in ignorance were not held to account and thus did not perish in the flood.

(5) Further, had the Flood been _local_ then surely, to remove all ambiguity, the terms of the covenant would need to have made that clear.

The covenant was with Noah and the Semites who would descend from Noah.  The covenant was not with the Chinese living in China before and after the time of the flood.

Again, those who prefer to read the Hebrew word 'eretz' as 'land' rather than 'planet earth' are faced with a problem raised by the Apostle Peter (2Pet.3:6) who speaks of "...the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished..." Used in this context, the Greek word 'kosmos' appears to offer no alternative to 'world' or 'earth'. Peter, undoubtedly, believed the Flood to have been _global_ and, we infer, so did the Lord Jesus!

Read Luke 2:1: "And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.   In light of your interpretation of Peter, how would you interpret Luke?  Or Paul?  "... your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world" (Romans 1:8).

Your selective interpretation of some passages of Scripture while ignoring other clarifying passages is a typical YEC tactic.  Not only do you not understand science, you don't understand the Bible either.  Or you choose to not understand.  I believe Peter called that "willingly ignorant."  Or maybe you didn't read the preceding verse: "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old ... (2 Peter 3:5).

Dick Fischer  - Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
Received on Sun Apr 10 23:02:07 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Apr 10 2005 - 23:02:09 EDT