RE: [asa] The Bible and the Anthropologically Universal Flood

From: Jon Tandy <>
Date: Fri Mar 16 2007 - 08:54:06 EDT

Returning to quickly peruse Glenn's article reveals that I've forgotten
quite a lot, and he did deal with several of the questions I raised below.
However, I do have other questions for Glenn. Not having had a chance yet
to peruse more deeply into your Web site, in a nutshell how does your Adam
fit with your view of Noah and company in the Mediterranean Basin? If a 5.5
mya flood occurred there, and the justification for their inability to
migrate is that they were in a 10,000-foot deep crater before the flood, is
this where the Garden of Eden was too? If so, what about the creation of
Adam? And how does this connect with (according to biological
understanding) homo sapiens' connectedness to earlier species, which I
presume were scattered elsewhere across the globe outside the Mediterranean
Basin? I'm sure you've written on this, so a link to an article would be
sufficient unless you want to respond further.
Jon Tandy

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On
Behalf Of Jon Tandy
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 7:15 AM
Cc: 'Glenn Morton'
Subject: RE: [asa] The Bible and the Anthropologically Universal Flood

Before I knew the geological evidence and other evidence, I believed in a
global flood. Now that I do, *sigh* I'm conflicted but I have to give fair
consideration to the evidence. I was just responding to your question about
other Biblical arguments for a universal flood. I'm sure someone has dealt
with this in writing, but I would welcome a link to a coherent argument
against the scriptures I listed below, which would have to be taken as a
promise that God would never again send a (local) flood to cover the
(limited geographical area of) earth. How is this dealt with theologically?
Come to think of it, I don't know if Glenn is presently monitoring this
list, so I'm copying him. I was intrigued over a year ago when I first read
his article on the Mediterranean Basin flood, although I don't know that I
can buy into the whole program of a 5.5mya Adam. Glenn, how would you deal
with this question? Either, (1) the Mediterranean Basin flood destroyed all
living mankind at that time (excluding 8 individuals), or (2) it was just a
local flood, although much further back in time, and thus how does the
promise apply that God would no more send any local floods? or (3) God's
promise was that he would never again flood the Mediterranean Basin, which
is vacuous. In case (1), is it your conclusion that mankind (8 individuals)
climbed out of the Mediterranean Basin once their ark hit the Eastern shore,
and thus the anthropological evidence *appears* to be that modern mankind
came "out of Africa" to fill the rest of the globe? How does that
interpretation stack up against the evidence of homo sapiens origins? Is
there evidence that genetically all mankind can be traced to 8 individuals
at 5.5mya?
The other strong argument against a local flood, is why didn't God just have
them evacuate a few dozen (hundred?) miles away instead of going to all the
trouble of making a huge ark and bringing in all the (limited number, local
species of) animals to be preserved for a year on the ark, in addition to
all the other millions of species which existed around the globe that would
be preserved already because the flood was not global? Of course, there we
go again, questioning God's methods and his word!
Jon Tandy

-----Original Message-----
From: David Opderbeck []
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 6:46 AM
To: Jon Tandy
Subject: Re: [asa] The Bible and the Anthropologically Universal Flood

So do you believe in a global flood? I agree with you that the Noahic
covenant is hard to reconcile with a local flood. OTOH, what are the other
options? Some speculation -- if we concieve of the flood as having wiped
out an entire local civilization -- an entire city-state, say -- then I'm no
so sure that it's such a stretch. Further, if we concieve of the Noahic
covenant as one of the series of covenants made to God's chosen people, then
perhaps we can view it more specifically as a promise that God would not
judge the "land" in which his people live via a flood. This also perhaps
ties in to the eschatological notion of a "remnant" saved from judgment, as
in the remnant of Israel that survived the Babylonian captivity and the
remnant that the NT eschatological literature pictures as surviving the last

On 3/15/07, Jon Tandy <> wrote:

 <clip> (Gen 6:13, 8:21) and from Isaiah 54:9, the promise that the "waters
of Noah should no more go over the earth" seems a vain promise if it was
talking about a local flood only. How many large scale local floods have
occurred in the last 5000 years, causing much devastation and loss of life.
That coupled with the scriptures linking last days prophecies with the
flood, it implies that more than a local devastation is involved in that
promise. <clip>

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Mar 16 08:54:38 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Mar 16 2007 - 08:54:38 EDT