Re: [asa] Noah's Ark- the debate over floods... and biblical interpretation

From: Kirk Bertsche <>
Date: Mon Apr 13 2009 - 11:47:36 EDT


I don't follow your first objection. The implication of the text is
that early man was together until God forced mankind to spread out.
Whether or not the Babel account was historical does not affect the
message of the text regarding the nature of man.

But I believe your second objection is valid. I suppose Gen 11 could
be either a generalization, or a comment on only a subset of mankind.


Your second objection is valid. yes,
On Apr 10, 2009, at 1:02 PM, Dehler, Bernie wrote:

> Kirk said:
> “But Gen 11 seems to imply the opposite; early man tended to stay
> together (even after the Flood) until God forced mankind to spread
> out.”
> That could be wrong on two counts.
> First, the Babel event may never have happened, like the global
> flood. Maybe it would be easy to prove scientifically/historically
> that languages were always different- I don’t know. (The Babel
> account implies all men were of one language prior- easy to believe
> if you think the Earth is only a few thousand years old.)
> Second, it could be a generalization, like is all throughout
> proverbs (general sayings, not intended to be true in every case
> for every person). Maybe for the most part people tended to gather
> and be of the same language, but it may not be trying to indicate
> that all men everywhere were of one language and living in that one
> spot.
> …Bernie

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Apr 13 11:48:54 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 13 2009 - 11:48:55 EDT