Re: Noahic Covenant

From: Jan de Koning (
Date: Sat Jul 20 2002 - 10:14:44 EDT

  • Next message: J Burgeson: "RE: Adam from Dust"

    At 10:50 AM 19/07/02 -0700, Victrorian Wife wrote: (and I cut out a lot):
    >These are only a few examples, I could list more. I think it is obvious that
    >the logistics, when put into a scientific light, would be all but
    >impossible. Obviously, some could argue divine intervention to "make it all
    >happen" but if we are using the Biblial text as it reads, there is no
    >mention of other interventions.
    >There are other compelling geological and language arguments for a regional
    >flood but I won't go into them unless there is an interest. I think the
    >most important thing is to always keep in mind the theological significance
    >of the Genesis flood story. What it tells us about God, man and sin is the
    >most important thing. Debating the logistics and scientific detail are more
    >like brain candy - I love sweets!
    >If I am covering old ground, I apologize - I didn't go back and conduct an
    >extensive review of the archives.

       Indeed,anyway welcome, even if I am not going over all the arguments I
    gave before.
    Just this, I believe that Gen.1 through 11 is an introduction to the rest
    of the bible, written in poetic language and general literature, in order
    to tell us, that we, men, are the guilty ones for everything that goes wrong.
    Also, in order to go deeper into Scripture you should compare translations,
    and if possible compare the Greek and Hebrew words to the translated
    English. You will find that the translation is indeed influenced by the
    philosophy of the translators. Though I will not go over all the arguments
    again, I am willing to answer very specific questions.
    Jan de K.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 20 2002 - 11:35:55 EDT