Re: Noahic Covenant

From: Vernon Jenkins (
Date: Mon Jul 29 2002 - 17:39:31 EDT

  • Next message: Vernon Jenkins: "Re: Noahic Covenant"

    Hi Dick,

    Thanks for your response. Just one thing - the 'first sentence' I was referring
    to was

    "The true nature and extent of the Flood can hardly be downplayed as a
    "non-essential" matter for the Christian because our correct reading of
    earth history rests largely upon this one event - as I'm sure you must

    Do you agree?



    Dick Fischer wrote:

    > Hi Vernon, you wrote:
    > >I am puzzled as to why you should send me so comprehensive a list of
    > >extracts from ancient writings proving the reality of the Flood. This
    > >hardly addresses the matters raised in my email of 17 July. And whilst I
    > >appreciate you have spent much time studying this event, may I ask whether
    > >that included giving due weight to items #1, #2 and #3 below? If so,
    > >perhaps you would share your reasons for dismissing these arguments which
    > >favour a global flood. Further, may I take it that you fully agree with my
    > >opening sentence?
    > Taking your last question first, I fully agree that you seem to be
    > "puzzled." But in fairness, this whole subject has puzzled all of
    > Christianity for 2,000 years.
    > The parallel accounts do not prove the flood happened. They do not
    > prove "the reality of the Flood." All the accounts taken together
    > substantiate that if such a flood happened, it was in southern
    > Mesopotamia at around the 2900 BC time frame. Gilgamesh was a post
    > flood ruler at Kish, and is dated about 2800 BC. If he was
    > contemporary with Utnapishtim (Noah), the dates match up.
    > >(1) The logic and power of the narrative and its sequel.
    > The Jewish people have suffered three extremely tragic events: the
    > flood, the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and the holocaust in
    > the 1940's. No events of such relative magnitude have ever happened
    > to the Chinese people, or the Europeans, for example. How much is
    > written about Babylon in the Old Testament? In relative terms, it
    > was important to them. It was part of their history, as was the
    > flood.
    > >(2) The need to build an ark surely suggests there would be no higher ground
    > >to which Noah could migrate (undoubtedly the simplest solution to the coming
    > >problem - had it been available).
    > Had Noah migrated he could have been followed by curious relatives
    > interested in survival. The flood was intended for them. Animals on
    > board is an open issue. I don't pretend to know why.
    > >(3) The testimony of two NT commentators - one of whom had certainly walked
    > >with Jesus. In the Greek of Heb.11:7 and 2Pet.2:5 we find the word "kosmos"
    > >used; in the context of these passages this can only be rendered _world_ .
    > >Had _land_ been intended, then the word "chora" was available and would
    > >surely have been used. The inevitable outcome of the event is confirmed by
    > >the Lord Himself in the parallel passages, Mt.24:37,38 and Lk.17:26,27.
    > In His earthly ministry, Jesus was the Messiah, the king of the Jews.
    > True to that earthly mission, Jesus spoke to them in their terms.
    > In the use of the word "world," I said this in the book:
    > "In addition to the Genesis account of the flood, the Apostle Peter
    > makes mention of the flood in his second epistle. "Whereby the world
    > that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" (II Pet. 3:6).
    > Does the word "world" in this verse identify Noah's flood as a global
    > deluge? Not necessarily; look at how we use "world" in English.
    > We say "world" every day without intending it to mean the entire
    > continental land mass of our planet. The wide "world" of sports may
    > "span the globe," but only covers sporting events. The "world" of
    > entertainment concerns films, TV, and stage plays. The "world" of
    > fashion includes cosmetics, hair styles, and clothing. So although
    > we sometimes mean planet when we say world, we may also use "world"
    > to connote the encompassing of all of a category of something. Bible
    > writers did the same thing.
    > "World" was sometimes used in the sense of planet (what little they
    > knew of it). In John 21:25, "I suppose the world itself could not
    > contain the books that should be written." Many times, however, the
    > Bible authors used "world" to mean just the human occupants. "But
    > the world may know that I love the father ..." (John 14:31). Also in
    > John 3:16, "For God so loved the world ..." applies to human beings
    > living in the world.
    > The word "world" also denotes only a segment of humanity. James
    > teaches, "the friendship of the world is enmity with God" (Jas. 4:4).
    > Here James grouped the unsaved, or unrighteous, into a "world."
    > Doing just the opposite, John used "world" for the redeemed. "Behold
    > the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29).
    > Peter himself narrowed the "world" by speaking of the flood being
    > wrought upon "the world of the ungodly" (II Pet. 2:5). The "world"
    > that was "overflowed with water" and "perished" singles out the
    > Adamite world including some hapless bystanders.
    > Nobody headed for high ground in the African world though, or in the
    > Asian world, or in the Americas. Even the nearby Egyptians,
    > Persians, and "Nephilim" in Genesis 6:4, Numbers 13:33 for that
    > matter, were survivors untouched by the Genesis deluge."
    > Vernon, explain not only how an olive tree survived, but how did the
    > "giants" survive a world flood?
    > Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution -
    > ĪThe Answer we should have known about 150 years agoĶ

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 29 2002 - 18:01:03 EDT