Genesis 7:19 (M.Bell-F.Till)
April adorsey@netusa1.net
Fri, 31 Jul 1998 08:29:06 -0600 (00901913346, 199807311255.IAA17198@gatem02.netusa1.net)
>
> '>M.BELL
> >I read through the Flood account, replacing 'earth', with 'land' and
could
> >agree that doing so would allow for a local rather than a global flood.
> >However, how does one account for Genesis 7:19:
> >
> >'And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth/land; and *all* the
> >high hills, that were under the *whole* heaven, were covered'.
>
> The only way to understand what a phrase means is to compare it with
other
> uses of that phrase. Consider this:
>
> Jobe 37:3 He directeth it under the whole heaven, and his lightning unto
> the ends of the earth.
> 4 After it a voice roareth: he thundereth with the voice of his
> excellency; and he will not stay them when his voice is heard.
>
> Now, what does the phrase under the whole heaven mean? God can unleash
his
> lightning in Chicago, but I can't hear it down here in Dallas. So the
> phrase 'under the whole heaven' can't mean, under the whole heaven around
> the earth. It must mean from horizon to horizon (which for a standing
man
> is about 5-10 miles depending on topology) and you can then hear the
> lightning which was unleashed under the whole heavens.
>
> Sometimes the use of a universal phrase doesn't really mean a universal
> meaning.
>
> Genesis 41:56 And the famine was over all the face of the earth: And
> Joseph opened all the storehouses, and sold unto the Egyptians; and the
> famine waxed sore in the land of Egypt.
> 41: 57 And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn;
> because that the famine was so sore in all lands.
>
> >From history we know that the Chinese, the Southern African Bushmen, the
> Australian Aborigines the Native Americans DID NOT go to Egypt to buy
> grain, so is this verse wrong? No. All countries known to the author did
> buy from Egypt.
> >
> >This verse was brought to my attention from another list where the
> >following 'difficulty' was also posited.
> >
> >'. If ALL the high mountains under the WHOLE heaven were covered, then
we
> >can reasonably conclude that at least several HIGH mountains were
covered,
> >can't we? So how can this be harmonized with the fact that water will
> seek
> >its own level? In other words, how could water cover just some "high
> >mountains" without first leveling off, as it sought its own level, so
that
> >NO high mountains could have been covered until the water had fallen to
a
> >level that was higher than the "HIGH" mountain? To imagine the
> local-flood
> >scenario that Matt hinted at, one would have to visualize a "mound" of
> >water standing suspended over the mountains of Ararat in defiance of the
> >scientific law that says water will seek its own level.'
> >
> >Isn't this a legitimate argument against a local flood?
>
> It would be IF one couldn't envision a site where high mountains could be
> covered in a local region. I solve this by means of my suggested flood
> locality. I put the flood in desiccated Mediterranean ocean. Geology
> tells us that the Mediterranean basin was once a dry desert which was
> rapidly filled when the Gibraltar dam broke (see K.Hsu, When the
> Mediterranean was a Desert, Princeton Univ. Press, 1983). Within the
basin
> there were mountains which rose as much as 12,000 feet above the plain
> which were then covered with water. The entire basin was surrounded by
> 15,000 foot 'mountains', which were the continents of Africa, Asia and
> Europe. So, one can find a place on earth, where Geology says was
flooded,
> which fits the Biblical description.
April
So the flood was just a local one, the only animals killed were those few
in that region living under identical climatic regions, flooding an empty
basin avoids the fish problem, and, once again, all doesn't mean all when
that would be inconvenient. Of course, where it says that "all have sinned
and come short..." it really DOES mean all? Such intellectual dishonesty,
Matt; I'd think you'd be ashamed to be identified with that.