Shaking Matt's Faith

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

 > CARTER
 > Worldwide (from Moses' perspective) does not neccessarily mean the entire
 > span of the earth, considering that Moses probably did not have knowledge
 > of how large the earth was. A case can be made that the Bible supports a
 > localized flood - but again, my main reason for avoiding this topic is that
 > I do not have enough time to research all the archeological/textual
 > evidence to either defend or support such a view. 
 > 
 
 Achilles
 
 A case can be made that the Bible supports a localized flood - yes. If you
read 
 the Bible as you would other writings, that is a conclusion I would find 
 reasonable. However, this approach assumes errancy. 
 
 I don't think you can reconcile a local flood and an inerrant Bible. Keep in 
 mind the following verse in Genesis
 
 7:4
 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and
 forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from
 off the face of the earth.
 
 (That was YHWH speaking.)
 
 Still think you can have both an inerrant bible and a local flood? I would
love 
 to hear your rationale. 
==============
Joe Alward:

Must "face of the earth" be equated with the "surface of the globe"?  Could it
just have meant the area bounded by the horizons? If the latter, then the
Bible and the local flood can co-exist, can't they?

• Previous message: Shaking Matt's Faith
• Next message: Shaking Matt's Faith
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]