Alan,
You wrote: Since Ray used a good deal of material written by Carl Jonnson, it's clear that both of them endorse the view that all humans but Noah and his family were killed in Noah's Flood ...
With his permission, I am here posting non-personal parts of a personal e-mail I just received from Carl Olof Jonsson, which show that your statement concerning Carls views, as I suspected, is incorrect (see bolded and underlined sentences).
In his e-mail to me Carl just wrote the following:
Dear Mike,
.........
A few years ago I summarized my (tentative) views about the Flood in a brief
article that is published on the English section of a Swedish web site called
Christian Freedom (in Swedish: Kristen Frihet). The address to the site is:
http://start.at/fkf .
I have also attached the same material in a separate file.
The site also contains a number of other articles I have written, including
some on chronology.
Most of my material on the Flood was also posted by Ray Franz on the
Commentary Press site, with other material added, including a number of
quotations from various theological dictionaries and other works.
As you know, my position is that the Flood was "local" in the sense that it
did not cover the high mountains on the earth. The local area focused on in
the Bible, I believe, is Mesopotamia.
This does not mean that the catastrophe was limited only to that area. If, as
I believe, the Flood was partially caused by a rising of the sea level, low-laying
areas all around the earth must have been affected. And as people at that time
usually settled in such areas, close to coasts and rivers, I conclude that people
all over the globe must have been involved in the catastrophe. This does not
necessarily mean that all mankind except Noah and his three sons and their
wives was destroyed. I don't say so in my article. I don't remember if Ray did
that in the material he published. I have chosen to leave that question open.
As I'm presently working on some other projects, I can't find time for being drawn
into another debate, and am therefore forced to refrain from posting anything on
the JWD board. I have already spent too much time on Channel C. There is also
a Swedish discussion forum about the JWs and Biblical questions where I (and
Rud) have been drawn into discussions on various subjects from time to time.
To be able to finish the projects we are both working on, we have decided to
avoid that board, too, as far as possible.
Your brother,
Carl
Alan,
You wrote: I'd like to know your take on how your view of the Flood affects the rest of the Bible's believability. Plenty of believers strongly insist that if the Flood were not a real, global event that wiped out the human race, much of the Christian message is damaged or pointless ...
I understand why many Christians feel this way. For one thing, they understand that if the flood of Noah's day was not global, or at least not universal in its destruction of the human race, then we are not all Noah's descendants. And, if we are not, then maybe we are not all even the literal descendents of the "Adam" of Genesis. And if we are not, then why do we need Jesus? Don't we only need Jesus because of the sin we inherited from Adam ?
I understand why many Christians feel this way. But I think there is no need for them to worry. I think their concerns are largely based on a misunderstanding of Christ's Ransom and a misunderstanding of the events in Eden. This is, of course a bit of a long story. I'll do my best to be brief.
I understand that Christ died to pay for the sins of all mankind, not just to pay for Adam's sins. I believe God used Adam and Eve as representatives of the human race to demonstrate the fact that all human beings are incapable of living perfectly righteous lives. And, because we all are incapable of doing so, none of us deserves to live forever. And, because we are all unworthy of eternal life, we can only hope to receive it as a gift from a Creator who is willing to overlook all of our unrighteousness.
The Genesis account clearly indicates that Adam and Eve were created mortal, with a dying nature just like us. The story of Adam and Eve told in Genesis makes clear that their being able to live forever was not a part of their original physical nature. Rather, Adam and Eve's ability to live forever depended entirely on their eating from a tree "in the middle of the garden" of Eden, "the tree of life".(Genesis 2:9) Genesis tells us that Adam and Eve were going to be allowed to continue to eat from that tree only if they passed a God given test, a test which we are told they failed. After failing that test God expelled Adam and Eve from Eden and prevented them from ever again eating from "the tree of life".
Genesis indicates that had Adam and Eve been allowed to continue eating from "the tree of life" their lives would have been prolonged indefinitely.(Genesis 3:22-24) But when God prevented them from ever again eating from "the tree of life" they died what were apparently natural deaths. A careful reading of the Genesis account shows us that living forever would have been as unnatural for Adam and Eve as it would now be for us.
Genesis does not indicate that Adam and Eve originally had eternal life programmed into their genetic codes by God and later had their genetic codes reprogrammed by God in order to remove eternal life from those codes. Rather, Genesis indicates that Adam and Eve would have lived forever only if God had graciously given them eternal life from an outside source, "the tree of life".
Most objections to this natural reading of Genesis come from those who adhere to the doctrine of "The Fall" of mankind. This doctrine is based on what I believe is a misunderstanding of the apostle Paul's words in Romans 5:12-20 and 1 Cor. 15:21,22.
Romans 5:12 tells us that "sin entered into the world through one man, and death through sin." But as we read further we find that the kind of "sin" that first entered into the world through Adam, the "sin", which was responsible for bringing about his "death", was the "sin" of "breaking a command".(verse 14) And we are told that the kind of sin committed by Adam "is not taken into account (or "imputed" - KJV, NAS) when there is no law." (verse 13)
Because these verses tell us that Adam was the first man to sin by "breaking a command" from God, it follows that the "death" that "entered into the world" as a result of Adam's new kind of sin would have been Adam's new kind of death, death as a penalty imposed by God for "breaking a command" from God.
However, other verses have added to the confusion. Romans 5:15,17 and 18 tell us that "many died by the trespass of one man", "death reigned through that one man" and "as a result of one trespass was condemnation for all men." 1 Cor. 15:21,22 repeats this same thought by saying that "death came through a man" and "in Adam all die."
Many Bible readers say that these verses clearly indicate that all people today have "inherited" a "fallen" or "sinful" nature from Adam. And they say that it is this "fallen" nature inherited by us, as a result of Adam's disobedience, that brings upon us God's condemnation. They maintain that these verses prove that human beings were not "sinful" creatures until after Adam's spiritual, physical and genetic natures were somehow radically changed at the time he disobeyed God in Eden. Then, they say, when Adam fathered children after his nature had been corrupted, his children and all their descendants inherited Adam's "corrupted", "fallen", "sinful" nature.
Advocates of "The Fall" doctrine insist that unless we have all "inherited" a "fallen" nature from Adam we do not all need God's forgiveness through Jesus Christ, as the Bible tells us we all do. (Romans 3:23,24; 1 John 2:2)
However, I believe this understanding of the Ransom is incorrect. I believe the key to properly understanding all of Pauls words on this subject matter is found in Romans 5:19. There Paul wrote,"By one man's disobedience many were constituted sinners." (Romans 5:19, Amplified Bible) I believe Paul was able to say this because Adam, serving as God's chosen representative of the whole human race, demonstrated by his disobedience that all human beings are "sinners." ( If Adam in paradise, without a care in the world, was unable to resist sin, what chance do any of us have in doing so? ) So, after Adam failed a simple God given test of his righteousness, God had good reason to condemn the entire human race as being undeserving of eternal life.
The Bible clearly tells us that God will hold each one of us responsible for his or her own unrighteousness, not for Adam's. (Romans 14:10-12, 2 Corinthians 5:10) And the Scriptures say that we all need the forgiveness God offers us through Jesus Christ, because we have all personally "sinned" and have all personally "fallen short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)
These things being so, we do not all have to be Noah's descendents, or Adam's for that matter, to need God's forgiveness. We do not have to be Adam's physical descendents to be considered to be "sinners." For Adam's sin has been "imputed" to us, because of what he did. In the same way, we do not have to be physical descendents of Jesus to be considered by God to be "righteous ones." For Christ's righteousness is "credited" to believers, as a result of what He did.
I think believers who "strongly insist that, if the Flood was not a real, global event that wiped out the human race, much of the Christian message is damaged or pointless," simply misunderstand the scriptures.
Mike
