I saw this quote recently, and then I saw someone respond with the typical "amen, exactly, we got 'em now, etc," and I have seen something similar many times before:
" The local flood interpretation implies that God will never destroy local areas with floods. Not to appeal to experience, but destructive local floods are regular phenomenon."
Folks, this is a prime example of the way people continue to interchange the words "local" and "covenantal" as if they are synonomous, when many of us who maintain that Noah's flood was a covenantal judgment
have repeatedly pointed out that "local" and "covenantal" are not
synonomous terms, and we are certainly not using them synonomously. We point it out, they ignore, and continue to misrepresent
what has been said by advocates of a local Genesis flood. Of course they have to misrepresent, and distort, or they wouldn't be able to continue with their ridiculous reasoning which goes something like this: "aha! What about the tsunami??? Don't you people watch the news?! If Noah's flood was local, then God's promise to Noah was that He would never send a local flood again, and look at all the floods there have been in the world?!"
As Tim Martin explained in an interview
I did with him for NCMI, Noah's flood was a covenantal judgment, and was geographically local, as a result of it being a specific judgment on God's covenant people. It is very comparable to God's AD 70 judgment on Jerusalem. Both of these judgments (which are compared and paralelled in Scripture) were covenantally universal
, and incidentally, geographically local.
The point being, that they were primarily covenant judgments, and the geography
they encompassed was merely incidental.
I also wrote an article,
part of which deals with this same distinction (again, we have stated it and restated it, they continue to ignore our statements and misrepresent our view). Here is an excerpt from that article, which refers to assertions by two different people (Sam Frost and Roderick Edwards), reflective of their deliberate distortions of what we have said:
But some will say in response (and this is a charge which has actually been voiced): “In your view, the Bible has nothing to say to Chinese people, so why would we preach the gospel to them?” Another distortion has been expressed this way: “If Genesis is about covenant creation, and not the creation of the world, then the god of the Bible is not the God of the universe, but merely a tribal god.” I hope the reader will see clearly that what has happened in both of these cases is that what we have expressed as a “covenant creation” has been arbitrarily redefined as a “local creation.” A spiritual creation has been given geographical boundaries. Furthermore, a spiritual new creation, in which there is neither Jew nor gentile according to the scriptures, has been erroneously defined not just spatially, but also racially. We reject both of these adulterations of God’s covenant creation. And as we shall see, they lead to some rather problematic theological ramifications.
At the beginning of the Bible, the creation of “the heaven and the earth” refers to the beginning of God’s covenant relationship with His people. At the end of the Bible, the creation of “the new heavens and the new earth” refers to the restoration and renewal—the recreation or regeneration--of that covenant relationship. Neither the beginning of the Bible nor the end of the Bible refers to the creation of a geographic location or a biological race. It’s about a covenant people, not a cosmological race or place.
It would sure be nice if when discussing these issues, people would respond to what has actually been said, rather than to their own deliberate distortions of what has been said.