Editor’s Note: This article by Dan King is a review of Hill Roberts article appearing elsewhere in this issue. We encourage you to read both articles.
In spite of the fact that brother Hill Roberts has declared repeatedly that he will not discuss these matters with those of us who wrote and signed the Open Letter, he has recently posted another response on his web site to what has been written regarding his positions, and by this writer in particular. It appears that he will discuss them, but only on his terms, when and where he determines. Since we could not get him openly to debate these issues, we are happy to receive this response and have another opportunity to, in this limited sense at least, answer his quibbles and reply to the additional points he has made.
Hill divides his response into five sections and offers comments on these five separate topics. Since these are the only points he wishes to address at this time, we shall limit ourselves to the same five areas of discussion. At the end, we shall add a few concluding thoughts and questions regarding this controversy and Florida College. Continue reading » Reply to Hill Roberts’ “Floods, Science and Religion…” (King)
Floods, Science and Religion, Kinds, Evening and Morning – Sustained
(c) 2000, Hill Roberts, Permission granted to publish whole and without alteration
Editor’s Note: This article by Hill Roberts continues the discussion generated by the Open Letter found elsewhere in this issue. You can find other articles written by Hill Roberts and those who have reviewed him and his teaching. In this issue, brother Daniel H. King, Sr. reviews this article.
A. Concerning the Flood:
I believe in a worldwide flood. I believe it was global. However, for physical reasons, I do not expect to find any global deposits in evidence of the global flood of Noah. There has been misunderstanding of this. In a recent public virtual-forum I wrote: Continue reading » Floods, Science and Religion, Kinds, Evening and Morning…
There are some who insist that the account of Noah and the Flood is an exaggeration at best, and a downright myth at worst. Unfortunately, there are even some who claim to believe the Bible who insist that the Flood was a local phenomenon. They claim that the Flood was limited to the region of Mesopotamia, a region prone to flooding. In this article, we will examine this claim from two distinct angles. First, we will see what the Bible says about the Flood. Then, we will see whether there is any external evidence to support the Bible’s account.
I. Is It Possible To Interpret The Flood Described In Genesis As A Regional Flood?
Those who support the idea that the Flood was confined to Mesopotamia point out that the word “all” is not always used literally. For example, Mark 1:5 tells us that “all the land of Judea” were baptized by John in the wilderness. Of course, we understand from the context that this does not literally mean every single human in the land of Judea. So, it is reasoned, the word “all” does not need to be taken literally in Genesis 6-9, either. The claim is made that the word is used in an accommodative sense, and that only the “inhabited portion” of the earth was in view. The assumption is then made that only the region of Mesopotamia was inhabited, and the conclusion is drawn that the Flood of Noah’s time was confined to this region. Continue reading » The Genesis Flood: Regional or Global?