To Mark m,

 

"seems to have" are the operative words here.  Everything is not as it seems.  This is especially true of Martin's material.

 

As for Josephus writing, as you say, "Josephus’ quote of Nicolaus is nothing short of amazing,"  but Josephus did not confirm that it was accurate.  Nor does Josephus state that the flood was regional.  Martins commentary on the quote is unwarranted by the evidence and requires him to accept the words of Nicolaus over those of the Bible which I, for one, am not willing to do. 

 

Martin is very selective of his quotes from Josephus and while Martin accepts Nicolaus words he ignores the actual words of Josephus:

 

"...God...determined to destroy the whole race of mankind...He turned the dry land into sea, and thus were all these men destroyed but Noah (and his family) alone was saved."  (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1, para. 2., comment added)

 

In addition to the above Josephus continued, "...it began to rain, the water poured down forty entire days, until it became fifteen cubits higher than the earth (land), which was the reason why there was no greater number (8) preserved, since they had no place to fly (go) to."  (Ibid para. 5, emphasis added)

 

The above was clearly Josephus' position.  He simply quoted the pagan Nicolaus without commentary as to its accuracy.

 

As for the second quotation of Josephus which you provided from Martin:  This passage need not be seen as supporting Nicolaus' premise that others survived the flood.  Josephus does not give an accounting of years from the landing of the flood up to the events he writes about, thus this passage can and should (in my opinion) be seen as a simple statement that the sons of Noah ventured forth first then they persuaded Noah, their mother, their wives and children to come down off the mountain.  There is nothing in this passage that supports Nicolaus or Martin.

 

If the truth be known, it is a definite possibility that the flood was both universal and "local."  No one alive today knows what the topography of the earth/land mass was before the flood.  It is entirely possible that before the flood the earth was one sea with one land mass with limited elevation above the sea.  When the flood came, with all its attending calamities (Gen 7:10-12ff, ),  the topography of the earth was changed to resemble what we see around us today.  In my opinion, the whole argument of universal or regional flood is futile and fruitless as well as being divisive.  What ever the truth, the Bible clearly states that only Noah and his family survived.  If the Bible is wrong on this fact, it is untrustworthy on all others as well.

 

As for me and my house, we will just accept the Bible, as we understand it, to be God's word on the matter.

 

Lloyd

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Mark M

To: PretCosmos@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 3:58 AM

Subject: [PretCosmos] A Regional or Global Flood

Having come out of diSpENSATIONALISM, I had always believed in a global flood. However I just read this article yesterday and Timothy P. Martin seems to have conclusive evidence of a regional flood.

 

Here is his questions and answer page:

Responses to Beyond Creation Science

http://www.truthinliving.org/images/resp%202.htm

 

Here is the full article:

Beyond Creation Science: How Preterism Refutes a Global Flood

http://www.truthinliving.org/images/beyond%20CS.htm

 

Below is an excerpt of his article where he quotes from Josephus:

 

Any comments?

Mark M

 

With all that said, those who argue there is no historical evidence for a regional flood simply do so from ignorance. In fact, there is reliable and old historical evidence the flood of Genesis seven was regional, not global. Josephus the historian gives powerful evidence in his Antiquities of the Jews. He writes:

Now all the writers of barbarian histories make mention of this flood and of this ark: among whom is Berosus the Chaldean... Hieronymous the Egyptian.... Nicolaus of Damascus, in his ninety-sixth book, hath a particular relation about them, where he speaks thus: - "There is a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is reported that many who fled at the time of the Deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in an ark came on shore upon top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved. This might be the man about whom Moses, the legislator of the Jews wrote." (emphasis mine).²⁴

Josephus’ quote of Nicolaus is nothing short of amazing. The geographic identity of the Genesis account is correct. The Mountains of Ararat correspond with Armenia. He says some inhabitants at the very edge of the flood escaped to the top of the mountain. He also gives an eyewitness account of the ark landing. There is no way to reconcile this passage with a global flood idea!

In a later passage Josephus confirms he understood the flood to be regional. He writes:

Now the sons of Noah were three - Shem, Japhet, and Ham, born one hundred years before the Deluge. These first of all descended from the mountains into the plains, and fixed their habitation there; and persuaded others who were greatly afraid of the lower grounds on account of the flood, and so were very loath to come down from the higher places, to venture to follow their examples. (emphasis mine).²⁵

Here, Josephus shows others survived the flood besides Noah’s family. In fact, it is Noah’s family who has to "persuade" the others to return to the plain. How can this be reconciled with a global flood? Preterists love to quote Josephus on the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D.70. When will they learn to quote Josephus on the flood? The credibility of Josephus alone is enough to cause major problems for the global flood concept. Clearly, the local flood view is the oldest historical view, predating medieval and modern interpretations by millennia.

24. Antiquities: Book 1, Chapter 3, Section 6.

25. Antiquities: Book 1, Chapter 4, Section 1.