1st Correspondence My first letter to the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses had to
do with the so-called |
804 Harbour View
|
| The Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses Watch Tower Society Wallkill New York 12589 United States of America Dear Brothers QUESTIONS REGARDING THE FLOOD OF NOAH'S DAY My name is Mario Salvatore Di Maggio and I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses in Durban, South Africa. I am 25 years of age, and have been baptized nearly seven years. For over four years now I have had the privilege of serving as a ministerial servant, and am at present associated with the Windermere Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. The January 15, 1992 Watchtower with the feature article "The Unforgettable Flood" prompted me to put pen to paper and ask you some questions regarding the Flood that I find most perplexing. Please do not consider me presumptuous for asking these questions brothers. I have prayed over this, wrestled with it, done thorough research and spoken to other brothers about it - yet I still remain confused and feel I have to enquire of you why we hold certain viewpoints regarding the Flood. We well know how common it was for Bible writers to describe events from their geographic standpoint, both in the Greek and in the Hebrew scriptures. At Colossians 1:23 Paul speaks of "that good news which YOU heard, and which was preached in all creation that is under heaven." It is acknowledged in all our publications that since this was written in c.60-61 C.E., Paul meant 'all creation under heaven' known to him at that time. Logically so, since at that time Christianity had by no means reached the Americas, the Far East, Southern Africa or Australasia. The words at Romans 10:18, "..to the extremities of the inhabited earth...", must of course also be understood in the relative sense. At Acts 2:5 we read "..there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, reverent men, from every nation of those under heaven." This was written in c.61 C.E. Here too, 'every nation under heaven' cannot be literal, since there were no South American, Chinese or Australian proselytes in Jerusalem at that time. Once again, 'every nation under heaven' is to be understood as a relative phrase. At Isaiah 13:5 [concerning the Babylonians] we read that "They are coming from the land far away, from the extremity of the heavens." On a global scale, the Babylonians were not far away, they were literally next door to the Israelites! Yet, relative to the known earth of that time, they were "from the extremity of the heavens". At Genesis 41:57 people from "all the earth" came to buy food from Joseph "because the famine had a strong grip on all the earth." Does this mean Aborigines, South American Indians and Japanese peasants also came to buy food? Of course not, that would be absurd. The famine was limited to Egypt, and to the lands immediately around Egypt, like Palestine (Ge.41:54). Yet again we see how "all the earth" does not mean the entire planet, but is to be understood as the lands immediately around the Bible writer. I'm sure you have anticipated what my primary question is. Based on the preceding examples, why is it we understand the Flood to be global and not local? Why is it that phrases such as "..the flood covered the whole earth..." need to be literal, when there are numerous examples in the Bible where that phrase has to be understood in a relative sense? For what reason are the words regarding "all the earth" at Genesis 6-8 to be understood differently from the words at Colossians 1:23, Romans 10:18, Acts 2:5, Isaiah 13:5, Genesis 41:57 and other like verses? It says in the Creation book p25, par2: "When examining the Genesis account, it is helpful to keep in mind that it approaches matters from the standpoint of people on earth. So it describes events as they would have been seen by human observers". I know those words were written with the Genesis creation account in mind, but for what reason can they not apply to the Flood account? Surely a huge local flood would also prompt expressions such as: "..I am bringing...waters upon the earth to bring to ruin all flesh in which the force of life is active from under the heavens. Everything that is in the earth will expire." (Ge.6:17)? Why would Jehovah expect Noah to understand those words to mean the entire globe and its life, when Noah did not even know the entire globe existed? All that existed to Noah was the visible land and its indigenous wildlife; to him that was "the earth". In all earnestness, do you not agree that words such as the ones at Genesis 6:13,19 and 7:4,10,19,20,21,23 can also be understood as pertaining to a local flood? My question then brothers is just this: if the possibility exists that the words at Genesis 6-8 can apply to a local occurrence, why do we say the Flood must have been global? There are a number of other things which are most perplexing about a global Flood... There is no denying that the Almighty God Jehovah has the ability to bring about a worldwide flood. Yet, if the entire human race at that time was concentrated in the Middle East, for what reason would Jehovah want to submerge the continents of Australia, Antarctica, North and South America, the Far East and Africa? Mankind only spread over the earth after the Flood when the new languages were introduced. Before the Flood people were clustered in relatively close proximity, which no doubt enabled Noah to conduct a successful preaching campaign. All that would be necessary to destroy the wicked world would be a sudden local flood. Please note, with 'local flood' one does not mean a flood by today's standards. To destroy all of mankind and all animal life in the then known earth, the Flood would have to be of a supernatural kind and of immense proportions, possibly engulfing most of Eurasia. Yet it would still be 'local' on a global scale. In time, the waters would begin "receding off the earth" (Ge.8:3) and be distributed evenly throughout the globe. Flood legends cannot be used as proof of a global flood, that surely is self-evident. A local flood that destroyed all of mankind would originate the same legends. Of course, this raises the question, if the Flood was local, why was Noah not told to simply move to another land? Firstly, what about the indigenous wildlife? The wildlife specific to that area had to be preserved, or else the natural fauna would have gone extinct. Jehovah has created the earth with numerous different habitats, each with its complement of flora and fauna. Plants and animals have not just been thrown together in a random fashion - nature is very finely tuned, as our wonderful Awake! articles illustrate. If the local animals were not replaced after the Flood, the region would have suffered an ecological disaster. Also, building the ark was a test of Noah's faith and a constant reminder to the people around him of the impending catastrophe. Another problem lies in the way Jehovah has distributed animal life on this planet. You see brothers, kangaroos, koala bears and duck-billed platypuses have never existed in Europe or anywhere else in the world but Australia. The animal life of Australia (to use it as one example) is particular to that country. Did Noah travel all the way to Australia to collect these animals? And after the Flood did he travel all the way to put them back? We can go on and on. Did he travel to the Himalayas to collect the yak, to Alaska to collect the polar bear and to South America to collect the condor? Even if by some remote chance these animals did live in the Middle East 4300 years ago, how do we explain their distribution today? Certainly, they were not in the Middle East from 1513 B.C.E. onwards, or else they would have been mentioned in Bible accounts; instead, we read only of indigenous wildlife. So, if these exotic animals were not in the Middle East 1500 years before Christ, they must have all migrated to their respective countries within 800 years of the Flood, leaving no evidence whatsoever behind them. No fossils, no bones, no remains, no nothing! And what would the koala bear have eaten along the way? (Koala bears only eat eucalyptus tree leaves, which are indigenous to Australia and Indonesia alone). Of course, one explanation mentioned on p327 of the Insight book Vol.1 is that only a few basic "kinds" were taken into the ark. The increased radiation after the disappearance of the canopy would have resulted in more genetic variation and hence the abundance of species we have today. This requires a great stretch of the imagination brothers, since this would mean that in just under 1000 years: 43 "kinds" of mammals gave rise to the 4060 species of today, 74 "kinds" of birds gave rise to the 8 850 species of today, and 10 "kinds" of reptiles gave rise to the 6600 species of today! Not even the most ardent evolutionists would make such a claim! Especially since the fossils of many of today's animal species can be seen in rocks dating back to well before the Flood. The quick-frozen animals of Siberia and Alaska, as the Insight book Vol.1 p610 par 4 states, do not necessarily denote an earth-wide catastrophic flood. Yet, even with the fall of the vast water canopy over Eurasia, the temperature of the globe could have been altered enough to result in instantly frozen corpses. Marine fossils on high mountains might just as easily be the result of natural earth movements. True fossils take millions of years to form and surely could not date back to only 4300 years ago. In conclusion then, what I am saying brothers, is that after extensive research, there does not seem to be any really convincing proof that the Flood was global. In fact, unless I am overlooking something important, it is hard to understand why we are so adamant that the Flood had to be global. - The expressions concerning the "entire earth" in Genesis 6-8 cannot possibly be satisfying proof since such statements elsewhere in the Bible are to be understood as being local. Do we not let the Bible interpret itself? - Is it reasonable to think that Jehovah God would destroy the entire planet and its life if all He intended was to eradicate a handful of people in the Middle East? - How do we explain the survival of specific and isolated animal life in countless locations around the world? As I said at the outset brothers, I hope you do not consider me presumptuous for asking these questions. I see these as reasonable questions that anyone with a knowledge of the Bible and natural history would ask. It was only by questioning matters and by keeping an open mind that I came into the truth. Of course, I appreciate that my questions are not of a fundamental or doctrinal nature. I realize the important thing to keep in mind is that the Flood did take place and that it serves as a warning for us who are living in the last days. I nonetheless would appreciate it if you considered seriously the points I have raised and sent me a reply. I realize you are very busy and I would not bother you if I did not feel this to be of importance. I know of many thinking people who appreciate the truth, but who hold back because they find belief in a global flood makes unreasonable demands on their imagination and faith. Christian love MARIO DI MAGGIO |
 |