At 11:23 PM 11/16/98 EST, PHSEELY@aol.com wrote:
>I love your details; and am convinced you have scoured the geological data
>probably more than anyone else trying to find a flood that would match the
>biblical description. You have proven that a flood which matches the
biblical
>description did not occur within the time frame given in the biblical
>description. Thus, you have an excellent case against the way YEC's are
>looking at the Flood as well as against the concordists who say a local
>Mesopotamian flood fulfills the biblical description. I believe you are
>correct that neither one of them fits both the scientific data and the
>biblical description. The way you have closely documented your conclusion is
>to my mind a very important contribution.
>
> But, unless you can find such a flood within the temporal framework which
>the Bible describes, you just have another concordist solution which does not
>fit the biblical description. The time frame is of the essence when you are
>describing an historical event. The concordists who say the Bible is
>describing a local Mesopotamian flood are in agreement with the time frame of
>the Bible, but not in agreement with the scientific data. Your hypothesis is
>(presumably) in agreement with the scientific data, but not even remotely
>close to being in agreement with the biblical time frame. So, as I see it
you
>are like the kettle calling the pot black.
>
> I think, however, that you have implicitly mentioned the best solution in
>the latter part of your above statement: "It seems to me that we Christians
>will accept any ole story so long as it has water in it, as the source of
the
>flood legend." The what? Flood LEGEND. There really was a flood in the
>ancient Near East in the time frame given in Scripture; but, the biblical
>description is larger than life.
Thanks for the kind words about my details.
What I can't accept in the way you and other deal with this type of issue
is this: You admit that the Biblical story doesn't match the description
and yet are unwilling to then draw the proper conclusion---Early Genesis
is factually erroneous and thus worthless as a purveyor of truth. And
being unwilling to draw the proper conclusion, you conclude that the Bible
therefore must be true.
As I have said before this is a 'Heads I win; Tails you lose" type of
apologetic. Heads the Bible is true; Tails, the Bible is true. Such an
apologetic does lead to the Bible being true but only true in a trivial way.
Now, as to the timing of the flood. there are two things that must be
noted. YOu can only date this event by believing that the genealogies are
complete. Luke 3:35-36 shows that the genealogies of Gen. 11 are not
complete.
Secondly, as I pointed out in Foundation, if you and 8 of your dearest
friends were the only survivors of a global catastrophe, you and your
descendants would be reduced to savagery and a huge dark age would ensue.
Technology requires a population of specialists and with only 8 people you
can't maintain technology. The entire idea that 8 people immediately
started a farming life again is entirely unrealistic.
And once your descendents were hunter-gatherers, they would be quite happy
to remain that way for a long, long time. Invention is not something that
is highly prized in stone age cultures.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm