Glenn wrote:
<< But even given that I can't prove my version of the flood, I CAN PROVE THAT
THE FLOOD SCENARIOS OFFERED BY OTHER WIDELY ACCEPTED VIEWS ARE ABSOLUTELY
CONTRADICTED BY THE DATA. (I would clarify that by claiming that the flood
occurs in Mesopotamia, one is thereby proclaiming what he believes is the
historical reality of the flood--which is totally at odds with the
historical/scientific data). The only way out is to make the flood account
be a nice little story in which the details don't matter. >>
In my opinion a Mesopotamian flood is much more in accord with the
historical, scientific and biblical data than any other theory. There are
archaeological flood strata which correlate with the written records of
Sumer. As Jack Finegan wrote:
"Since in Sumerian tradition Shuruppak was the last ruling city before the
flood and Kish was the first thereafter, it was presumably the inundation
attested at Shuruppak between the Jemdet Nasr and Early Dynastic periods (and
at Uruk and Kish at about the same time) that was the historic flood so long
remembered. The date was about 2900." [Jack Finegan, Archaeological History
of the Ancient Middle East (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1979) 26]
Max Mallowan concluded similarly,
"That the Flood account in the Old Testament was based on a real event which
may have occurred in about 2900 B.C., or perhaps a century or more after, at
the beginning of the Early Dynastic period." [Max Mallowan, "Noah's Flood
Reconsidered," Iraq 26 (1964) 81; the whole article should be read]
Both men are capable Near Eastern archaeologists, neither are
fundamentalists, and they are not the only ones to draw this conclusion. In
addition, a Mesopotamian flood, though not matching the biblical account on a
one to one basis, still coheres reasonable well with it.
As nice as the Mediterranean flood is from a geological point of view, it is
far from agreeing with the details of the biblical account.
1. The date of the Flood
The genealogy of Gen 11:10-26 only gives 10 generations from the Flood to
Abraham. Even if the genealogy has left out some generations, it cannot be
stretched to 5.5 million years. Such a stretch would mean that on average,
there were over 500,000 years between each generation! How could an oral
tradition be kept in tact from even the first generation to the second, much
less through ten of them? No one can claim to take the genealogy seriously
and do this to it. In addition, the tower of Babel follows the Flood
chronologically and cannot be dated before 3500 BC (if the biblical details
are accurate). Are we really to believe that mankind spoke the same language
from 5.5 million BC until 3500 BC?
2. The depth and extent of the Flood:
The biblical account describes the Flood as covering "all the high mountains"
(Gen 7:19); and the mountains of Urartu (Ararat) are in view (Gen 8:4). Since
Urartu centered around Lake Van, the Bible is describing a flood that covered
mountains a good 10,000 feet higher than the Mediterranean Sea. There is no
way the bursting dam of the Mediterranean (or the Black Sea) could result in
flood waters rising that high or covering an area that broad.
3. The landing place of the ark:
The ark lands in the mountains of Urartu (Gen 8:4). Although Urartu may have
come within a couple hundred miles or so of Adana, it is still necessary to
get the ark up at least 1000 and probably 1500 feet or more higher than the
level of the Mediterranean to have it's landing spot match the biblical
account. And, given that Urartu centered around Lake Van and only extended so
far west for around 30 of its 300-year existence, it is improbable that the
bibliical account is referring to mountains that far west or that low. The
most probable interpretation of the biblical account, if the details are
accurate, is that the ark landed at least a mile above sea level.
4. The cultural level at the time of the Flood
Although one can posit a Chalcolithic culture (as Gen 4 specifies) at 5.5
million BC, it is improbable archaeologically and is a violation of Occam's
valuable principle that entities to support a theory should not be multiplied.
5. The source of the water of the Flood
In the biblical account, the water is from the sea which is above the
firmament and below the earth, the waters of the great Deep which surround
the biblical universe (Gen 7:11). The water that produced the Flood is not
from the sea surrounding the earth, that is, the sea inside the biblical
universe; but this sea is the source of the water in the Mediterranean flood.
6. The land after the Flood
After the biblical Flood the land that was flooded dries off. The land that
was flooded by the Mediterranean flood is still under water. The
Mediterranean theory cannot account for Gen 8:5-13.
In short, the Mediterranean hypothesis is at least as far from the biblical
description as any other hypothesis and probably further. The only way out
for those who hold it "is to make the flood account be a nice little story in
which the details don't matter."
This brings me to the point of this post: All evangelicals, regardless of
their theory of the Flood, are rejecting some biblical data. Consequently,
there is no place for speaking against the theories of others in capital
letters---whether actually written or only inferred by attitude. True?
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 03 2001 - 15:45:09 EST