This didn't make it to the asa either:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: PHSEELY@aol.com [mailto:PHSEELY@aol.com]
>Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2001 8:45 PM
>To: glenn.morton@btinternet.com
>Cc: asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: Re: Where is man? (was RE: Faith was: Creation Ex Nihilio and
>other journals)
>
>
>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.
And both were wrong about the age of the strata which have been purported to
be due to the great mesopotamian flood.
“The task of adapting this archaeological hypothesis to the
chronological implications of the Sumerian texts has on the whole proved
less difficult than one would have imagined. One initial problem concerned
the date and significance of the Flood, which figures so prominently in
Sumerian tradition and whose memory has indeed been bequeathed to ourselves
through the medium of Hebrew scriptures. The archaeological evidence in
this connection was unfortunately extremely equivocal. Great floods were a
commonplace of Mesopotamian history until quite recent times; and it was
therefore less than surprising to find that, in deep soundings at relevant
Sumerian sites, clean strata of water-borne sand or clay appeared in
stratigraphical contexts which varied in time from the Ubaid period at Ur to
the end of the Early Dynastic phase at Kish. At Farah (Shuruppak), however,
a stratum of this sort occurs at the end of Early Dynastic I, and in this
single case it could, as we shall now see, be cited (with out much
conviction) as supporting evidence for an inference from the Sumerian
textural evidence.” ~ Seton Lloyd, The Archaeology of Mesopotamia, (New
York: Thames and Hudson, 1978), p. 92
>
>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.
So you are a YEC in sheep's clothing. :-) I knew it! And of course you
believe that men during that time lived as long as the Bible says? What I
don't understand here is the choosing of this fact (10 generations) as a
means of arguing for your position and then I know you will argue against
the age of the Patriarchs at that time, and you will argue against the
historicity of much of that part of the Bible. So why are we to believe
that the number of generations in Gen. 11 is somehow literal fact, when you
believe that nothing else in that chapter is literal fact. What
distinguishes the 10 generations information from the other information in
that passage?
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?
I can't tell you how long oral tradition can last, but I know that the
evidence that Neanderthal left (in the form of bear bone deposits) which
inicates a bear cult or bear worship, are very much like the bear bone
deposits left by modern humans who we know worship the bear. If there was
any cultural connection then we have an oral tradition lasting 80,000 years
plus. And I think there must have been because the only place the bear is
worshipped is in the circumpolar, cold regions which is where the
Neanderthals lived as well.
>
>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.
We have gone around about that one. If my explanation for the Ararat
mountains won't work (which is that they extend to the SW to the sea), then
why on earth do you use this fact (that the Bible says that the high
mountains were covered), to argue against my position. In the Mesopotamian
flood of your preference, those mountains weren't covered either. So why are
you saying I should cover the Lake Van region when you don't? Seems a bit
inconsistent. Those mountains are also 10,000 feet higher than Shurupak as
well. If you cover those mountains with water, you have a global
flood--indeed that is the only way to cover those mountains with water.
So tell me again why this is a point in favor of your Mesopotamian view? I
can't see it.
>
>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.
So you are a literalist after all. Here is another fact from the Biblical
record that you think is rock solid and must be paid attention to. Why is it
necessary to get them up 1000 feet into what you believe is the actual area
of the old Uruartu.The Bible doesn't say that the ark landed in the area
under the political control of the Urartians. It says they landed on the
Mountains of Ararat It seems that you pick and chose what Biblical facts are
to be paid attention to. . Go look at
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/Libs/PCL/Map_collection/Atlas_middle_east/Turkey_m
ap.jpg
What you will see is a continuous mountain chain from Anamur along the
southern coast going up towards Goksun NE of Adana, goint up to Tunceli,
Bingol, Mus, Bitlis and passing south of Lake Van. It is one long continuous
mountain chain as can clearly be seen on any topo map if one wants to take
the time to look at it. And remember that when I advocate the flood was, the
plain of Adana would not have been there. The Seyhan Nehri river would have
deposited that delta afterwards.
>
>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.
This one, I won't argue with you over. I can't prove my position here.
>
>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.
Once again, you take a literal approach to what the Bible says, You are
telling me that the detail of where the water came from is rock solid and
should be paid attention to. Otherwise you couldn't argue as you are. But
in the Mesopotamian flood, the water didn't come from the waters of the
great deep. I looked up this term in Strong's which is used in Genesis 7:11.
H8415 (Usually feminine) from H1949; an abyss (as a surging mass of water),
especially the deep (the main sea or the subterranean water supply):—deep
(place), depth.
I see the words 'the main sea' here. The water which was held back by the
Gibraltar dam was the main sea. When the dam failed it would produce a
surging mass of water. I don't see where that can happen in the Mesopotamian
flood view. So if you want to tell us that we must pay attention to the
meaning of this word, the deep, then you ought to also. I did a search on
this word. It used in conjunction with the sea most of the time. Only
occasionally is it used for a spring.
>
>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.
And as I have pointed out before to you, Genesis 6:13 clearly says God will
destroy the land. "I will destroy them with the earth[land]" Those people
he utterly destroyed, but if your view of the Mesopotamian flood is true,
then the land is not destroyed. It still is. In my view, it is indeed
destroyed. It is no longer land.
>
>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?
I think the thing that has irritated me a bit lately is that many here have
rejected my view, NOT ON THE BASIS OF FACTS WHICH FALSIFY MY VIEW, but upon
the basis that one crucial piece of evidence is missing. And then they run
to a 'safe' view which has so much data falsifying that view, that one must
wonder if facts mean anything to us Christians. And this is what I am really
struggling with. If facts don't mean anything to christians when it comes to
our theology, then what is the worth of that theology? Our religion is a
historically based religion. If what we present to the world as REAL
history, isn't REAL, then one must rationally ask if we ourselves are
believing a lie.
What you say about ignoring or rejecting data can also be said of all
scientists and scientific theories. But we don't have scientists rejecting
data willy-nilly or accepting only those facts that support their view and
rejecting all others. Nor do we have scientists accepting clearly falsified
views. We should reject as little data as possible and go for the view that
rejects as little as possible. There is a big temptation to erect a filter
which allows in only data that supports one's view. The YECs do this; I
think the old-earthers who reject and denigrat concordism, do the same
thing. In the above you chose to select certain facts which supported your
argument, even if in selecting them to pound on me, you undermined your
larger argument that we shouldn't really pay much attention to the details
of the scriptural account. Having spent the first 20 years of my adult life
living with a one-way YEC filter, I don't intend to go back to another
one-way-OEC filter. Yes, we all have to squirm with some of the data, but
that doesn't mean that that is a good thing to do. It doesn't even make it
correct. We should come to grips with the maximal amount of data both from
science and from the Bible and put together scenarios that actually honor
the maximal amount of data from both sides. To do otherwise is to create a
one-way filter which creates a viewpoint which doesn't recognize
falsifications of the viewpoint. YEC can't be falsified because the
adherents don't allow in data that would falsify their view. But then
Mesopotamian flood advocates don't allow in the facts which would falsify
their view either. Facts like:
1 Big ship full of animals flows uphill against the flow of water to land
several thousand feet above its starting point.
2 No widespread Holocene flood deposit, which would be the natural outgrowth
of such an event and indeed such evidence exists elsewhere on earth where
there were large floodings--like the channeled scablands of Washington.
3 The water flow would have pushed the ark into the Indian Ocean
4 The flood couldn't have lasted a year.
5 No mountains were covered with water.
6 Continuous civilization throughout the period you all want the flood. The
Software Toolworks Multimedia Encyclopedia states that Ur was inhabited from
the 5th millennium BC (at least 4000 B.C) until 400 B.C. The city existed
uninterrupted over that period (even the famous flood layer at Ur did not
cover the entire town). It is difficult to see how there could have been a
flood of such a magnitude that would get special note. The Mesopotamian
flood is a flood without effect!
Paul, what is the difference between a YEC advocate and a Mesopotamian
advocate? The YEC advocate ignores data on the age of the earth in order to
save the veracity of his viewpoint while the Mespotamian advocate ignores
physics and the Biblical account in order to save the veracity of his
viewpoint. What is the difference????? The rational thing to do in light of
this is to say that this flood didn't happen then and there. It is simply
not rational to claim that the Mesopotamian view is true and then twist
physics, the geology, the archeology and the account to make it so. I won't
play that dangerous game anymore regardless of whether anyone believes my
view or not.
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 04 2001 - 09:37:50 EST