Dr. David Campbell of this list recently got me thinking of a possible
solution to some of the problems associated with Noah's flood. He told me
that the "solution" I will here discuss was proposed on this list quite a
while back. I'd like to see some new discussion of it.
Some on this list have said that Noah's flood could not have taken place in
Mesopotamia because they say no evidence there exists that a flood of
biblical proportions ever there took place. Some on this list have disputed
this assertion, saying that evidence of extensive flooding has been found in
Mesopotamia that has been dated to about 3500 BC, which they say is about the
time the Bible indicates Noah's flood took place, and thus they say these
"flood deposits" may have been laid down by Noah's flood.
However, I have had trouble accepting the idea that the Bible is describing a
large flood that took place in Mesopotamia in about 3500 BC. For I understand
Bible chronology to say that Noah's flood took place in about 2350 BC.
(Recent tree ring studies date a major change in the earth's climate to that
same time, seeming to confirm my understanding of Bible chronology.) Some who
believe that Noah's flood took place in Mesopotamia in about 3500 BC take the
reasonable sounding position that Bible chronology is open to interpretation
(with possible gaps in the Genesis genealogies and conflicting chronological
data in different Hebrew texts) and that, because it is, a 3500 BC date for
Noah's flood is just as "biblical" as a 2350 BC date. However, I have studied
all of these issues quite thoroughly and am convinced that Bible chronology
really does date Noah's flood to about 2350 BC. That does not mean that I
believe the 3500 BC date for a Mesopotamian flood or floods is in error. I
believe Mesopotamia probably experienced major flooding in about 3500 BC,
that evidence of that flooding has been found and that it has been properly
dated. I also believe that the land of Noah was flooded in about 2350 BC.
However, I believe evidence of that flooding has not yet been found. How can
this be? How could evidence of Mesopotamian flooding have found and
accurately dated to about 3500 BC, while evidence has never been found of a
Mesopotamian flood of biblical proportions which took place in about 2350 BC?
Here is how I believe this may be. Please feel free to poke holes in this
scenario.
The majority of the land area that was flooded at the time of Noah is still
flooded. The land that Noah once lived in now lies beneath the waters of the
Persian Gulf. Noah's land was largely a coastal community. Most of its
residents lived near the shores of the Persian Gulf which were then further
south than they are today. Noah built his ark in the northern part of his
land, far from the sea. Thus when "the springs of the great deep burst
forth," (which I believe refers to tidal waves which were caused by meteor
impacts in the Gulf, despite Paul S's arguments to the contrary) Noah's ark
managed to escape the flood's most destructive forces. However, the ark was
pushed by the resulting flood waters somewhat north of its original location.
Besides causing tidal waves, the meteor impacts also triggered earthquakes
which caused the elevations of Noah's land and some areas just to the north
of it to drop below sea level. All of the flooded areas remained in that
lowered position, and thus were able to remain flooded, for five months. Then
a small portion of the flooded land, that which was furthest to the north,
rose above sea level, or possibly sea levels then fell. (What geological
forces caused these land areas to rise or sea levels to fall I do not know.)
When this happened "the ark came to rest in the hills of Ararat." (At the
time of Noah "Ararat" referred to all land areas to the north of Noah's
land.) The waters which had flooded the land areas furthest to the north then
drained southward into a newly enlarged Persian Gulf. The land in which Noah
once lived never regained its previous elevation. It now remains buried
beneath the waters of the Persian Gulf. "The hills of Ararat" in which Noah's
ark came to rest are now located not too far north of the present shoreline
of the Persian Gulf, or may even have since been claimed by the Gulf. The
reason little evidence of a flood of biblical proportions can be found today
in Mesopotamia, and no evidence has been found of any Mesopotamian flood
dating to about 2350 BC as Bible chronology seems to date Noah's flood, is
because nearly all of the areas that were flooded at the time of Noah are
still flooded.
Of course, I realize this idea suffers from a lack of any solid evidence. If
this flood scenario is a correct one evidence of it should be able to be
found on the floor of the Persian Gulf. Of course, finding small artifacts of
a 4,350 year old civilization deep beneath tens of thousands of square miles
of water and sea floor muck would require an awful lot of work, work no one
is likely to ever do since this theory is founded on nothing more than
speculation. I would, however, be interested in hearing why you feel this
speculation may or may not have a possibility of being correct.
Thanks.
Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 06 2002 - 01:34:02 EDT