Hello Paul,
Thanks for your feedback on my trial balloon. Obviously what I am doing in
floating it is to try to come up with some scenario which might be able to be
harmonized with the scriptures, with history and with science. One problem in
doing so is that any scenario which may be able to be harmonized with one,
take science for example, is sure not to harmonize with someone's
understanding of either history or the scriptures.
For instance, you wrote, "There is plenty of evidence that Ararat (Urartu)
was in Armenia. There is no evidence that the word was applied to lands "not
too far north of the present shoreline of the Persian Gulf." " Though I can't
remember where right now, I remember reading that in very ancient times the
region called "Uratu" extended much further south than it does today. The
city called "Ur" in southern Mesopotamia was said to be evidence of this.
You also wrote, "No flood covering less than the entire Near East matches the
biblical account of the extent of the flood."
Of course, we know science tells us that the large land are to which you
refer was not flooded at any time during the history of man. I believe that
is a pretty well proven fact. That means if the Bible's flood account is
factual we must now misunderstand either some parts of history, such as what
areas were referred to as "Uratu" in Noah's day, and/or some parts of the
scriptures, such as the extent of the flood as described in the scriptures.
It seems to me that if you are right in your understanding of both history
and scripture that the Bible and/or science must be wrong. I tend to think it
is more likely that your understanding of the scriptures and/or history is
wrong.
But thanks for your feedback.
Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 09 2002 - 02:31:26 EDT