Geology stuff (was Re: Noahic Covenant)

From: Jim Eisele (jeisele@starpower.net)
Date: Sun Jul 21 2002 - 08:37:07 EDT

  • Next message: alexanian@uncw.edu: "FW: Harun Yahya's Answer to Scientific American"

    Hi Darryl,

    I will allow some time before delving deeper into the excellent issues
    that you raised.

    For now,

    I think we all need to treat the Bible as real history until shown
    otherwise. Here's another short list (aimed at the forehead of YEC
    leadership, however you would like to define that).

    1. Where, on your websites, can I find the top 1-2 arguments for a
        young earth?
    2. Genesis describes the flood as rising 15 cubits above the earth.
        You are now blatantly playing games with the Bible.
    3. (Jim's "speculation") I imagine that God will begin to dry up the
        funding of YEC. Sadly, this has become a scalding Christian issue.
        I can't think of anything else that divides the church in this fashion.
    4. Here's a stab, for now, at your geology questions (back to Darryl).
        Deposits at Ur, Kish, Shuruppak, Uruk, and Lagash all around the same
        period (with, basically, no deposits at other time periods).
             Qualifier - Parrot interpreted the Lagash deposit as packing for
                         the foundation of a temple
             Note: Nineveh (to the north) didn't have deposits dating to a
                   similar time period

    One last thought (on Glenn's post). Your research is wildly inaccurate.
    The Bible says not one whit about Turkey. Try the region of Ararat, or
    Urartu.

    Wait, one more thought before I hit send. Best's book (1999) was excellent
    and lacking all at once. His dating of the flood to 2900 BC was convincing.
    Certainly, there seems to be no ground for dating any earlier than 2750 BC.
    Maybe, at some point, I will check out his radiocarbon source. The
    reference
    is Harriet Crawford, Sumer and the Sumerians (London: Cambridge University
    Press, 1991) p. 19. My impression is that radiocarbon dating is very
    accurate
    nowadays. They made a dendochronological correction that is described in
    Bailey's book on the flood. Best also uses pottery analysis which shows a
    clear break that he believes indicates when the flood hit.

    Simply put, Best is biased against miracles. His solution to the long ages
    in the Genesis genealogies? Impossible!

    Jim Eisele
    Genesis in Question
    http://genesisinquestion.org



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 21 2002 - 14:31:16 EDT