Gordon,
As I have pointed out recently in connection with the giving of the rainbow, I
believe the biblical data suggests the Antediluvian world to have been quite
different from the one we know. The longevities of those named in the
line from Adam
to Noah surely suggest that. But, regarding what was going on under
the water at the
time of the Flood - and beyond - you must know I was not speaking of
the dissolution
of the entire crust of the earth. One can imagine that some areas would remain
relatively unscathed - apart from the head of water above.
You may be interested to know the result of my internet search on the
topic "trees
tolerance to flooding". Here is an extract from Table 1 of
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/n_resource/flood/toler.htm. It deals with the
relative tolerance of trees and shrubs to flooding during the growing
season, Lower
Mississippi Valley and Missouri River Divisions. (source: Whitlow and
Harris 1979):
Fraximus pennsylvanica (a variety of ash) - very tolerant: able to
survive deep,
prolonged flooding for more than 1 year.
We further read at http:/www.alphazee.com/olive-leaf/olea.html that
the olive tree
is a member of a plant family that includes the ash...
A little simple arithmetic reveals that Noah's second sending out of the dove
occurred some 271 days after the rains began. Clearly, therefore, we
have no problem
with the olive leaf!
What you have to say concerning the Tigris and Euphrates rivers
indicates that your
thinking is in "Post-diluvian" mode. I believe the originals were
obliterated by the
global flood, re-established following the flood, and given the same
names by Noah.
Noah eventually landed not that far from where he boarded the ark, ie
this vessel
simply went up and came down with little lateral movement. Why,
therefore, should
the location of the garden of Eden present a problem?
gordon brown wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>
> > But have you not considered that the Antediluvian world might
>have been quite
> > different from what we have today? Our great mountain ranges and
>deep ocean
> > trenches were probably non-existent then; the seas were relatively
> >shallow and
> > the land flat. We read in Gen.7:11 that the opening of the "windows
> >of heaven"
> > (releasing the "waters above the firmament") was accompanied by the
> >breaking up
> > of the "fountains of the great deep" (presumably, subterranean
> >reservoirs). The
> > implications are, surely, that forces of unimaginable ferocity were
> > unleashed in
> > the earth's crust at that time which - assuming the Flood to have
> >been global -
> > would have reshaped the whole of its surface over the coming months
> >and years -
> > and adjusted Flood- and sea- levels accordingly. Such a scenario
> >presents none
> > of the problems you suggest - would you not agree?
>
> Vernon,
>
> You ought to be concerned with the problems this scenario presents with
> respect to being consistent with the Genesis account. Your scenario was
> developed by Seventh Day Adventists from the writings of Ellen White and
> not from the Bible.
>
> How could an olive leaf emerge unscathed from the sort of flood that you
> describe? Why would the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers have survived? Why
> would Genesis try to give a detailed map as to where the Garden of Eden
> was geographically in terms of places existing after the Flood and even
> named after descendants of Noah?
>
> Gordon Brown
> Department of Mathematics
> University of Colorado
> Boulder, CO 80309-0395
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 24 2002 - 16:37:58 EDT