I recall reading a book advocating a local flood scenario by someone named
Woodrow (or something like that). The style of exegesis reminded me alot
of a YEC literalism, but he came to local flood conclusions instead. My
recollection is that he claimed that Ararat had nothing to do with Turkey,
but with a much lower elevation range in central Iraq. I realize that this
doesn't fit with your scenario, but I wondered if you had come across this
material and whether it might soften the force of your mesopotamian flood
objections.
Also, what if the actual historical event that is described in Genesis 6-9
is a much smaller event than you seem to envisage--would there still be a
geological trace? I'm not sure that Davis Young in Calvin's geology
department agrees with your assessment that a local flood around 4000-5000
BC would leave a geological trace. I think that this has come up before,
but what will be the geological trace of the Mississippi River floods of a
few years ago? Can you give us a sense of the largest magnitude flood that
would give no geological trace? Perhaps you may not be satisfied that this
could comport well with the Genesis account, but others of us might be.
Thanks.
TG
_____________________________________________________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
Calvin College 3201 Burton SE Grand Rapids, MI 49546
Office: (616) 957-7187 FAX: (616) 957-6501
Email: grayt@calvin.edu http://www.calvin.edu/~grayt
*This mission critical message was written on a Macintosh with Eudora Pro*
A special message for Macintosh naysayers:
http://www.macworld.com/pages/july.96/Column.2204.html