Stephen, I said I would respond to your posts if you kept up. I would like
to thank you for doing so this time. I would like to ask you to cease the
snide little ridiculing comments as above (the overwhelming silence). Snide
ridiculing comments do not make for reasoned discussion and mark you as a
disagreeable fellow which you aren't. Besides I am not sure this enhances
Christian fellowship. But that may not be what you want.
>But before I begin, I want to
>place on record yet again, my appreciation that Glenn takes the early
>chapters of Genesis seriously as history.
>
>GM>Why The Flood Can Not Be In Mesopotamia
>
>While the Bible not say that the Flood was in "Mesopotamia" (the
>word itself is Greek and does not occur until the NT, eg. Acts 2:9;
>7:2, although it is used in the Greek translation of the OT, the
>Septuagint, but not until Genesis 24.).
>
>However:
>
>1. All OT scholars AFAIK are agreed that the Flood account reflects a
>mesopotamian background.
"All" seems a little strong here. The YEC scholars believe that the flodd
was not in Mesopotamia because they believe it was everywhere. Argumentum
ad populum here.
>2. The ark came to rest on "the mountains of Ararat" (Gn 8:4); lit.
>the mountains or hills of Urartu (Armenia). This is northern
>Mesopotamia.
This means that the ark floated uphill against the current. Did the Ark
have an outboard or inboard motor?
>GM>can only be true IF the facts of the account actually match the
>>facts of history.
>
>Even this is not necessarily so. The Flood story could still be
>"true", even if it wasn't "history". The parables of Jesus are
>"true", even if the events portrayed did not actually happen in
>history. I believe the Flood was historical, but if it wasn't, I
>would still regard it as theologically true, ie. God's vehicle for
>communicating an important message about sin, judgment and salvation
>
I have always found this to be odd. Tomake people fear God's wrath with a
non-existent Flood, is like a parent telling their childred that the boogey
man would get them. When they grow up, they learn that there is no boogey man.
>GM>Water in a riverine flood travels at a speed of 3-5 miles per
>>hour, and occasionally faster.
>
>There is no statement in the Bible that the Flood was a "riverine
>flood". There is no mention of "rivers" in the Flood story. The
>last mention of "river" before the Flood is Gn 2:14 and the next is
>Gn 15:18.
>
But Stephen, if you place the flood in Mesopotamia it runs along the river
valley and thus logically becomes a riverine flood.
>GM>Since the slope of the Mesopotamian basin is towards the south,
>>the water will flow south, carrying the Ark with it.
>
>There is no requirement that the Flood be in "the Mesopotamian
>basin", only that it be continuous with the mountains of
>Ararat. It may have been north of Ararat:
>
>"There is in Western Asia a remarkably depressed area, extending from
>the Sea of Aral to the Steppes of the Caucasus on the north, and
>sweeping round the southern shores of the Caspian, comprehending
>Ararat and the Great Salt Desert, which, as Ansted has remarked
>"forms no inconsiderable portion of the great recognized centre of
>the human family. The Caspian Sea (83 1/2 feet below the level of
>the sea and in some parts of it 600 feet deep) and the Sea of Aral
>occupy the lowest part of a vast space, whose whole extent is not
>less than 100,000 square miles, hollowed out, as it were, in the
>central region of the great continent, and no doubt formerly the bed
>of the ocean" [and into this natural saucer the ocean waters
>poured].' (Jamieson R., "JFB Bible Commentary", Vol I, p100, in
>Ramm, 1955, p162).
>
My company owns an oil field in that region and the geography does not fit
what the Bible describes. One can see huge mountains from this region which
would not have been covered had the flood occurred there.
>Lake Van meets all the Biblical requirements for a local Flood. It is
>in the mountain country of ancients Urartu, and being high above
>sea level, it would solve the problem of where the water drained to.
>The whole area is recently geologically unstable and it would not be
>hard to imagine geological movements that blocked water flow to
>create a basin and then later unblocked to drain the water off again.
>Any sediments from the Flood would either be at the bottom of Lake
>Van or were flushed out by the when the block was removed.
At last something testable. Did the flood wipe out all humanity except the
8 on the ark? Were there people elsewhere on earth at the time? What about
the anatomically modern men living in Europe from 35,000 years ago on; the
anatomically modern men who lived in Africa 120,000 years ago? If they were
not spiritual, then why was there evidence of worship? When did the flood
occur?
>I will replace Glenn's syllogism with another:
>
>All ordinary floods leave sediments covering what they flooded.
>Noah's Deluge was not an ordinary flood.
>Therefore Noah's deluge might not have left sediment.
>
>In particular, as I have pointed out to Glenn before (but which he
>just ignores) there is no Biblical reason why the Flood should
>have left sediment:
If God did it miraculously, then I would agree with you. But as I often
note, the golden tablets upon which the Mormon faith are based was
miraculously removed by God so that no one can look at them today. If this
is the basis upon which we should believe somthing (i.e., that all evidence
for its existence is gone), then your methodology would commend the Mormon
Faith as something worthy of consideration.
But to say that an extraordinary (large) flood does not leave sediment is an
equivocation on the term ordinary. However, your Lake Van flood is no larger
than other floods whcih have left sediment.
> Glenn needs to heed Jesus'
>rebuke to the naturalistic Sadducees who denied the resurrection:
>
>"You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power
>of God." (Mt 22:29)
Is this more of your ridicule and demonizing of those who disagree with you?
This seems to be rather mean spirited.
>Once again, I give credit to Glenn for at least believing that the
>Flood of Noah was historical. But his proposed cure (a 5.5 mya flood
>in the Mediterranean) is worse than the disease! Glenn's problem
>would be largely solved if he actually considered as a serious
>hypothesis that God really did supernaturally intervene in history
>and remove all traces of evidence for the Flood.
Why would God do that if the purpose of the flood was to show people His wrath?
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm