On Sun, 23 Feb 1997 13:02:09 -0600, Glenn Morton wrote:
GM>I had wanted to find this a couple of weeks ago when we were
>talking about the effects of a Mesopotamian flood. I just now
>found it.
>
>While this is very old, and the 11,000 year date may be wrong, it
>does illustrate that river floods do carry lots of sediment.
Glenn continues to confuse a "Mesopotamian flood" with a "river
flood". The Bible says nothing about any river. Indeed the two are
not the same. Lake Van was in ancient Mesopotamia, and yet it is
not part of any river system. It is in its own huge basin that
comprises the ancient kingdom of Urartu:
"As some of the readers may know, the Bible only gives a general
reference as to the landing place of the Ark. Many enthusiasts of
the Ark search, however, mistakenly believe the Bible names Mt.
Ararat as the Ark's specific resting place. This is not the case as
the Bible says only that the Ark came to rest on "the mountains
(plural) of Ararat" (Gen. 8:4). At the time Moses wrote Genesis
"Ararat" was a very remote region north of Assyria centered around
present-day Lake Van. Modern archaeological studies have pretty
well delineated the boundaries of this ancient kingdom." (Crouse
B., "Noah's Ark: Its Final Berth", Archaeology and Biblical
Research, Vol. 5, No. 3. Summer, 1992)
GM>If there had been a widespread flood in Mesopotamia, there
>should be some geologic evidence. Artefacts in the Nile vally have
>been found under nearly 40 feet of sediment.
Glenn's basic assumption is that there must be a naturalistic
explanation of the Flood and supernatural explanations are just
ignored. This is simply theistic naturalism. He assumes that
Noah's Flood was just an ordinary Flood, yet the Biblical evidence
is that it was definitely no ordinary Flood. There are clear
references to God's supernatural intervention in the Biblical story
of the Flood: 1. God made the animals come to Noah (Gn 6:20; 7:9);
2. God made the underground springs and the rain commence on the
same day (Gn 7:11); 3. God shut Noah in the Ark (Gn 7:16).
The Bible records that God "God...sent a wind over the earth, and
the waters receded" (Gn 8:1). This is a parallel to Gn 1:2 "and the
Spirit [same Heb. word as "wind"] of God was hovering over the
waters". Any "sediment" would have been a thick layer of mud to
Noah. This would have contained the bodies of Noah's countrymen and
the animals and would have been a health hazard and would have made
the fresh start by Noah difficult if no impossible. This and the
fact that no mud is mentioned in the Biblical account, it is at
least possible (as Glenn himself acknowledges) that God made the mud
disappear with the water.
GM>"The investigations in the bed of the Nile confirm these views.
>That some unwarranted conclusions have at times been announced is
>true; but the fact remains that again and again rude pottery and
>other evidences of early stages of civilization have been found in
>borings at places so distant from each other, and at depths so
>great, that for such a range of concurring facts, considered in
>connection with the rate of earthy deposit by the Nile, there is no
>adequate explanation save the existence of man in that valley
>thousands on thousands of years before the longest time admitted by
>our sacred chronologists....If nothing more, it shows how much
>sediment has been deposited since Egyptian civilization began.
No one doubts that river floods normally leave sediment. There is
no evidence the Flood was a river flood and in any event the
Biblical Flood was not an ordinary naturalistic Flood.
GM>Some have suggested that if the Flood was in the Mesopotamian
>basin, that repeated groundings of the ark would keep the ark from
>washing into the Persian Gulf for the year that the account
>requires. I have just perused a book Great Lakes Shipwrecks and
>Survivals by William Ratigan which says a few things about such a
>possibility. A grounded boat must be supported by two points of
>support. Doing this is bad for a boat. The Edmund Fitzgerald may
>have been sunk in this manner.
There is no Biblical evidence that "the Flood was in the
Mesopotamian basin". Also, the Ark was not a "boat", it was a box.
[...]
GM>The application of all this to a river flood which requires the
>ark to be repeatedly grounded is that the structural integrity of
>the boat would be compromised. Wood is not as strong as metal and
>so it should break sooner if it is supported at each end in a
>grounding.
See above. All this is irrelevant to the Biblical account of the
Flood.
GM>Striking the ground is also a major danger for a ship.
[...]
The Ark wasn't a "ship" either.
[...]
Glenn's strategy appears to be to: 1. attack views that he thinks he
can defeat; 2. ignore any views that he can't; and then 3.declare
his 5.5 mya Australopithecine/Homo habilis/Homo erectus Noah and
Mediterannean/African Flood the winner!
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------