PS<< Just for the record I believe the Flood occurred as a Mesopotamian
>flood, a >real historical event in real history; but, the Bible writes it
up as a
>universal event probably because that is the way it was described
>from as far >back as we have a record, i.e., the Sumerian account.
GM: Great. If this is true, I can conclude only one thing. Someone who wrote
that part of the Bible fibbed! They took a local flood and exaggerated out
the wadzoo and now we are expected to see great theological truths in a
falsified account. Clifford Irving wrote a falsified will for Howard Hughes
(late of Texas, Mexico, Las Vegas). Are we supposed to see great theological
meaning in that falsified will? Or more to the point, what about the false
Hitler diaries for which the magazine Stern paid $3.8 million. >>
PS: It is hard to take you seriously when your own theory of the Flood is a
local theory and not universal. You don't believe the entire earth was
flooded any more than I do. There is only one way to get the account to pan
out 100%: Take the flat earth and the ocean on which it floats, the solid sky
and the ocean above it; and let the ocean from above and below completely
bury the earth in water. The account is based on accommodation to the
science-history of the times. Take it all; or, forget about thinking you
must believe every detail.
PS: <<How did the ark go north? That is just a part of the way flood stories
are written: the ark always lands on a high mountain in the vicinity of the
story-teller. Gen 1-11 is not VCR history; but, that does not mean it has no
historical value.>>
GM: To paraphrase:
Why can't we physically see the risen Lord today? That is jut a part of the
way resurrection stories are written: the resurectee always goes away after
a short time, often from a place in the vicinity of the story-teller. Luke
24 is not a VCR history; but that does not mean it has no historical value.
One can apply such logic to anything and the beauty of it is, one never has
to say one's views are false.
PS: Again, you can't be serious or you would dump your own theory. Your
landing spot for the ark is at least 1000 feet higher than the Mediterranean
sea. What did Noah do, push it up the mountain?
Besides that there are plenty of flood stories to back up the statement that
this is the way flood stories are written. Where are your resurrection
stories, and especially where are the ones that begin with a bonafide
historical person? Your fictional parallel isn't parallel.
The Flood account is directly related to the Mesopotamian account in
Gilgamesh; and, in that account the ark lands on a mountain northeast of
Babylonia, leaving the same problem of water flowing uphill. You cannot
blame the writer of Genesis for following his sources. Or, did God reveal all
the details? If so, as I said, take the whole ancient cosmology upon which
the story depends and is integrally related. Or, come over to a biblical view
of the history in the Bible: It is contingent, as nearly every biblical
historian infers, upon the sources available. The reason the stories in Gen
1-11 are not very dependable history and the stories of the resurrection are,
is because the former are based on ancient traditions of a flood that
occurred c. 1500 years before Moses; and the latter are depending on
traditions of eye-witnesses many of whom were still alive when the accounts
were written.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 22 2001 - 00:13:29 EST