>-----Original Message-----
>From: PHSEELY@aol.com [mailto:PHSEELY@aol.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 7:26 AM>Glenn wrote of the Flood
>
><< Au contraire, Paul. I don't think they fibbed. I think we mis-translate.
> Eretz means land , the land was flooded. It does not mean planet earth,
> which is what the YECs hold. Or are you saying that eretz means planet
> earth? Unless you hold to that, you don't really have a leg to
>stand on with
> the above criticism. >>
>
>I agree that eretz does not refer to planet earth. But, what land?
>How about
>defining it in context? In context, the "land" that was flooded is
>the entire
>known earth. The mountains that are covered (Gen 7:19) have to include the
>the mountains of Urartu (8:4), which was north of Assyria and
>centered around
>Lake Van, thus including today's Mount Ararat. The flooded "land," if
>interpreted within its bibical and historical context, extends well into
>modern Iran at the eastern edge of their known world (Gen 10:2 -
>Medes, 22 -
>Elam).
First off, it does depend upon what the authors meant by "Mountains of
Ararat". Our knowledge of the extent of that term may be limited by our
knowledge. Secondly, it is interesting that you only go towards the east
with your description of Urartu. Urarut, as it is known, went 722
kilometers west of Lake Van because there are inscriptions found there. That
does not mean that that is absolutely as far west as this country extended.
Encyclopedia Britannica says:
"For the reign of Sarduri I (c. 840-830 BC) there remain only the
inscriptions at Van. But for the reigns of his son Ishpuini (c. 830-810) and
especially of Ishpuini's son Meinua (c. 810-781), Urartian conquests can be
measured indirectly from widespread inscriptions ranging from the lower
Murat River basin (around Elāzig) in the west, ..."
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/2/0,5716,76382+1+74433,00.html
So where is the Murat River?
"MURAT NEHRI, river, the major headstream of the Euphrates. In antiquity it
was called Arsanias. The river rises north of Lake Van near Mount Ararat, in
eastern Turkey, and flows westward for 449 miles (722 km) through a
mountainous region to unite with the Karasu Ēayi and form the Upper
Euphrates near Malatya. Turkey's largest dam, the Keban, west of Elāzig, "
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/9/0,5716,55689+1+54324,00.html
Those guys demonstrably went quite a distance west, which doesn't hurt my
case at all.
>Your theory does not match the biblical account either as to the extent of
>the earth that was flooded or the landing place of the ark. In addition,
>according to Gen 8:13, 14 the "land" that had been flooded dried
>off, whereas
>the Mediterranean basin (your "land") is still covered with water.
Yes, isnt that what God promised he would do--destroy the land? Genesis
6:13 says:
13And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the
earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them
with the earth [land].
If it were uncovered it wouldn't be destroyed in the same way that the flesh
was destroyed. Furthermore there simply isn't a necessity that the land that
Noah saw upon exiting the ark was the very same dirt he saw when he got on
board. Remember, the ark moved FROM the starting point TO THE ENDING POINT.
Regardless of what theory one takes, Noah wouldn't have been able to see the
very same land--not even if the water-flows-uphill Mesopotamian flood is
actually true. Noah couldn't see Shurupak from Ararat.
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 23 2001 - 14:05:50 EST