From: Craig Rusbult (craig@chem.wisc.edu)
Date: Mon Oct 06 2003 - 09:43:22 EDT
Is there any plausible theory to explain the flood in Genesis 6-9?
It seems that serious problems exist for every proposed theory:
With a global flood there should be significant empirical effects
(not as much as claimed by flood geology theories, but significant
anyway) but we don't see these effects. There are MAJOR problems
with conventional young-earth theories of flood geology which claim
to explain *almost all* of the geological record,fossil record, and
biogeography.
I think the language in the flood passages, referring to "all" of
the world and killing "all" of the people, does not require a global
flood, since in other parts of the Bible the word(s) refer to
localized phenomena, to things that only cover all parts of a local
area. But the flood in Gen 6-9 still lasted for a long time and
killed all local inhabitants who weren't in the ark. As far as I
know, all theories for a local flood don't seem to be able to account
for all aspects (long duration, killing all,...) of the Biblical
descriptions.
Was it a large local Mesopatamian flood? This would produce
effects (sediments,...) that are not observed. And in this area is
there a "basin" that would prevent a quick runoff of the water? And
would the water level rise quickly enough, over a large enough area,
to drown all people and animals (in this local area) except those in
the ark?
Major flooding of the Black Sea area (which previously had been a
smaller lake) occurred at about the right time (5600, not exact but
close to literal Biblical dating assuming no patriarchal gaps or
small gaps) but the water level would have risen too slowly to drown
people and thus require an ark.
And what about the Mediterranean flood proposed by Glenn? His
goal is a theory that can adequately explain all historical
descriptions in Genesis, which is a noble goal. But this flood
occurred really long ago (5 million years?) thus severely straining
the Genesis dating and requiring Adam and Eve to be primitive
hominids. And I've seen criticisms (Google found a message by Steve
Jones from Aug 12 1977, but the archives for this month are missing
so all I have is one message) claiming that people would have been
foolish to live in the center of the basin (where the waters were
salty, rain was rare, and agriculture impossible) but this is the
only place where people would have been vulnerable to being killed by
the flooding, and water levels would not rise quickly enough (due to
the huge area being flooded) to kill them if they lived anywhere else.
Are we forced to merely "wave our hands" and vaguely refer to a
local flood of undetermined location and timing? Is there any
satisfactory theory? Are we forced to conclude that this Biblical
claim is incorrect and is false history?
The flood description is really bothering me, even though I'm
comfortable with a "topical history framework" for Genesis 1 (with
structure and filling provided by days 1-3 and 4-6, with parallels
between 1 and 4, 2 and 5, 3 and 6). I'm also satisfied with
old-earth explananations for animal death before human sin, since the
"tree of life" in Genesis 2-3 was offered only to humans; and it was
a supernatural gift offered in Eden, with no mention of a lack of
death for people before this, if pre-Adamic people existed.
Therefore, I'd rather not have these topics (Genesis 1 and "sin
before death") discussed in this thread. If you do want to comment
on these, you can start a new thread.
But I'm not satisfied with any theories (global or local) about
the flood, and this is bothering me, and I would appreciate any
information you can provide (URLs for good web-pages, for archived
ASA discussions,...) about this. Thanks.
Craig
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 06 2003 - 09:44:03 EDT