Re: Is there a Plan B? (was: So we're all related!)

Gordon,

In responding to your latest offering let me first refer you to the email
recently sent to Dick which deals with the matter in hand, viz " the
fountains of the great deep".

You conclude your first paragraph with the lines

> The Bible doesn't give us the details that we are so curious about. If
they
> were important, I believe that it would have told us. It is what it did
> tell us that is important.

Precisely. For example, we are informed that before the Mabbul the
hydrologic cycle was completely different from that which operates today. It
therefore makes sense to associate "fountains of the great deep" (Gen.7:11)
with the giant aquifers required to motivate this cycle.

I conclude with another teaser for you to ponder: believing, as you do, that
the physiography of Mesopotamia suffered no great change as a result of the
Mabbul, where now are we to look for the virtually complete ring of high
ground that would (a) have held the rising floodwaters for a total of 150
days (Gen.7:24) and, (b) have retained the slowly lowering floodwaters for a
further 150 days after the rains and subterranean fountains had ceased
(Gen.8:3)?

Vernon
http://homepage.virgin.net/tgvernon.jenkins/Wonders.htm
www.otherbiblecode.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "gordon brown" <gbrown@euclid.Colorado.EDU>
To: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2004 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: Is there a Plan B? (was: So we're all related!)

>
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>
> > The strength of this line of reasoning rests entirely on your belief
that
> > the Mabbul was a quiescent affair - that it left the pre-existing
> > physiography largely intact. But how do you reconcile that belief with
the
> > words of 7:11, "...all the fountains of the great deep were broken
up..."?
> > What is your understanding of this verse? - particularly as applied to
the
> > 'local' situation you envisage?
>
> Vernon,
>
> The deep can refer to the sea. It can apparently also refer to
> subterranean water since there are references to heaven above and the deep
> beneath. See also Psalm 71:20. There seem to be a number of speculations
> concerning the identification of the fountains of the deep. I have heard
> suggestions of tidal waves or that an asteroid impacted above an aquifer.
> These are speculations, and I don't argue for any particular one. The
> Bible doesn't give us the details that we are so curious about. If they
> were important, I believe that it would have told us. It is what it did
> tell us that is important.
>
> The only animals that are mentioned in Genesis as perishing in the Flood
> are those that would likely drown in a large flood. This does not suggest
> burial by landslides. Also, how could an olive leaf not be stripped by a
> flood that washed away mountains?
>
> > Finally, let me thank you for the references provided in these emails.
> > Regarding the parting of the Red sea: the text of Ex.14:21-22 speaks of
the
> > creation of a _channel_ with walls of water on _both sides_. I find it
> > impossible to believe that such a situation could be induced
_naturally_.
> > Would you agree?
>
> I think you may have a mental picture of this crossing based on its
> depiction by Cecil B. de Mille as almost a tunnel of water.
>
> Gordon Brown
> Department of Mathematics
> University of Colorado
> Boulder, CO 80309-0395
>
>
Received on Mon Nov 1 16:45:44 2004