In a message dated 3/3/2006 10:36:10 AM Eastern Standard Time,
glennmorton@entouch.net writes:
Christian theology over the past 200 years has been stuck in solutions which
don't work---on all sides of the issue. It is time for something brand new
that actually pays attention to the laws of physics. I know that is a novel
concept (to pay attention to physics) but it is what I believe is necessary even in
apologetics.
Man, let's not insult everyone on this list, alright? We're all in this
together. Most of the solution -- I trust -- is in re-reading the text and not
imposing our western preconceptions onto it.
If the Bible says all the high mountains were covered to some depth, let's
not assume these "high mountains" had to be more than shallow rolling hills near
the populated areas. The point the Bible is making is simply that **nobody**
affected by the flood survived it. Since nobody in the cities of southern
mesopotamia would have had time to run far away to a truly high mountain by our
western reckoning, imposing that view onto the meaning of "high mountains"
would be gratuitous to the purpose of the text.
Also, there is no way it could have been a universal flood. DNA tells us
that. So there is no reason to assume the cities in northern mesopotamia were
affected by the flood. The extent of the flood is constrained only by the ark
going to the mountains of ararat, not by anything else we see in the text.
The wind didn't have to push the ark all the way to Mount Ararat, as you
know. When your webpage discusses Mt. Ararat, I have to believe that is a
strawman argument (would you consider removing that from your page). YEC's don't
believe in a mesopotamian flood, and OEC's don't believe it landed on Mt. Ararat.
So there is no reason to discuss that idea.
Even taking the "Ararat plateau" as the landing site may be asking too much
from an ancient text, from a culture whose norms we don't understand. When the
Bible landed in the mountains of ararat, it doesn't necessarily mean "inside"
them, where the peaks are located. Nothing is less certain in a language
than prepositions! Consider how many meanings "in" has in English. My
dictionary devotes half of an entire column for the definition of "in". Some examples
of "in" are:
contained by
during the course of
perceptible to
affected by
with
made of
by way of
limited by the scope of
Taking this further, if "in the mountains of Ararat" was an idiom meaning "up
where the hill billies live near Ninevah", then it might simply mean the ark
went somewhat north and not even to the edge of the flood plain at all. We
simply can't be dogmatic about this! It is right to let physics help us
interpret this part of the Bible, rather than doing back flips to make physics fit a
single prepositional phrase written some 3400 years ago, if not much earlier.
It could just mean "toward" the mountains of ararat in the sense of getting
close. Prepositions really are that loose! You can only know if you lived in
that culture. Even we use language that way all the time. If I am escaping
Cuba and floating helplessly in a boat, and then a fortuitous wind pushes me to
within eye sight of the Florida coast, I can rightfully say that the winds
blew me "to" Florida, even though a coast guard boat brought me the last mile.
"To" in such a case means "realtively nearer", but not "at". So "in the
mountains of ararat" could similarly mean "close to" or "within sight of". You
can't build a doctrine on a preposition.
I think most of your mesopotamian concerns can be answered by changing
perspective on the text just a little bit and being creative. I think the flood was
basically a riverine flood more so than a regional one. I'd like to see the
physics and geology work out so that it could be a more vast regional flood
(so that it would fit my preconceptions better!), and I do think Alan and Carol
Hill have made real progress in that regard. But push-come-to-shove I'd never
change views away from a Mesopotamian flood -- I'd simply accept that we have
been assuming too much on an ancient text, which was written according to a
completely different set of literary and cultural norms. There are just too
many compelling reasons to believe it was mesopotamian. That's my opinion. I
respect yours, too.
God bless,
Phil Metzger
Received on Sat Mar 4 01:37:41 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Mar 04 2006 - 01:37:41 EST