In a message dated 3/4/2006 7:39:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, glennmorton@entouch.net writes:
Thus, they can be seen from a distance of 140 miles, well within the purview of the Tigris River. Noah would never have been out of sight of the mountains on a clear day.
This is why I reject most of the local flood theories, like Mesopotamia.
THere were huge mountains to the east, the Zagros mtns. which would never have
been covered and could clearly be seen from the Tigris/Euphrates river. It is
also for this reason that I reject the Caspian and Black Sea locales.
This is a very interesting point that I have never heard before. I still don't believe it forces us to abandon a mesopotamian flood. It only forces us to understand the text differently.
<<<
I guess this is what is so wrong with apologetics. No matter what argument one presents to counter someone's belief, the rules of the game change and the person decides that they will stay with those beleifs even if they are wrong. I would remind you that it was your criteria that required Noah not see any hills or mountains:
But, now that you have seen that mountains can be seen from the Tigris, suddenly it doesn't matter. If you as a physicist at work, paid so little attention to the counterarguments of your colleagues, they wouldn't respect you and they might not let you work with them. I guess I am always astounded at how little impact logic, facts, and data play in the belief system of Christians.
For Dick, who also mentioned in an earlier post that wind might help his punters. Are you going to say here and now that the wind was always behind the ark and longitudinal to the river flood plain, regardless of what direction that flood plain is orientated? I guess I am amazed that when the floodplain is orientated 90 degrees to the wind, the wind doesn't seem to have any effect which strong wind would have on normal boats. On a normal boat, the wind would drive it to the shore, but I guess we have a magical boat here.
If you would but say it is a miracle, then I would have no way to argue against your position.
Received on Sun Mar 5 09:02:22 2006