Re: Flood Deposits in Mesopotamia [Was: Special Creation]

Glenn,
 
Your arguments about deposits seem pretty strong. So I have a problem: how could the ark go to the mountains of Ararat unless there was a sufficient quantity of water in northern mesopotamia, enough water to make the deposits? If it wasn't for that ONE phrase in the Bible "in the mountains of Ararat" then there would be no problem, because then the ark could have gone somewhere else. So I look up what "Ararat" means and discover that Ararat (Urarutu) probably didn't even **exist** at the time of Moses when the text was written, since the kingdom of Urarutu didn't form until the 900's BC, after King David. In fact, (going partly from memory here) the other 2 or 3 references to "Ararat" in the Bible are from parts written after that date, such as the reference in Isaiah. If the word Urarutu didn't exist at the time of Moses, then either it is a mistranslation of RRT or else the word RRT is itself a gloss by later scribes after 1000 BC who mistakenly thought the ark went
 to Ararat and were trying to interpret an older geographical place name that was no longer well known. It is possible (and not unlikely IMO) that in place of "RRT" was originally a different name, one that referred to the Zagros mountains along the Persian gulf. If this **single** word is indeed a gloss, then **all** the problems with a mesopotamian flood seem to be resolved, aren't they? Basically the whole edifice of regional mesopotamian flood was built upon that one word, RRT, which in truth couldn't have meant Ararat in the first place, at the time it was written by Moses.
 
Example, suppose I find a document that is supposedly ancient, purporting to have been written by George Washington and describing the journeys of Christopher Columbus. It tells us that Columbus visited Disney World. Obviously that part of the text can't be correct, since Disney World didn't exist at the time of Columbus nor at the time of George Washington. Likewise, the part of the text naming Uraratu can't be correct because it didn't exist at the time of Noah nor at the time of Moses.
 
Thoughts?
 
Also, I have a question about the geologic map of Mesopotamia that you have on your website. Apparently this is a map that only shows the exposed geologic units, not naming all the units that lie beneath them. Well, in that case I would not expect to see flood deposits away from the river. That's because the eaolian deposits have had plenty of time to cover them. I would really expect the flood deposits (if they exist) to be a few meters beneath the shifting sand dunes.
 
Phil
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: glennmorton@entouch.net
To: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 09:01:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Flood Deposits in Mesopotamia [Was: Special Creation]

>>>
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:
 
>>> If only it is
wide enough that Noah could see no mountains or hills off to either side, then
that would be enough. <<< http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200603/0131.html
 
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 Tue Mar 7 01:56:48 2006