RE: [asa] The Bible and the Anthropologically Universal Flood

I am monitoring the list, but was hoping not to get dragged into another
thread, cause I was wanting to leave again. I believe in an
anthropologically universal flood, but I put it at a time and place before
mankind had spread across the land like vermin. REality is, from a PURELY
kill-all-the-humans point of view, that if one wants to avoid a global flood
AND define humanity solely as anatomically modern, you MUST have your flood
prior to 90,000 years ago. At that time, anatomically modern humans are
found from Africa to the Middle East at that time.
 
If one includes Neanderthals or H. erectus, then we simply have to move the
flood back to 2 million plus years. For the past 2 million years humanity
has been spread from southern Africa to Europe to Pakistan. That is simply
too wide an area.
 
and if you say that Australopiths are human, then There is no way to kill
all the humans in a Flood without that flood being global from nearly 5
million years on. The piths were spread all across Africa from Chad to
Kenya, to Tanganyika, to Malawi, to South Africa. Any flood that would kill
them all would flood the world.
 
Thus, the inability to kill em all is another reason for moving the flood
way back in time
 
besides there being nothing that resembles the biblical account anytime more
recently
 
not to mention the existence of religion far more ancient than we prefer and
 
besides the fact that the age of human genes is that old and
 
besides the fact that the mesopotamian basin slopes to the south, couldn't
hold water for more than 3 or 4 week, the ark would be floated south to the
Persian gulf, and there are no hurricanes which occur ONSHORE of sufficient
duration to push the ark and water north(everyone is glad that the hurricane
hits land because the winds seriously diminish after that point), and the
fact that not a single hurricane has ever been observed in Iraq, Iran, or
Saudi Arabia. But of course, we christians will utterly ignore these
problems so that we don't have to accept something so ridiculous as an old
humanity. (sorry for the sarcasm, the devil made me do it)
 
 
Jon further wrote:
 
>
>However, I do have other questions for Glenn. Not having had a chance yet
to peruse more deeply into your Web site, in
>a nutshell how does your Adam fit with your view of Noah and company in the
Mediterranean Basin? If a 5.5 mya flood
>occurred there, and the justification for their inability to migrate is
that they were in a 10,000-foot deep crater before the
>flood, is this where the Garden of Eden was too?
 
I would put the G of E there. But, the problem you raise, that of
migration, is common to any local flood theory. WHy was Noah and company
unable to migrate out of the Mesopotamian basin. It didn't have 10,000 feet
mountains surrounding it on all sides like the Mediterranean. My view
applies to all local floods. God told Noah what to do and he did it. Noah
wasn't told to migrate. He was told to build a boat. Period. No problem.
 
  If so, what about the creation of Adam? And how does this connect
>with (according to biological understanding) homo sapiens' connectedness to
earlier species, which I presume were
>scattered elsewhere across the globe outside the Mediterranean Basin? I'm
sure you've written on this, so a link to an
>article would be sufficient unless you want to respond further.
 
Apes were spread from AFrica to Europe in the Miocene. So, the precursor to
mankind could have been anywhere along the entire distance.
http://www.johnhawks.net/weblog/fossils/apes/dryopithecus/dryopithecus_overv
iew.html
 
***
 
Ted wrote:
>The latest issue of our journal (not available yet online) has a nice
article by Paul Seely, who has written many nice
>articles about accommmodation and modern natural history. This particular
article, about Hugh Ross' concordism, would
>make for a lively discussion here, esp if Glenn Morton joins in.

Honestly, I am not too much interested in discussing things too much here
anymore. Why? Like my atheist boss, when I presented the idea of
accommodation to him, said, "But [the Bible] still wouldn't be TRUE!!!". I
have never forgotten that. People want reality. People want history. That is
why, as you said in a previous note that accomodation is hard to sell to the
pews. Besides, few here really care for historical reality in their cup of
tea and I would merely be providing the entertainment. So, I will spend my
time in more interesting and fruitful places. But thanks for thinking of me,
and I am serious about that. Thanks

glenn
They're Here: The Pathway Papers
Foundation, Fall, and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm
  

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Tandy [mailto:tandyland@earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 7:15 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Cc: 'Glenn Morton'
Subject: RE: [asa] The Bible and the Anthropologically Universal Flood

 
Before I knew the geological evidence and other evidence, I believed in a
global flood. Now that I do, *sigh* I'm conflicted but I have to give fair
consideration to the evidence. I was just responding to your question about
other Biblical arguments for a universal flood. I'm sure someone has dealt
with this in writing, but I would welcome a link to a coherent argument
against the scriptures I listed below, which would have to be taken as a
promise that God would never again send a (local) flood to cover the
(limited geographical area of) earth. How is this dealt with theologically?
 
Come to think of it, I don't know if Glenn is presently monitoring this
list, so I'm copying him. I was intrigued over a year ago when I first read
his article on the Mediterranean Basin flood, although I don't know that I
can buy into the whole program of a 5.5mya Adam. Glenn, how would you deal
with this question? Either, (1) the Mediterranean Basin flood destroyed all
living mankind at that time (excluding 8 individuals), or (2) it was just a
local flood, although much further back in time, and thus how does the
promise apply that God would no more send any local floods? or (3) God's
promise was that he would never again flood the Mediterranean Basin, which
is vacuous. In case (1), is it your conclusion that mankind (8 individuals)
climbed out of the Mediterranean Basin once their ark hit the Eastern shore,
and thus the anthropological evidence *appears* to be that modern mankind
came "out of Africa" to fill the rest of the globe? How does that
interpretation stack up against the evidence of homo sapiens origins? Is
there evidence that genetically all mankind can be traced to 8 individuals
at 5.5mya?
 
The other strong argument against a local flood, is why didn't God just have
them evacuate a few dozen (hundred?) miles away instead of going to all the
trouble of making a huge ark and bringing in all the (limited number, local
species of) animals to be preserved for a year on the ark, in addition to
all the other millions of species which existed around the globe that would
be preserved already because the flood was not global? Of course, there we
go again, questioning God's methods and his word!
 
Jon Tandy
 

-----Original Message-----
From: David Opderbeck [mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 6:46 AM
To: Jon Tandy
Subject: Re: [asa] The Bible and the Anthropologically Universal Flood

So do you believe in a global flood? I agree with you that the Noahic
covenant is hard to reconcile with a local flood. OTOH, what are the other
options? Some speculation -- if we concieve of the flood as having wiped
out an entire local civilization -- an entire city-state, say -- then I'm no
so sure that it's such a stretch. Further, if we concieve of the Noahic
covenant as one of the series of covenants made to God's chosen people, then
perhaps we can view it more specifically as a promise that God would not
judge the "land" in which his people live via a flood. This also perhaps
ties in to the eschatological notion of a "remnant" saved from judgment, as
in the remnant of Israel that survived the Babylonian captivity and the
remnant that the NT eschatological literature pictures as surviving the last
judgment.

On 3/15/07, Jon Tandy <tandyland@earthlink.net> wrote:

 <clip> (Gen 6:13, 8:21) and from Isaiah 54:9, the promise that the "waters
of Noah should no more go over the earth" seems a vain promise if it was
talking about a local flood only. How many large scale local floods have
occurred in the last 5000 years, causing much devastation and loss of life.
That coupled with the scriptures linking last days prophecies with the
flood, it implies that more than a local devastation is involved in that
promise. <clip>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Mar 16 21:24:44 2007