RE: [asa] The Fall of man (Adamites- the local/global flood question)

Bernie,
 
An interesting attempt at a solution to this thorny problem is a recent book
called "Before the Flood" by Ian Wilson (not to be confused with the 1974
Bob Dylan album by the same name) that labels the Black Sea flood of ~5500
BC as that of Noah's flood.
 
It is obviously not in the region typically associated with the flood but it
does have the characteristics of being sudden and catastrophic (a breeching
of a natural earthen dam at the Bosporus) which could possibly explain how a
local flood could be universal in scope.
 
It would be really interesting if we observed some similar type explanation
of a sudden and catastrophic flood in Mesopotamia, but we don't to my
knowledge. I can't help to be intrigued by how, other than the location and
possibly the date, the Black Sea flood otherwise fits Noah's flood as being
local, sudden and catastrophic.
 
Thanks
 
John
 
 
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2000/12/122800blacksea.html
 
http://www.amazon.com/Before-Flood-Biblical-Changed-Civilization/dp/03123197
11/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8
<http://www.amazon.com/Before-Flood-Biblical-Changed-Civilization/dp/0312319
711/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214009379&sr=8-11>
&s=books&qid=1214009379&sr=8-11

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 8:43 PM
To: ASA
Subject: RE: [asa] The Fall of man (Adamites- the local/global flood
question)

I don't think a local flood would have accomplished much, because most
people would be able to get to higher ground. The rains came down for a
long time- giving plenty of time to escape. Only a global flood could kill
everyone outside the ark, and that flood would have to be higher than the
mountains, as even the Bible mentions (or else people could climb mountains
to survive). A global flood wouldn't destroy much, and a global flood
didn't happen, as we know from science. Do you think a slow local flood
could accomplish much by way of killing people. seems to me they would "see
it coming" and have time to get out-most people, anyway. According to the
Bible- the flood lasted for a year, too. That's a very long time for a
local flood.

.Bernie

  _____

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dick Fischer
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 5:32 PM
To: ASA
Subject: RE: [asa] The Fall of man (Adamites- the local/global flood
question)

Hi Bernie:

Good question! I can only guess at God's motivations for doing it the way
He did, and Genesis is extremely sparse with details. Considering the flood
was meant to terminate a certain group of individuals it would have been
important for them to remain where they were. Ziusudra (Noah) according to
the Sumerian king list was king at Shuruppak in the midst of the intended
flood zone. What would have happened if the king of the city packed up and
headed for the hills? The rest likely would have followed. It was God's
intention that they die. For that to happen they needed to stay at ground
zero.

Dick Fischer, author, lecturer

Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham

 <http://www.historicalgenesis.com> www.historicalgenesis.com

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 6:23 PM
To: ASA
Subject: RE: [asa] The Fall of man (Adamites- the local/global flood
question)

Hi Dick-

 Do you think Noah built an ark and put animals on it for your local flood
interpretation? If so, what was the point, when he could have been told to
simply head for higher ground? Neither an actual local or global flood make
sense to me. I'd like to know your understanding. Short replies
appreciated.

.Bernie

  _____

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dick Fischer
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 3:10 PM
To: ASA
Subject: RE: [asa] The Fall of man (Adamites)

Hi Bernie:

The beginning of Genesis 11 in the KJV is a poor translation. What you
quoted from the NIV is a really bad translation based upon what the
translators thought was going on, not based upon the original Hebrew. This
is a quote from my book:

"Had they (the KJV translators) known the corresponding history of the
ancient Near East, they could have selected words more accommodating to the
facts as we know them today. The true confusion of tongues is the
translation of Hebrew into English. Yet again, 'erets is translated "earth,"
although in the next verse the same word is rendered as the "land" of
Shinar. If the Hebrew 'erets is "land" and saphah is translated literally as
"lip" rather than the broader word "language," we would read the text as
follows: "And the whole land was of one lip and one speech."

Since we know the Sumerians and Akkadians spoke unrelated languages, and the
Akkadian language is the root of Semitic languages including Hebrew, and if
we assume the writer of Genesis was at least as knowledgeable as we are,
then we may conclude that at least two languages were spoken in the region
at the time that tower building was all the rage in Mesopotamian cities. So
it is unlikely the writer of Genesis, probably Moses, sought to convey that
everyone spoke a common language.

After the flood, platforms constructed in the Mesopotamian cities began to
grow and take on religious connotations. Mud brick mounds that had
originally been constructed to survive floods became ziggurats adorned with
temples of worship, the dwelling places of the gods, and temples were
constructed dedicated to whatever god was protecting each individual city.

Hebrew chroniclers point to Nimrod, king of Babylon (Gen. 10:9-10), as the
instigator in building the tower honoring Marduk, with additional
sanctuaries for Enlil and Ea. City counselors with their eyes on neighboring
cities proposed the plan of erecting a tower, and Nimrod, the reigning
monarch, agreed to it. Motivations among the tower builders themselves may
have been mixed; a desire to reach the gods, an uprising against God,
devotion of the gods, a desire to wage war against the gods, or a means of
surviving future floods. It's hard to know what was foremost in the minds of
these men caught up in this monumental enterprise.

Whatever the initial motivations, the builders at Babylon became caught up
in a ziggurat building competition with their neighbors. In a unified and
prideful effort, they tried to outdo the other cities. God caused confusion
in their speech, however, and the builders terminated construction and
scattered, but their basic language was unaltered. We know this because
inscriptions recovered written in Canaanite, Amorite, Aramaic, and Assyrian
were all in Semitic dialects.

The confusion of tongues at Babel was not about scrambling one common
language into various different languages. Instead, it related to the
predominant topic of conversation of the day, which was about building
mud-brick platforms and adorning them with temples of worship.

These were huge, demanding work projects involving the entire community.
Thus everyone in the land, Shinar (or Sumer), at that time was talking about
it. They were of "one lip."

Dick Fischer, author, lecturer

Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham

 <http://www.historicalgenesis.com> www.historicalgenesis.com

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 12:12 PM
Cc: ASA
Subject: RE: [asa] The Fall of man (Adamites)

I think it is human nature, even "adamite" nature, to spread out. Sure,
people also congregate. Gen. 11 doesn't imply they stayed together; it only
says that many grouped together. Just because many group together doesn't
mean that many also don't leave, explore, and get their own land elsewhere.

Genesis 11
The Tower of Babel
 1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As men moved
eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.

Verse 1 sounds like myth, like the global flood. I think Dick would agree,
because if a local flood, there would be many humans with different
languages that didn't get wiped-out. Verse 2, I think, can be interpreted
as "some" settled in the plain. Why would men "travel eastword" en masse
then stop in a plain en masse? It doesn't sound reasonable. It is against
historical human nature (in human nature, some group, and some set-out to
explore).

.Bernie

  _____

From: Kirk Bertsche [mailto:Bertsche@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 8:34 AM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] The Fall of man (Adamites)

Remember that according to Gen 11 the "Adamites" DID tend to stay together
after the Flood, and didn't scatter until God forced them to do so. It's
not unreasonable to infer that they also tended to stay together before the
Flood.

Kirk

On Jun 19, 2008, at 3:19 PM, Dehler, Bernie wrote:

It is a good thing the "Adamites" all stayed together, because if they
spread out over the globe like other humans, a global worldwide flood would
have been necessary to reach them all, instead of a local flood as I think
you propose, Dick.

.Bernie

=

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jun 20 21:09:22 2008