John Walley said:
"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."
I don't think the flood was very "sudden." Raining for 40 days is
"sudden" compared to a year, but it is not "sudden" as if being a quick
surprise.
For example, if a Doctor told you that you had 40 days to live because
of cancer, people could refer to your "sudden" death- but it wouldn't be
a "sudden" death like being struck and killed by a car, or being shot
and killed by a mugger.
I don't see any need for an ark and filling it with animals for a local
flood-seems going "overboard" to me.
Dick said in another email:
"The length of time is as problematical for a local flood as it is for a
worldwide flood. What color do you think the olive leaf was that the
dove plucked off the branch of the olive tree, green or brown?"
I don't think either a local or global flood makes sense- as well as the
leaf. If a local flood, I think Noah could have seen land... if a
global flood, all vegetation would have been wiped out (the Bible says
the global flood lasted a year).
If there's any solution at all to Noah and the ark, it must be a myth to
teach spiritual things. In real life, the flood story doesn't add-up
(as a real local or global flood).
Just my thoughts.
,,,Bernie
________________________________
From: John Walley [mailto:john_walley@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 6:08 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie; 'ASA'
Subject: 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/0312
319711/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&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
www.historicalgenesis.com <http://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
www.historicalgenesis.com <http://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 Mon Jun 23 13:01:30 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jun 23 2008 - 13:01:30 EDT