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

Sudden can be subjective as you point out below but I think in the case of the flood, it has to be defined as happening faster than people could escape to have any meaning. Otherwise your point is valid that a local flood is pointless.

But if this suddenness was achieved somehow by supplementing the 40 days of rain with the "fountains of the deep" or possibly some other supernatural means, then in my estimation the flood doesn't have to be discarded as total myth. But even RTB is forked on this as there are many other issues like the ark ending up at the opposite end of the region against the current flow that can't really be explained without invoking the supernatural. Bottom line I don't think there is a really satisfying totally naturalistic explanation but I am ok with that.

However the coincidence of this and the evidence of a local flood in ~2900BC and all the flood stories leaves me to believe that there must have been some original basis in historical fact, even if embellished over the years. And I think Dick's response as to why God had Noah build an ark instead of just leaving is as convincing of any that I have ever heard.

Thanks

John

--- On Mon, 6/23/08, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:

> From: Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [asa] The Fall of man (Adamites- the local/global flood question)
> To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Date: Monday, June 23, 2008, 1:01 PM
> 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 13:33:31 2008