On Sat, 08 Feb 1997 17:17:14 -0600, Glenn Morton wrote:
GM>I just put this on my web page and thought that those here might
>be interested.
What follows is yet another critique of Glenn's views on the Flood. I
have posted similar critiques many times but Glenn ("the overwhelming
silence") Morton just ignores them. But before I begin, I want to
place on record yet again, my appreciation that Glenn takes the early
chapters of Genesis seriously as history.
GM>Why The Flood Can Not Be In Mesopotamia
While the Bible not say that the Flood was in "Mesopotamia" (the
word itself is Greek and does not occur until the NT, eg. Acts 2:9;
7:2, although it is used in the Greek translation of the OT, the
Septuagint, but not until Genesis 24.).
However:
1. All OT scholars AFAIK are agreed that the Flood account reflects a
mesopotamian background. For example, Kidner says "The setting seems
Babylonian, and even the word for 'pitch' in 6:14, found only here,
is the Hebrew equivalent of the Babylonian term in the Gilgamesh
epic." (Kidner D., "Genesis", 1967, p97). The Garden of Eden was in
Mesopotamia (see Gn 2:14's mention of the "Tigris" and "Euphrates"
rivers, from which two rivers the Heb. 'Aram Naharayim = "Aram of
(the) two rivers (Euphrates and Tigris)" translated Mesopotamia came.
2. The ark came to rest on "the mountains of Ararat" (Gn 8:4); lit.
the mountains or hills of Urartu (Armenia). This is northern
Mesopotamia.
3. The situation immediately post-Flood is Mesopotamian. The first
city is built at "Babel" (Gn 10:10), ie. Babylon. Other
Mesopotamian place names are given, eg. "Accad", "the land of
Shinar" (Gn 10:10) and Nineveh (Gn 10:11-12). The Tower of Babel (Gn
11) was mesopotamian. Abraham came from mesopotamia (Gn 11:26-28;
Acts 7:2).
Ramm says:
"There is no question that the civilization that forms the setting of
the account is the Mesopotamian. The ark was constructed there; we
can trace Biblical traditions back to Mesopotamia; Abraham came from
there; the tower of Babel was most likely a ziggurat; and the
earliest civilization known to historians is Mesopotamian." (Ramm
B.L. "The Christian View of Science and Scripture", 1955, p158)
GM>1. The details of a Mesopotamian Flood do not fit the Scriptural
>account....
See above.
GM>What does this say about the nature of the Flood account? A story
>about a man who built an Ark, gathered animals on it, spent a
>year on the boat, and landed on a mountain
The Ark was not a "boat" (ir was a box) and it did not "land on a
mountain" but on a mountain *range*: "the ark came to rest on the
MOUNTAINS of Ararat" (Gn 8:4) My emphasis.
GM>can only be true IF the facts of the account actually match the
>facts of history.
Even this is not necessarily so. The Flood story could still be
"true", even if it wasn't "history". The parables of Jesus are
"true", even if the events portrayed did not actually happen in
history. I believe the Flood was historical, but if it wasn't, I
would still regard it as theologically true, ie. God's vehicle for
communicating an important message about sin, judgment and salvation
GM>There must have been a man who built an Ark, gathered animals on
>it, spent a year on the boat, and landed on a mountain.
See above. It is important that Glenn state *exactly* what the
Biblical story of the Flood says. It does *not* say that the Ark was
a "boat" and it does *not* say that it "landed on a mountain".
GM>If there wasn't, then like the story of the Maine, the Flood
>account is untrue.
No. It would not then be *literal history*.
GM>Here are the facts which ought to be true if an explanation of
>the Flood account is to have any ability to make it true.
>
>1. Eight people on the Ark
>2. Animals on the Ark
>3. Flood lasted for 1 year
>4. Ark landed in the Ararat region on a mountain
It may have merely been a hill in a mountain range. Ramm says:
"The Hebrew text does not mean that the ark was deposited on the
17,000 foot summit of the peak, but that the ark rested somewhere on
the Ararat range. It would have taken a special miracle to get Noah
and his family down from such dizzy mountain heights where the cold
would have been extreme." (Ramm, 1955, p162)
GM>Can the Mesopotamian Flood account for these facts? It can
>account for 8 people on the Ark and animals on the Ark. But it
>can not explain how the Flood could last for an entire year nor
>can it account for where the Ark landed at the same time.
GM>Water in a riverine flood travels at a speed of 3-5 miles per
>hour, and occasionally faster.
There is no statement in the Bible that the Flood was a "riverine
flood". There is no mention of "rivers" in the Flood story. The
last mention of "river" before the Flood is Gn 2:14 and the next is
Gn 15:18.
GM>Since the slope of the Mesopotamian basin is towards the south,
>the water will flow south, carrying the Ark with it.
There is no requirement that the Flood be in "the Mesopotamian
basin", only that it be continuous with the mountains of
Ararat. It may have been north of Ararat:
"There is in Western Asia a remarkably depressed area, extending from
the Sea of Aral to the Steppes of the Caucasus on the north, and
sweeping round the southern shores of the Caspian, comprehending
Ararat and the Great Salt Desert, which, as Ansted has remarked
"forms no inconsiderable portion of the great recognized centre of
the human family. The Caspian Sea (83 1/2 feet below the level of
the sea and in some parts of it 600 feet deep) and the Sea of Aral
occupy the lowest part of a vast space, whose whole extent is not
less than 100,000 square miles, hollowed out, as it were, in the
central region of the great continent, and no doubt formerly the bed
of the ocean" [and into this natural saucer the ocean waters
poured].' (Jamieson R., "JFB Bible Commentary", Vol I, p100, in
Ramm, 1955, p162).
I do not necessarily favour this view, preferring the Lake Van
theory:
"Similar problems are immediately encountered when attempts are made
to recover and identify the ark used by Noah to escape from the worst
effects of the Flood. The mountains of Ararat, the traditional
resting-place of the ark, can quite possibly be identified with the
Urartu of Assyrian inscriptions, corresponding to the neighborhood of
Lake Van in modern Armenia. However, the other attempts to locate
the Biblical Ararat have witnessed archaeological activity in Iranian
and Russian territory, as well as that of Turkey." (R. K. Harrison,
"Introduction to the Old Testament", Tyndale Press: London, 1970,
p100)
Lake Van has a surface area of 1,443 square miles and is 330 feet
deep. It is in a depression was formed by movements of the earth's
crust, probably in the Pleistocene Epoch (2,500,000 to 10,000 years
ago), the lower bound of which would place it within the time of
Noah's Flood. Its catchment area exceeds 5,790 square miles, forming
the second largest interior basin of Turkey. The area is
geologically active, the lake having been dammed by a lava flow:
"Van, Lake The largest body of water in Turkey and the second largest
in the Middle East, Lake Van lies in the region of eastern Anatolia
near the border of Iran. It covers an area of 1,443 square miles
(3,738 square kilometres) and is more than 74 miles across at its
widest point. Known to the ancient Greek geographers as Thospitis
Lacus or Arsissa Lacus, its modern Turkish name, Van Golu, is derived
from Van or Chauon, the name of the capital of the Urartian kingdom
that flourished on the lake's eastern shore between the 10th and 8th
centuries BC. Roughly triangular in shape, the lake lies in an
enclosed basin; its brackish waters are unsuitable for either
drinking or irrigation. The salt water allows for no animal life
save the darekh (related to the European bleak, a small soft-finned
river fish of the carp family), a freshwater fish that has adapted to
a saline environment.
Physiography. Lake Van occupies the lowest part of a vast basin
bordered by high mountains to the south, by plateaus and mountains
to the east, and by a complex of volcanic cones to the west. The
depression was formed by movements of the earth's crust either in the
Late Tertiary Period (26,000,000 to 7,000,000 years ago) or else
(more probably) in the Pleistocene Epoch (2,500,000 to 10,000 years
ago). During the latter epoch a lava flow from the Nemrut volcano
extended for nearly 37 miles across the southwestern end of the
basin, blocking westward drainage to the Murat River and thereby
transforming the depression into a lake basin without outlet.
Lake Van is divided into two sections, the main body of water being
separated from its much shallower northern extension by a narrow
bottleneck-shaped passage. Its shores are generally steep and lined
with cliffs; the southern shore is extremely sinuous and eroded. The
waters are dotted with islands, including Gadir, the largest, in the
north- Carpanak in the east; and Aktamar and Atrek in the south. The
main body of the lake to the south is much deeper than its northern
section, with the greatest depths exceeding 330 feet along the
southern shore.
Hydrography. Lake Van's catchment area exceeds 5,790 square
miles- it forms the largest interior basin of Turkey except for that of
the central Anatolian region. The lake is fed by rainfall and meltwater
as well as by several tributaries, notably the Bendimahi and Zilan
rivers, which flow in from the north, and the Karasu and Micinger
rivers, which enter the lake from the east."
(Erinc S., "Van, Lake", Encyclopaedia Britannica, Benton: Chicago,
15th edition, 1984, 19:20-21).
Lake Van meets all the Biblical requirements for a local Flood. It is
in the mountain country of ancients Urartu, and being high above
sea level, it would solve the problem of where the water drained to.
The whole area is recently geologically unstable and it would not be
hard to imagine geological movements that blocked water flow to
create a basin and then later unblocked to drain the water off again.
Any sediments from the Flood would either be at the bottom of Lake
Van or were flushed out by the when the block was removed.
GM>At a slow speed of 3 miles per hour, the Ark could float from
>the Turkish boarder with Iraq to the Persian Gulf in about 200
>hours. This is only 8 days. The Mesopotamian flood cannot concord
>with the account because the Ark would be forced towards the Persian
>Gulf which lies at sea level in the opposite direction from the
>Ararat region. Once the Ark is in the Indian Ocean, how is it to be
>transferred to the Ararat region, much less be lifted to land on the
>mountain? If the Mesopotamian Flood actually solved the problem, the
>account would say that the Ark landed on a beach in Arabia.
See above. This only applies to *one version* of "The Mesopotamian
flood", namely "a riverine flood" in "the Mesopotamian basin". But,
as we have seen, there is no Biblical requirement that the Flood be
in "the Mesopotamian basin".
GM>2. The problem of getting the Ark to the Ararat Region. If one
>wants to have the flood occur in the Mesopotamian basin, picking
>up the ark and dropping it in Turkey, must believe that water
>runs uphill. The elevation profile from the Persian Gulf to Mt.
>Ararat (9500 foot line only) is:
[...]
See above. There is no Biblical requirement that the Flood was
between "the Persian Gulf" and "Mt. Ararat".
GM>The whole problem with the Mesopotamian Flood concept is that the
>water required to pick the ark up and place it on the lower
>levels of any mountain in the Ararat region, is far above that
>which can be contained by the natural basin. In the east west
>direction, if the water level rises above 2000 feet it will spill
>over into the Mediterranean. The water level in the
>Tigris/Euphrates valley can get no higher than 2000 feet on the
>west. In other words, the entire world must be filled with water
>up to a 9500 foot level in order for the Ark to be placed on
>Ararat.
Not necessarily. There is no Biblical statement of how high the
floodwaters rose, but only that they "covered the mountains [or
hills] to a depth of more than twenty feet" (Gn 7:20). If the Flood
was in a large local or regional depression, bounded by mountains,
with some small hills in it the depression could fill with water and
not have to flood the whole world (view with monospaced font):
*
***----max height of Flood (Gn 7:20)-----*
***** **
*******---high hills covered (Gn 7:19)----****
********* * * ******
*********** *** *** *******
************* ***** ***** ***********
*****************************************************
One has only to see the account from Noah's perspective - *to him*
"all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were
covered" (Gn 7:19).
GM>However the real problem lies to the south. There is nothing to
>the south which can hold the water and allow it to rise above sea
>level. The Tigris/Euphrates valley is a half-bowl. A great
>illustration of the problem would be to cut a breakfast cereal
>bowl in half and try to fill half the bowl with water. Obviously
>you can pour water into the half-bowl from now to the end of the
>universe and the half bowl will never fill up.
See above. There is no Biblical requirement that the Flood was in
"The Tigris/Euphrates valley".
GM>The only way out is to have the Ark move uphill against the
>water. ...
See above. This is not necessary.
GM>In response to this problem, I have had some Mesopotamian Flood
>advocates suggest that the entire basin tilted to the north,
>sinking Turkey beneath the sea and then it re-rose to its present
>elevation. This would leave evidence of itself in the form of
>marine sediments covering Turkey, yet except along river valleys,
>Turkey is covered by sediments which are Miocene and older.
>Miocene and older sediments are prior to the advent of man on
>earth.
This is not necessary either.
BH>3. Lack of sediment from a widespread Mesopotamian Flood. A
>syllogism can be constructed.
>
>All floods leave sediments covering what they flooded.
>Noah's Deluge was a flood.
>Therefore Noah's deluge must have left sediment.
I will replace Glenn's syllogism with another:
All ordinary floods leave sediments covering what they flooded.
Noah's Deluge was not an ordinary flood.
Therefore Noah's deluge might not have left sediment.
In particular, as I have pointed out to Glenn before (but which he
just ignores) there is no Biblical reason why the Flood should
have left sediment:
------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 95 14:18:55 EST
From: sjones@iinet.net.au (Stephen Jones)
To: "Evolution" <evolution@calvin.edu>
Subject: Re: flood models #3
[...]
GM>...historical events especially geological events, usually leave
>some historical or geological evidence of themselves. To say that
>the flood left no evidence of itself, means that we are asking every
>skeptic to believe that we are correct when we can give them no more
>evidence that our document is historically accurate than the
>believer in leprechauns can give for the leprechaun's existence.
The Flood was no ordinary event - it was a unique event predicted and
executed by God. There is "historical evidence of the Flood". It is
documented in both the Bible and ancient Mesopotamian legends. As to
"geological evidence" (ie. flood sediments), this presumably would
have originated as a blanket of mud covering the known world of
Noah's day? There is no Biblical evidence that Noah saw a blanket of
mud covering everything, as Utnapishitim is depicted as seeing in the
Gilgamesh Epic:
"And all mankind had turned to clay. The ground was flat like a roof"
Since such a blanket of mud would contain the drowned bodies of Noah's
contemporaries as well as animals, for Noah and his family's mental
and physical health, it is reasonable to expect that God saw to it
that it did not remain. To demand there be Flood sediments, you
must maintain that Noah and the animals had to wade through metres
of lethal mud to begin their new life.
The Biblical account records that "God...sent a wind over the earth,
and the waters receded" (Gn 8:1). The parallel is with Gn 1:2 where
"the Spirit (Heb. "wind" of God" moved upon the face of the waters".
There is Biblical evidence therefore that this "wind" of Gn 8:1 and
1:2 are one and the same, that is, the Holy Spirit, preparing the
"earth" for man's habitation.
To me, a believer, this is a perfectly satisfying possible solution.
------------------------------------------------------
GM>From this one can go further,
>
>All uneroded flood sediments can be detected by geology.
>To completely erode flood sediments takes more than 20,000 years.
>There are no widespread sediments dating from less than 20,000
>years ago.
See above. Glenn just assumes there were "flood sediments" after
Noah's Flood, but that would be to Noah a thick, stinking layer of
mud, covering rotting the corpses of his contemporaries and animals.
Since this would probably be lethal to the survivors of the Ark,
there is every reason to believe that God would ensure that any
sediment drained off with the waters.
GM>In support of the above syllogisms,
>
>In northern Iraq the surficial sediments are Miocene in age.
>Except along the rivers themselves, the surficial rocks of
>northern Iraq are Miocene in age, much older than any proposed
>flood. (see M. H. Metwalli et al, Petroleum Bearing Formations in
>Syrai and Iraq, AAPG Bulletin, Sept 1974, see cross section on
>page 1791.) If there was a flood in the Holocene, there should
>be some Holocene rocks away from the river valleys still left.
See above. Glenn, a theist, thinks here just like a naturalist.
This might be OK in his profession as a geologist looking for oil.
We have no reaon to believe that God would have intervened
supernaturally in the normal laying down of geological strata. But
the Noahic Flood is not a 100% natural event. There are a number of
supernatural interventions by God in the Flood account:
1. God warning Noah about the Flood and directing him to build an
Ark (Gn 6:13);
2. God made the animals come to Noah and enter the Ark (Gn 6:20;
7:9);
3. God made subterranean springs break forth and the rain commence on
the one day (Gn 7:11).
4. God shut the door of the Ark (Gn 7:16).
5. God sent a wind over the earth to make the waters recede (Gn
8:1);
6. God told Noah to come out of the ark (Gn 8:15-17).
We have every reason to expect that God may have intervened in
removing the mud as part of the miracle of making the waters recede
in Gn 8:1, since after the Flood was a new beginning and the mud
would have made very difficult that new beginning. It is
inconsistent of Glenn to accept the above supernatural elements of
the Flood, but deny in principle others. Glenn needs to heed Jesus'
rebuke to the naturalistic Sadducees who denied the resurrection:
"You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power
of God." (Mt 22:29)
GM>There is no evidence of a former high water level in the
>Mesopotamian basin. As one drives into Salt Lake City from the
>north along I15 one can see along the mountains on the east a set
>of perfectly horizontal ledges which extend for mile after mile.
>these "ledges" mark the former water level for the glacial Lake
>Bonneville. The waves on the water eroded the land at the beach.
>These features last for a very long time. There is no reported
>evidence of raised beaches along the edges of the Mesopotamian
>valley. If it had ever been flooded, there would be some
>evidence of this.
See above. There is no reason to think the Flood was in "the
Mesopotamian valley". And as for evidence for the Flood, I have
already pointed out to Glenn that it is fact that God has ensured we
have no evdidence of any of His miracles:
------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 95 23:08:00 EDT
From: sjones@iinet.net.au (Stephen Jones)
Reply-To: sjones@iinet.net.au (Stephen Jones)
To: "Glenn R. Morton" <evolution@uclink.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: slightly revised flood post
[...]
7. The Flood was caused directly by God. While aspects of the Flood
may be attributable to an unusual set of natural causes, there are
some things that can only be regarded as supernatural (eg. Noah being
shut in the Ark by God (Gn 7:16). It is a fact that there is not one
original piece of physical evidence remaining as a prop to faith for
any of God's mighty works. The ark of the covenant, Moses' stone
tablets of the Law, and all the original Biblical manuscripts are
lost. There is not one piece of the Cross preserved, nor any of the
works of Jesus the carpenter. Amazingly we do not even have a
description of what Jesus looked like. If nothing happens without God
willing it (Mt 10:29), it is reasonable to assume that we have no
physical evidence to prop up our faith because God does not want us to
believe in the evidence but in Him. What would be the effect if
unambigous evidence was found of a major Flood, embeded with human and
animal remains, that wiped out an entire Mesopotamian civilisation?
What would be the effect if an ancient chest was dug up that was "450
feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high" (Gn 6:15), made out of
"cypress wood" with "rooms" in it and coated "with pitch inside and
out. (Gn 6:14). Would it not conclusively prove the story of Noah,
without there being any need for faith? Would it not lead to a type
of idolatry? If God wanted that type of support for His kingdom, why
didn't He arrange it to be so? The only answer (if He is indeed
all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving), is that God has made sure
there is no evidence for the Flood, as with all His other mighty
works.
[...]
------------------------------------------------------
GM>Some have suggested that the Flood sediment has been eroded away.
>But this would not be reasonable. Large floods left evidence in
>the geologic record for far longer than 6000 years was already
>known. The Lake Missoula Flood deposits had been scientifically
>described as a flood deposit since 1923 (see J.H. Bretz 1923 "The
>Channeled Scablands of the Columbia Plateau Journal of Geology
>31:617-649 and Glacial drainage on the Columbia Plateau
>Geological Soc. Amer. Bull. 34: 573-608.) I would agree that it
>took a while for Bretz's view to be accepted but it should have
>served as a warning. Besides that, the flood deposit at Ur
>itself had lasted many thousands of years so to say that a flood
>deposit couldn't be preserved violated what he must have known
>about Mesopotamian events.
See above. The Flood of Noah was not an ordinary "Mesopotamian
event". Reflectorites may note with interest that Glenn only posts
those arguments that he thinks he has an answer for, and just
ignores the rest. I have documented above my responses to Glenn on
these topics since 1995, but he just ignores them. This
ignoring of the hard issues falls short of the standards of Christian
scholarship that Glenn sets for others. It is even more difficult to
understand since he affirms that it is at least possible that God has
ensured there is no sediment from Noah's Flood:
------------------------------------------------------
From: GRMorton@aol.com
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 1995 22:09:35 -0500
To: evolution@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: The "two-Adam model"
[...]
GM>Stephen gives me 3 choices:
>SJ>1. Afirm that it is at least possible that God has ensured there
>>is no sediment from Noah's Flood.
>>
>>2. Deny that it is at least possible that God has ensured there is
>>no sediment from Noah's Flood.
>>
>>3. Neither affirm or deny that it is at least possible that God has
>>ensured there is no sediment from Noah's Flood.
GM>I chose 1 but deny your conclusion that I must allow your view of
>the flood. God gives evidence many times in the Bible that he wants
>historical markers supporting the events listed in the Scripture.
------------------------------------------------------
GM>4. Continuous civilization in the region from 4000 B.C. on. The
>Software Toolworks Multimedia Encyclopedia states that Ur was
>inhabited from the 5th millennium BC (at least 4000 B.C) until
>400 B.C. The city existed uninterrupted over that period (even
>the famous flood layer at Ur did not cover the entire town). It
>is difficult to see how there could have been a flood of such a
>magnitude that would get special note, last a year etc. Ur was
>along the river bank right at the ocean's shore 6000 years ago.
>If there had been a great flood during that period, it would have
>wipe Ur out. Remember that their bricks were not that hard and
>a good soaking with water could destroy the structural integrity
>of the city. Thus any flood had to have been prior to 4000 BC.
>But because of the geologic evidence, there is little evidence
>for a Flood earlier.
See above. There is no reason to think the Noahic Flood was "along
the river bank". No "river" is even mentioned in the Flood story.
Once again, I give credit to Glenn for at least believing that the
Flood of Noah was historical. But his proposed cure (a 5.5 mya flood
in the Mediterranean) is worse than the disease! Glenn's problem
would be largely solved if he actually considered as a serious
hypothesis that God really did supernaturally intervene in history
and remove all traces of evidence for the Flood.
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------