>At 07:43 PM 4/13/96, you wrote:
>>
>Are you ruling out revelation to
>>Moses? That certainly seems to be a possibility.
>
>Glenn, it would appear that Moses had source documents
>from the similarity between the Genesis account and the
>epic tales that originated in the region of Southern
>Mesopotamia. If it was revelation to Moses then it must
>have been revelation to the Sumerians, Accadians,
>Assyrians, and Babylonians, all of whom wrote parallel
>accounts.
I don't deny this. Nor am I arguing that Moses had no
source documents. But prior to 3000 B.C. or so, there were
no source documents because there was no writing. So even
in the conventional view, if the Flood is true, there was a
period of oral transmission. You are just joining this
discussion and it would be best if you look at what we have
been saying. I defended an oral transmission but it
appeared to me that George was ruling that out and
advocating that details were added later. George wrote:
>>And even if the core of the tradistion was transmitted in
>>this way [orally], I think we'd have to admit that the
>>fossil hominid record contained no evidence of technology
>>capable of building an ark 5.5 my ag, so many details of
>>the OT version must have been added later.<<
My reply was trying to elicit a clarification on whether or
not those details which George said were added were added
via revelation or whether that was also rejected.
I wrote:
>>What would the Milankovitch theory be
>>without predictions? It has always appeared to me that
>>Christians always seem to run from any predictions.
> This
>>is why Ramm says of his view of the flood,
>>
>> "...we would not expect to find any specific evidence
of
>>it..." Ramm, The Christian View of Science and
>> Scripture, p. 163.
>>
>>In this way he is protected from any contradictory
>>observations; he will always be right.
>
Dick Fischer replied:
>Ramm was right in a way. If one wishes to posit a
>mankind obliterating flood at the dawn of the hominids
>then, that's right, there is no historical or scientific
>corroboration. There is no biblical support either.
>
I would really suggest that you take the time to understand
what the discussion is about. Ramm was not referring to a
flood at the dawn of the Hominids. Ramm was making that
statement about his OWN model of flood. Ramm said that his
own view would not leave any evidence. You had better go
look this up.
>The Genesis flood, the one recorded in the Bible, refers
> almost beyond all doubt to a Mesopotamian flood at around
>2900 BC. Read Davis Young's _The Biblical Flood_. The
>time, place, and extent are pretty secure. We have the
>flood layers found in the cities of Shuruppak, Kish,
> Lagash, Erech and probably Ur that center around the
>same time frame. All the cities named in Genesis 1-11 are
>in that same region. The post-flood rulers at Kish begin
>the early dynastic period dated in history at (not
>surprisingly) 2900 BC. If the Septuagint version of the
>Bible is used for the ages of the patriarchs (the Greek
>text was the one quoted by NT authors), a biblical date
>for the flood is either 3128 BC or 2978 BC depending on
>whether the Exodus was 1290 BC or 1440 BC.
>
First, it is my understanding that the "flood" layer at Ur,
did not cover the entire city. And being "center[ed]
around the same time frame" is NOT the same thing as being
the SAME time! Can you provide a reference which in the
archaeological literature which says that all these clay
layers are dated exactly the same time (within the error
bars appropriate)? I would like to check this out.
Secondly, If you place the flood around 2900-3000 BC, in
the Tigris/Euphrates Valley you have several major
problems. Your flood can not match at all what the Bible
says or implies. You are stuck with an approximation to the
present day topography. Downhill is towards the Persian
Gulf. Any boat caught in a major flood in that valley is
going to drift southeast towards the Persion Gulf.
Thus the Bible is wrong when it says that Noah landed on
the mountains of Ararat.
The flood could not last for one year. Assuming that Noah
started at the foothills of the Zagros mountains, at a
normal rate of 3 miles per hour (which is much slower than
the speed at which flood waters move), the Ark would be
expelled from Mesopotamia in about 7.6 days! That sure
sounds like what the Bible is describing.
Once again the Bible is wrong in that the flood could not
easily have lasted 1 year.
>And, although it seems to escape attention, the Genesis
> flood had survivors. The "Nephilim" (giants in some
translations) were on the earth in the pre-flood period
(Gen. 6:4). And in Numbers 13:33, the sons of Anak are
>descendants. Either the Nephilim or their progeny surviv
>ed the flood. And, of course, flood survivors can be
found in all regions of the world. The native Americans,
for only one example, crossed the Bering strait between
>40,000 and 12,000 years ago when there was a land
bridge.
>
So God was unhappy with marriages between American indians
and the sons of God? That doesn't sound very good to me.
Of course since my ancestors came from Europe, they also
escaped the flood, am I a Nephilim?
>So Bible, science, and history are all quite happy with
> a flood that erased all Adamite populations except for
>Noah and three sons (their wives may or may not have been
>of Adamite extraction), who rode out the flood in their
>boat. Now if people would just stop rocking it.
So the Indians are not descended from Adam? Are you
perchance Mormon? If you are, your solution might work for
that theology but it won't work for mine. I have to have
another solution than that.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm