>I looked. To the best of my knowledge there is only 1 town named in the
>Pre-flood world. It was the one named by Cain. And the pronounceation of
>it is different from the town Eyannoc {sic} in Babylonian. Sometimes names
>that sound the same aren't the same.
The Arkansas river is not pronounced the same as the state of Arkansas,
but that doesn't mean there is no relationship.
>Babel to the Babylonians meant "Gate
>of God" to the Hebrews Babel meant "confusion". Identical sound but not
>the same word.
Can you think of no English words that have changed meaning over the
course of only two hundred years that the United States has been
in existence? You are looking at a "screen" at this moment. What did
that word mean a hundred years ago?
>To claim that there are lots of preflood towns named is not
>correct.
We agree. Who stated that?
>I might grant the post-flood towns are in Mesopotamia. But you
>only have 1 preflood town to hang your hat on.
Hey, the Bible named only one. However, the earliest city in Southern
Mesopotamia was "Eridu." Eden, the Sumerian "edin" means "plain,"
"prairie," or "desert." It is possible that Eridu is the root of the
French "aride," and our English word "arid" which pertains to a desert.
>>>The Pishon, as I mentioned earlier is anybody's guess.
>>>Could even have been an irrigation canal. One of the "rivers" in
>>>Babylon is an irrigation canal named the "Chebar" (Eze. 1:1).
>I quote you "This is just more speculation."
Hardly. Look at a map of Iraq. Find Babylon. You will see no rivers
flowing through it. Babylon was watered by irrigation.
>>>In SW Iraq, where you say this was, the rock types are wrong for gold.
No one places Havilah in Iraq that I know of. Arabia was famous for
it's gold in ancient days. How far is Saudi Arabia from Iraq?
>If we are to find a real explanation for the events
>of the Bible, it MUST incorporate all of modern science.
I don't think you meant to say this. If the resurrection could be
explained by modern science we wouldn't have a religion at all.
>There is not one geological fact my view violates. There is not
>one law of physics my view
>violates (I don't have objects floating upstream in a flood). My view
>incorporates all of the statements of the Scripture.
I'm speechless. I think the Australopithicines were too since they are
classified as apes, and apes don't talk. If you can't see any flaws in
a theory that calls for talking apes then I think we've reached an
impasse.
>Is this view novel? Yes. Do people WANT to believe it? NO! But that is
>not the criteria of truth nor is it the criteria of successfully
>harmonizing a vast set of facts.
Here again you and I are in sharp agreement. My approach to harmonizing
Genesis could also be called "novel." I find lots of people who don't
want to believe it. We'll never know the "truth" with total assurity.
All we can do is theorize within the constraints place by the data we
have in hand.
>I don't mean to sound sharp. I merely want a flood model that the atheists
>can't criticise. I already put it through that test by posting a synopsis
>on Talk.Origins. That hostile audience mostly ignored it but I did get
>several very nice comments from some of the non-christians. I got NO
>criticisms for my science.
Yes, I have to admit if it weren't for what the Bible says it would be
a lot easier.
Your friend always,
Dick Fischer
*****************************************************************
* *
* THE ORIGINS SOLUTION *
* *
* An Answer in the Creation - Evolution Debate *
* *
* Web page - http://www.orisol.com *
* *
*****************************************************************