I am not completely sure that I could agree. First, read any of the ancient
Greek historians. They tell pretty bad stories about their kings and
ancestors.
Secondly, to say that the only true God is dealing with your ethnic group and
your country could be construed as glorifying one's country. While I believe
that that happens to be true, one who does not believe it is true would have
some basis for making the opposite claim.
>>Genesis-No place one can go to say "There those are the deposits of the
>>flood."
>>
>The best geological explanation for the Flood I know of is the end of the
>last glacial interval. Recent evidence suggests that it was a rather rapid
>change. Most of the area especially affected would have been prime real
>estate but now be under the ocean. The sea level doesn't have to have
>risen above the mountains-forty days of rain would make higher elevations
>very soggy.
>
No, but the rise in sealevel was not that rapid. Deglaciation began around
18,000 years ago and was finished around 12,000 years ago. From the geologic
evidence found on continental shelves, the sea leve was between 90 and 130 m
below present sea level 17,000 years ago. (See D.Q. Bowen, Quaternary Geology,
Pergamon, 1978,p., 159.) (Say the average sea level then was -100 m)
Using these values we have a rise in sealevel during this time of
approximately
100/17,000=5 mm per year.
These are a raging rate of flooding. If that is the best model of the flood
you know of it is truly a bad one. While the climate was believed to have
changed fairly rapidly, the ice was not able to melt so quickly.
Oxygen 18/oxygen 16 values show that the volume of glacial ice decreased over
a 10000 year period. What does this have to do with de-glaciation? Remember
that when water evaporates, water molecules containing the lighter isotopes of
oxygen (oxygen 16) are preferentially evaporated first; and the heavier
isotopes (Oxygen 17 and 18) are more concentrated in the ocean. By measuring
the concentration, you can tell how much water has left the ocean and gone to
the glaciers. When the glacial ice melts, it changes the isotopic ratio
again. This change can be observed to occur over a 10,000 year period.
Your glacial meltwater flood is far, far too slow to be noticed in a single
individual's life.
>>Exodus-No place one can go and say "There those are the wheels of pharoahs
>>chariots.
>>
>There's a spot around the Bitter Lakes where a persistent wind (Ex. 14:21)
>could set up the water for a dry crossing as described. Unfortunately,
>I've only read a summary of the original article. The summary had an
>unpromising title along the lines of "Vengeful God of the Old Testament
>Reduced to Equations", but the text was mostly better.
>
I may be wrong, but my understanding is that they have never found a place
under water (which preserves wood quite well) where there are lots of
chariots.
>The Exodus account is compatible with archaeological evidence, whereas the
>Book of Mormon makes archaeological and biogeographical errors (there were
>no cattle, horses, sheep, or goats for them to find as they hopped off the
>boat). However, IF the Exodus account were historically false, then Judaism
>would be just a bunch of myths and laws.
>
Remember what I was doing here. I happen to beleive that the events in Exodus
occurred pretty much as described. I also believe the flood occurred pretty
much as described. What I was doing was pointing out to George that the same
reasoning he applies to Genesis 6-9 equally applies to Exodus. If we believe
Exodus, what is the problem with Genesis 6-9. If we don't believe Exodus,
then one must truly ask if the Bible can be true at all.
>>Genesis 6-9--shows signs of 2 traditions being forced together.
>>
>>Exodus 1-20--shows signs of 2 traditions being forced together.
>>
>Form criticism shows signs of literary hypotheses and the Biblical text
>being forced together. There are some credible examples of multiple
>sources, however. Whether Moses compiled two different accounts or not
>says nothing about whether these accounts are accurate.
>Ultimately, the problem in Genesis 1-10 is an apparent conflict between
>general and special revelation. Since they are both from a truthful God,
>we must examine our interpretation of both to see where we've made a
>mistake. Even in historical passages, the text does not match our cultural
>patterns for historical accounts (e.g., the omission of some parts of the
>lineage in Matthew 1).
>
I agree that I do not find the JEDP theory very appealing. It posutlates the
existence of documents for which there are no extant copies, and no extant,
CONTEMPORARY mentions in other literature. The only evidence for them is
subjective.
You really missed what I was trying to do with my post. I was not trying to
show that the Bible was false, I was trying to show that if you deny the flood
account because it has not yet been explained, because there is no evidence of
it, and because of literary criticism, then to be consistent one must apply
the same reasoning to Exodus. I am sure that there are lots of other places
one could choose to apply that logic also.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm