George Murphy wrote:
>I have no problem saying that there are historical elements
>behind the biblical flood story. But that is not the same as saying
>that the whole thing is accurate historical narrative.
Glenn Morton wrote:
>I would submit that if the Biblical stories didn't actually happen then God
>couldn't possibly be faithful. He couldn't have done the things the stories
>claim are evidence of his faithfulness. If the stories didn't actually
>happen, then the evidence of God's faithfulness is based upon fictional
>stories. I would conclude that this would imply that God's faithfulness is
>a fiction also.
Although I totally respect and admire Glenn's passionate defense of the
historicity of Genesis, unfortunately he wishes to place the flood in a
time frame he cannot substantiate with any historical evidence.
This was Howard Van Till's assessment:
>On the particular matter of the Genesis 6-9 flood narrative, the fact that
>your assumptions force you to postulate that an event 5.5 million years
>ago is the historical referent of the account, presumed to be a chronicle,
>should serve to stimulate a reexamination of your basic assumptions.
Now, it would seem to me that those who argue for an historical flood
would offer supporting historical evidence, and those who prefer to believe
the flood is not historical would tell us why they choose to ignore the
historical background of the Genesis flood.
Since I do argue for an historical flood let me offer a little supporting
data.
The Sumerian king lists vary a little as to the names and order of
the kings, but they do agree on something. After Ziusudra (the
Sumerian equivalent of Noah) we read this:
The Flood swept thereover,
After the Flood had swept thereover,
When the kingship was lowered from heaven
The kingship was in Kish
Now, what flood do you think they were talking about?
Archeologists discovered water-laid clay in the central
cities of Mesopotamia they dated at roughly 2900 BC.
Where do you think it came from?
Ashurbanipal, king of Ninevah (668-626 BC) wrote this:
I study stone inscriptions from before the flood,
which are obtuse, obscure and confused.
What flood was he talking about?
Writing at the time of Caesar Augustus, Nicolaus Damascenus
makes mention of one who was carried on an ark to the mountains
of Armenia. His account ends with a conjectural comment:
"Perhaps this was the same individual of whom Moses
the legislator of the Jews has made mention."
"Perhaps," indeed.
In Hebrews 11:7 we read, "By faith Noah, being warned of God of
things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the
saving of his house ..."
What was the ark for?
In I Peter 3:18-20 we read: "For Christ also hath once suffered for
sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being
put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also
he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime
were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the
days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is,
eight souls were saved by water."
Did the Apostle Peter believe in a flood?
In Luke 17:26-27 we read: "And as it was in the days of Noah, so
shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they
drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the
day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and
destroyed them all."
As professing Christians, shouldn't we give a little credibility to
Jesus Christ? If there was no Noah, ark, or flood, what was he
talking about? Is this written as parable?
We all know that the New Testament picks up on many of the
same themes of the Old Testament. The Luke narrative just
quoted is also found in Matthew. Again quoting our lord, Jesus
Christ: "For as in the days that were before the flood they were
eating and drinking..."(Matt. 24:38). Look at Genesis. See
anything about "eating and drinking"? Jesus didn't quote Genesis.
He quoted Atrahasis!
In the Assyrian/Babylonian story, the king Atrahasis (exceeding
wise) loads up the ark and prepares a feast for his brethren who
knew not the hour of the flood. After the birds, cattle, and wild
animals were put aboard, Atrahasis turned to his people for whom
there was no provision.
He invited his people [ ]
[ ] to a feast.
[ ] he put his family on board.
They were eating, they were drinking.
But he went in and out,
Could not stay still or rest on his haunches,
His heart was breaking and he was vomiting bile.
If there was no flood my dear friends, or if it was somewhere else
in another time frame, then all the surrounding historical evidence
confirming the Genesis account must be discredited. In the
process, you must also discredit the writer of Genesis (reputedly
Moses), the writer of Hebrews (probably Paul), the Apostle Peter,
and even our Lord, himself. Is this what ASA is about?
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution, http://www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago."
--=====================_7347096==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
George Murphy wrote:
>I have no problem saying that there are historical elements
>behind the biblical flood story. But that is not the same as
saying
>that the whole thing is accurate historical narrative.
Glenn Morton wrote:
>I would submit that if the Biblical stories didn't actually happen
then God
>couldn't possibly be faithful. He couldn't have done the things the
stories
>claim are evidence of his faithfulness. If the stories didn't
actually
>happen, then the evidence of God's faithfulness is based upon
fictional
>stories. I would conclude that this would imply that God's
faithfulness is
>a fiction also.
Although I totally respect and admire Glenn's passionate defense of
the
historicity of Genesis, unfortunately he wishes to place the flood in
a
time frame he cannot substantiate with any historical evidence.
This was Howard Van Till's assessment:
>On the particular matter of the Genesis 6-9 flood narrative, the fact
that
>your assumptions force you to postulate that an event 5.5 million
years
>ago is the historical referent of the account, presumed to be a
chronicle,
>should serve to stimulate a reexamination of your basic
assumptions.
Now, it would seem to me that those who argue for an historical
flood
would offer supporting historical evidence, and those who prefer to
believe
the flood is not historical would tell us why they choose to ignore
the
historical background of the Genesis flood.
Since I do argue for an historical flood let me offer a little supporting
data.
The Sumerian king lists vary a little as to the names and order of
the kings, but they do agree on something. After Ziusudra (the
Sumerian equivalent of Noah) we read this:
The Flood swept thereover,
After the Flood had swept thereover,
When the kingship was lowered from heaven
The kingship was in Kish
Now, what flood do you think they were talking about?
Archeologists discovered water-laid clay in the central
cities of Mesopotamia they dated at roughly 2900 BC.
Where do you think it came from?
Ashurbanipal, king of Ninevah (668-626 BC) wrote this:
I study stone inscriptions from before the flood,
which are obtuse, obscure and confused.
What flood was he talking about?
Writing at the time of Caesar Augustus, Nicolaus Damascenus
makes mention of one who was carried on an ark to the mountains
of Armenia. His account ends with a conjectural
comment:
"Perhaps this was the same individual of whom Moses
the legislator of the Jews has made mention."
"Perhaps," indeed.
In Hebrews 11:7 we read, "By faith Noah, being warned of God of
things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the
saving of his house ..."
What was the ark for?
In I Peter 3:18-20 we read: "For Christ also hath once suffered for
sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being
put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also
he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime
were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the
days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is,
eight souls were saved by water."
Did the Apostle Peter believe in a flood?
In Luke 17:26-27 we read: "And as it was in the days of Noah,
so
shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they
drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the
day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and
destroyed them all."
As professing Christians, shouldn't we give a little credibility
to
Jesus Christ? If there was no Noah, ark, or flood, what was
he
talking about? Is this written as parable?
We all know that the New Testament picks up on many of the
same themes of the Old Testament. The Luke narrative just
quoted is also found in Matthew. Again quoting our lord, Jesus
Christ: "For as in the days that were before the flood they
were
eating and drinking..."(Matt. 24:38). Look at Genesis.
See
anything about "eating and drinking"? Jesus didn't quote
Genesis.
He quoted Atrahasis!
In the Assyrian/Babylonian story, the king Atrahasis (exceeding
wise) loads up the ark and prepares a feast for his brethren who
knew not the hour of the flood. After the birds, cattle, and wild
animals were put aboard, Atrahasis turned to his people for whom
there was no provision.
He invited his people
[
]
[
] to a feast.
[
] he put his family on board.
They were eating, they were drinking.
But he went in and out,
Could not stay still or rest on his haunches,
His heart was breaking and he was vomiting bile.
If there was no flood my dear friends, or if it was somewhere else
in another time frame, then all the surrounding historical evidence
confirming the Genesis account must be discredited. In the
process, you must also discredit the writer of Genesis (reputedly
Moses), the writer of Hebrews (probably Paul), the Apostle Peter,
and even our Lord, himself. Is this what ASA is about?
--=====================_7347096==_.ALT--