I would answer with this: how accurate does the story have to be in order
for it to be true. That is the question I have. Any flood that doesn't
match the account in most regards means that the report isn't correct and
thus can't be an occasion for deriving lessons from God. If Genesis had a
narrator or story teller and the narrator said, 'let me tell you a
parable', then your question would be much better.
>My reply:
>
>I believe that our difference lies in our expectation of what Noah's
>flood story is about. What is the literary and historical/social
>context? And does that context take precedence over descriptive
>details in the story?
>
>Your concept of Noah's flood matching the Mediterranean basin infill
>does not match the flood story being 1. legend and 2. in the context
>of Mesopotamian prehistory.
Where does the Bible say that the story is 'legend'? You may believe it is
'legend' (and by this I mean like Beowulf). This obviously is something you
are adding. As to being in the context of the Mesopotamian prehistory, are
you aware that the mesopotamians themselves were not originally in lower
mesopotamia? I have documented before that southern Mesopotamia was ocean
just 5500 years ago. Because of this, and of the fact that prehistoric
migrations of peoples occurred all the time, being in THE Mesopotamian's
prehistory is not the same as being in Mesopotamia's prehistory. The
Semites took over Mesopotamia around 2300 bc. Where were they before the
advent of modern history? We don't know. They could easily have carried the
story from somewhere else. So, the context of Mesopotamian history must be
based upon the assumption that there were no movements of peoples during
this time and during the time prior to history. That is a very tenuous
assumption.
The reason why we should consider Noah's
>flood to be identified as such is because there are similar legends
>in ancient Mesopotamian cultures (particularly the Sumerian). The
>similarity is more than coincidence.
So, the young-earth creationist would point out the similarities of flood
legends around the earth to the same set of circumstances. And the chinese
character for boat incorporates the symbol for 8 mouths--just the number of
people on the ark. My point is not to advocate those coincidences but to
point out that there are other explanations which you have not considered.
>
>I believe the story's context takes precedence over descriptive
>detail in the case of Noah's flood. Notably, Biblical scholars
>have identified both the J and P styles in story of Noah's flood.
I always have been extremely skeptical of the JEDP theory. When I was
taking a course in college on Old Testament, I asked the prof if any of the
4 sources J, E, D, or P, still existed. He answered 'No.' I then asked if
any of them were mentioned in any other ancient Hebrew writings. Once
again, he answered 'no'. Thus we have a theory with no physical evidence
that the source existed, no mention of it by the ancients, and yet we build
entire theological theories based upon what can best be described as a will
of the wisp! If any of these sources have now been found, please correct
me. Until they are, I find them to be mostly in the imagination of the
19th and 20th century scholars. Why? Because to claim a different source
for elohim vs yahwah assumes that no one can use synonyms and that is
silly. We use God, the Deity, the man upstairs, Jehovah, and The Lord among
other synonyms for God. I guess we get this from at least 5 different
sources that we put together to come up with Christianity.
>When separated, each style tells the flood story with different
>details. Therefore, the concept of a 'match' based on descriptive
>details will be rejected by modern Biblical studies.
Once again, I find this to be quite imaginative but without any supporting
evidence. How do you know you separated things correctly? the feeling of
consilience?
>Glenn replied:
>
>>Let me ask something about consilience. Does consilience allow for a view
>to be considered true only because it is aesthetically pretty? In other
>words can a view that is consilient be consilient and be totally falsified
>by the observational evidence? Does it only mean that this is what we
>must believe but don't pay attention to the data?
>
>My comment:
>
>I believe that the better the concordism, the wider the net it
>casts, and the greater sense of beauty it inspires. What you demand
>in 'observational evidence' is already provided by multiple
>witnesses. Both the Sumerian and Hebrew traditions tell stories
>about a catastrophic flood. That is why Mallowan placed
>the flood where he did. That flood changed the course of civilization -
>even though some cities were relatively untouched.
You forget the Chinese, East INdian, the Athapascan (American Indian), The
Arapaho and other flood traditions. Why are you so limiting as to claim
that ONLY Hebrew and Sumerian flood traditions are worthy of mention? Oh
yeah, don't forget the story of Deucalion, I translated that from Latin
when I was a student. And Rehwinkle says the Egyptians had a flood account
in which only one man was saved out of the entire world. So once again,
Why are you so limited?
>
>Consilience should not match views or data that have been
>falsified unless, of course, the 'falsification' is recognized.
>Your view, for example, 'falsifies' the genealogies - since
>each person in the genealogies cannot be explained for a 6 Myr
>time span. The more outlandish the explanation, the weaker
>the consilience is.
>
>Consilience says that beauty flows from greater awareness of the
>interconnectedness of truth. I believe Fischer's claim that
>the stories of Adam and Eve pertain to Mesopotamian prehistory,
>even though I do not agree with all the details of his association.
>You reject this claim.
DArn right I reject Fischer's view. He has water flowing uphill (see out
debate in 1996. I have never seen that happen. see
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/199605/0044.html and surroundings notes
by me and Dick.
>
>
>Next issue:
>
>We also differ on whether the pace of innovation is characteristic
>of H. sapiens. Glenn confounded archaeolgical and moral issues
>here. He especially confounded academic discussion addressing and
>explaining the different rates of innovation between H. erectus and
>H. sapiens with the humanity of different cultures that express
>different rates of innovation. I think that these two issues should
>be kept separate. For this reason, I am not copying and pasting
>this material
But Ray, you have a double standard here. You claim that erectus can't be
human because he didn't have the pace of innovation that you require. But
then you dismiss and refuse to respond to examples of modern humans who
have similar rates of invention. You can't have it both ways. Your
position here is ad hoc. It is designed to admit only morphologically
modern humans but exclude erectus. And lacking an objective way to do that
you now decide not to defend your view. THinking that we are the epitomy of
inventiveness because we invented farming one should remember that people
like Colin Tudge believe mankind became farmers because we were forced into
it, not because we wanted it.
I also want to mention more data on religion. Your view that erectus and
Neanderthal were the intention of man requires that Homo erectus build an
altar at Bilzingsleben 400,000 years ago, but not worshiip there because he
wasn't yet human. It requires that Neanderthal build the altar in the dark
depths of Bruniquel, sacrificed a bear but didn't know what they were
doing. Bednarik states:
"The cave of Bruniquel in southern France has just produced fascinating
new evidence. Several hundred metres in from the cave entrance, a stone
structure has been discovered. It is quadrilineal, measures four by five
metres and has been constructed from pieces of stalagmite and stalactite.
A burnt fragment of a bear bone found in it was radiocarbon analysed,
yielding a 'date' of greater than 47 600 years BP. This suggests that the
structure is the work of Neanderthals. It is located in complete darkness,
which proves that the people who ventured so deep into the large cave
system had reliable lighting and had the confidence to explore such depths.
Bruniquel is one of several French caves that became closed subsequent to
their Pleistocene use, but were artifically opened this century." ~ Robert
G. Bednarick, "Neanderthal News," The Artefact 1996, 19:104
The date shows that it was made by Neandertal. I would point you to
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/199901/0007.html for several more
evidences of religion by ancient species. Ancient mankind was already
religious long before anatomically modern men came on the scene.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution