Re: Is there a Plan B? (was: So we're all related!)

Dick,

While an atheist or lapsed Christian (e.g. Ed) might be forgiven for failing
to take the events of Genesis 6-9 seriously, you can have no excuse, for I
read from your website that you take "a high view of Scripture" - believing
in the Genesis Flood, which you reckon to have occurred in Southern
Mesopotamia between 4000 and 7000 years ago. Now it is surely expected of
one who publishes in this vein that he has been rigorous in his assessment
of _all_ the available data - particularly in respect of that which the
Bible provides. It is therefore disappointing that nowhere in your writings
do I find an acknowledgement of the logical difficulties associated with the
belief that the Mabbul can be written off as a _local_ flood. Perhaps you
are already aware that a selection of these has been summarised and
presented to Gordon for consideration, however for your benefit I list them
again:

(1) One's first impressions of the narrative; views of New Testament
commentators.
(2) Why the need of an ocean-going craft when there was a simpler
alternative?
(3) Why the 'righteous' outsiders denied the protection of the Noahic
Covenant?
(4) An ambiguous covenant; why no qualification of the limiting size of
flood?
(5) Is it reasonable to expect the Designer of the Bible's first verse to be
the Author of an ambiguous covenant?

The hypothesis that the Genesis Flood was _local_ thus amounts to a dog's
breakfast of contradictions, and that is the reason for my posing the
question, Is there available to its protagonists a 'Plan B' that would
accomodate the reality of a _global_ cataclysm occurring some 4000 to 7000
years ago? I still await an answer.

Now, concerning the subject matter of your recent email, you wrote an
addendum to Gordon's earlier contribution, thus:

> Also, the description of the Hiddekel (Tigris) is that it "goeth toward
> the east of Assyria." Assyria is named after Asshur (Gen. 10:11) "who
> builded Ninevah" in Assyria, which is named after him. Well, where is
> Assyria? And the Gihon "compasseth the whole land of Cush." (Because
> cush also means "black," translators guessed at "Ethiopia." This is in
some
> translations.)

A minor point I know, but Asshur was a _post-diluvian_, so the 'Assyria' of
Genesis 2 is hardly named after him. What you appear to forget, Dick, is
that when a person is uprooted from his homeland - whether by choice or
necessity - he tends to apply once-familiar names to his current
surroundings. We find copious examples of the phenomenon in your own
country. For example, the English colonists transplanted the names
Birmingham (to Alabama), Durham (to N.Carolina), Worcester (to
Massachusetts), and so on. Hardly surprising then that Noah and his sons did
the same kind of thing.

> Dominick M'Causland identifies the Gihon as the "Gyudes"
> of the ancients, the modern Karkheh joined by the Kashkan River in the
> region of Cush, or Kush, in Eastern Mesopotamia. Today it is called
> Khuzistan, a province in the southwest corner of Iran from where the
> Kashkan flows..
>
> So there are two regions, Assyria and Cush, that cannot have been
> oblitereated by the flood because they still exist after the flood in
> conjunction with the named rivers.
>
You must realise that this reconstruction is less than satisfactory, for the
prime requirement of Genesis 2 is that these 4 rivers have a _common
source_. Clearly, neither you nor Gordon is able to provide a convincing
present-day example. The fact that you are prepared to overlook such an
important 'missing link' - and to suggest that the biblical 'hiddekel'
represents the Tigris - is yet further indication of the lack of rigour I
spoke of earlier.

To summarise: you have no solid evidence to support your claim that the
Flood was local to Southern Mesopotamia, for in that context Noah's maritime
adventure, and its purpose, are reduced to absurdity - as also is the Noahic
Covenant.

Vernon
www.otherbiblecode.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dick Fischer" <dickfischer@earthlink.net>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 11:48 PM
Subject: Re: Is there a Plan B? (was: So we're all related!)

> Gordon Brown wrote:
>
> > Genesis 2 gives us a description of the geography of a portion of the
> > Middle East. What author would waste his time trying to geographically
> > locate some place in an earth that was totally different geographically?
> > Here we have the Garden of Eden's location described for us. Four rivers
> > are mentioned. The readers didn't need anyone to tell them where the
> > Euphrates River was. The location of the other rivers was described
> > relative to locations that the readers would presumably have known
about.
>
> Also, the description of the Hiddekel (Tigris) is that it "goeth toward
> the east of Assyria." Assyria is named after Asshur (Gen. 10:11) "who
> builded Ninevah" in Assyria, which is named after him. Well, where is
> Assyria? And the Gihon "compasseth the whole land of Cush." (Because
> cush also means "black," translators guessed at "Ethiopia." This is in
some
> translations.)
>
> Dominick M'Causland identifies the Gihon as the "Gyudes"
> of the ancients, the modern Karkheh joined by the Kashkan River in the
> region of Cush, or Kush, in Eastern Mesopotamia. Today it is called
> Khuzistan, a province in the southwest corner of Iran from where the
> Kashkan flows..
>
> So there are two regions, Assyria and Cush, that cannot have been
> oblitereated by the flood because they still exist after the flood in
> conjunction with the named rivers.
>
> To believe in flood geology, you not only have to say the rivers named
> aren't the obvious rivers in Mesopotamia, they were obliterated in the
> flood; you would also have to say Assyria isn't Assyria and Cush isn't
Cush.
> So in essence, even a biblical author doesn't stand a chance against YEC
> mentality.
>
> A "straightforward reading" necessitates that the rivers named in Genesis
> are the rivers still located in southern Mesopotamia. Is the Euphrates in
> Gen. 2:14 not the Euphrates named in Gen.15:18? Get serious!
>
> Being a YEC follows a plan: ignore history, pervert science, and don't
read
> the Bible either.
>
> Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
> Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
> www.genesisproclaimed.org
>
>
Received on Sun Oct 24 18:12:40 2004