On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
> The strength of this line of reasoning rests entirely on your belief that
> the Mabbul was a quiescent affair - that it left the pre-existing
> physiography largely intact. But how do you reconcile that belief with the
> words of 7:11, "...all the fountains of the great deep were broken up..."?
> What is your understanding of this verse? - particularly as applied to the
> 'local' situation you envisage?
Vernon,
The deep can refer to the sea. It can apparently also refer to
subterranean water since there are references to heaven above and the deep
beneath. See also Psalm 71:20. There seem to be a number of speculations
concerning the identification of the fountains of the deep. I have heard
suggestions of tidal waves or that an asteroid impacted above an aquifer.
These are speculations, and I don't argue for any particular one. The
Bible doesn't give us the details that we are so curious about. If they
were important, I believe that it would have told us. It is what it did
tell us that is important.
The only animals that are mentioned in Genesis as perishing in the Flood
are those that would likely drown in a large flood. This does not suggest
burial by landslides. Also, how could an olive leaf not be stripped by a
flood that washed away mountains?
> Finally, let me thank you for the references provided in these emails.
> Regarding the parting of the Red sea: the text of Ex.14:21-22 speaks of the
> creation of a _channel_ with walls of water on _both sides_. I find it
> impossible to believe that such a situation could be induced _naturally_.
> Would you agree?
I think you may have a mental picture of this crossing based on its
depiction by Cecil B. de Mille as almost a tunnel of water.
Gordon Brown
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0395
Received on Sat Oct 30 14:59:14 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Oct 30 2004 - 14:59:16 EDT