On Fri, 6 Oct 1995 07:38:57 -0400 Glenn wrote:
>I wrote to Stephen about his view of the flood.
>GM>Sorry, what I was asking for was more detail than this. What are
>the time frames, for the events, when was fully human man made, what
>sediments mark the flood sediments.
>Stephen replied:
SJ>I am not overly concerned about the "time frames". The Bible
>doesn't give any, so I see no need to set any. My only concern is
>for a model that fits both the Biblical and scientific evidence. The
>Biblical evidence as I see it depicts Gn 2 Adam as a farmer (Gn 2:15;
>3:19; 4:2), so I would correlate his date with the fairly recent
>appearance of farming in the Fertile Crescent. My viewpoint would
>probably be called old-Earth/young-Adam.<<
GM>If you can't or won't give time frames there is absolutely no valid
>way to say that you fit the scientific data with your view. What
>data do you fit? Without stating an outline any theory can be
>advanced and held because no data can contradict it.
Glenn did not really read what I wrote. I am trying to fit the
>scientific facts to the Bible. The Bible contains no exact date and
>place for the Flood, so I am not overly worried about trying to fit
>amy particular scientific data and place for the Flood to the Bible.
[...]
>Of the flood sediments:
SJ>As to "sediments", I am not aware of any except the flood sediments
>that Woolley found in the Mesopotamian Valley:<<
GM>Go look it up, but the "flood" sediments of Woolley didn't even
>cover all of the town he was excavating. One half of the town was
>covered and the other half wasn't. Sounds like quite a flood.
I had looked it up. I did not say this was Noah's Flood. I just
said that these were the only sediments I was aware of.
[...]
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>It is important to realise that the Flood story is in a form that
>recapitulates Creation. The Earth is covered by a watery chaos and
>dry land, vegetation and animal life "appears". The purpose of the
>Flood story is not straight history, but salvation-history.<<
GM>Well, if the story is not straight history, then you don't have to
match the >facts of history, so why claim that you do. An allegorical
approach may or >may not be required to fit facts.
Its not an "allegorical approach". Its trying to find out what the
Bible writer meant. The following are three possible ways of
interpreting the Flood:
1. STRICT LITERAL: "earth" means "globe". World-wide flood,
geographically and anthropologically. Geological column the result of
the Flood. Main purpose of account to explain geology. Flood stories
world-wide support world-wide flood. New Testament affirms literal
reality of global Flood.
2. GRAMMATICO-HISTORICAL LITERAL: Local flood. "earth" means "land",
ie. known world of Noah. May have been anthropologically universal.
Geological evidence (if any) in local area only. Main purpose of
account is theological, ie. God's judgment against human sin and
disobedience, Salvation of righteous remnant, God's grace in not again
judging "world", etc. Flood stories (especially Mesopotamian) support
local flood, with world-wide dissemination by survivors. New
Testament affirms literal reality of Flood, but not geographical
extent.
3. SYMBOLIC/LITERAL: Local Flood as per 2. Based on actual local
event but symbolically expanded as a cosmic drama, with creation theme
of watery chaos revisited. Main purpose is theological as per 2.
above. Geological evidence may be insignificant and not even
recognised. New Testament assumes reality of Flood, but emphasis is
on theological lessons not geographical extent.
I tend to be somewhere between 2. and 3.
OVERALL CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Flood story is part of "the generations
[Lit. family histories] of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth
(Gn 10:1). There is great similarities (as well as differences)
between other ANE Flood stories, eg. Gilgamesh Epic. Most
conservative scholars see Genesis account is based on cognate source
of pagan stories, eg.
Genesis Babylonian Sumerian Akkadian World-wide
\ | | | Flood Legends
\ ------------------- | | |
\ / \ | /
--------------- ---------
\ /
-----------------------------------
|
Original Source
(Oral history?)
This implies some considerable literary activity. There is some
evidence of literary conflation of sources, eg. J and E, although it
is not possible to reconstruct these source documents.
2. Noah's Flood is not taught as major part of New Testament doctrine
(except as a type of the second coming). It is not mentioned in any
of Paul's letters at all. It is not taught as a part of any major
Christian creed. If Noah's Flood did not happen at all it would be a
major problem, but if the Flood account was eventually shown to be
history clothed in symbolism, as perhaps other early parts of Gn 1-11
(eg. talking serpent, etc), that would not change Christiantity. In
fact it would free us to concentrate on its *real* message. Trying
hard to find geological evidence of the Flood and and re-arranging the
whole history of early mankind to fit in with it (eg. flooding of
Mediterranean 5.5 MYA), IMHO misses the whole point.
>I wrote:
>GM>The biggest question I have is this. In the mesopotamian region
>the land slopes to the south towards the persion gulf. Any flood
>waters would drain to the south carrying the ark with it. So how did
>the ark land back in Turkey? Things like this are what I am
>interested in.
>You replied:
SJ>The above reflects Glenn's "interest" as a professional
>geophysicist. It is not my major interest or expertise. I do try to
>relate the Bible with the scientific facts, but I do not claim an
>exact fit. If we knew exactly where and when the Flood was (the
>Bible does not say) then we could zero in on the geological evidence.
>Ramm gives one suggestion for a local flood:<<
GM>Stephen you keep saying that your view fits the facts better, and I
>am merely testing that assertion. If your view fits the facts
>better, then I would most certainly be interested in it. If it
>doesn't fit the facts, then I am not interested in it.
I am generally concerned with fitting the scientific fact within the
overall Biblical facts. But in this case there are no specific
Biblical "facts" concerning the place and date of the Flood. There
are just very general "facts" of the general area (Mesopotamia - see
place names I have already posted, eg. Urartu, Babel, etc) and the
neolithic post-Flood world. These do not fit Glenn's Mediterannean
5.5 MYA Flood theory.
Other Biblical facts that do not seem to fit Glenn's theory are:
1. The Bible gives the primary cause of the Flood as rain falling upon
the earth "forty days and forty nights" (Gn 7:4,12) In Glenn's
model the primary cause is the Mediterranean Sea breaking its dam
at the Straits of Gibraltar.
2. The Biblical Flood receded totally receded and was compeletely dry:
"By the first day of the first month of Noah's six hundred and first
year, the water had dried up from the earth. Noah then removed the
covering from the ark and saw that the surface of the ground was dry.
By the twenty-seventh day of the second month the earth was completely
dry." (Gn 8:13-14). Glenn's Flood would leave the Mediterranean Sea
where Noah once lived.
3. Soon after the Flood we have one of the descendants of Noah's son
Ham (Gn 10:6), namely "Nimrod" (Gn 10:8) whose kingdom was based at
the Mesopotamian centres of "Babylon, Erech, Akkad and Calneh, in
Shinar" (Gn 10:10).
Glenn's theory does not fit the Biblical evidence, and he has already
admitted that there is no anthropological evidence for Homo sapiens as
far back as 5.5 MY. It seems the only facts that Glenn is concerned
at reconciling are the geological?
GM>Stephen quoted Bernard Ramm as suggesting the Caspian Depression.
>Stephen and I discussed this privately at length a few months back.
>There are large areas of the Caspian Depression which do not have
>Recent sediments laid down. Nor could you cover the high mountains
>without also covering most of the world, as they are 3000 feet high.
>Since there are no sediments from the time of man in parts of that
>basin, and the mountains can't be covered in a local flood, I find
>this suggestion violated by the data.
I do not claim this is where the Flood was. It may have been, but for
some reason "sediments" have not been found? And I do not believe
that every mountain had to be covered, only those in the experience of
the writer.
I do believe that somewhere, sometime, in the Mesopotamian area, there
was a large local Flood that fits all the essential data, but we
haven't found it, and may never find it. The evidence is in the
Biblical story and the Mesopotamian flood traditions, and most
imortantly Jesus belief that it happened (Mt 24:38; Lk 17:27).
IMHO much of the problem lies with our interpretation. The main
purpose of Gn 1-11 is to teach theology, not geology. Karl Barth was
once asked did he believe in a literal serpent in the Garden, to which
he replied he was much more interested in what the serpent said.
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>Again I don't claim this is *the* answer. But it is an answer, just
>as is Glenn's 5.5 MY old Noah in the Mediterranean Sea. The problem
>with the latter (IMHO) is that it is just too long ago, and too far
>away.<<
GM>I too would have wanted a more recent event. The problem is I
>can't find anyplace that fits the description as well and is nearer
>in time than this. If anyone has a suggestion, I would be interested
>in hearing it. But I will go look up the geology of the area to see
>if the suggestion works.
Has Glenn ever considered that God may have ensured there is no
evidence? This is no mere desperate attempt to escape the difficulty.
The God of the Bible ensures that not even one sparrow falls to the
ground without Him willing it (Mt 10:29). Not *one* piece of physical
evidence for the Judeo-Christian faith has survived (eg. Noah's ark,
Ark of the Covenant, Moses' tablets of stone, the Bronze Serpent, a
piece of the Cross, not an original manuscript, or even a description
of Jesus). My conclusion is that God didn't want it to survive.
The Flood was not of a a river silting type. It was caused: 1. by
steady rain and 2. by subterranean springs (Gn 7:11; 8:2). It may not
have left the type of sediment left by normal floods? Also, the
Biblical account reveals a draining of the Flood (Gn 8:1ff), which may
have carried off much of any sediment, perhaps into th aquifer that
the subterranean water came. Besides, I doubt if God would have left
all the drowned bodies of Noah's former compatriots lying around!
While the use of miracles on demand is normally a bad practice, IMHO
there are good reasons to expect them. While much of the Flood
was caused by amplified "natural" causes, there were some direct acts
of God in the Biblical account (Gn 7:16). What sediment remained of
the Flood could have been used for bricks and farming (Gn 9:20; 11:3).
If the Flood was at the end of the last ice age (ie. 10,000 years
ago?), it is even possible that glaciation may have removed all trace
of it?
There are good reasons not to expect sediments to remain, as
scientific proof of Noah's Flood. God could have ensured that Noah's
Ark was found on top of a mountain. That would convince a fair number
of unbelievers and save apologists a lot of trouble. Why didn't he?
I suggest He wants us to "walk by faith and not by sight" (2Cor 5:7).
God bless.
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------