On Mon, 9 Oct 1995 22:03:39 -0400 Glenn wrote:
[continued]
GM>and then the water filling the basin causes air to rise which
>always causes rain. Thus, my model exactly fits the description,
>fountains break first, rainfall second. So what is the problem here?
>You don't have to accept my view but please represent it accurately
>(as well as what the Bible says).
I was using "primary" in the sense of "main", not "first in time".
The emphasis in the Flood story is the rain that fell "for forty days
and forty nights" (Gn 7:4, 12). Under Glenn's scenario, there would
have been no need for rain.
There is no indication in "what the Bible says" in Genesis 7:11 that
"the floodgates of the heavens were opened" was caused by "all the
springs of the great deep burst forth"
Besides, the air that rose when the Mediterranean flooded, would
presumably have been *dry* air, and would not have contained enough
water to rain for "forty days and forty nights" (Gn 7:4, 12).
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>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.<<
GM>Noah could only observe what he could see around him. The land
>where he was was dry. That does not require that (in a global flood)
>the oceans were back in their present boundaries, or in a local flood
>of the magnitude I advocate that everything as dry.
The point was that the Biblical account indicates a complete
drying up of the Flood waters and a return to pre-Flood normality.
Under Glenn's scenario, there was now a permanent inland sea where
once Noah lived.
>***This is important***
GM>Genesis 6:13 states: "So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an
>end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of
>them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth." NIV
GM>If you require that the entire flooded region be dry after one
>year, then this verse can not be true. He said He would destroy the
>EARTH. If by EARTH, he meant LAND, then in my model the LAND was
>indeed destroyed. In your view, it wasn't destroyed. My view can
>actually fit the description in the bible better.
This is a red herring. Glenn and I both accept a local Flood that
covered the known world (ie. land) of Noah's day.
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>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).<<
>and
SJ>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.<<
GM>These two statements seem contradictory. On the one hand you say
>there are no dates and you really aren't interested in those types of
>details but then when you need a "soon" you use it. How soon is
>soon? If you put several thousand years, between Noah and Nimrod,
>then why can't I put more?
There is a slight difference between my "several thousand years" and
Glenn's several *million* years! :-)
GM>If you only put a few hundred years between them then where is the
>evidence for your flood? I have to keep coming back to this. If I
>say "There are leprechauns!" and you ask "Where?", you will be very
>disappointed if I say, "I am not interested in their exact locale."
>Would you believe me?
The key is my word "exact". I have already said that I believe the
Bible depicts the Flood as having ocurred in Mesopotamia, within the
last 50,000 years. If the Bible actually said: 1. when "the six
hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second
month" (Gn 7:11) was, and 2. where exactly the Flood was, and geology
had dug down and found unbroken geological strata in that area with no
evidence for a flood, then I would have a problem.
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>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>Even if the only facts I am interested in reconciling are
>geological, are you suggesting that geological facts don't need to be
>incorporated into a view of the flood?
I don't think they are the most important. It is possible that there
is no remaining "geological facts" that can determine where and
when the Flood was.
[continued]
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 |
----------------------------------------------------------------