On Fri, 13 Oct 1995 06:57:00 -0400 Glenn wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>I have already discussed these elsewhere, under a PC "two-Adam"
>model. They are consistent with an emerging humanity (Gn 1 man). But
>these examples actually argue against Glenn's case. In Glenn's view
>Noah built an ark *3.5 million years before* the earliest hominid with
>the beginnings of a >"Brocas' Brain" speech centre even existed!<<
>Stephen,
GM>Did you get any of the several posts I have made over the past few
>months discussing how the fossil record is gapped and spotty and that
>the first fossil is not necessarily the first creature of that kind?
>I posted a long list yesterday and would be delighted to send you
>another copy.
AFAIK I have receieved all Glenn's posts and I have answered them all.
For example, I said in response that the fossil record is not just of
individuals, it is of large central populations (Gould), which are
formed from undetectable small, peripherally isolated populations.
Therefore if Glenn is claiming that H. habilis existed as a small
peripheral isolate population for 3.5 million years then his theory is
unfalsifiable. OTOH if he is claiming that H. habilis existed was a
large central population for 3.5 MY then it is difficult to believe.
Claims that other species were not found (eg. tarsiers), ignores the
fact that H. habilis did more than leave behind his bones - he left
artifacts. Also, the search for hominids has been much more intensive
than for tarsiers, etc.
GM>I find it so odd that everything I have documented about the gaps in
>fossil record is not even mentioned by you and others. Why? If my
>evidence is faulty, then please correct it. Show me from the data why I
>am wrong and why the very first fossil MUST be the very first creature of
>that kind ever anywhere on earth. It is difficult and frustrating to cite
>these things only to have everyone act as if I had never said it. Please,
>please, tell me what you find wrong with the data or explain why the data
>doesn't matter.
All I can say is that Glenn either does not receive or does not read my
mail! :-)
GM>And if you agree that Broca's Brain is a speech center, how can you
>be sure that this is an emerging Adam and not a being created in the
>image of God? Both views could be true, but I know of no animal that
>has speech (the sign language apes notwithstanding).
More of Glenn not reading my mail! I have said ad nauseam that Gn 1
Adam is not an "animal" and indeed is an emerging image of God that is
not complete until the end of Day 6. I have also posted that
anthropologists believe that speech was not really "meaningful" before
Cro-Magnon man.
>Stephen wrote:
>GM>Sediments have not been found! Large areas of the Caspian do
>not have recent sediments. That region is very flat and the 3000 foot
>high mountains in the east centre of the basin can be seen for a >long,
>long distance. The writer should have had experience with them.
This assumes that the land of Noah was the same as today. Gn 7:11
mentions "all the springs of the great deep burst forth". This seems
to indicate major geological disturbances. Perhaps temporary
subsidence and raising later? If the land in which Noah lived was a
basically flat basin, it would not seem to be all that much of a
problem to imaging it being flooded, by relatively small changes in
geology. After all, the only quantitative statement of the depth of
the Flood was that it was "covered the mountains [Heb. hills] to a
depth of more than twenty feet" (Gn 7:20). This can mean the hills in
the experience of the writer, not necessarily the Himalayas.
SJ>As I said, "I do not claim this is where the Flood was". It is just
>one suggestion.<<
GM>But what is to become of a suggestion when the data contradicts it?
>Are we to continue to advocate that hypothesis or do we cease
>suggesting it? When something is disproven, it seems that the thing we
>should do is search for another solution rather than continuing to
>advance the same idea.
Where does "the data contradict it"? As I have previously posted, the
Bible does not day exactly where and when the Flood was. If Glenn can
show that geology absolutely rules out there ever being a local Flood
in the general area of Mesopotamia in the last (say) 50,000 years,
then I would like to hear about it. Besides, Glenn ignores the fact
that this was no ordinary Flood, but uniquely was sent by God. No
other flood has been caused by the simultaneous actions of underground
springs and torrential rain (Gn 7:11). Also, as I have previously
posted, there are good theological reasons to believe that God may
have ensured that there is no clear evidence of the Flood remaining.
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>No. Gn 1-11 is pre-history. Verifiable, datable Biblical history
>begins with Abraham at Gn 11:26. The resurrection was witnessed in
>historical times and there is independent historical evidence for the
>Exodus. It is simplistic to say that if we accept that the serpent
>in the Garden was real history "clothed in oriental allegorical
>dress" (Orr J., The Christian View of God and the World, 1897,
>p185), then we destroy the reality of historical events in other
>more recent parts of the Bible.<<
GM>We agree that it is pre-history. I would also agree "That is it
>simplistic to say that if we accept that the serpent in the Garden
>was real history 'clothed in oriental allegorical dress', then we
>destroy the reality of historical events in other more recent parts
>of the Bible." But I am not sure that is what you really meant to
>say. I may be wrong. Dismissing the serpent as fable does not
>necessarily destroy the history of the rest of the Bible, but it
>gives me the heeby-jeebies for the divine inspiration of the Bible.
Glenn fails to see the distinction between Gn 1-11 which is
*pre-history* and the rest of scripture post-Abraham which is datable,
verifiable *history*.
Also, there should be no problem with "the divine inspiration of the
Bible" unless it is asserted that God cannot inspire through
symbolical imagery. If that is the case, then I suggest Glenn
re-reads the Book of Revelation! :-)
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>I am not bothered that I don't know exactly where or when the
>Flood ocurred. I believe there was a literal Noah, Ark and Flood
>because Jesus seemed to (Mt 24:38; Lk 17:27), but if the Biblical
>account turns out to be a "creation-myth" based on that orignal
>literal event in pre-history, then my faith won't be shaken one
>little bit.<<
GM>If you admit that you don't know when or where the Flood was and
>this lack of knowledge doesn't bother you, then why do you argue
>against my view so vociferously? :-) What difference does it make to
>you if I am eventually proven correct?
There is a difference in not knowing *exactly* where and when the
Flood was, but believing in its general time and location within
limits. It is one thing to believe the Flood may have been in
Mesopotamia within the last 10 - 50 thousand years, and another to
believe it happened to a different species (ie. H. habilis), in the
Mediterranean, 5500 thousand years ago.
IMHO Glenn’s view has zero chance of being "eventually proven
correct". Even if (and oh! what a big if) H. habilis is discovered
5.5 million years ago, it would not prove that Glenn’s view was
correct.
>Stephen wrote:
>The Biblical stories are unique in that they are free from the gross
>and crass mythology that characterised all other ancient literature
>of the same era.<<
GM>So was the Book, The Hunt for the Red October, but it was totally
>untrue and fictional. I fail to see the importance of your point if
>the historicity is of no import then who cares if the stories are
>free of crass mythology?
Actually "The Hunt for the Red October" is a good example of real
history dressed up in dramatic form. It was based on a real incident
(in the 1960's?) where a USSR nuclear sub which went aground off the
USA . But again Glenn misses the main point. I said "all other
ancient literature of the same era." The Hunt for the Red October
hardly qualifies as the "same era" as Genesis and the Gilgamesh Epic.
Even though Sean Connery looks "ancient" he isn't *that* ancient! :-)
GM>Thank you for the joke. I own that book and had forgotten that story.
>It did cheer me up.
I am glad I cheer Glenn up occasionally. Perhaps we should make joking
compulsory on the Reflector? :-)
>Stephen wrote:
>GM>You know, sometimes I think you just don't want my view to fit the
>facts. Above you failed to mention the springs as a cause of the
>flood when you criticized my view for having the Gibraltar Dam
>failure as part of the flood.
SJ>See previous. What I "want" is irrelevant. There is simply no
>Biblical or lexical warrant for concluding that subterranean
>"springs" are the same as a surface "dam".<<
GM>But if as you say above, the story may be all mythological, what
>difference does it make that the Bible doesn't talk about these
>things. Aren't you a little inconsistent here? Demanding
>historicity when Genesis 1-11 is applied to my view but not demanding
>it when applied to your view?
Glenn misconstrues what I said. Here it is again with additonal
emphasis:
"I am not bothered that I don't know EXACTLY where or when the Flood
ocurred. I BELIEVE THERE WAS A LITERAL NOAH, ARK AND FLOOD because
Jesus seemed to (Mt 24:38; Lk 17:27), but IF the Biblical account
turns out to be a "creation-myth" BASED ON THAT ORIGNAL LITERAL EVENT
IN PRE-HISTORY, then my faith won't be shaken one little bit.
To me it is not-negotiable that there was a a literal Noah, Ark and
Flood. Because I believe it was a literal event, it is also important
to me that it occurred within the broad space and time limits that
Genesis implies. However, the actual literary form of the Flood story
in Genesis may be an open question. The Flood story seems to
deliberately written in the form of a "second creation" story,
complete with:
1. A watery chaos (Gn 7:19; cf. Gn 1:2)
2. Dry land appearing (Gn 8:13; cf. Gn 1:9-10)
3. A new covenant (Gn 9:9; cf. Gn 1:28-30)
4. A new garden planted (Gn 9:20 cf. Gn 2:8)
5. A new fall (Gn 9:21; cf. Gn 3:6)
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>See previous. Subterranean "springs" being broken up and a
>surface oceanic dam breaking in are two very different things. There
>is no Biblical or anthropological evidence for Glenn's 5.5 MY
>Mediterranean Flood.<<
GM>There is PLENTY of geological evidence!
There is not even that. As Glenn blithely deletyes and ignores, the
Genesis story mentions subterranean *springs*, whereas Glenn's story
mentions a *dam*.
But at least Glenn acknowledges that there is no "no Biblical or
anthropological evidence for his "5.5 MY Mediterranean Flood".
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>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.<<
GM>Rain would have been a physical consequence of the waters filling
>the basin. It could not be avoided in my scenario.
Agreed. But this only proves my point. The rain in Glenn's story is
only a side effect. It has no real additional purpose. The infilling
of the Mediterranean basin with sea water would have been sufficient
to do the job on its own.
>Stephen wrote:
GM>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).<<
GM>Not after the water began coming in. Besides hot air can hold lots
>of water but have a low humidity. As the air rises the temperature
>falls, the relative humidity rises and water is squeezed out.
Again this proves my point. The rain water in Glenn's story mainly
comes from the already flooded basin. It is largely irrelevant.
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>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.<<
GM>Can you tell me where in the Bible it says that the world returned
>to pre-flood normality? I can't find that. The second sentence is
>true.
Read Genesis 8-9 again. The waters completely receded, Noah builds
an altar, God re-establishes His covenant with Noah, Noah plants a
vineyard, etc.
>Stephen wrote:
>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.
SJ>This is a red herring. Glenn and I both accept a local Flood that
>covered the known world (ie. land) of Noah's day.<<** end quote**
GM>But it is an incontestable fact that in my scenario, the land was
>indeed destroyed.
The context makes clear that "destroy the earth [land]" is a figure of
speech for destroying everything on the face of the earth [pland].
>Stephen wrote:
>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?
SJ>I don't think they are the most important.<<
GM>If I understand what you are saying here, we really don't need to
>worry about some facts because they are not the most important? I
>enjoy worrying about how facts fit together and I think no fact is
>too unimportant.
I have the same problem as Glenn. But it is important to put things
in their proper perspective. The Flood story is about sin,
righteousness, judgement and mercy, in short *salvation*. It is not
about geology.
Glenn can believe his 5.5 MY Noah = H. habilis theory if he wants too
- but I can't. I do not plan to spend any more time discussing it, as
I see it as frankly unbelievable. :-)
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 |
----------------------------------------------------------------