------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
I wrote:
>>GM>The Bible says nothing about two Adams either. Both views are
>interpretations of the Biblical data. If I your criticism is valid, then it
>should also apply to your view as well. I guess we are both wrong in that
>case. :-)<<
Stephen replied:
>>Glenn consistently misrepresents my case. I am beginning to believe
it is a waste of time responding to his posts. :-) I have repeatedly
said that the "Two Adam model" is just a shorthand. The full term I
use is "Gn 1 man - Gn 2 Adam model". I repeat, there was only ONE
Adam, the individual called "Adam" in Gn 2!<<
Stephen, I apologize. I was attempting a little humor here and that is why
the smiley face is on the end.. I guess you didn't like it.
Stephen writes:
>>Glenn's brushes aside my criticism that "the Bible says nothing about
a "dam". The Heb. word rendered `fountain', `ma'yan', does not mean
a dam, but an undergound spring or well", by counter-attacking my view
about Adam.
Even if my view was wrong about *Adam*, that does not save his view
about the *Flood*. Two wrongs do not make a right. This dam = spring
is a critical point in Glenn's whole theory so if he is genuinely
interested in defending his view, he will need to show how the
breaking of a surface *dam* at Gibraltar is what the Bible means when
it says in Gn 7:11 "the fountains (lit. "springs" of the great deep
(were) broken up".<<
O.K. I think your objection can be answered. You insist on springs I can
give you springs in another way. But several facts need to be laid out first.
First the evaporation rate in the Mediterranean basin is tremendous. Today
the only reason the Mediterranean is a sea is that ocean water can come in
from the Atlantic. Kenneth Hsu writes:
"One can picture the desiccated Mediterranean as a giant bathtub, with the
Strait of Gibraltar as the faucet. Seawater roared in from the Atlantic
through the strait in a gigantic waterfall. If the falls had delivered
1,000 cubic miles of sea water per year (equivalent to 30 million gallons
per second, 10 times the discharge of Victoria Falls), the volume would not
have been sufficient to replace the evaporative loss. In order to keep the
infilling sea from getting too salty for even such a hardy microfauna as
the one found in the dark gray marl the influx would have to exceed
evaporation by a factor of 10. Cascading at a rate of 10,000 cubic miles
per years, the Gibraltar falls would have been 100 times bigger than
Victoria Falls and 1,000 times more so than Niagara. Even with such an
impressive influx, more than 100 years would have been required to fill the
empty bathtub."~Kenneth J. Hsu, "When the Mediterranean Dried Up",
Scientific American, December, 1972, p. 33.
Secondly, all rocks which make up the earth's crust are porous and permeable.
Porosity is a measure of the volume of the rock that is not rock but is tiny
pores and spaces. A fairly recent sand we produce oil from in the Gulf of
Mexico is from 30-35% porous. This means that for a given volume of rock
30-35% is composed of intergranular space. Permeability is a measure of the
ability of water to move through the rock. Highly permeable rocks allow
water to flow rapidly. Impermeable rocks don't allow much water to flow.
Third, waterfalls like Niagara, and others, erode the ledge they are falling
from by eating into the cliff and creating a rock ledge. At some point the
rock ledge can not support its weight and it crashes to the base of the
falls. (see picture below)
Fourth, over geologic time the sealevel rises and falls as does the land. In
the case of the Gibraltar Dam, what is once a dam due to the uplift of a
land, and low water levels can become a water fall when the land falls and/or
the water level of the Atlantic rises.
Fifth, springs are defined as a flow of water from the ground. At least that
is what my dictionary defines it as.
Sixth, the geologic evidence at the base of the Mediterranean proves that the
basin was once empty and was quickly filled up. The question I have raised
is: Can this be a model for the Flood? I think so.
Consider the following situation.
Atlantic Ocean Mediterranean Basin
- - - -water surface - -- - -- -- -- - - - ---
_________________ :
/ | :
/ ____ / :
/ porous rock / : : evaporation
_________/ |____:___:_._____
When the ocean level was relatively high, and waters could overtop the dam,
erosion of the dam would be the consequence. After several millenia of such
erosion the rock separating the Atlantic from the Mediterranean would be
quite thin, geologically speaking. I can assume that at times the land rose
in relation to the sea and then created the following scenario.
Atlantic Ocean Mediterranean Basin
_________________
-waterlevel -- / |
/ ____ /
/ porous rock /: springs evaporation
_________/ water flow-> |_:____________
As the water travels through the porous and permeable rock, erosion takes
place weakening the rock. and thus weaking the object which prevents water
from entering the Mediterranean. At some point, these springs "fountains of
the deep" would be "broken up" The picture would then look like:
Atlantic Ocean Mediterranean Sea
Gibraltar Strait
-water level -- - -- -- - - - -- -- - - - -- - - -- - -- -- -- - - - - -- -
______________
/ porous rock / ____ ____
_________/ |______|___|_|___ |<-Rubble
Here are your springs, Stephen. If this is your last objection to my model
do you now accept the model? :-)
Stephen writes:
>>If Glenn is not prepared to do this rigorously, then his theory seems
to be on a par with Velikovsky and Von Daniken, who take a scientific
occurrence in the past and force an identification between it and a
Biblical event, with no real regard for what the Bible itself actually
says.<<
O.K. I think I just barely escaped your relegating me to the ranks of
Velikovsky and Von Daniken. Would you agree? I have given you your precious
springs. But I must admit that I think your demand is somewhat of a nitpick
but if you need it , there the springs are.
One other thing about the model I have. Prior to the time that the
Mediterranean dried out, the rocks surrounding the basin on Africa, Asia and
Europe, would have been saturated with water. This would explain Genesis
2:6. That verse has always been difficult to explain within the confines of
my science.
continent Mediterranean Basin
____________
\
porous rock \ <===
\ artesian springs (and mist and streams) arising
\from the ground to water the surface
water flow--> \ of the earth. Gensis 2:6
\__________________________
Stephen wrote:
>>
OTOH I am genuinely concerned about pushing this too far, because I
sense that is Glenn's last stand. If Glenn cannot square his
geological views with a literal Flood then he may be forced into a
crisis of faith. I would suggest to Glenn that he put the Bible
first, try to see where the scientific facts fit into the Bible's
picture (not the other way around), but at the end of the day to be
prepared to say "I don't know how it happened", rather than "it
didn't happen". Here is some good advice from an old soldier, that
I try to follow:<<
Stephen, do not fear for me. I will go where I believe the truth lies. You
are not responsible for my spiritual state. (You have not gone as far as one
prominent person on the reflector who once asked me privately why I didn't
go on and be an atheist since I sounded like one.) And besides you have not
really given me any reason to reject my views either geologically or
theologically. I believe a dam is fine theologically even if you don't (but
if you want springs you can have them within my views). The only people who
have given me any worries at all about my views are Terry Gray with the MHC
polymorphism and an atheist friend of mine who has criticised one other
theological feature of my view. Other than that, I feel very confident that
my view answers the problems geology, biology, paleontology and anthropology
presents to the Scripture. My problem is that most christians do not know
enough geology to even know that there is a major problem for Scripture from
that science. And what they do know is through the filter of ICR which is
utterly wrong. Thus they find my views too different for their tastes.
As to needing a literal flood, I have always found it odd what some have done
to the Scripture who take a less historical view. They believe that the
early chapters of Genesis are myth and not historical, the Exodus did not
occur, it is doubtful they say that Daniel's prophecy was written prior to
Alexander's conquests, it is doubtful that there was a star of Bethlehem and
it is doubtful that there was a virgin birth. But other than that, they say,
the Bible is true and should be believed! When faced with such an
unhistorical document I always ask myself WHY should it be believed in
anything?
If God, is the God of the universe, AND He is powerful enough to create the
world, why is He too weak to get us a relatively clear exposition of what
actually happened? Thus I would contend that the Bible must be rather
historical or it is at risk of being erroneous in toto.
glenn
16075 Longvista Dr.
Dallas, Texas, 75248