On Sun, 16 Feb 1997 17:45:47 -0600, Glenn Morton wrote:
[...]
SJ>What follows is yet another critique of Glenn's views on the
>Flood. I have posted similar critiques many times but Glenn ("the
>overwhelming silence") Morton just ignores them.
GM>Stephen, I said I would respond to your posts if you kept up. I
>would like to thank you for doing so this time.
I thank Glenn for his thanks but I do not ask that he respond to my
posts - they are to the Group, not to Glenn. My only request is
that when he presents his Mediterranean Flood theory and considers
alternatives, he not simply ignore my "critiques" as though they
never existed. This is misleading to newer Reflectorites who may
gain the impression that the alternatives Glenn considers are the
only viable ones.
GM>I would like to ask you to cease the snide little ridiculing
>comments as above (the overwhelming silence). Snide ridiculing
>comments do not make for reasoned discussion and mark you as a
>disagreeable fellow which you aren't.
The "overwhelming silence" is not a "snide little ridiculing comment"
but a sober statement of the truth, in Glenn's own words. Glenn
routinely ignores cogent arguments against his position, and acts as
through they didn't exist. Yet he equally routinely berates
creationists for ignoring views that he agrees with. I will stop
using those words, "the overwhelming silence" when they are no
longer true.
GM>Besides I am not sure this enhances Christian fellowship. But
>that may not be what you want.
I once wanted the "Christian fellowship" of TEs like Glenn and
Brian, but their sustained personal attacks on me over the space of
two years has made that difficult, if not impossible. I forgive them
for what they have said, but I cannot forget it. Brian's `poll'
for me was the decisive turning point. I realised that I was
subconsciously afraid that if I attacked TE *positions* hard, my
*person* would be attacked back hard by TEs in return. But Brian's
`poll' has made me realise that I was being increasingly attacked
personally by TEs anyway, so what did I have to lose? Nothing.
SJ>But before I begin, I want to place on record yet again, my
>appreciation that Glenn takes the early chapters of Genesis
>seriously as history.
>GM>Why The Flood Can Not Be In Mesopotamia
SJ>While the Bible not say that the Flood was in "Mesopotamia" (the
>word itself is Greek and does not occur until the NT, eg. Acts
>2:9; 7:2, although it is used in the Greek translation of the OT,
>the Septuagint, but not until Genesis 24.).
>However:
>
>1. All OT scholars AFAIK are agreed that the Flood account
>reflects a mesopotamian background.
GM>"All" seems a little strong here. The YEC scholars believe that
>the flodd was not in Mesopotamia because they believe it was
>everywhere. Argumentum ad populum here.
The point is about "YEC scholars" is that they too would believe that
"the Flood account reflects a mesopotamian background." They would
believe that Noah lived in Mesopotamia before and after the Flood,
and they all recognise the close parallels between Mesopotamian and
the Biblical Flood stories. Unger, a YEC, calls these
close parallels "sensational":
"It is quite apparent to the student of the Old Testament who is
acquainted with the Epic of Gilgamesh that the Hebrew account of
the Flood has much in common with the Babylonian version.
Numerous features of detail are indeed remarkable, and when the
tablets were first deciphered, the similarity appeared nothing short of
sensational. In fact, even today, after decades of study of the tablets
and the addition of numerous other archeological discoveries from
the ancient world to an ever-increasing fund of material that has a
close bearing on the Bible, it still can be said that of all the many
traditions that have come down to us through the cuneiform
inscriptions and that closely parallel the Scriptures, the most striking
is the Babylonian account of the Deluge." (Unger M.F.,
"Archaeology and the Old Testament", 1954, p55).
Glenn just shrugs off this persuasive evidence of Mesopotamian
provenance with a casual "Argumentum ad populum" throwaway line. But
the "populum" here are *All OT scholars*! There are *no* OT scholars
who believe that the Flood was in the Mediterranean.
SJ>2. The ark came to rest on "the mountains of Ararat" (Gn 8:4);
>lit. the mountains or hills of Urartu (Armenia). This is northern
>Mesopotamia.
GM>This means that the ark floated uphill against the current. Did
>the Ark have an outboard or inboard motor?
Glenn tries a diversionary tactic by bringing up additional issues.
My point was that the Bible provides a datum point "the mountains of
Ararat [Urartu]" (Gn 8:4) which locates it in or near "northern
Mesopotamia":
"Attempts have been made to locate the remains of the Ark on modern
Mount Ararat. Such attempts are virtually pointless since the Bible
refers to the mountains (plural) of Ararat (Gen. 8:4) as the resting
place of the Ark so that no specific mountain is identified.
Further, the very name Ararat refers to the ancient land of Urartu,
which covered a wide area. (Thompson J. A., "The Bible and
Archaeology", 1982, p16)
"The ark lands on Mount Ararat. This landing on a mountain is one of
the earliest elements of the Flood story. A mountain can also be the
place of deliverance from the Flood without additional technological
means. The text does not speak of a specific mountain named Ararat;
8:4 reads, "On the mountains of [the region of] Ararat." This region
(Akkadian Urartu) is the mountainous area west of the Tigris river.
(Westermann C., "Genesis", 1987, p60)
"The Bible account specifies "the Mountains of Ararat" (Gen. 8:4).
The name is identical with the Assyrian name Urartu, denoting the
general mountainous territory of Armenia, north of Assyria (Cf. II
Kings 19:37; Jer. 51:27; Isa. 37:38). (Unger M.F.. "Unger's Bible
Dictionary", 1966, p372)
"The mountains of Ararat, the traditional resting-place of the ark,
can quite possibly be identified with the Urartu of Assyrian
inscriptions, corresponding to the neighborhood of Lake Van in modern
Armenia. (Harrison R.K., "Introduction to the Old Testament", 1970,
p100)
>GM>can only be true IF the facts of the account actually match the
>facts of history.
SJ>Even this is not necessarily so. The Flood story could still be
>"true", even if it wasn't "history". The parables of Jesus are
>"true", even if the events portrayed did not actually happen in
>history. I believe the Flood was historical, but if it wasn't, I
>would still regard it as theologically true, ie. God's vehicle for
>communicating an important message about sin, judgment and
>salvation
GM>I have always found this to be odd. To make people fear God's
>wrath with a non-existent Flood, is like a parent telling their
>childred that the boogey man would get them. When they grow up,
>they learn that there is no boogey man.
Jesus told a parable in Luke 16 about a "non-existent" man in Hell.
The parable was not historically true but its was *theologically*
true, because the reality (Hell) behind the parable was true.
Similarly, the Flood story could still be true, even if it
wasn't historical (I believe it was) because the theological reality
is that God is angry with human sin, judges the wicked majority, but
preserves a righteous minority. I believe there was a real
historical Flood upon which the Biblical story was based, but if it
turned out there wasn't a real, historical Flood, I would still
regard the Flood story as theologically true.
>GM>Water in a riverine flood travels at a speed of 3-5 miles per
>hour, and occasionally faster.
SJ>There is no statement in the Bible that the Flood was a "riverine
>flood". There is no mention of "rivers" in the Flood story. The
>last mention of "river" before the Flood is Gn 2:14 and the next is
>Gn 15:18.
GM>But Stephen, if you place the flood in Mesopotamia it runs along
>the river valley and thus logically becomes a riverine flood.
No. The Greek word "mesopotamia" literally means "land between
rivers". The Hebrew word translated "mesopotamia" is 'Aram
Naharayim" or 'Aram of (the) two rivers (Euphrates and Tigris)".
The Flood could be in the high country of Aram near the headwaters
of the Tigris and Euphrates without being in their river valleys.
>GM>Since the slope of the Mesopotamian basin is towards the south,
>the water will flow south, carrying the Ark with it.
SJ>There is no requirement that the Flood be in "the Mesopotamian
>basin", only that it be continuous with the mountains of Ararat.
>It may have been north of Ararat:
>
>"There is in Western Asia a remarkably depressed area, extending
>from the Sea of Aral to the Steppes of the Caucasus on the north,
>and sweeping round the southern shores of the Caspian,
>comprehending Ararat and the Great Salt Desert..." (..."JFB Bible
>Commentary", Vol I, p100, in Ramm, 1955, p162).
GM>My company owns an oil field in that region and the geography
>does not fit what the Bible describes.
The Biblical account of the Flood is very generalised in its
"geography", so I cannot see how Glenn can be so sure. Besides, the
same criticism would apply even more to Glenn's Mediterranean Flood.
On balance I don't claim this is where the Flood was, but it is a
possibility. It certainly is better than Glenn's 5.5 mya
Mediterranean Flood.
GM>One can see huge mountains from this region which would not have
>been covered had the flood occurred there.
The same argument would apply to Glenn's theory too. *All* local
Flood theories face the same problem. There must be mountains that
the Flood did not cover, otherwise it would be a global Flood. The
usual answer is that the Flood covered all the mountains from Noah's
perspective:
"The universality of the flood simply means the universality of the
experience of the man who reported it. When God tells the
Israelites He will put the fear of them upon the people under the
whole heaven, it refers to all the peoples known to the Israelites
(Deut. 2:25). When Gen. 41:57 states that all countries came to
Egypt to buy grain, it can only mean all peoples known to the
Egyptians. Ahab certainly did not look for Elijah in every country
of the earth even though the text says he looked for Elijah so
thoroughly that he skipped no nation or kingdom (1 Kings 18:10).
were covered, and all flesh died. " (Ramm B.L., "The Christian View
of Science and Scripture", Paternoster: London, 1955, p164)
My view is a bit more complex. I believe that there was an original
local Flood that the Biblical Flood epic has been based upon. It is
a local story expanded to global scale. God's judgment is depicted
as global:
"They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains
under the entire heavens were covered." (Gn 7:19)
because but for His grace it would be:
"Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus
about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their
sacrifices. Jesus answered, "Do you think that these
Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans
because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you
repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died
when the tower in Siloam fell on them--do you think they were
more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell
you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish." (Lk
13:1-5)
SJ>Lake Van meets all the Biblical requirements for a local Flood.
>It is in the mountain country of ancients Urartu, and being high
>above sea level, it would solve the problem of where the water
>drained to. The whole area is recently geologically unstable and it
>would not be hard to imagine geological movements that blocked water
>flow to create a basin and then later unblocked to drain the water
>off again. Any sediments from the Flood would either be at the
>bottom of Lake Van or were flushed out by the when the block was
>removed.
GM>At last something testable.
I do not claim that my view is "testable" in an absolute sense. No
view of the Flood is 100% testable. Historical science is not
"testable" in the same sense as experimental science. Glenn's 5.5
mya Mediterannean Flood has *huge* untestable elements. All I claim
is that my view broadly fits all the known facts, Biblical and
scientific.
GM>Did the flood wipe out all humanity except the 8 on the ark?
First we need to define "all humanity". If you mean all
anatomically modern humans, I would say no because a.m. humans
began in Africa over 100kya and that would IMHO stretch the Biblical
geneaologies too far. But if you mean all descendants of Adam, I
would say tentatively yes - that is my prime hypothesis (although not
absolutely essential):
"The record neither affirms nor denies that man existed beyond the
Mesopotamian valley. Noah certainly was not a preacher of
righteousness to the peoples of Africa, of India, of China or of
America-places where there is evidence for the existence of man many
thousands of years before the flood (10,000 to 15,000 years in
America). The emphasis in Genesis is upon that group of cultures
from which Abraham eventually came." (Ramm B.L., "The Christian View
of Science and Scripture", 1955, p163)
GM>Were there people elsewhere on earth at the time?
See above. "People" yes, descendants of Adam, no.
GM>What about the anatomically modern men living in Europe from
>35,000 years ago on;
I would regard these as either: 1. descendants of Adam (and
hence Adam and the Flood would be c. 50 kya; or more probably 2:
advanced Pre-Adamites, the last stage in the emergence of the image
of God, from whom Adam as representative man was drawn. On this
latter view Adam and the Flood would be c. 20 kya.
Interestingly, Upper Paleolithic cave art like that of western
Europe is also found in the Anatolia, which is northern Mesopotamia:
"The earliest evidence of human occupation in Anatolia is at present
confined geographically to a comparatively small area inland from
Antalya on the Mediterranean coast. Of special significance are
rock engravings of animals on the walls of caves, which suggest a
relationship with the Upper Paleolithic art of western Europe...The
discoveries at Catalhuyuk not only amplified but transformed the
whole conception of human behaviour in Neolithic times...The walls
were decorated with coloured murals, repeatedly repainted after
replastering, and the designs closely resembled the cave paintings
of the Paleolithic era." (Lloyd S.H.F., "Anatolia, Ancient",
Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1984, 1:813-814)
GM>the anatomically modern men who lived in Africa 120,000 years
>ago?
See above. I would regard them as Pre-Adamites.
GM>If they were not spiritual, then why was there evidence of
>worship?
"Worship" is too vague a word. "Worship" of what? A bear? The sun?
Rocks and trees? These are not necessarily evidence of being able to
form a relationship with God. This is only evidence of an emerging
consciousness, of a sense of awe, which I would regard as the final
stages of the emerging imago Dei, but not the finished product of the
actual image itself which was first realised in Adam:
"We are, in fact, made of star dust. The material aspects of man are
totally rooted in the universe. The specialty of mankind is not the
physical attributes we have. All primates have grasping upper limbs
and overlapping binocular vision. Based on the position of the larynx
inferred from skull shape, articulate speech has been possible for over
100,000 ears. The size of the cranial cavity, from which brain size is
estimated, has not changed much in the primate we call Homo sapiens
for the past 100,000 years. Because our physical makeup is not what
makes us unique and because sages and scientists agree that the
matter of mankind has a common origin with all other universal
matter, a theological problem is not posed by having the physique of
mankind develop through an evolutionary process...However,
mankind and his predecessors, although physically related, are not
connected by a spiritual line of evolution. Homo sapiens roamed the
Earth for some 300,000 years, in our spacetime reference frame, prior
to the appearance of mankind. The Neanderthals appear to have
started burying their dead 100,000 years ago and their fossil remains
as well as those of the more recent Cro-Magnon become increasingly
similar in shape to human beings as the time before the present
decreases. But neither the Neanderthal nor the Cro-Magnon evolved
into human beings. At a crucial junction some 5,700 years* ago a
quantum change occurred...into the physical form that contained the nefesh
of Adam, the Creator placed an additional spirit, or soul, the
neshamah. It is this that has set mankind apart from the other animals.
"And the Lord formed man (adam) from the dust of the ground
(adamah) and blew in his nostrils a soul of life (neshamah), and the
man became a living being (nefesh)" (Gen. 2:7)." (Schroeder G.L.
"Genesis and The Big Bang", 1990, pp150-151)
* I do not necessarily agree with Schroeder's date of "5,700 years".
GM>When did the flood occur?
Either: 1. before the Upper Paleolithic (ie. c. 50 kya); or 2.
before the Neolithic (ie. c. 20 kya). I favour the latter because
of: a) the Neolithic elements of Genesis 4; and b) the
difficulty of stretching the Genesis 5 genealogies back too far.
SJ>I will replace Glenn's syllogism with another:
>
>All ordinary floods leave sediments covering what they flooded.
>Noah's Deluge was not an ordinary flood. Therefore Noah's deluge
>might not have left sediment.
>
>In particular, as I have pointed out to Glenn before (but which he
>just ignores) there is no Biblical reason why the Flood should
>have left sediment:
[...]
GM>If God did it miraculously, then I would agree with you.
I don't necessarily say it was "miraculously", eg. like a magic
wand. God could have supernaturally used natural means, like
flushing the waters away rapidly. If the Flood was in a mountain
region like the norhtern Mesopotamia, this is possible without it
being a 100% supernatural "miracle". OTOH, an outright miracle
cannot be ruled out, since there are outright miraculous elements in
the Flood account, eg. "the LORD shut him in" (Gn 7:16), etc.
But if Glenn agrees that "God" may have done it "miraculously" then
he should include that as a real option. To fail to do so is
theistic naturalism.
GM>But as I often note, the golden tablets upon which the Mormon
>faith are based was miraculously removed by God so that no one can
>look at them today. If this is the basis upon which we should
>believe somthing (i.e., that all evidence for its existence is
>gone), then your methodology would commend the Mormon Faith as
>something worthy of consideration.
On this basis, every time a cult comes up with a teaching that
parallels something in Christianity, we should abandon it! In any
event the same applies to Glenn's 5.5 mya Mediterranean Flood: "all
evidence for its existence is gone"! There is no remaining sediment
in Glenn's Flood either.
There *is* however, some evidence for my view that there was no
sediment to begin with. The Bible mentions nothing about a layer of
thick mud, covering the bodies of Noah's contemporaries, which there
would have to be if there was to be sediment today. But the Bible
does mention that that "God...sent a wind over the earth, and the
waters receded" (Gn 8:1). Since this is a parallel of Gn 1:2 "...And
the Spirit [lit. "wind"] of God moved upon the face of the waters",
it is not difficult to understand this as the Spirit of God, removing
all trace of the former civilisation, so that Noah can make a fresh
start, as "the last member of the first aeon and the beginner of a
new age" (Von Rad G., "Genesis", 1972, p126).
GM>But to say that an extraordinary (large) flood does not leave
>sediment is an equivocation on the term ordinary. However, your
>Lake Van flood is no larger than other floods whcih have left
>sediment.
The Flood of Noah was not "other floods". It was a unique event,
with some explicit supernatural elements. To demand that Noah's
Flood must have a 100% naturalistic explanation is theistic
naturalism.
SJ>Glenn needs to heed Jesus' rebuke to the naturalistic Sadducees
>who denied the resurrection:
>
>"You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the
>power of God." (Mt 22:29)
GM>Is this more of your ridicule and demonizing of those who
>disagree with you? This seems to be rather mean spirited.
It's neither "ridicule", "demonizing" nor "mean spirited". It is
simply what Jesus said to the Sadducees who were the theistic
naturalists of His day. Jesus said His words "will never pass away"
(Mt 24:35), so therefore these words apply today as much as they did
then.
SJ>Once again, I give credit to Glenn for at least believing that
>the Flood of Noah was historical. But his proposed cure (a 5.5 mya
>flood in the Mediterranean) is worse than the disease! Glenn's
>problem would be largely solved if he actually considered as a
>serious hypothesis that God really did supernaturally intervene in
>history and remove all traces of evidence for the Flood.
GM>Why would God do that if the purpose of the flood was to show
>people His wrath?
The same objection would apply equally to Glenn's Mediterranean
Flood: "all traces of evidence for the Flood" that Glenn claims
ocurred in the Mediterranean are gone!
But I had already answered this previously and again in the post that
Glenn is replying to. God *never* leaves physical evidence to prop
up believers' faith and make it imposible for unbelievers to
disbelieve:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a fact that there is not one original piece of physical
evidence remaining as a prop to faith for any of God's mighty works.
The ark of the covenant, Moses' stone tablets of the Law, and all
the original Biblical manuscripts are lost. There is not one piece
of the Cross preserved, nor any of the works of Jesus the carpenter.
Amazingly we do not even have a description of what Jesus looked
like. If nothing happens without God willing it (Mt 10:29), it is
reasonable to assume that we have no physical evidence to prop up
our faith because God does not want us to believe in the evidence
but in Him. What would be the effect if unambigous evidence was
found of a major Flood, embeded with human and animal remains, that
wiped out an entire Mesopotamian civilisation? What would be the
effect if an ancient chest was dug up that was "450 feet long, 75
feet wide and 45 feet high" (Gn 6:15), made out of "cypress wood"
with "rooms" in it and coated "with pitch inside and out. (Gn
6:14). Would it not conclusively prove the story of Noah, without
there being any need for faith? Would it not lead to a type of
idolatry? If God wanted that type of support for His kingdom, why
didn't He arrange it to be so? The only answer (if He is indeed
all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving), is that God has made sure
there is no evidence for the Flood, as with all His other mighty
works.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Besides, we have a written account of the Flood in the Bible that
clearly states that "the purpose of the flood was to show people His
wrath". How would the presence of an enduring layer of mud, which
became geological sediment, add to that? Naturalists would
probably say that the Flood was a fictitious story made up later to
explain where the layer of sediment came from!
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------