>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.
and
>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.
>
These two statements are contradictory. If I follow your advice in the
first paragraph and don't respond, then you will charge me with
"overwhelming silence" If I respond, then you tell me not to respond. I
presume this is because you want to be able to charge me with "overwhelming
silence." You can't have it both ways. Either cease advocating that I not
respond to you or cease the snide little ridiculing comments about
overwheliming silence. The fact that I am responding to this post and not
ignoring you is evidence that I am not engaging in this "silence" you
repeately charge.
And in point of fact Steve, I have never charged any single individual with
failure to respond. I sent one note out last Sept after NO ONE responded to
what I thought was an important post. You have grabbed that one statement,
taken it out of context and used it inappropriately.
[snip]
>>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":
>
Argument from authority. Everyone in the Roman Empire agreed that the earth
was the center of the universe. Did the sun become the center when
Copernicus wrote his book?
[snip]
>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.
>
Quite true. But then that does not make them correct. A Mesopotamian flood
would leave evidence of itself. To believe in something that has absolutely
no evidence is the same as believing in Faeries or the Golden tablets of
Mormonism.
>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":
Please cease attributing motives to what I say. Water flows downhill and
would carry an ark into the Persian Gulf in about a week. Since boats do
not survive repeated groundings very well, (it knocks holes in the boat
bottom) it seems very unreasonable to think that the ark could remain in
Mesopotamia and floatable for a year.
>
>"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)
>
We do not disagree here.
>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.
How do you know that this guy was non-existent? The scripture certainly
doesn't say that.
>[snip]
Of the Caspian region as a locale for the flood,
[snip]
>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:
Once again, I must raise the question, at what point does this "expanded"
story become untrue? How much expansion makes a story untrue in a court of law?
>
> "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.
Above you criticised me for not acknowledging the mesopotamian background of
the flood.
>>1. All OT scholars AFAIK are agreed that the Flood account
>>reflects a mesopotamian background.
Turkey is not known as Mesopotamia.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm