On Sun, 15 Jun 1997 08:13:49 -0500, Glenn Morton wrote:
[...]
PM>That's very smart especially since there is no evidence of such a
>worldwide catastrophic flood.
GM>I finally decided to respond to this. While you are correct that there is
>no evidence supporting the concept of a global flood, this does not rule out
>the existence of an existence of an event which matches the Biblical
>description. It is just local in nature.
I agree that the Noahic "flood" was not necessarily "global". It is
common in the Bible for the Hebrew language to use global terms
for things that were only universal in the writers' experience:
"It cannot demonstrate that totality of language necessitates a
universal flood. Fifteen minutes with a Bible concordance will
reveal many instances in which universality of language is used but
only a partial quantity is meant. All does not mean every last one
in all of its usages. Psa. 22:17 reads: "I may tell all my bones,"
and hardly means that every single bone of the skeleton stood out
prominently. John 4:39 cannot mean that Jesus completely recited the
woman's biography. Matt. 3:5 cannot mean that every single
individual from Judea and Jordan came to John the Baptist. There are
cases where all means all, and every means every, but the context
tells us where this is intended...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). From the vantage point of the observer of the flood
all mountains were covered, and all flesh died. We must concur that:
`The language of the sacred historian by no means necessarily implies
that the flood overspread the whole earth. Universal terms are
frequently used in a partial and restricted sense in Scripture.'
(JFB Bible Commentary, Vol I, p98)
(Ramm B.L., "The Christian View of Science and Scripture",
Paternoster: London, 1955, p164)
GM>I have suggested that the flood be identified with the filling of the
>Mediterranean basin 5.5 million years ago which occurred just prior to the
>first appearance in the fossil record of hominids. The earliest hominid is
>found in Lothagam, Kenya in strata dated to 5.5 million years ago. Hominids
>were on the earth and could have observed the in filling of the
>mediterranean basin.
This cannot be sustained. Thge "Lothagam" "hominid" is in fact a just
a small fragment of fossilised lower jaw with two or three teeth.
There is a picture of it in the National Geographic, September 1995,
p43. Meave Leakey calls it only "a possibly hominid mandible":
"I knew of a site in the Turkana Basin called Lothagam that held
sediments of exactly this age. In 1967 an American team led by Bryan
Patterson recovered a fragment of a possibly hominid mandible from
there (right, at left). ... Unfortunately, in five years of
collecting abundant animal fossils we found only two possibly hominid
teeth..." (Leakey M., "The Farthest Horizon", National Geographic,
Vol. 188, No. 3, September 1995, p42)
Nelson and Jurmain point out that "No radiometric dates exist for
the site, but its date of around 5.5 mya was based on faunal
correlation and that caution must be used in making phylogenetic
judgments for these fragmentary discoveries:
"Lothagam (Loth'-a-gum) Located on the southwest side of Lake
Turkana in northern Kenya, this site was first explored by a Harvard
University team in the middle 1960s. No radiometric dates exist for
this site, but faunal correlation suggests a date of around 5.5 mya.
While surveying the area in 1967, the Harvard 1986). Caution must
be used in making phylogenetic judgments for any of these
fragmentary late Miocene discoveries. As we go back ever closer to
the hominid- African pongid divergence (see pp. 366-367), the
distinguishing characteristics become more difficult to nail down-
especially when dental remains are all that we have." (Nelson H. &
Jurmain R., "Introduction To Physical Anthropology", West Publishing
Company: St. Paul MN, Fifth Edition, 1991, p413)
Buettner-Janusch, in an admittedly older book, consider the Lothagam
fragment as Australopithecine"
"A Lothagam jaw, a molar crown fragment from Baringo, and teeth and
mandibles from Omo, all of which are assigned to the
australopithecines... because of their morphology, carry
unexpectedly early dates as determined by the K/Ar method. The
Lothagam Jaw is probably 5,000,000 years old." (Buettner-Janusch J.,
"Physical Anthropology", 1973, p268)
"The discovery of the Lothagam jaw and the provisional description
of it as intermediate in some ways between Australopithecus and
Ramapithecus add to our confidence that the latter is indeed a
hominid ancestor. The Lothagam jaw is probably best kept in the
genus Australopithecus." (Buettner-Janusch J., "Physical
Anthropology", 1973, p274)
Lubenow acknowledges that the Lothagam fragment is of questionable
quality of the fossil and there are diagnostic problems with mandible
fragments:
"Another fossil found in the same general area, the Lothagam mandible
fragment, KNM-ER 329, is dated at 5.5 m.y.a. A case could be made
that this fossil also is truly human. However, the quality of the
fossil is questionable, and there are legitimate diagnostic problems
in dealing with mandible fragments." (Lubenow M.L., "Bones of
Contention", 1992, p269)
GM>How does this fit the Biblical account?
>
>1. the basin would have been circa 3-5 km deep with mountains like Malta
>towering that high above the basin floor
>
>2. the infilling waters would have supplied moisture to the upwardly moving
>air mass which was leaving the basin. As air rises, it cools and the
>moisture condense causing rain.
The Bible says nothing about "infilling waters". The Biblical Flood
was caused by *subterranean* springs (not surface sea water) and
rain:
"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of
the second month--on that day all the springs of the great deep burst
forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened." (Gn 7:11)
My Strong's Hebrew-Greek Dictionary says that "springs" are "a
fountain", "spring", or "well":
4599. ma'yan, mah-yawn'; or ma'yenow (Psa. 114 : 8), ииииииии
mah-yen-o'; or (fem.) ma'yanah, mah-yaw-naw'; from H5869 (as a
denom. in the sense of a spring); a fountain (also collect.),
fig. a source (of satisfaction):--fountain, spring, well.ииииии
There are *huge* problems with Glenn's 5.5 mya Mediterranean flood.
A view I am coming around to is the that there was a real Flood that
was local to the Lake Van area of modern Turkey. But that local
Flood account it has been expanded to bring out the Flood's intended
theological significance. This is reinforced by the fact that
scholars have long recognised hints of two sources begind the
Biblical Flood story - the first a local Flood and the second an
expanded global Flood. This seems to me the most satisfactory
explanation of the Biblical and scientific data.
GM>3.The Biblcal terms which are translated earth are better
>translated "land" or "country"
>
>Gleason Archer wrote:
>
>"In explanation of this assertion (that the flood was not necessarily
>universal) it needs to be pointed out that the Hebrew 'eres,
>translated consistently as 'earth' in our English Bibles, is also the
>word for 'land' (e.g. the land of Israel, the land of Egypt). There
>is another term, tebel, which means the whole expanse of the earth,
>or the earth as a whole. Nowhere does tebel occur in this account,
>but only 'eres, in all the statements which sound quite universal in
>the English Bible (e.g., Gen. 7:4, 10,17,18,19). Thus, Genesis 6:17c
>can be rendered: 'Everything that is in the land shall die'--that is,
>in whatever geographical region is involved in the context and
>situations."~Gleason Archer, A Survey of the Old Testoment
>Introduction, p. 210, cited by Dick Fischer, The Origins Solution,
>(Lima, Ohio: Fairway Press, 1996), p. 259
Agreed. But Archer adds:
"But the phrase "under the whole heaven" in 7:19 ("...and all the
high mountains that were under the whole heaven," ASV) may not be so
easily disposed of. It is doubtful whether anywhere else in the
Hebrew Scriptures this expression "the whole heaven" can be
interpreted to indicate a mere geographical region. For this reason
most careful exegetes, like Franz Delitzsch in the last century 9 and
more recently H. C. Leupold, 10 have not conceded the exegetical
possibility of interpreting Genesis 7 as describing a merely local
flood." (Archer G.L., ."A Survey of Old Testament Introduction",
Moody Press: Chicago, 1964, p194)
That is one reason why I have modified my Local Flood theory. I now
believe there was a real local Flood upon which was based an expnded
theological saga of a universal Flood.
GM>4. This view allows the conservative Christian to have what they
>want, which is a historical Bible, but does not require them to
>reject all science.
Glenn, I give you credit for trying to maintain "a historical Bible"
but I maintain that the cost is too high. Your 5.5 mya Mediterranean
Flood does not fit the Biblical picture of a post-Neolithic Flood (Gn
4), near "the mountains of Ararat (Heb. Urartu) (Gn 8:4). Moreover
at this date Adam (and Noah) would have to be a Homo habilis or
Australopithecus:
"The only way to fit the scriptural account with the scientific
observations is to have Adam and Eve be Homo habilis or
Australopithecus." (Morton G.R., "A Theory for Creationists", DMD
Publishing Co., 1996, http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm)
Which is both anthropologically untenable (hominids at this date did
not possess the language or technology to build a 3 decker Ark), and
theologically untenable (Adam must be one of us, ie. Homo sapiens, to
be in any meaningful way our representative - Rom 5:14; 1Cor 15:22,
45).
On Sun, 15 Jun 1997 09:26:44 -0400, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>At 09:50 AM 6/14/97 -0400, Pim van Meurs wrote:
DG>I do believe the flood was caused by a supernatural intervention
>of God and I'm not looking to science to support this view. Never
>has never will.
PM>That's very smart especially since there is no evidence of such a
>worldwide catastrophic flood.
Agreed.
>GM>...While you are correct that there is no evidence supporting
>the concept of a global flood...
PM>Hmmm, and I thought that the flood described in the bible was
>worldwide and so catastrophic that it killed all life outside the
>Ark. We agree that mythical stories of big floods, as found in many
>cultures, often refer to local floods which happened to be quite
>catastrophically.
See above. I believe the Biblical and scientfic evdience is best
accounted for by a local Flood account later expanded theologically
into a universal Flood saga.
>GM>...the Hebrew 'eres, translated consistently as 'earth' in our
>English Bibles, is also the word for 'land' (e.g. the land of
>Israel, the land of Egypt).
PM>Perhaps someone should inform the ICR of this <g>
No need. They already know:
"The Hebrew word for "earth" ('ares) can sometimes be translated
"land." Except in rare instances, the context clearly indicates which
translation is preferable..." (Whitcomb J.C., & Morris H.M., "The
Genesis Flood", 1993, p28)
>GM>This view allows the conservative Christian to have...a
>historical Bible, but does not require them to reject all science.
PM>What about the Genesis 6:17 "Look! I am going to cover the earth
>with a flood and destroy every living being -everything in which
>there is the breath of life. All will die.
>
>Genesis 7:21 And all the living things upon the earth perished
>-birds domestic and wild animals and reptiles of all mankind -
>everything that breathed and lived upon dry land.
>
>It becomes harder to argue that the flood might have been a local one,
>according to the bible.
Agreed. But if there was originally a local Flood in ancient Urartu
(modern Turkey), that was expanded to a universal epic to bring out
its theological significance, then there is no conflict with the
Bible and science.
On Sun, 15 Jun 1997 17:06:56 -0500, Russell T. Cannon wrote:
>DG>I do believe the flood was caused by a supernatural
>intervention of God and I'm not looking to science to support
>this view.
>
>PM>That's very smart especially since there is no evidence of
>such a worldwide catastrophic flood.
>
>GM>While you are correct that there is no evidence supporting the
>concept of a global flood, this does not rule out the existence
>of an event which matches the Biblical description. It is just
>local in nature.
>
>PM>Hmmm, and I thought that the flood described in the bible was
>worldwide and so catastrophic that it killed all life outside
>the Ark.
>
>RC>The scripture must be understood in its total contextual setting.
>Part of that context comes from an understanding of the underlying
>languages in which it was written. The chief problem in studying
>the Old Testament--where the Flood Myth appears--is that the Hebrew
>language had at the time only a few thousand words. This meant that
>each word could carry a much wider range of meanings than similar
>words in modern languages. Consider Glenn's following example:
>
>GM>In explanation of this assertion (that the flood was not
>necessarily universal) it needs to be pointed out that the
>Hebrew 'eres', translated consistently as 'earth' in our
>English Bibles, is also the word for 'land' (e.g. the land of
>Israel, the land of Egypt).
>
>And Pim's tongue-in-cheek reply:
>
>PM> Perhaps someone should inform the ICR of this <g>
>
>RC>The Hebrew word for earth is better transliterated as 'eretz', and
>it can mean any size ground, from the little square on which an
>urbanite might plant a lawn to the entire globe of the earth and
>every size in between. The same is true about very many words in
>Hebrew. Although deep linguistic study is not required to
>understand the basic teachings of scripture, when a person is going
>beyond surface issues and dives into the murky water of so-called
>"high doctrine", references that assist in the understanding of the
>ancient languages are absolutely essential. Without them, there
>will only be confusion and misunderstanding.
>
>RC>Another aspect of the total contextual setting of scripture is its
>harmony with the natural universe. One of the best ways to
>demonstrate the Christian system false is to show how it is in utter
>conflict with nature. Although the popular YEC view is in total
>conflict with the creation, other views such as OEC, TE, and others
>are not.
>
>RC>Regarding the ICR, there are a great many things about which I
>should like to inform them, but they will not listen. They have
>replaced the Word of G-d with the doctrines of men which is one of
>the major criticisms that Yeshua (Jesus) brought against the
>religious leaders of His time. I regard Young Earth Creationism as
>outright heresy that must be purged from Christianity--it has done a
>great deal of harm and no good.
>
>Glenn had said:
>
>GM>This view allows the conservative Christian to have what they
>want, which is a historical Bible, but does not require them to
>reject all science.
>
>And Pim replies with some scriptures often used by the ICR to support
>the YEC heresy:
>
>PM> What about the Genesis 6:17 "Look! I am going to cover the
>earth with a flood and destroy every living being everything in
>which there is the breath of life. All will die."
>
>RC>and
>
>PM> Genesis 7:21 "And all the living things upon the earth
>perished--birds domestic and wild animals and reptiles of all
>mankind--everything that breathed and lived upon dry land."
>
>RC>followed by his comment:
>
>PM> It becomes harder to argue that the flood might have been a
>local one, according to the bible.
>
>RC>These scriptures describe what happened to those people and
>creatures that lived in and around the human civilization that G-d
>destroyed. He destroyed everything at a certain place and time, and
>by saying as much, He is not saying that everything on the entire
>earth would be (or was) destroyed.
>
>RC>Given scientific evidence as we now have it, it is impossible to
>argue that the Flood covered the entire earth, but we can plausibly
>argue that it describes a much smaller scale event. Glenn favors
>the filling of the Mediterranean basin; I believe it to refer to the
>filling of the Black Sea basin; others think it describes a flood of
>the Mesopatamian flood plain. Whichever it is--or some other--I
>believe that the global flood idea is so much in error as to deserve
>a serious challenge within the Christian community--we should put it
>behind us along with geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism.
>
>God bless.
>
>Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------