Re: various posts from Glenn Morton

Glenn Morton (
Fri, 12 Apr 1996 21:26:26

After a wild week in and out of Dallas I am just now
getting back to some of the old mail

Bill Hamilton wrote:

>I got a note from Glenn thes morning that he will be
> away for a while. I sent him the following to think
about and perhaps discuss on his return.
>I'm posting this to get it in the archives, so y'all can
> refer to it when Glenn responds.
>1. On Ramm's flood scenario. (Caspian/Aral Sea basin I
> believe). I'll simply take your word for most of your
>negative reaction to Ramm's scenario. After all, that's
>what professional fgeologists are for.
>However, you mentioned that it would be difficult for
> the Ark to get to the mountains of Ararat from that
>region. Again, I grant you that. But
>remember that your own scenario depends on the
> "mountains of Ararat" meaning a different geological
>feature today from what Noah meant. You
>identified the mountains of Ararat as possibly being the
> African continent as seen from the valley that is now the
> Is it possible that some geological feature more
>accessible to a local flood in the Caspian
>basin could have been Noah's "mountains of Ararat"?

Ramm provides two contradictory scenarios. First he has
water come up the Tigris Euphrates pushing the Ark towards
the mountains upon which they land. Then the waters drain
off this region. He then has the Caspian drain its waters
This is inconsistent The reason is that between the
Caspian/Aral sea, are some huge mountains and elevated
plateaus (the region that Ararat is in). (presumably he
has the Caspian drain over the Zagros mountains into the
Tigris Valley but he is unclear about this) There are two
lowlands, the Caspian north of the mountains and the
Tigris/Euphrates valley south of them. The intervening
peaks range from 7000 to 10000+ feet in altitude.

In response to your question about a possible Ararat
candidate in the Caspian region. There are some mountains,
3000 feet high in the middle of the basin. But, you could
not cover those mountains without also covering much of the
known world.

>2. On the level of detail prior to Gen 12 and following
> Gen 11: You pointed out that we know very little of Ehud
>and Melchizidek. Granted, but Melchizedek is portrayed in
>Genesis (not in Hebrews, obviously!) as a
>somewhat minor character, who meets the main character,
> Abraham once. Judges provides varying amounts of detail
>on a number of Judges. It originated at a time when
>Israel was in a constant state of flux -- warring
>with various enemies, occupied by various enemies, etc.
> Some of the judges are covered in considerable detail,
>others not. I agree that there is no reason to discount
>the existence of Ehud. He just wasn't as important to
>the account as some of the others. But I was not trying
> to claim that Noah -- or anyone else from Gen 1-11 -- is
>legend. What it looks like to me is that Gen 1-11,
>because of the much lower level of detail than later
>accounts, have come down to us from a much earlier time.
> That might actually support your thesis.

It might possibly support that thesis, but then as you
discuss above, there are other Biblical characters with
little detail in later times. This, to me means that the
level of detail is equivocal as evidence and thus can not
be used either way

Foundation,Fall and Flood