Re: Genesis Flood

Glenn Morton (
Tue, 30 Apr 1996 05:15:07

Hi Dick,

>At 01:24 PM 4/28/96, Glenn wrote:
>>To be strictly accurate Genesis 2:10
>>describes not a confluence but a splitting of the rivers into four.
>>Josephus surely believed it meant a split not a conjoining.
>We call the wide end of a river the "mouth," apparently they preferred
>the word "head." The head is the big end of the body, the end of the
>river that empties into the sea or another river is the biggest end. It
>makes just as much sense to me to call the terminal end of a river a
>"head" as it does a "mouth."

If I grant your point about what the Hebrews beleived about rivers, then
the 4 rivers scenario I outlined would work just fine.

>>I would prefer a situation where the names are re-given to other
>>rivers as is often done. There is a Carrollton, Texas and one in
> Georgia.
>>There is a Paris in France and one in Texas.
>Hold on. There are thousands of towns. How many rivers do you know that
>are named the same in this or any other country? Further to that, all
>the towns named in the first eleven chapters of Genesis are in Southern
>Mesopotamia too. Where is Assyria? Look at a map.

I looked. To the best of my knowledge there is only 1 town named in the
Pre-flood world. It was the one named by Cain. And the pronounceation of
it is different from the town Eyannoc {sic} in Babylonian. Sometimes names
that sound the same aren't the same. Babel to the Babylonians meant "Gate
of God" to the Hebrews Babel meant "confusion". Identical sound but not
the same word. To claim that there are lots of preflood towns named is not
correct. I might grant the post-flood towns are in Mesopotamia. But you
only have 1 preflood town to hang your hat on.
>>I would identify the Gihon as the Nile.
>The Nile is on another continent. How could it be connected with the
>garden of Eden as stated in Genesis 2:10? This is like talking about
>St. Louis and identifying one of the nearby rivers as the Amazon.
>>My claim is that the Tigris and Euphrates formerly spilled into the
>>Mediteranean/Tethys basin as the local geology would require.
>This is just more speculation.

And speculating that the Pishon flows through eastern MEsopotamia isn't
speculation also?
>>The Pishon, as I mentioned earlier is anybody's guess.
>Could even have been an irrigation canal. One of the "rivers" in
> Babylon
>is an irrigation canal named the "Chebar" (Eze. 1:1).

I quote you "This is just more speculation." Look, anyone trying to
piece this puzzle together must engage in some speculation I will give
you that.

>>My Encylopedia Britannica states:
>>"With the exception of oil, Iraq has modest mineral resources. They
>>include iron ore, chromite, copper, lead, and zinc deposits in the nort
>>Limestone, gypsum, phosphates, and sulfur are abundant." ("Iraq",
>>Encyclopedia Britannica, 1982, Vol 9. p.877)
>>In SW Iraq, where you say this was, the rock types are wrong for gold.
>>Gold is most often found in association with igneous rocks. There are
>>none in SW Iraq.
>Southern Mesopotamia (present-day Iraq) was suitable for growing grain,
>primarily barley, which they bartered for gold and pretty rocks. Trade
>routes in that area date to at least 3500 BC. From MacMillan Bible
> Atlas:
> From earliest times commercial caravans plied the major
> highways carrying their products, precious objects, and
> luxuries ...

This simply is not what the scripture says. It doesn't say "They grew
barley and traded for gold or onyx. You simply are failing to incorporate
that statement into your model.

>Glenn, I'll give you this. For an apologetic that has nothing going for
>it you do manage to make a reasonable sounding case for it.

This is interesting. If we are to find a real explanation for the events
of the Bible, it MUST incorporate all of modern science. By doing that,
it will ipso facto make a "reasonable sounding case". There is not one
geological fact my view violates. There is not one law of physics my view
violates (I don't have objects floating upstream in a flood). My view
incorporates all of the statements of the Scripture. It does not ignore
the minerals, it does not ignore the 3 brothers who invented the flute,
the tents and iron; it does not ignore where the ark landed or how long
the flood was said to last. In short this view does not stretch the
meaning of Scripture and does not violate science. What more can one ask

Is this view novel? Yes. Do people WANT to believe it? NO! But that is
not the criteria of truth nor is it the criteria of successfully
harmonizing a vast set of facts.

Space does
>not permit me to plow everything I know about the Mesopotamian
>surroundings of all of Genesis 1-11 that concerns man.

If your view could simply explain how Noah floated south and landed up in
Turkey it would be a major accomplishment for the Mesopotamian view.

I don't mean to sound sharp. I merely want a flood model that the atheists
can't criticise. I already put it through that test by posting a synopsis
on Talk.Origins. That hostile audience mostly ignored it but I did get
several very nice comments from some of the non-christians. I got NO
criticisms for my science.

As always, with much respect,

Foundation,Fall and Flood