Re: Genesis Flood

Dick Fischer (
Fri, 03 May 1996 13:40:38 -0500

At 05:15 AM 4/30/96, Glenn wrote:

>I am not a young-earth creationist. I agree that we need a harmony
>between Science and Faith, but the Mesopotamian view which has a major
>violation of physics does not seem to work for me. I have never, ever
>seen an object floating on a river flood waters, float UPSTREAM. If you
>wish to say God pushed the boat miraculously, then say it. But this was
>not a natural event.

If the Sumerians and Accadians have it right, Shuruppak was the
starting point for Noah's voyage. I'm not saying I can prove it,
but no other place has been named as far as I know. Jebel Judi
is the most frequently named landing spot which lies to the south.
Exactly how much of present-day Armenia would be incorporated by the
ancient term "Ararat" I don't know either. The eleventh chapter of
Gilgamesh speaks of "punting." That would enable the ark inhabitants
to give the boat direction. A south wind is frequently referenced.
It seems to have special significance. That could give a boat
direction. In short, there are possibilities and alternatives. If
this is the only hang up you have I really can't see it as a reason
not to accept what on balance is a clearly superior method of apology.

>>> But I don't see any other view other than mine that actually explains
>> the
>>>physical events reported in the Scripture. What I want is a view that
>>>explains ALL the facts not just the ones I want to explain or the ones
>>>that are easy to explain.

You certainly don't have that "in your view," Glenn. In the initial
"facts" you stated, you selected some statements out of Genesis and
ignored others. Even some of what you used was suspect as I pointed
out. In Genesis 6:4, the "Nephilim" are on the earth in the pre-flood
period (Giants in some translations). Then in Num. 13:33, the sons
of Anak are "of the Nephilim." So the Nephilim or there descendants
are also counted among the flood survivors. Do they also go back
5.5 million years?

>>I don't think that a Mesopotamian flood which
>>>dumps Noah into the Indian Ocean, which does not flood a town 7 miles
>>>away, which depends on lands lacking the minerals described in Genesis
>> 2 ...

How did the "Indian Ocean" get in here? Who said that?

>No evidence of flooding seven miles away and this was a flood to start the
>biggest rumor about floods in the history of mankind? This doesn't make

This flood was recorded and was judgment upon God's own people.

>But the physical evidence for the flooding is not very WIDE. Yes it could
>have covered 300 miles of river course but that happens probably 3-4 times
>a century. So what is the big deal about the flood in 3000 B.C.?

What's the big deal about Sodom and Gomorrah? We killed more Germans
during the infamous fire bombing of Dresden in World War II. The events
recorded in Holy Scripture do have a way of making an impression.

>>None of the landing sites mentioned in historical texts are in the
>>"Indian Ocean." The minerals came from trading with other lands. Trade
>>routes were well established in those days.
>Sorry, this is not what my Bible says. It says the minerals were there.
>If I say there is Gold in the Arbuckle Mountains of southern Oklahoma, I
>would be wrong. Yes I can raise cattle there and sell them and make gold
>but that is not the same thing as saying that there is gold there.
>If the Scripture meant to say they traded for gold, why didn't it say
>"They traded for gold"?

Glenn, you're just asking too much of an ancient text recorded in a
language other than we speak, and set down in consonants only without
punctuation or vowels. We are extremely fortunate that any of it
makes sense.

>So are you giving me my point that this was spiritual man; that he was
>subject to the claims of Christ?

No one comes under grace until the resurrection. The old covenant
of righteousness and covering of sin through repentance and the
sacrificing of animals, was in effect from Adam until the son of
righteousness shined. Until the moral law was given to Adam "sin
was not imputed" (Rom. 5:13).

>The Venus figurines were religious objects.

Name the religion.

As always, your friend,

Dick Fischer

* *
* *
* An Answer in the Creation - Evolution Debate *
* *
* Web page - *
* *