The NIV of Deuteronomy 2:25 reads : "This very day I will begin
to put the terror and fear of you on all the nations under heaven. They will
hear reports of you and will tremble and be in anguish because of you."
One could presumably argue that this verse refers to an ongoing process and
that, eventually, all nations will fear the Israelites.
The Genesis account appears to be quite specific as to what happened: waters
kept coming for "40 days," the water covered the "highest mountain" to a
depth of "20 feet," "all creatures, birds, livestock, wild animals and
mankind" perished; the flooding lasted [another] "150 days," the ark came to
rest "on the 17th day of the seventh month" [i.e. 6 x 29 + 17 = 191 days,
assuming a lunar, 29-day calendar]; this is close to "40 days of flooding" +
"150 days of water receding." The ark came to rest, not on any mountain,
but one that was identified by name and one that we can still find on a map
of the area. Similarly, the location of the Garden of Eden is identified in
I would think that, if we were to find detailed accounts like this in
archeological digs, we would attach a lot of significance to that type of
information. Problem is, the Biblical account as we read it appears to be
at odds with our interpretation of the geology.
We then have a number of options; ignore the information in the geological
record or look for a different interpretation, assume that the Biblical
account is open to different interpretations, or simply accept the
differences and go on to other, possibly more important, issues.
I'm fascinated by the studies by people on this listserve like Glenn Morton
who has taken up the challenge to reconcile the apparent differences, and
I'm looking forward to the "day" when all of this will become crystal clear.
> From: gordon brown[SMTP:gbrown@euclid.Colorado.EDU]
> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 1998 4:35 PM
> To: Matthew Bell
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Chocking Noah after he has been choked on H2SO4
> Deuteronomy 2:25 also uses the phrase that you have translated as `under
> the whole heaven'. It would seem clear that this would not include all the
> peoples from the entire planet, for those who had never heard of the
> Israelites would not have feared them.
> Gordon Brown
> Department of Mathematics
> University of Colorado
> Boulder, CO 80309-0395
> On Thu, 30 Jul 1998, Matthew Bell wrote:
> > 'And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth/land; and *all* the
> > high hills, that were under the *whole* heaven, were covered'.
> > This verse was brought to my attention from another list where the
> > following 'difficulty' was also posited.
> > '. If ALL the high mountains under the WHOLE heaven were covered, then
> > can reasonably conclude that at least several HIGH mountains were
> > can't we? So how can this be harmonized with the fact that water will
> > its own level? In other words, how could water cover just some "high
> > mountains" without first leveling off, as it sought its own level, so
> > NO high mountains could have been covered until the water had fallen to
> > level that was higher than the "HIGH" mountain? To imagine the
> > scenario that Matt hinted at, one would have to visualize a "mound" of
> > water standing suspended over the mountains of Ararat in defiance of the
> > scientific law that says water will seek its own level.'