From: Jim Eisele (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Aug 20 2002 - 09:00:10 EDT
>If everyone now agrees that a mesopotamian flood can't flood
>anything more than southern Iraq, then it is clear that either 1) the
>Biblical account saying the ark landed on the mountains of Ararat is false,
>or 2) Mesopotamia isn't the site of the flood.
Mesopotamia is the site of the flood. The only reason to
posit a flood 5M years ago is to try to "match it up" with a
fossil. And then you have to swallow tons and tons of historical,
archaeological, and Biblical evidence that refutes your position.
In other words, you will be in error.
There will always be those who won't accept Biblical inerrancy in the
originals. It is a tough issue to grapple with. Archaeological
evidence comes to light which shows a Bible "error" to be fact.
There are occasional scribal errors.
For starters, the "mountains" of "rrt" are not in Turkey. See
Bailey's book. Ararat extends close to southern Mesopotamia.
A mountain range connected to this extends all the way down past
Genesis in Question
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Aug 20 2002 - 13:03:29 EDT